Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 28

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fram (talk | contribs) at 14:15, 28 March 2007 (Dates in Harry Potter). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< March 27 March 29 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Osama bin Laden

Location of Osama bin Laden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is an article stating that no one knows where Osama is. Doesn't seem to merit its own page. Would support a merge with Osama bin Laden Kntrabssi 12:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlevse 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeller H Advanced Sniper Rifle

Zeller H Advanced Sniper Rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Irrelevant weapon, poorly constructed article.

Vixwald 00:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was article deleted while discussion was in progress. Joyous 03:53, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Rainbow kiss

Previously listed as speedy... it is a sex position, and we do have sexual positions in the Wikipedia... even though this description is very disgusting. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep We can't get rid of things just because they're disgusting. The goal is to present all knowledge, whether we like it or not. 24.60.189.129 05:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of sex positions. - Amgine 06:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge ~ mlk ✉♬ 07:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
  • Keep Why is this disgusting? You guys need to lighten up. Isamuel 07:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blannked as copyvio. Mikkalai 07:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Disgusting" of course, is POV and not a reason for deletion ((not a big oral sex fan, but always up for the occasional "period piece" (sorry, kind of an in joke with my ex)). However, this appears to be a rarely used, vague, ill-defined, slang neologism, with less than 1000 hits for "rainbow kiss" -finian[2]. Note that if you read the top hit (a forum) it has different meanings for different people. Delete even if it tries to make a comeback via the 'temp' page. Niteowlneils 18:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I gave it the original speedy, which I still think it deserves because it seems like a prank article. --LeeHunter 18:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gigglecruft. We tend to be a bit oversensitive and anxious to prove we're broadminded here. It's not prudish to delete pranks. Andrewa 20:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Articles on named sex positions don't seem all that encyclopedic, generally, and it seems sufficient to have List of sex positions. If this slang term has any actual currency, include the position in that article. --BM 00:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Niteowlneils (well, the second part of his comment anyway!). David Johnson [T|C] 01:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep if it can be cleaned up to avoid copyright violations. Megan1967 01:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Disgusting and fcked up, yes. But it does have rather consistent google hits so it ought to be included. :: DarkLordSeth 03:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: YEUCH! (I'm just saying.) Ropers 03:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Weak Keep, on second thought. I still find it effing revolting, but if I had previously read "rainbow kiss" somewhere I wouldn't have known what was meant and I would have tried to look it up. Merging with List of sex positions would destroy "lookupability" ;-) Ropers 23:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Eulenspiegel Society

The Eulenspiegel Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Given the lack of any third-party, reliable sources, I don't believe that a claimed membership of 800 is enough to meet the notability criteria of WP:ORG. RJASE1 Talk 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech MX revolution

Logitech MX revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

{{prod}} was removed without comment by User:149.28.228.106. After several edits by that user, the article remains without any claim to notability for this computer mouse product. Mikeblas 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion Maybe we should merge this discussion page with the one for the VX revolution. Then it would be eaiser to comment on them. Plus, if one gets deleted and the other is kept, it wouldn't make sense, so it's either keep both or delete both. KjtheDj 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. RJASE1 Talk 00:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as it is 100%, unadulterated spam Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - this is a relatively significant product release by a major electronics company; how is it not notable? Yes, it needs to sound less like an ad. In a few seconds I found reviews at CNET ([4]) and Anandtech ([5]), both of which I would consider reliable secondary sources. I'm sure it was also reviewed in dead-tree-format computer magazines. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer. It's not notable per the above. It's just another mouse. It'll be discontinued in a couple of years and replaced by something else. -- Mikeblas 02:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Virtually any computer product will be "discontinued in a couple of years and replaced by something else." Should we not have an article on, say, the Pentium III? That fits the above description too. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I think you already know the answer to your own question, but I'll indulge you anyway. The Pentium III is notable because it's a far more complicated product with far more innovations. The development history is documented in books, its architecture is studied in textbooks, and there are a variety of interesting aspects of its history, performance, implementation, and application. (That's not true of all processors, by the way.) And it's true of very, very few mouses. On the contrary, should we have an article about every single product ever reviewed at a couple of websites or in a printed magazine or two? I hope not; that is, I hope the people using reviews and "references == notability" arguments understand that opens the door to hundreds of thousands of articles on all sorts of run-of-the-mill products, from stereo gear to knitting needles. That's pretty obviously not what Wikipedia needs, and I guess I mistakenly believed that everyone could see that. -- Mikeblas 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Its just another processor. It'll be replaced by something better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KjtheDj (talk • contribs) 23:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
            • Arrrrrrgh! Have you ever even touched this mouse? It sounds like you don't know anything about it, except that it is a mouse. As far as I can tell, there aren't even over ten mice that would even be notable enough for anyone to think of puting them in Wikipedia, so this doesn't "open the door" to all kinds of junk. Its just making an article of a product that I own that I like. KjtheDj 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC) KjtheDj 20:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply to above If it is true of very few mouses, this is one of them. The only other mouse I can find in recent history to receive this depth of coverage is Apple's first multi-button USB mouse, the Apple Mighty Mouse, notable as representing a shift in thinking for the historically single-button Mac community. Irene Ringworm 02:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Another reply Maybe if this was some low rate 15 dollar mouse you would have an argument. However, this mouse has plenty of good sources, as already stated, has many cool features, and other stuff. I mean, there are plenty of other articles on mice, such as the Logitech G5 and the Apple Mighty Mouse. Why not delete those to if you want to delete this article? KjtheDj 19:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment. Its price doesn't make it notable. The "delete those too" argument is completely inappropriate; it should be obvious that I can read, evaluate, and edit only one article at a time. A such, there will always be some other article that should also be deleted. We're not talking about the Mighty Mouse or the G5 here; we're discussing the MX. -- Mikeblas 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup as above - this mouse was quite widely reviewed as the range does have a unique feature in its unusual scroll wheel. An article should probably focus on that. -- Mithent 01:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup, it's a product by a major consumer electronics company, and as Crotalus has proved above reliable secondary sources exist confirming its notability. Krimpet (talk/review) 06:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Just another mouse. SYSS Mouse 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Funny how you say "just another mouse" when you name is Syss Mouse —The preceding KjtheDj 00:02, 29 March 2007
  • Delete per WP:N and maybe WP:SPAM. I think many of us can sympathize that can be tough to see your article erased for failing Notability, but the author should have been aware of Wikipedia policy and should never remove a prod. Scienter 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per Krimpet. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources seem thttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Logitech+MX+revolution%22o exist... so meets notability standards, even if AfD voters apparently don't like the product or at least don't care about it. It's not spam just because it's about a commercial product. See also the related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech VX revolution. --W.marsh 18:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. It takes more than sources to meet notability standard. Please see WP:N for the additional criteria. -- Mikeblas 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How trite... I've been involved in discussing and promoting WP:N for months. I think I've seen it. --W.marsh 01:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Then I'm surprised that you forgot to indicate you considered the quality and depth of the references, per WP:N, in your decision. -- Mikeblas 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are 125 results for this product on Google News [6] including publications like the Seattle Times. Perhaps there's not enough to write a featured article on this mouse, but the level of useful information we could get from the existing sources satisfies WP:N. The level of scrutiny you'd like us to apply is really out of step with what is done at AfD... most topics are kept once a few reliable sources can be found, let alone dozens. You may not think it's enough, but most people would. --W.marsh 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry that I don't fit in with the status quo. But that's the only way to move things forward, isn't it? WP:N offers nothing to suggest that it isn't meant to be interpreted in precisely the way it was written. Many of the hits you've found in Google are posts in forums and on blogs, which aren't meaningful references -- unless it turns out that WP:R is also not meant to be interpreted the way it is written when it talks about dubious references. I indicate above why I think it's necessary to take a hard line when determining the -- Mikeblas 02:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're throwing out 125 results on the basis that some are blogs... I think you've already made up your mind here. --W.marsh 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nope; I've only pointed out that many of the hits you're relying on are not all viable. In fact, very few of them are. Of course I've already made up my mind; I wouldn't have opened the AfD if I hadn't. I can be easily moved by a persuasive argument, though. Or, by an explanation of why our notability policy means that Wikipedia should be a historical catalog of all products ever produced, in all categories, which happen to have been reviewed by a website or magazine or two. -- Mikeblas 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • CommentPersonally, when I came to Wikipedia, I thought, "Cool, this has the potential to be an encyclopedia about every thing. People could be able to find everything from pencils to continents." But I guess I was wrong after I had found WP:N. Plus, like I have already said, if this was an article about a 15 dollar mouse, things would be different, but it is not about some 15 dollar mouse. Plus, I started this article because it stood out, to me, as a mouse that wasn't just "some other mouse." I guess that kind of sounds like I'm trying to get you to buy it, but that, honestly, is the truth. KjtheDj 20:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So a few of the sources are viable... but that's still not enough for you. That's my point... you have decided the kinds of articles that get written about computer mice are never going to be enough here. WP:N was actually written so Wikipedia could include a vast number of articles on topics like this... so long as they could be appropriately referenced. The point of WP:N was never to dramatically restrict what we could write articles on to topics with dozens of journal-quality articles as sources. So if that means we can have hundreds of articles on computer mice, that's what it means... maybe you want something more restrictive than WP:N. Such things have been proposed, but never went anywhere really. --W.marsh 03:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm really amused at how you're happy to tell me what it is or isn't that I'm doing. Your oh-fer at it, so far--but keep trying! I think I'm not asking for something more restrictive than WP:N; I think I'm just interpreting it at face value. I haven't decided anything about the kinds of articles that get written. WP:N tells us that, and it says that the references need to be substantial and meaningful. There are plenty of mice products which are notable: the first mouse itself, the first optical mouse, the first wheel mouse, and so on. I think there's a history of doing deep stories on products that are truly revolutionary or notable--stories, not reviews. Look at all the stories on the Macintosh, or the Corvettes, or the Pentium, and so on. This mouse is not in that class of product; I'll be happy to consider it so if there are books like Corvette: Fifty Years (ISBN 0760311803), The Pentium Chronicles: The People, Passion, and Politics Behind Intel's Landmark Chips (ISBN 0471736171), or Insanely Great: The Life and Times of Macintosh, the Computer That Changed Everything (ISBN 0140291776) about it; but right now there aren't. -- Mikeblas 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup, and merge with Logitech VX revolution, an identical product for laptops. External coverage is pretty much limited to product reviews but the depth of coverage (Anandtech writes over ten thousand words), suggests that this is more than "just another mouse". That being said, the current article reads like marketing material. Agree with Mithent that the new article should focus on the unique features. Irene Ringworm 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Indeed; since the references for this subject are mostly reviews, how can they be used as references in writing anything other than a review? -- Mikeblas 00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. Most new product introductions do not receive the depth of coverage that this one has received. Anandtech, Cnet, and their print cousins typically give little more than a passing mention to new peripherals in a buyer's guide. Anandtech gives this particular peripheral a nearly ten thousand word article describing major competitors, the history of logitech mice, and closing with "We found the overall design, ergonomics, and quality of materials to be the best of any mouse we have used to date. While the Revolution has several new features from both a hardware and software viewpoint, we found the new scroll wheel to be the most important technology introduced on this mouse." Certainly not every mouse on the market needs a wikipedia article but the MX and its VX sibling represent a significant offering from a major company that has achieved a level of attention and depth of coverage far beyond the norm. Irene Ringworm 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question. How would you go about substantiating your "depth of coverage" claim? If you can find a way to do so, maybe it would be a good addition to WP:N. Until then, these reviews are just that -- reviews. I've explained here (or in the VX AfD, maybe) about how essentially all products get reviewed--even crappy ones. We can't possibly consider reviews a sign of notability, as review subjects are chosen indiscriminately. Truly notable products have hundreds of thousands or millions of words written about them: textbooks about computer architecture cover the Pentium's internal design, while the manuals for the product alone are more than 5000 pages, plus the books about the team and the way they worked. -- Mikeblas 02:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply By direct comparison with other comparable products. Most new mouse releases and other peripherals (game pads) don't garner ten thousand words from Anandtech - they usually don't even get their own article. A simple product refresh to the G7 series, for example, might get a passing mention in a weekly buyer's guide or - maybe - a three or four hundred word article. The same goes for coverage in other print magazines - not extensive in the way that a processor or new car release might be covered, but extensive compared to other comparable products.
By your standards, no mouse would be notable. If this is your position, then please simply state such (as DGG did above and leave it be. If your position is "some mice might be notable but this one isn't", you're going to have a tougher fight with that one. Maybe take the battle to the Logitech 'G' series page and start there? Irene Ringworm 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I think I've made my position pretty clear, so I'm surprised to see you misinterpret and/or overstate it. I don't think this mouse is notable enough for an article. The article doesn't make the case for it, either. The mouse hasn't won any interesting awards; its development story wasn't notable; its feature set isn't notable. There are notable mouses--they do win awards, they do get coverage beyond just product reviews, and so on. Few mouses are notable -- and that only makes sense. If all or many was notable, how would they be notable? -- Mikeblas 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup I am sorry I deleted that prod. I wasn't logged in and I was using a different computer than usual. I am not used to Wikipedia policies, as I am new. However, now I know. I do say that it needs cleanup, as the author. I also accidentally cleared the talk page for the article. See it for what happened. Whoever was posting, please put it back so I can see what it says. I did put a comment, on the talk page. Thats were you are supossed to put it, right? I have deleted that comment because now I feel it was rude. At first I thought it should be merged, but after looking at the changes I think that if we successfully edit Logitech VX revolution we can have ourselves two okay articles. KjtheDj 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may qualify as original research, in that you are inferring information from product reviews rather than citing a verifiable source. I'm not sure it adds much to the article. Irene Ringworm 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. One way that other classes of subjects establish notability is with awards. Celebrities, music, books, and so on, all can win awards. So can products; a car might be voted "compact light truck of the year" by a magazine, or win the Caldicott medal, and so on. A mouse, it seems, would be up for an IDEA award, or a "Best in show" or "innovative product" award at a trade show.[7] Has this mouse won anything beyond an "editors choice" award in a comparative review? -- Mikeblas 02:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has won a couple of design awards but the only external sources for this are Logitech press releases. There are dozens of awards which exist for the sole purpose of advertising, so I've tried to avoid including them (even though they may establish notability). Irene Ringworm 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and try to merge more Logitech products together. I understand that from marketing point of view the more pages the better but that's no justification to turn WP into an online catalog. Pavel Vozenilek 09:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. So is this a vote to delete or to merge? There are already articles on MX series mice that could be merged into a single article. A vote to delete removes all existing content. Irene Ringworm 14:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FlashcardExchange

FlashcardExchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB Chocolatepizza 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Seems there wasn't much new to add, so what we have here is a work by a notable author which may or may not itself be notable. I'm willing to buy the argument that non-online sources can be found; if that doesn't happen over the course of a few months, then the matter can be revisited. A merge is also a possible solution, but that could be discussed on the article's talk page. Shimeru 01:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Captain Jack

The Adventures of Captain Jack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced furry comic book stub that doesn't assert notability. The tone of the article is none too encyclopedic either. Delete, per WP:ATT and WP:N-K@ngiemeep! 00:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an individual book, it's a comic book series, one that was published by a major publisher and has since been collected in two trades, that to me says 'notable'.
I Am Not A Furry so I don't really know the best place to find the best references, but googling comes up with sufficient hits that, considering this was first published in the pre- and proto-web days, it must have been some kind of a big deal to somebody. With sufficient research it could probably be improved with a whole slew of references, so possibly keeping it and adding the appropriate templates would be a better course than deleting it?
Failing that merging and redirecting to Mike Kazaleh would be the best option. Artw 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for the reasons stated above, also because the author, Mike Kazaleh, has gone on to some notability as an animator, working for Bakshi, Kricfalusi...I'm tired of furry, too, but for me this qualifies as 'funny animal' Rhinoracer 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Makes no assertion of WP:N and being published by a notable publisher does not confer notability - if it's worthy of an article then it should have some independent and verifiable claims of its own. Aticle is also devoid of reliable secondary sources per WP:ATT. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more reliable sources are added, then I may reconsider. Realkyhick 01:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm looking for any criticism of Captain Jack (without a lot of success beyond simple expressions of affection; Kazaleh has a lot of love from fans, but his simple style can be hard to do in-depth critiques on, & what there is on Captain Jack is almost certainly old & heavily preWeb) & found this in an Amazon testimonial from 1999:
'Not since "The Adventures Of Captain Jack," by MIKE KAZALEH went out of print have I read such an entertaining book.'
High praise indeed, to be used as a comparison that way. Of course, it could be Mike or a friend just trying to hype his work, so I can't use that as a cite, but it struck me. Ventifax 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 05:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge into Mike Kazaleh might not be inappropriate, given the brevity of that article and the assumption that it is works like The Adventures of Captain Jack that give him the notability required for a personal article. This is not to suggest, however, that assumption is necessarily warranted, but deletion of Mike Kazaleh has not yet been proposed. Pop Secret 08:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having done a little research on this subject I came up with a lot of luinks for Kazaleh, all indicating he's pretty notable in his field. A deletion attempt on his article would be insane. Artw 10:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Artw. Kalazeh would almost certainly survive an AfD, being the artist of Marvel's Ren and Stimpy comicbook series, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per WP:BK and WP:ATT. --KZ Talk • Contribs 08:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:ATT and WP:NOTE --Haemo
  • Keep — sources have been added, meets WP:ATT and WP:NOTE —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does it meet notability (and WP:ATT) guidelines? We have a one line mention of it being "an important furry comic", and a catalogue list-K@ngiemeep! 10:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a great reference - you have to hunt around for it, and it's only one line, but it does show that Captain Jack is regarded as important by one of the leading experts on furry fandom (god I hate myself for knowing that now). Which pretty much confirms the information that googling has dug up in blogs, newgroups, the sites of comics vendors and other sources that don't make for good references. Given that this was published in 1986 finding the kind of online references to it that you'd get for it's modern day equivalent will alwyas be hard: I believe what is required is a subject matter expert to dig up refs in print form. Given that we've established that (1) it exists, and was indeed published by a major publisher,(2) it's still in print, (3) it's regarded as important by those that like that kind of thing I don't see the objection to it's continued existance in stub form, with the hope that such an expert will come along with the refs required for expansion. Artw 17:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fame and notability are different things. The lack of reliable information available about this comic seems to show that, despite being famous within the furry fandom, this isn't notable - and it really does look like this article won't go beyond a plot summary given what we have. Also, notability is not subjective-K@ngiemeep! 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The ref doesn't say famous, it says influential. As for the paucity of online references, see above for why I belive that it isn't a sign of anything other than that finding wikipedia-acceptable references for indie comics pre-the interweb is really fucking hard. That we find anything at all is indicative of a high degree of notability for a comic of it's type (or would you argue that an equivalent comic from the present day is more notable because it has N-dozen potential references?) Artw 23:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • What you're suggesting here is that we keep this because it's harder to find sources for this? Notability isn't subjective, and thinking otherwise leads to unsourced articles such as this. If there aren't sufficient sources available to write an article, there shouldn't be an article, because otherwise it is gonna be unsourced, unverifiable OR, running afoul of several guidelines. And to your question, I'd say yes, because notability is determined by the amount of attention paid to a subject, and multiple reliable sources indicate that a subject is notable.-K@ngiemeep! 00:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is not an unsourced article. This is an article that could do with better sources, and I would argue that he aboce should be taken into consideration when asessing the article. As for WP:OR, this article is nothing of the sort. You should maybe calm down a bit with your policy-cites, right now it looks like you're reaching for excuses to delete the article. Artw 00:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing in article or sources (mostly blogs and myspace) to suggest there is anything notable about this individual. WjBscribe 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betka Schpitz

Betka Schpitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. RJASE1 Talk 00:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Several mentions or articles in a number large or even small circulation magazines, as well as a popular topical blog might meet WP:BIO. I was limited to what I could look at while I'm at school, but I'm not very confident that this AfD nomination should be granted. (No claim of bad faith by the nom. implied whatsoever). Scienter 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough to prove notability. Realkyhick 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources to back up notability claims. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, says the inclusionist, knowing no one cares. I have added a link to a review of her blog on DirtySpoke.com, which argues for notability. I'm inclined to keep pages like this where there's some sense of a larger media awareness of the figure (rather than merely an ignored vanity site). The exposure from her blog, the modeling, & her formation of Just Suck It Already.com add up to a notable subcultural figure. She's odd, she's offensive, she's covered elsewhere (she's googlable, she has myspace to hype her), & she's still in our bailiwick. I'd much rather have stubs on people like this than more pages on individual TV episodes. Ventifax 04:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Perfect cube

The Perfect cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity. I suspect non-notability because google does not lead me to any third party reiviews of the scupture. Whosasking 00:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IF anyoen wants to BJAODN it I'll provide the info. I might do it myself.--Wizardman 12:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beuche

Beuche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I suspect this article is a hoax, judging from the content and lack of Google hits. Sable232 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could be good for WP:BJAODN Suriel1981 05:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaynan

Jaynan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I found this article interesting, but rules are rules. It's about a nonnotable player of a marginally notable game. YechielMan 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cúchullain t/c 04:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series

List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a real bad case of listcruft. While the article itself isn't TOO bad (and if it survives this nomination, I'd be willing to go through and clean it up), I fail to see the necessity of having so much duplicate information on another article, where the movie articles have enough information in them as it is. Because I've completely botched the listing, this is the first nomination. Mo0[talk] 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mean merge the entire list? A lot of those deaths are repetative.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first step is not to create a page for minor characters, but see if they can be listed on the film's article itself. Seeing as no 1 film has a list of minor characters that is too long to be on the page, I don't see why they need their own page. Second, being fictional, when writing about fiction you don't just write the fictional part and leave it. This is an encyclopedia, and I see hardly any evidence of encyclopedic content in this article. The encyclopedic content of this article is something that this article symbolizes, not what this article literally shows. What I mean is, this article symbolizes what F13 is famous for, gory, graphic deaths. Some of the deaths are noted on certain "top scary moment"-esque shows. Kevin Bacon's death is a very recognized scene, the death of Brenda...not so much. As I said before, it's something that should be written in prose, with reliable sources, discussing the nature of the deaths, the reaction by critics and the MPAA by the graphicness of them, and that's it. A list of every stupid little death is not important. Part 5 had what, 3 people killed by their eyes cut out. This is encyclopedic how? It's redundant deaths. The one about the girl being killed because she got caught in the blast of the shotgun in Jason Goes to Hell? That's not even "related" to the main character of the series. We might as well have a "List of deaths in Die Hard" page. Or, "List of deaths in Harry Potter".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of whether one should or shouldn't create a list article for minor characters (and there is nothing that I can find that indicates one shouldn't; as noted, WP:FICT actively encourages creating them rather than stubby articles for each one), this list exists. It does not appear to violate any Wikipedia policy or guideline and frankly the attitude expressed toward it by some of the people in this AFD indicate a strong willingness to ignore policy and guidelines in favor of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Calling the content "stupd little deaths" is rather telling. As for making similar articles for Die Hard or Harry Potter, I have no problem with that. It's just one more way of organizing the information on the characters. Which remains the point, that this is a character list which happens to consist of characters who are killed. If the list were called List of Friday the 13th film characters I doubt anyone who's declaiming against it would care. Otto4711 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:FICT states that it should only be its own page when it doesn't fit in the article. I don't know about you, but last time I checked not a single F13 film article was bordering on excessive length. Secondly, having a "list of deaths" is like have a "list of every scene in this film" page. It's one thing to have a list of characters page where you can talk about the character, give some actor insight into the character, etc. A list of deaths is nothing more than a list of plot points, a list of scenes from a film. Where is the notability in listing 189 deaths in detail? None. You'll vote to delete a "list of magazine covers" but not a list of deaths? Fictional deaths at that. Wikipedia is not a repository for Friday the 13th deaths. This list bypasses the "list of characters" information and just wants to include fancruft. Also, don't try and pass judgement. I love the series, I own them all, but I know pointless fancruft when I see it. Again, the notability behind the theme of death is one thing, listing every single death in a film is another. Remember, "Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the film," and a list of deaths is providing that substitution.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exact wording of WP:FICT is Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. This article covers the entire film series. The article on the film series, Friday the 13th (film series) would be overwhelmed if this list were included in it. I did not suggest that you don't like the films. I suggest that you don't like the list and your dislike of the list is leading you to endorse deletion when no valid deletion criterion has been offered. "Fancruft" is a lazy argument and it is not a valid deletion criterion. As to how I vote on any other article, that's irrelevant. Each article is supposed to be judged on its own merits and you've said nothing that demonstrates the need to delete this article. Otto4711 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say it's fancruft, then it is to me. That's my opinion, and I don't believe that my vote said anything about cruft in it. I dont't think calling any argument "lazy" follows that civility policy you were flashing around at RGTraynor. Regardless, the "list" is broken up by films, thus the "minor characters" would be on each respective films page. This list is nothing more than the cast from the film articles. Listing deaths is not notable, you might as well list every scene in a film. "Deaths" are nothing more than scenes, and thus this list is nothing more than an ill contrived substitution for watching the movies, which is something that Wikipedia is not. As for your "valid deletion criterion offered", I think what's really going on here is that 6 other people believe there is valid deletion criterion here, and 1 person doesn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly free to believe that it's cruft, as long as you understand that "cruft" is not a criterion for deletion. Sorry if you think that calling an argument lazy is being uncivil.
Now, if your contention is now that the article is a "cast list," well, we have those too. See Category:Actors by film series. In fact, cast lists are now the preferred manner of keeping that information on Wikipedia, in place of the categories we previously had and which are all in the process of being listified and deleted.
As for the idea that these are nothing but plot summaries, I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. All we know from the list is the name of the character and the implement of his or her death. We do not know any other details of the scenes nor do we know any details of the scenes in which a death did not occur. They are not substitutes for the plots of the films and people reading the article will not know the plots.
As for the numbers game, Wikipedia isn't a democracy and AFD is not a vote. Otto4711 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to try and dismantle my discussion, at least try and quote me right. I said it's nothing but plot points, not a summary, that is completely different. As for the "cast list being preferred", why don't you look at what a cast list entails, and then compare that to this article...not the same.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone who's followed my AFDs knows how I love citing WP:NOT#IINFO but I don't see how a list of characters which is tightly bounded in scope and complete (pending another sequel) can be considered indiscriminate. If this were "list of deaths in horror films" then yes, and I firmly believe that List of films by gory death scene should have been deleted ages ago for being indiscriminate, but character lists are allowed and are indeed encouraged over individual minor character articles. This article is not a plot summary or collection of plot summaries either, as they provide little or no information about the plots of the films, just the character names and manners of death. Otto4711 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. While restraining my disgust over what someone must be thinking to lovingly create such a list, it's just an indiscriminate collection of info, and I can't imagine what possible encyclopedic use it might have. (No, I'll think you're a liar if you try to tell me that you really had a burning desire to know who was killed in F13 movies and how.) RGTraynor 18:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which I did. How's that assuming good faith working for you? (And one wonders if you'd have said anything were you not strongly supporting this article, but I should assume good faith my own self.) RGTraynor 23:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith is working just fine for me. I believe, in good faith, that pre-emptively calling people "liar" is an act of bad faith. Otto4711 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not even comparable to the various list of characters from certain franchises because the characters have at least one sentence's worth of description about themselves. This list in question is about how the characters died and nothing more, which makes it a trivia article. I don't believe that I would be opposed to a list of characters from the series. A possible compromise would be to re-title this article to a similar list title and provide actual description of the characters besides how they died. If this is not possible, I stand by my vote. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes however a good amount of friday the 13th characters wind up having very little screentime so placing a quick description of them wouldnt be very helpful. Also adding more detail would break rules of WP:LIST as being too exessive. Jamesbuc
Which article? The "film series" article, or the individual film articles?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The individual film articles. Since these are horror films, a "List of deaths" section within each such article seems appropriate. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a "list of deaths" in the individual articles is appropriate as the information is nothing more than spoiler info, that has nothing to do with the article. I think the list should be turned into List of Friday the 13th characters, and real character informatio be added. I don't even think that needs its own page, because it isn't like each film is populated with tons of people. The films already have a cast section with all these characters. They should just be expanded upon to include character information. We have to remember that Wiki is an encyclopedia first, and death scenes are hardly notable as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the article should be a character list, then you should !vote to Keep and Move the article to List of characters from the Friday the 13th film series. Otto4711 12:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting what I say. I don't want to keep this information, the information, as it's listed, is not notable, important, or hard to find (I already provided a link to the list on another site). I think a REAL character list should be created, one that follows other character lists. You keep citing the writing about fiction for minor characters, but that doesn't apply here, because this list isn't a list of minor characters it's a list of EVERY DEATH in the series, whether by a minor or major character. Not the same. A real list of characters would have information that is congruent to a "CAST" section in a film article, more specifically a film article that has reached FA status. It would look like this, this, or this. The difference would be that the "list" would be longer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEPDelete This is a list that is not available anywhere else. As such, it may be very valuable to someone out there who wants to use it as a reference of some sort. Just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean someone else doesn't.--Ng.j 05:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this list already exists on a more appropriate fansite, I think it should be deleted.--Ng.j 15:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list is available in other places, Here's one copy. Fridaythe13thfilms.com is not only a popular site, but a source for some of these F13 articles. Look what else is on the site, I'm thinking that each film should have a link to this website. If you think "death scenes" are important then link it to the appropriate film's section on "body counts".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read WP:USEFUL. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment {nods} Besides which while the "someone might find it useful" line is endemic to AfD discussions, I really have a hard time imagining who, exactly, would find a list of how precisely some random gumbys got hacked in some slasher flick useful, divorced from the individual movies themselves. I note, weirdly enough, that the individual movie articles don't have this laundry list, and you'd think that's the first place someone wanting this info would look. RGTraynor 12:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I only found it because of the footer that's on the bottom of most of the movie articles, the template. I never saw it get mentioned in any of the movie articles. I do agree with you that I'd be more likely to look at the movie article rather than an exhaustive list, just pointing out that there's really no reference to this list in the movie articles. Mo0[talk] 16:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY are just elements of the same essay, purely the opinion of a handful of editors with zero weight as either policy or guideline. In point of fact, there is nothing in WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette requiring expansive editor's comments in an AfD. The degree to which a closing admin pays attention to "Delete per nom" is one thing, but haranguing people to come up with longwinded arguments needs a better reason than your personal preference. RGTraynor 14:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Haranguing" is a strong word. I've requested people who have voted both ways to substantiate their claims. The guide to discussing AfD says, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." It also says, "Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator," which Makgraf did. The essay basically expands on what arguments are appropriate and are not appropriate. Even if we don't abide by it, the user is essentially making this a voting process by saying "Delete per nom." So yes, per the guideline, arguments should be made. It has nothing to do with personal preference and everything to do how an AfD should be carried out, to seek a consensus. Three words' worth of a recommendation does not meet the need for "arguments" to be presented by the editor. At the end of the section, it even says, "You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if you agree with the consensus that has already been formed." Otherwise, the person's recommendation is merely a throwaway, insubstantial vote. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There has been many attempts as far as deleting this page is, the reason it should stay is that it does keep to WP:LIST as it keeps all details short and quick without too much fancrufty detail. Also it makes an easy and simple look up of deaths from one series into an easy to read and consise page. This is much simpler than having to trawl through 11 different pages to find out your infomation. As a third reason is that it contains simple details complete with cast listings that also apply with WP:FILM easily. I am aware of another site (fridaythe13thfilms.com) containing this infomation however unlike this page users must still look through about 11 different pages and another 11 for cast links. It is just a lot more simpler to have them placed in one pageUser:Jamesbuc
  • Comment - Tell me, other than following the guidelines for "List" (which I could do by setting up a "List of movies where people pick their nose" (that would be concise and short)), exactly what is the importance, notability, or even reason for keep the list? Everyone on here that says "keep" is just saying "it fits these guidelines", and the guidelines being how it's formatted. But no one has come up with a reason that rebuts the reason everyone else say they are not notably important, or encyclopedic. 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment According to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists, "Lists that are too specific are... a problem. The 'list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana' will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list)." You seem to be saying that "It's useful," which is an argument based on subjectivity, a judgment that should not apply to deletion debates. Maybe fridaythe13thfilms.com should be advised to reformat their lists so there's a singular list, but just because Wikipedia has that list available does not seem to be the most intact reasoning per the arguments that I've made in my own vote and this comment. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes thats true but considering that the main site is for the singular films mainly I doubt that they will merge all the pages together, secondly there are also links to the actors that people could want but considering the legnth of the series it is easier placing them in various pages (ive had many occourances where somebody's been confused about which film they were actually in). In any case ill repeat what I said again, it IS notable due to the nature of the films and it fully keeps withing WP:LIST guidelines. Jamesbuc
(Sorry for this being so long)...Every horror film deals with death. Friday is notable in the fact that its death are rather graphic and they are one of the reason it's panned by critics all the time. As I said before, the "theme" of death is notable, but not a list of every death that occured. You're only listing plot points from a movie, with no real world context in the entire list. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, and being so you have to have real world context. That is why film articles are not supposed to be just "plots" and why "plots" are not supposed to be overly long with minute details about every minor thing (e.g. like the death of a hitch hiker in The Final Chapter). This is a list someone created because they couldn't put every single death into the plot, it's a circumvent of plot guidelines. All the "featured lists" have real world context, that is why the are featured, and the point of every page should be to get to that status. I stated before, I think the "theme of deaths" should be noted (with reliable sources from crew and critics) on the "film series" page, but not a detailed list of every joe schmo in the film, that probably didn't even have any lines, who was killed. People have cited the "minor characters" guideline, but this isn't a list of minor characters, it's a list of deaths for EVERY character, even ones that were not major or minor in the films. To be accepted, you cannot simply say "it meets this requirement" if it fails several others. Would you vote to make the guideline for film plots any length the editor wants? Do you think that film articles should be based solely on the plots, and that we should tell the reader every little thing that happens? That is what this list does. It doesn't even attempt to turn a list into anything encyclopedic. A "theme of death" can be encyclopedic, because the series is well known for it's obligatory death scenes, but where is the value in listing every single death scene? Should we create a list of everyone that wore white after labor day? I'm sure someone wants to know that information, it's taboo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reason given in original nom --Orange Mike 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article contains only trivia info.Dimts 06:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a crappy Geocities page built by a 14 year old. The plot information should be incorporated within the plot summaries of the individual film articles. This sort of stuff is pathetically immature. The JPStalk to me 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep noteworthy list of an important plot element. In line with WP:LIST. Unless we decide that the Friday 13th series as such is unencyclopedic, we should keep the list. -- User:Docu
  • Comment to quote janejellyroll: "As an above argument for deletion stated, this list serves no purpose other than to create a quick reference of deaths in a particular series of horror films. However, this particular series of horror films is seminal, very popular, spans over two decades, and has been the focus of scholarly works ("Games of Terror" by Vera Dika is one that comes to mind). The list itself avoids common pitfalls we've seen on other horror movie death lists (pointless pictures, lengthy plot recapitulations, unnecessarily gory details) and meets the guidelines at WP:LIST. Would it really be a better solution for readers to have to go to eleven different articles to see, for example, how many people have been killed with a machete in the Friday the 13th series? (Okay, I know some of you can't imagine anybody wanting to know that information ever . . . but anyway)" (from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series). -- User:Docu
Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the film. If they are going from article to article in search of who gets killed and how, then they are looking for a substitution for watching the film. This is why film articles contain more information than just plots and cast list. This is why they contain info about production, releases, critical reception, because articles are not based around the plot or plot points of a film. How many people died of the same death in Part V? I can think of 3 right now, without looking at the page, that died just from eyes being cut out. Gee, let's have an article that lists the same thing over again. This article is the equivalent to have a list of scores for every football game in 2006. The relevance being? Of course, football is about scoring, it's been around for decades, so that means we need a list that tells us how many points a team score in every game of ever season. It's called "prose". You are taking a plot and breaking it down into a scene by scene list, only excluding everything that doesn't involve a death.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds WAMS Scheme

Leeds WAMS Scheme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable academic assistance scheme. Only Google results are from Wikipedia and mirrors, trivial short write-ups, and the school's own websites. [8] Resurgent insurgent 01:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Interestingly enough, one of my best friends is the long-time deputy in the Student Office at the University of Leeds, and she hasn't even heard of this program. It can't be as notable as all of that. RGTraynor 18:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems rather promotional. Most universities have some sort of "widening participation" scheme in place for one thing or another, none of which are especially notable. A one-sentence mention of the scheme in the University of Leeds article is the most it deserves, if that. --RFBailey 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tefillin Date

Tefillin Date (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I've never heard of such a thing. I suspect this phrase is rarely used if at all. Eliyak T·C 01:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Well I don't think you should nominate this because you never heard of it, seems notable. Lakers 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Eliyak T·C 01:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have heard of it, and I can say with 100% certainty that the term has no place in Wikipedia for a host of reasons, most directly per WP:NEO.--DLandTALK 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But it would be nice to see some sources Ron Ritzman 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried to find similars like "shack pack" since that's what sorority girls call the kit they bring along on overnights to parties. Don't get me wrong, I like it, it's cute, but it fails WP:N.Christopher Jost 02:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have One-night stand, and while I haven't heard of this, I suppose it's probably in the same "bin." Point being, if somebody heard this and came to look it up, it'd make sense to be here, just as I can see somebody looking up "One Night Stand." Adequate sourcing may be another issue, but that's not the nom, and I don't care to try and open that can of worm at the moment... --Auto(talk / contribs) 03:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article needs reliable sources, an assertion of notability, and compliance with WP:NEO in order to be kept. Currently none. Without these, deletion request is within policy. The issue is not whether or not the topic is controversial, it's whether or not it's encyclopedic. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 39 ghits per this search, including the Wikipedia article and references to it. Mostly blogs, forums, private web sites and the like. Note that this source isn't usable -- the term appears in a non-peer-reviewed reader's comment. Of the 39, only this appeared to be even an arguable WP:RS, and it mentions the term only in passing -- just not enough mention to support an encyclopedia article. The term may be the sort that gets mentioned in print but not on the internet. But I doubt it, given the kind of neologism it is. Open to reconsideration if sources are found, however. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shira, you know as well as anyone does that this phenomenon is old and widespread (and is quite encyclopedic), especially among the MO youth who are not so eloquent and won't get it "published" in journals and at the same time their parents (and sadly even their teachers and rabbis) run in shame from these kind of discussions or deliberately ignore this topic with determined blinkers even though it's been been around for a veeeery long time (or perhaps because they did the same thing themselves when they were that age...?) The only reason it's not discussed more often in a "scholarly way" is that this is a very shameful and embarrassing subject. Thus, there is no reason to run to delete and censor it under the guise of all sorts of Wikipedia rules which cannot hide an important sociological phenomenon (actually it's a failing!) No use acting like pro-Chabad editors who swing into action to delete comments about the Meshichistim or the Rebbe when it's not to their liking. Time to grow up and face the facts. IZAK 06:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources provided and no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than a WP:NEO violation. Alansohn 04:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this expression, and the phenomonon, has been around for a loooooong time. It's most definitely NOT a nelogism. IZAK 05:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sources, delete. Vizjim 09:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not seem notable enough for an article on wikipedia. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether or not the phenomenon is recent or ancient is not the issue. There are no sources for this and never will be that is the definition of WP:OR. The real curiosity of this phenomenon is that the people are very strict with a relatively minor law (tefillin) and ignore a major law (premarital sex - especially if she was a nida). I would support the inclusion of this general idea in Off the derech as this is not uncommon with those people at the fringes of orthodox Judaism. Jon513 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article about an expression? or a phenomenon? without multiple non-trivial published sources about it in any event. Whether or not the phrase is used by anyone is of no consequence - NYC JD (interrogatories) 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable and emblematic concept. Widely known and notable. Havn't you ever been on one? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC) I mean delete, per Shira. Sorry IZAK - but cummon there are only 29 ghits, I don't think that people are covering up for MO failings here in the same way as some users try to for Chabad's dirty laundry. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - maybe a neologism, maybe not, doesn't matter. There's no assertion of encyclopedic notability here, or indeed of notability full stop. No reliable sources, no article. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on a minute On third thoughts there do apear to be some good sources for the idea of a "tefillin date" here, here and one from Luke Ford: [9]. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is essentially a dicdef and/or unencyclopedaic. Of the three sources listed by David Spart above, the first two are the same article. Out. Brianyoumans 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • no no, there are three sources - but the first is a link to a google news archive search that gives two sources. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first two sources are ones I cited above -- the Jerusalem post one is a one-sentence comment left by a reader (not from the newspaper itself), and the Los Angeles Jewish Journal has a single sentence in an article on a different topic that mentions the term once (as does the Luke Ford article). We're starting to get somewhere, but not sure this is enough coverage to support an article on the topic or establish that it's in common written use. Unfortunately the policies result in some perfectly good topics not being written enough about to support an article. This may be one. I've heard of the term myself, and if we had come up with more sources, my vote would have been Keep. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okey dokey. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So Shira, if, as you say: you've "heard of the term myself, and if we had come up with more sources, my vote would have been Keep" so then improve the darn article instead of pedalling backwards to contradict yourself. Wikipedia respects human intelligence and will allow a topic to grow if enough intelligent editors insist that the topic is part of the real world it is part of. Myabe you know of a few professors of Jewish studies... IZAK 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any reliable references on Google Epbr123 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are enough sources to show it's indeed a real term, taking into account the fact that internet sources might not be the best measure in this case considering the circles in which the term is used. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't deserve an article even if there are sources. Recury 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Valueless information Chesdovi 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-Jew with a view This feels like an urbandictionary entry to me (but it's not on UD, should I add it?). As a Gentile who doesn't immediately recognize the term tefillin, I find it interesting, & think it should be somewhere. I think some of us need to start our own sites with info that may run afoul of cries of "NN" (or has done). In the end, I don't know enough about the subculture to know if it's a widespread term, but it's probably mostly harmless, so I lean toward Keep. Ventifax 05:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 05:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhudiprrt: Prince of Fur

Rhudiprrt: Prince of Fur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Furry comic published by what looks like a non-notable publisher, and has indeed been tagged as not asserting notability for a few months now. Doesn't cite sources, may as well be OR. Delete, per WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:N-K@ngiemeep! 01:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Article is nothing more than a summary of a comic with no assertion of WP:N, no reliable sources to satisfy WP:ATT. No reason to have this article. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Only 71 Google hits [10], almost all of them from the Wiki article and its mirrors, Wood's own website and a handful of commercial hawking sites. Even by the standards of the furry community this is scarcely a blip. RGTraynor 18:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. Desperately needs dates of publication, & I think a different tone. I am not that concerned with presence of this page, specifically. I am however horrified to realise that Teri Sue Wood does not have a page either here or on WikiFur. I'll have to fix that. Ventifax 06:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've actually heard of this one. And Google hits are a *very* poor way to discover notability of something primarily published during pre-WWW years. Ken Arromdee 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not particularly. For instance, my own most recent publication credit (I've done a number of RPG books) was in 1991, well before the Web, and a directed search for my surname and that particular publisher alone turns up 580 hits [11]. I certainly don't claim to be a notable author under WP:BIO. Heck, let's not even go with major underground comix/strips like Cheech Wizard (which turns up 170,000 hits, thirty years after the creator's death) or the Freaks (43,000 hits, 15 years after the last issue). I remember an obscure one called Insect Fear that was published sporadically in the 1970s, and it has 1500 hits. RGTraynor 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) [12][reply]
Anecdotal evidence that doesn't change the point. Google is a poor measure of anything. Ventifax 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plainly it is a sound measure of relative notability in this case, but if you've reliable, published sources (as WP:ATT, after all, requires) for the subject's notability, we'd all be glad to see them. RGTraynor 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 05:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnuff

Gnuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable furry comic. There's an interview with the creator of the comic listed as an external link, but that's about it. No reliable sources, no assertion of the notability of the comic, so delete per WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:N-K@ngiemeep! 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep.A series published internationally, by a respected and famous Danish cartoonist. Published over several years by Fantagraphics, one of the top comics publishers.
The article should be expanded and improved,true, but this anti-furry crusade is getting out of hand-- especiazlly as this is not a furry title. Rhinoracer 15:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information about Gnuff, from Allexperts:
http://en.allexperts.com/e/g/gn/gnuff.htm
...which site clearly states that Milton was interviewed, in print, in Amazing Heroesno 129; this is an authoritative source.
'Gnuff' also appeared in other comics, such as the Usagi Yojimbo color special:
http://www.usagiyojimbo.com/other/comics/uy-cs1.html
Clearly, a professionallly produced and distributed comic, the creation of a notable cartoonist.Rhinoracer 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All Experts is a wikipedia mirror, so not really a great reference. Lambiek is a pretty well respected source of information though. And the Usagi Yojimbo link should definately help establish notability, and should probably be added to the article right now. Artw 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (absolute, no kidding) Deleting Gnuff is like deleting Peanuts or Carl Barks. "Non-notable"? I'm sick to death of this anti-funny-animal crusade (by people who don't know critically acclaimed work in pop culture media from the fringe costume fetishists that "Furry" is being used to evoke.) This isn't even funny. Ventifax 06:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? At an ostensible furry fansite that after 20 months still has no pages for Carl Barks or Freddy Milton? WikiFur is fannish & fringe, & tends toward vanity pages by Anglophone furries. Gnuff is not part of that subculture, & it deserves to be on a page that will actually be read by people who aren't "furries". Ventifax 06:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well wether or not this material is suited to a Wiki dedicated to English speaking anthropomorphism fans is not really the issue. The issue is this article meets the deletion criteria for wikipedia. NeoFreak 06:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; WP:SNOW comes into play here. Picaroon 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flocabulary

Flocabulary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be simply an advertisment with slight WP:A or WP:N a work in progress. Christopher Jost 01:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that I've not yet completed writing the article and, as such, more citations and a few more sections are coming. However, if the article appears to be an advertisement, then I welcome anyone to trim out any POV. I'm not sure where you're seeing WP:A problems. Your claims of a WP:N violation are understandable, but I think that notability is established by the amount of publicity the project has recieved. Thanks, --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cúchullain t/c 04:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of Pluto

Aspects of Pluto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

sister articles prod'ed: WP:OR, inherently unencyclopedic content. Would perhaps belong in an almanac. Potatoswatter 01:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This concerns astrology, not astronomy. Some of these numbers are useful when making predictions... (in which case WP:CRYSTAL still applies?) But knowing how bright Pluto is some day 10 years from now is really, really, unimportant. If you want to observe on a given day you can consult a calculator; these numbers aren't for "today". I didn't stress that at first. Potatoswatter 09:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not CRYSTAL - astronomical motion is regular & predictable. Ventifax 06:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was being sarcastic about astrology. Potatoswatter 07:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment THIS INFORMATION IS REALLY TRIVIAL. Try Googling ephemeris calculator or even aspects of Mars - there are lots of links to choose from. Or ephemeris#External links. This is spurring lots of WP:NOT related legal discussion. WP:NOT is NOT the issue, and I apologize for bringing up the almanac thing. I thought it was clear that an almanac is by definition an indiscriminate collection of information... anyway, consider WP:NN. Wikipedia is not an almanac and indiscriminate information is discouraged because it is NN. I don't know why people want ephemeris tables like these specifically from Wikipedia, but look at that list of calculators! You can get any data you want, very easily. The original author ignored the prod on the other articles. Could someone weigh in on how these articles are actually useful, or advantages over the calculators and tables linked from ephemeris?
    • Before I post... I suppose lots of Google hits would defeat the NN argument. But also consider that many of those sites are also more informative on astrology as well, not to mention having much more data. What we need is more information in ephemeris so interested people can learn... not an independent handbook for astrologers who happen to like Wikipedia. Potatoswatter 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following closely related pages:

Aspects of Uranus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aspects of Neptune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aspects of Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Not really WP material, but looks informative enough that it should be transwikied sometwhere (Wikisource, perhaps?). Grutness...wha? 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering that the original author copied the tables out of his astronomy software, it might be borderline copyvio. I'm not sure... see the link from the deletion log on Aspects of Saturn. Either way, people who know enough to use this info should have a source already or a way of generating it. Potatoswatter 04:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, data generated by an ephemeris programme is not copyrightable. If it is generated correctly, it will lack originality, and originality is one of the requirements for copyright. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and comment Wikipedia is full of almanac information. Almanac facts are not copyrightable, only commentary is. I just find the name confusing. --68.186.42.46 07:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree... almanac info is inherently NN and therefore rare on Wikipedia. Do you have examples? You are right on the copyright side, although I still don't like the idea that he just copied and pasted from his calculator to generate several articles. (He didn't contest the prods, either.) This looks authoritative because there are lots of numbers, but again, anyone with a use for them already knows where to look. This info is readily available in eg Sky and Telescope magazine. The article doesn't even link to ephemeris (and I'm too clueless on astrology to be able to usefully fix that). Potatoswatter 08:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Generic info such as this could more appropriately be merged into a generic article like ephemeris. It would still be cumbersome, NN, and lack context though. Potatoswatter 08:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless and listcrufty (and crystalbally) Vizjim 09:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I recently helped take the Mars article to featured article status Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mars :) and at least two of the reviewers asked for me to include information that is in this table - so since the aspects of Mars page already existed, I just pointed them at it and they were satisfied. So, delete this page and I will just have to include the info in the Mars page? This info isn't just for astrology - that's just a pointless comment. Yes the info is taken from a program but I provided a ref for one column of it and it checks out. Kind regards, sbandrews (t) 10:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with some reluctance. Wikipedia is not an ephemeris. If this data was, in fact, generated by software, those who want it should get and run a comparable program. The data presented is both constrained in time to a few years before and after the present; this will require perennial updating, and there is a point after which old data will become much less interesting. Frankly, I expected this to be about aspects of Pluto and their significance in astrology: that is an article I would cheerfully keep. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you, I agree that this is the criteria that WP:NOT is the criteria we should be looking at - but I don't see it written that wikipedia is not an ephemeris on the WP:NOT page - so could you narrow it down to the specific part of WP:NOT that you think this page contravenes? Regards, sbandrews (t) 14:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT, and especially the sections that might arguably be relevant, are very problematic right now for just this reason. There are those who would call this "indiscriminate" information, when it isn't really; however, it is essentially raw data, not really subject to editing, only to reformatting. Perhaps a transwiki to Wikisource might be the best solution to preserve ephemeris data. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read the WP:NOT talk page and came to the same conclustion. It's as easy to edit this page as any other on wikipedia - I suspect that the main argument against this page is that it is numerical, and people just don't like numbers. Incidently there is a WP:NOT clause that argues in favour of the page, WP is not paper. I notice that on talk:Ephemeris there is someone complaining that ephemeris data is missing on wikisource, if the info is moved there who will safegaurd it from being deleted from there? Is this just a case of NIMBY, or NNIMBY (No Numbers!), regards sbandrews (t) 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the point of transwikiing it to Wikisource would be to preserve the data; and the Wikisource page could be linked from the main Pluto page by a simple template. Besides, everybody knows that numbers higher than three are mythical, don't really mean anything, and were invented by city slickers only to confuse us. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just went over to wikisource to take a look round, never been there before - it's kinda small still, 50k pages in the English one. Anyway, this[13] page seems fairly catagorical that this page will not find a happy home there - and honestly, who said anything about going as high as three? sbandrews (t) 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never really looked at the criteria for Wikisource, either. There probably ought to be some kind of coordination between there and here. Unless another home is suggested that will surely take and keep this sort of data, I'm changing my opinion to keep. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikisource apparently does not want to include data tables, as is relevant to the LC Classification discussion also. there might well be a need for a WikiAlmanac, though I'm not about to propose it here and now. There are other articles that are mainly collections of data. I suggest that the article could be improved by a discussion of the intended use of the information. DGG 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki — An ephemeris doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If not wikisource, then a wikibook in an astrology and/or astronomy section might serve. I wouldn't think an astronomer would be using this information to plan an observing session. More likely [s]he'd want concurrent data, and there are online sites that provide such tables. — RJH (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I am a little doubtful about basing decisions on what may be available elsewhere: For almost all non-historical subjects, there is material readily available elsewhere on the web. Where WP differs is selectivity and organization. Athletic results, for example, are available on the web, and in greater detail than shown here. Worldcat includes millions of books, but WP has a selection of the notable ones. etc. I thing convenient summaries like this are appropriate for WP. Possibly we can develop a more specialized ___location, but then it could be argued that election results should go there, while in fact they are included in articles about most politicians. there's immense amounts of data in W. This is not going to distort the balance. DGG 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced unorganized data-dump of a trivial nature, without explainations. 132.205.44.134 23:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not transwiki - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." These articles are comprised entirely of indiscriminate information; they merely lists some arbitrary statistics on various planets. It is not clear as to whether the information is relevant to either astronomers or astrologers (or even who the intended audience was). The information is unreferenced and presented in a confusing manner; for example, it is unclear as to whether the distances and diameters correspond to the dates on which the planets are stationary, the dates on which the planets are in conjunction, or the planets are in opposition. Hence, copying these data to wikisource or wikibook is not even worthwhile. I therefore recommend straightforward deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 06:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change/Expand/Replace The suggestion above of a page explaining the significance of aspects of Pluto in astrology is a good idea & could be integrated into this. As it is, it's pretty unclear & looks incomplete. Ventifax 05:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't they all be merged into a single ephemeris in the Solar System article then, following your line of reasoning? 132.205.44.134 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Natalie 02:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lee (businessman)

Patrick Lee (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable Epbr123 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was

Finheaven

The result was Speedy deleted db-web. Mak (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finheaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fansite, fails WP:WEB. Michael Greiner 02:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep- nomination withdrawn. WjBscribe 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Wagner

Bryan Wagner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 02:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN per discussion below. Mwelch 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Wizardman 12:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald M. Rawson

Donald M. Rawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject is non-notable per WP:PROF Mwelch 03:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A non-notable professor. Entire content of article is original research: the article author's personal interview with the subject, the author's former professor. Mwelch 03:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Speedy deleted. Attack page created by a banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Mcwhinney Jr.

Will Mcwhinney Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person does not seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:ATT. Appears to be some guy who's just a local volunteer. The "sources" are all broken links. Delete as lacking notability and sources. Wickethewok 03:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It may be worth noting that the article creator is repeatedly removing the AFD tag despite numerous warnings. I have provided the link to this page twice, but he does not seem to acknowledge this... Wickethewok 03:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was AfD withdrawn by nominator Newyorkbrad 01:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Malcolm Duhé, Jr.

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 03:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN per discussion below. Mwelch 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I cannot speak for Mwelch, but that Talk page shows that Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) has a record of creating biographical articles of questionable notability. Some of them have been kept, others have been deleted (both via AFD and CSD). I certainly have no intent of nominating "every biographical article that user is involved with", only the ones where notability is lacking or questionable. Hathorn does have skill as an editor and has applied that to articles that are obvious keeps, such as Lieutenant Governors or members of the state legislature. --Dhartung | Talk 10:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that was my point of directing to his talk page. He seems to create questionable bios, and so there has been an effort to delete them. What I'm saying is that this article got caught up in all of that, but it doesn't belong. Almost all the fifth circuit judges have bios. This one shouldn't be singled out simply because Billy Hathorn has edited it. Chicken Wing 11:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me just say that it certainly wasn't any attempt to "single out" Judge Duhe. I simply didn't see any indication in WP:BIO that notability is inherent, that's all. If there is such a strong consensus (and obviously, it is) that they are, I have no problem backing down on it and offering my apologies. I suspect I did err due to haste in the research though. I went to newslibrary.com yet now I see results where before I did not. I suspect now that I misspelled his name on my first attempt, and I just did not slow down enough to notice the error. Mwelch 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, and at least 1 published article was written about this guy [15], probably more since it's a bit hard to track down articles from the 1980s. Papers do tend to write about judges. --W.marsh 14:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as circuit judges, regardless of tenure or impact, have all authored notable decisions. He is referenced on pages about the 5th circuit and his appointment to the bench was itself a notable event. --sortaSean 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The United States Courts of Appeals are the level of federal courts one level below the Supreme Court of the United States. Judges past and present on these courts are inherently notable (at least I certainly hope they are, as I have created about 25 of their biographies). Newyorkbrad 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I'm a little surprised at this nomination to be honest. A U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals judge? These people are inherently notable, even if they are not famous. Retired yes, but this person held a tremendous amount of power during his career as a judge- definitely not a small potato. If the page needs sources, let's source it. I'll try to help out with this one. Thanks, Scienter 17:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this isn't precedent setting, those arguing for it being kept have demonstarted(inc 5 secondary sources) its not an indiscriminate collection of information. Gnangarra 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seven Network slogans

List of Seven Network slogans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unreferenced indiscriminate collection of information. Originally {{prod}}ded [16], and subsequently removed [17] w/o comment. Full disclosure: I am the editor who originally {{prod}}ded the article; along with Ed g2s (talk · contribs), I have also repeatedly removed a gallery of fair-use images from the article. [18] & [19]

  • Comment - this was split from the main article, where it made more sense. Don't just delete it because it was split off - this is happening far too frequently and has got to stop. The gallery of logos was kept from a previous AfD and should not be deleted. JRG 09:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The title of the page indicates this is a list of slogans. Even if we suppose such a list is encyclopedic, I do not see how a gallery of logos is relevant on a page meant for slogans. The slogans are definitely not "critical commentary" on the logos by any interpretation of the term! Resurgent insurgent 10:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clearly being indiscriminate collection of information. While it may be true and verifyable from reliable sources the subject is not encyclopediac. Even if this were part of another, keepable, article I would advocate removing it as a pointless list - Peripitus (Talk) 09:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The advertising/namebranding of a major company is a reasonable subject to cover. It could be merged into Seven Network, but as some of the links I provided show, this kind of marketing is quite notable. FrozenPurpleCube 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, could somebody explain to me how this is indiscriminate information? It's not a FAQ, travel guide, memorial or any of the other entries described at WP:NOT#IINFO, but rather the actions of a major company, something that is the subject of regular coverage in the media. FrozenPurpleCube 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That list in WP:NOT is not intended to be all encompassing. It is meant to provide examples of what is indiscriminate. The seven network does many many many things, much of which is reported on as they are a media company. You could easily make a referenced list of many other things at the network just due to this fact. A list like this clearly fails the notability requirements in that noone outside the seven network or associated companies cares enough to write substantially about it. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that the list at that ___location is all-encompassing, but the problem is lacking any connection to the criteria on that list, leaves the statement that any particular information qualifies as indiscriminate without substance. Thus I ask people to explain why they believe it is indiscriminate information, not to just declare it such. Without that articulation, it's not exactly much to go on. However, since you do mention outside people writing about it, well, guess what, they do. I already provided links which show that the namebranding/identity building of networks is something that is covered in the news. Not being an Australian, I don't know where to look for sources from that country which would be more likely to cover this company directly, but I accept that in principle such could exist for what seems to be one of the larger Australian broadcasting organizations. FrozenPurpleCube 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not encyclopaedic in nature and un-referenced.--Bryson 02:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking reference and fails to meet my criterion on use as providing a summary of notable people or things we have or should have articles on or useful list. Notable slogans should be noted in the article on the Seven Network although it seems to be the case that Seven changes its slogan every year. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's information already included in the various TV station articles. timgraham 07:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a non-encyclopædic collection of tidbits of information. Lankiveil 11:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • keep at this stage. This list is an impressive collection of slogans used by a very notable company in Australia. I agree it wouldnt be considered encyclopedic if it was going to be printed on paper, but the lack of sources does not mean that the slogans are disputed, and the list format means it is not OR. Give the contributors time to develop this interesting article that demonstrates branding in practise. In the back of my mind is the fact that this is a prominent piece of a companies branding that is shoved down our throats daily (if we watch that is), and I cant help but think that there is an encyclopaedic piece on the brand that will come of this if we let it be. The outcome could be very similar to our articles on flags of each nation. Note that it would be very easy to add video evidence of these slogans, except that doing so it not as easy as jotting down the details of each slogan, hence the evidence being missing. In a way, the date range provided for each slogan is a citation. The article says go to an archive of the TV programs of this period and you will find that slogan. Also, these slogans are often mentioned in commentaries by other media networks in a derogatory way, and the more notable the slogan, the more often they appear in comedy and in satire. John Vandenberg 11:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft or include their most recent slogan in the network articles page--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Nobody has demonstrated that these slogans been written about by anybody who is independent of the Seven network. Adding video evidence is insufficient because that is not independent coverage - it is OK to validate each individual element with primary source material, but there needs to be secondary source material to show that the whole topic is notable.Garrie 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge slogans back to Seven Network article, on the condition that some information be added. As for the images, they are an interesting and notable part of the network, and should be kept, though this article is not the place. JRG 08:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you guys want to recreate it as a redirect that's fine.--Wizardman 12:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gears of War (film)

Gears of War (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Crystal Balling at it's best. Film is not due out until 2009, according to IMDB. The only indications that the movie might possibly be made is the fact that New Line picked up the rights, which is not even close to an indication that the film might actually be made. There is quite literally no information about this film which is available. It could be summed up within the Gears of War article itself with one sentence, that New Line has optioned the rights to the game. Picking up the rights does not equal actually making a film, otherwise John Woo would have made a Metroid movie. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In the immortal words of one Jim Jones: BAAAALLIN'!!! ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until external verification that the movie is in production with imminent release. As said in nomination, what can be verified can be summed up in a paragraph (at the absolute, utter, ridiculous most), located within the game's article. Possibility of redirection to discourage recreation until the movie is imminent? -- saberwyn 06:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikinews or delete. There is nothing in the article beyond an announcement of licensing rights, which might be borderline newsworthy given the success of the game it is based on. It is too early for encyclopedic treatment of the subject. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ---Haemo 07:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only verifiable info is that New Line Cinema picked up the license for it. IF the movie gets made (and I stress IF since many video games have had their movie rights picked up and nothing happened afterwards) and solid info is released, it can be recreated. TJ Spyke 08:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As above, though a brief one-sentence mention could be made in the main article. Wickethewok 13:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because acquisition of film rights do not equate actual production of the film. Studios often pick up film rights for various kinds of source material, but don't actually produce everything they have into films. I checked Gears of War, and the sole valid citation under the Film section suffices for now. Once a director, a cast, and a production start date is established, then there would be a stronger case for an actual film article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until production officially announced. If I may comment, though, 2009 is only two years away so it shouldn't necessarily trigger the same red flags as 2009 release dates might have in 2006 or earlier. It's quite feasible for an officially announced -- or widely anticipated -- film release to now have an 09 date. Star Trek XI is only 6 days short of being a 2009 release, for example. 23skidoo 18:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMDb always assigns some kind of release year to a film, even though none has been announced. This is the same case with Gears of War, so don't let the release years presented by IMDb sway any kind of argument. IMDb even lists Raimi's briefly-announced The Shadow for 2010, as well as Thor (2009) and Sub-Mariner (2008), despite no release date ever suggested for these projects. They even have 300 stuck on 2006 for some reason. The recently deleted Alice has a release year for 2007, which is extremely unlikely with zero production news since 2005. You will never see a (TBA) attached to any of IMDb's films, always a release year. This kind of setup, which I've seen as a major factor in votes to keep articles on future films, should never be relied upon. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow delete—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro T. Quiboloy

Alejandro T. Quiboloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established. In addition, Wikipedia is not a hagiography or a tribute page. Tito Pao 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperative Reaction

Imperative Reaction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC. No independent references cited. Nv8200p talk 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the extent of the tour. Was it a national tour? Even then, the band should stand on its own notability snd not ride the coat tails of another goup. -Nv8200p talk 11:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Strayer

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Strayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert notability of the subject per the guidelines of WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 03:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huntingtown, Maryland's Snowstorms 2002-?

Huntingtown, Maryland's Snowstorms 2002-? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable events. No media coverage cited. Nv8200p talk 03:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After this, can we make an article for "days of light rain?" (forgive my sarcasm, but it makes the point best) --Auto(talk / contribs) 04:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I thought the question mark in the title meant the snowstorms had started in 2002 and hadn't stopped since. Plasticbottle 04:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cúchullain t/c 04:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honoré de Balzac in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An indiscriminate collection of the most fleeting references to the playwright as possible. (Tee-hee, didja notice that "Balzac" sounds like "ball sack?") Krimpet (talk/review) 04:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - totally unreferenced, non-notable trivia. The last couple of sections are particularly aggregious - by no stretch of the imagination can a pun based on his name be considered a notable pop culture reference. --Haemo 07:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oppose any suggestion to merge any of this to Balzac's article. Otto4711 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per the above, article doesn't make any attempt to address the history of Balzac in popular culture, the impact of Balzac in pop culture, and so on. Just a laundry list. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At least the double entendres were funny, but it fails WP:IINFO. Realkyhick 03:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete certainly indiscriminate. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the stupid jokes were funny though. Croxley 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if you do not want this information to reappear again in the main article (which would happen on 100%). I had created it for this exact purpose since nobody cared to maintain it and pop-culture references and fights over them constituted major part of recent edits. The proper solution for such articles is someone knowledgeable in anglophone popular culture taking care here.
If deleted preserve the part about Rodin's statue which is definitely notable. Pavel Vozenilek 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pragmatic keep" is just another way of saying bettr here than there and it's a terrible argument for keeping an article. If the information is garbage on its own then it would be garbage in the main article. All keeping this article does is shift the responsibility for the garbage from one set of editors to another. Otto4711 05:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it's totally unreferenced which it 'isn't' at all if you bother noticing some footnotes, who cares? Anyone can simply add a reference there if they find it. This article is a treasure trove of information, information you probably won't be able to find in single area online. And oh, btw, someone didn't put the format for the footnotes which is why you can't see the references at the bottom. I'll add it now. ResurgamII 14:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is apparently partly sourced, and as I noted in the Kim Jong-il nomination, nearly every article including the Hitler and Lincoln ones in the Category:Representations of people in popular culture lack sources, but I would assume that sources could be found which is a big distinction in WP policies apparently: see WP:ATT discussing the difference. If we went ahead and deleted any partially sourced articles for that reason (just take a look at the ones some editors have flagged as unsourced Category:All articles lacking sources would WP be better or worse for these all being deleted?), CSD A4 and the GDFL terms would like prevent any recreation. On a more practical level, I agree with Pavel Vozenilek's view that this stuff will just migrate to the main articles. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Christ For The Nations Institute. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth For The Nations

Youth For The Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert notability of the organization per WP:ORG. No reliable independent secondary sources cited. Nv8200p talk 04:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lowell Goller

Robert Lowell Goller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert the notability of the subject per the guidelines of WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iaido in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a list a videogames with characters that use the technique Iaido. It's not really popular culture, and I think this technique is common in martial arts based videogames so it's not notable enough for its own article. Plasticbottle 04:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. you misunderstand, I didn't say they aren't part of popular culture, I meant the list doesn't represent popular culture, just a small aspect of it, which is videogames. So it's not "popular culture", if it was then it would include films, TV shows, books, etc, etc. Plasticbottle 02:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unmaintainable list of useless trivia. The introductory part of the article is present in the main Iaido article. That is more than sufficient.Dr bab 12:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as yet another indiscriminate list of meaningless trivia. Otto4711 13:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Guys, the only reason I created this article was because it was almost bigger than the main Iaido article itself. (Ok maybe that THAT big but it was big enough). And video-game fans kept adding more on that section rather than on the martial art itself. I wanted to delete the entire section from Iaido, but I didnt dare since I guess someone would have cried havoc so I moved it here. I have no vested interest in this section other than keeping it OUT of the Iaido article. Fred26 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. Fg2 01:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't possibly maintain this indiscriminate list. Realkyhick 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. This article reads like they are observations made about sword/katana wielding VG characters with very little knowledge about the maritial art. How is it exactly that Link is practicising Laido? This article really doesn't have much to do with video games and really doesn't help the article on laido either. Its just another worthless "...in popular culutre" list. Mitaphane ?|! 03:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories (joint nomination)

Progressive Bloggers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|VfD|AfD|AfD2)– (View AfD)
Blogging Tories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AfD2)–(joint DRV)

A nomination at deletion review to fix the inconsistency of outcomes between the two prior AfD's didn't come to a conclusion, which is why the two are now joint nominated here for more discussion. Prior AfD history above. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Progressive Bloggers Keep Blogging Tories.
I nominated both of these articles for deletion in February, at the time verifiable and attributable sources did not exist for either article. Non-trivial and independent sources for the Blogging Tories were presented at the AfD [25][26][27], as of now comparable or other reliable sources have not been presented for Progressive Bloggers. WP:V is not negotiable, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping Progressive Bloggers.--RWR8189 05:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. These are really difficult to source via the web, as all you get is trillions of blogs. Anyway, the Tories sourced as above (though one of those sources is YouTube); the Progressive has an inline source (the Toronto Star). Also, note that CBC gives both factions equal billing here. Or how about a media seminar from the University of Alberta? Even without this, I'd ignore all rules and say that deleting one without the other would be on very shaky ground; they're opposing factions of a Canadian political blog war. EliminatorJR Talk 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wouldn't exactly say IAR; I would say that the rules need careful and creative interpretation in relation to the subject matter of the articles. Where does one expect to find information on blogs? Shall we instead omit coverage of the blogosphere because we adopted our RS rules before they became important.? RS means or ought to mean RS in relation to the way the subject is documented in the real world. DGG 23:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There would probably be dozens/hundreds.Keeping to the major national parties and blogs at a national level has certain advantages. But your suggestion would be good for a category. DGG 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno... you could merge these two, along with Liblogs and Green Bloggers and still have a pretty consise article. Watchsmart 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vortex

The Vortex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While it looks like some work went into this, it's little more than an advertisement for a LAN gaming center. It should also be noted that one of the tournaments that this hosts has been deleted before. JuJube 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 06:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Jack Rosenthal

Arnold Jack Rosenthal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject is non-notable local politician with two failed runs for office and some local scandal to his name. Dhartung | Talk 05:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. OK, so for this one it seems like there might actually be multiple sources. But with the references not being in-line and with such references as "review or articles from 1973-1977", it's tough to evaluate their merit. For this one, I'd suggest giving Billy Hathorn a chance to more clearly specifiy the references to allow for a more clear determination regarding notability. Given the track record, I am perhaps not optimistic that this will be done and actually establish notability, but just to be completely fair, I think the opportunity should be offered. If that doesn't happen, then delete. Mwelch 07:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . 'Weak Keep' there are technically enough sources. "Review of the ..." apparently means that it was examined for those dates, and an item or two actually found. Only the items found, of course are sources. This is like saying one searched Google. Google isn't a source, what one finds there are sources. I've edited the article accordingly. DGG 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Thanks for the info. I'm still troubled by what's actually listed for references, but if there was something there, then that adds to the case for notability. If the author is reading this, perhaps he can specify those for the reader? Of what's left, there are two sources seem definitely non-trivial: the link to his lawsuit against Oubre (that link wasn't working last night when I tried to check it, so I didn't know what that was), and the newspaper article about his pleading guilty. Not sure what might have been in that prison report (once again in-line citations would certainly be nice). Might have been non-trivial. A couple of other links listed don't seem to be working right now (not sure if that's a temporary situation or not), but maybe some non-trivial info there too if those links become operational. A lot of maybes, but when combined with the two definites already there, I guess that makes for "multiple" non-trivial sources. Mwelch 02:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. At least a personal interview with Billy wasn's used as an interview this time. He seems to have enough regional notability. Realkyhick 03:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He lost the race for mayor & legislature. I am an inclusionist about politicians, and think people losing races for national office are notable. Not state office. His crime also was nothing particularly dramatic.If kept, the article will of course be edited to an appropriate length and amount of detail. DGG 05:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided I see I have !voted three different ways with 5 hours. I consider this to indicate not my carelessness, but rather the truly borderline nature of this subject. In borderline situations I think the general way of going is considered to be keep. as the article develops, or fails to develop, we can always discuss the article again. DGG 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would appeal to the Wikipedia editors to not delete this biography. As one who utilizes Wikipedia for research in the field of history and politics (especially localized), I find these biographies to be not only interesting, but invaluable. It is nearly impossible to find such comprehensive information anywhere else online, short of having to go to a library or newspapers in the locality to which the individual is from. Is it not Wikipedia's mission to provide such information ? It would be highly shortsighted to remove these biographies.

D.J. Jones -- 30 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs).

Actually, Billy, it is not WPs mission to produce articles about everybody interesting, or everything not covered by other online sources. A full encyclopedia of state politics might find a good home in Wikia. The standard is Notability to the reader. Some politicians are, some aren't. But you might find it easier to get articles or borderline figures like this guy accepted in WP if they were written more concisely. That isn't (at the moment) a specific guideline, but it's part of what is meant by being encyclopedic--an encyclopedia has articles whose length depends on the subjects' importance (and also of course of the amount of material, but this is never a problem with your articles). DGG 04:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dojo, Oh No!/ Finding Hershel

Dojo, Oh No!/ Finding Hershel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this and all other articles at List of Yin Yang Yo! episodes. EVERY singles article consist of just "This is the --th episode of Yin Yang Yo!", even the descriptions on the List of episodes page is more informative. TJ Spyke 05:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

600 Channels of Doom!/ An Oldie But a Goodie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yin! Yang! Yuck!/ Beetlemania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Enter: The Ant/ Sweet Stench of Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Woo Foo Flu/ The Imagination Situation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Too Much Yangformation/ Aura . . . Or Not (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Falling Yin Love/ On Golden Pondscum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Old School/ A Toy's Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Trouble with Two-ni-corns / Scarf It Up! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Return of the Night Master (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My Stupid Sword/ Neat Freak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Match Not Made in Heaven/ The High She-as (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scary Scary Quite Contrary/ How the Cookie Crumbles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Yin of Yang/ Shopping Sprawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wubble in Paradise/ Dictator of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bad Nanny Jamma/ Pros and Cons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Doomed to Repeat It/ The Gig is Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Family Day/ The Hex of the Ex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Out on a Pledge/ Dojo Alone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Attack of the Lesson/ A Case of Evils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Attack of the Vidiots/ Fit to be Tried (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Voyage to the Center of the Yo/ Sitting Shaggler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shadows and Light/ The Truth Hurts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Who Knows What Evil Lurks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Yin Yang Yo! episode) Night Fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Woofoogeddon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete, pages with no context or whatsoever. The articles are redundant and the list is enough for the episode, since this is somehow a duplicate of the list. If it has some info about the episode, then that's ok. Terence 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the pages except Night Fall (right article listed?), which is a legit stub of a 2004 novel. All the others, however, have absolutely no context. SkierRMH 07:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These articles may be stubs, with minimal content as of yet, however, the potential to add content is there, the same for almost every other episode of a television show. Articles don't suddenly become full of content over night, they need time to improve. Deleting these articles now will only discourage folks from working on that. If you're somehow bothered by these being stubs, then make them all redirects until further information is added. If you just object to the idea of including the episodes of a television show as Wikipedia articles, well, in that case, I think you need to establish some sort of policy consensus first. FrozenPurpleCube 14:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per FrozenPurpleCube. There is something of a precedent for individual episode articles for many television shows, and while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason for inclusion, I don't think it applies here as the precedent is strong. Also agree that lack of content alone is not qualification for deletion, as it would be relatively easy for an interested author to expand these to the standard of other television show episode articles out there. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 19:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP requires that articles (even stubs) have some notability or reason they should be kept even when they are first created. I'm OK with redirecting them, and the creater of these articles can always restore them when if/when he is willing to actually put some effort into them. TJ Spyke 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yin Yang Yo is a nationally broadcast television program, therefore I accept that they do have some reason to be kept, as well, episodes of television shows are in general acceptable content on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The coverage at List of Yin Yang Yo! episodes is fine, there is no need for individual articles. Brianyoumans 21:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now These articles have only been around a few days. I have found that things like this tend to take a least a few weeks to fill out.Slavlin 02:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The show is barely notable enough on its own, much less individual episode articles. I'm not a big fan of individual episode articles for any show, anyway, unless they're particularly notable or memorable on their own (last episode of M*A*S*H or Seinfeld, for instance). Realkyhick 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sound action stations. Consensus is to improve, not delete (WP:EPISODE). Article establishes notability to me. Matthew 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have a consensus to improve television episode articles and not delete them. It takes a long time to finish every episode of a tv series, so you can redirect them for now if you like. - Peregrine Fisher 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, despite what Matthew and Peregrine Fisher claim, the consensus at WP:EPISODE seems to be to MERGE episode articles unless and until enough information can be provided about a particular episode to justify a separate article. Either merge back to the main article on the show, or, if there's too much info for that, merge to articles on the seasons of the show. Xtifr tälk 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cúchullain t/c 04:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack B. Harper

Jack B. Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject was a highway contractor. Without further information it does not seem subject was notable. Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. Actually, he was the founder and CEO of that company. -- Mikeblas 05:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes. A "highway contractor" is a person, partnership, company or corporation authorized to contract with the state for highway construction. Each state has scores of such contractors, large and small. --Dhartung | Talk 07:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to have coverage by multiple reliable sources [29] so I'd say keep for now and hopefully article can cite those sources eventually, instead of the current sources that don't all look very useful. --W.marsh 14:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have removed 2 of the so-called references, which were trivial public notices of contracts awarded, and moved his company home page to an external link. But the real reason for deletion is that most of the article is a close paraphrase of the obituary notice. It would need complete rewriting, and would be about 1/3 the size if kept. Perhaps there should be a presumption that all bios which end by giving the time and place of the funeral are taken thoughtlessly from obituary notices, as that information certainly isn't encyclopedic. DGG 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another in the "Hathorn Presents Non-Notable Biographies" series. If he had built something major, like the long Interstate 10 bridge in southern Louisiana, that would be different. But he didn't. Realkyhick 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd H. Long

Floyd H. Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just being a member of the Long family is not, by itself, notability. Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. Terence 06:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a memorial. The article ends "the family requested memorials to the E. J. Ourso College of Business Administration, LSU, 3137-F, CEBA Building, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 The assumption must be that most of the record is taken from an obituary, DGG 23:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and warning. In looking at some recent bios, still being put in by the ed., and the rate of one every two minutes, the principal source seems to be the eds. unpublished master's thesis: "Billy Hathorn, The Republican Party in Louisiana, 1920-1980, Master's thesis (1980), Northwestern State University at Natchitoches," which probably does not count as a published RS, . It also raises the question of whether these articles in WP are being put in wholesale by downloading them indiscriminately. In any case I want to remind the ed. that the fact that someone has an obit. or a listing in a book is not proof of notability per se; if they have done notable things, then the source documents it, but if they have not done notable things, no amount of sources saying so make for notability. DGG 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See my comment in the discussion immediately above this one; the same applies here. The Long family ties does make this a bit closer call, admittedly. The sad thing is that Billy actually does a pretty good job of writing most of these, but that doesn't make the subjects any more notable. Realkyhick 03:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He certainly does a complete job of writing them; do we have formal guidelines for the amount of detail in an article? We may need some, since common sense cannot be counted on. But what I suggest, is that he be urged to turn his master's thesis into a book. People will always want another book about the Longs, who are endlessly fascinating even when not notable, and I'm not sure that any published source has the amount of information on the less important members of the family. (not satire, meant as praise) DGG 05:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)DGG 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it would be good to show that not all Longs, indeed most Longs, went into politics. Floyd Long seemed to be the most notable of the non-politician Longs. I think he meets the notability requirements, or I would not have done this little article.

Billy Hathorn 23:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cúchullain t/c 04:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerro Gordo Freighting Company

Cerro Gordo Freighting Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. Tagged {{notability}} since January 2007 with no change in content. Mikeblas 05:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The company appears to have had a long history, see [30] (after "begin page 388" line), [31] (halfway in the section "Rami Nadeau and his roads"), and [32] ("The company quickly became the dominant power in transportation throughout Inyo County and remained so for nearly a decade..."). Not sure if these sources warrant a keep, though. Resurgent insurgent 06:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete If the company does have a long history, put it in the article & source; then we can reconsider.DGG 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have this article because of a mention on a "Welcome to Swansea" sign? And we aren't even sure if it still exists? C'mon, folks. Realkyhick 03:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Expand I thought it looked like a goof, but I did a little research & it was an important company in development of the American West. I've added a little bit & a link. I think it's worth building on. Ventifax 21:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beup

Beup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. Mikeblas 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip R. Odegard

Philip R. Odegard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is clearly a product of astroturfing, as indicated by the article's history. The subject is not notable and certainly does not merit an entry in Wikipedia. Adraeus 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L3MEDIA

L3MEDIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not meet the primary inclusion criterion for notable companies: it has not been treated as a subject in reliable secondary sources. The claims in the article cannot be verified from reliable secondary sources, and removing the unverifiable claims would leave an article that would meet speedy deletion criterion A1: little or no context. Finally, the original author of the article, San Diego PR (talk · contribs), appears to be an astroturfing organization similar to MyWikiBiz; if true, this would violate the conflict of interest guideline. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yossarian Rustamova

Yossarian Rustamova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Comment. Rustamova isn't even a male surname, and there are certainly no "autonomous tribal groups" (and no tribal groups at all, for that matter) in any part of Azerbaijan. Parishan 05:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not exist in real life, the article is a hoax. And "Artur Pashayev" is likely to be a sock account, I will ask for investigation of this. And as Parishan correctly noted, Rustamova is a female surname. This is a third hoax in a row, please check AfDs for the previous 2: [33] [34] It should be investigated who is creating hoaxes about Azerbaijan here. Grandmaster 05:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Content does not belong in encyclopedia--Zondi 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. I seriously doubt he would have a female surname. Artur Pashayev appears to be a vandal (see his talk history). I'm from Azerbaijan originally, I've never heard of Rustamova. Edit history does seem odd, perhaps not a hoax as such, but severely distorted - e.g. should not be categorized as politician, no indication of size of group - probably not notable.Humanproject 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. No such person as Yossarian Rustamova. Yossarian Rustamov is real but not notable - a controversial former warlord with less than 80 followers.Humanproject 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Khoikhoi 04:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per no google hits, also nothing in google books, news archive or scholar. Addhoc 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balazsy

Balazsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence has been proffered for any claim made in the article other than claims made within the personal website, www.pbpix.com, of the subject of the article. The content of the article is not verifiable.

Incidentally, the sole contributor to the article of claims and other content has been User:Pbpix, whose user page identifies himself as P G Balazsy and all of whose activities within WP have been closely related to P G Balazsy. -- Hoary 06:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 stub to remove how-to manual material and self-promotion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuji transfer and Watergraph

Fuji transfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Watergraph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable photographic technique. Fuji transfer is more an how-to guide than an article. Both are really just spam for Balazsy who is also up for AfD. -- RHaworth 13:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel it should be deleted because it is simply a definition and description of the Fuji transfer process and is in keeping with the similar entry "Polaroid Transfer"Pbpix 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 21:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of comic strip villain debuts

List of comic strip villain debuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem relevant enough to be in Wikipedia. It only has villains from one comic strip. Joiz A. Shmo 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I extracted this info from List of supervillain debuts, when it was nominated for AfD and kept, because there was so much of it. You could merge it back, but it there's so much of it, it should really have it's own page. Rename it list of Dick Tracy villain debuts if you like. No one cares about DT stuff anymore, but it was crazy notable back in the day. - Peregrine Fisher 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain why the debut dates of characters in a major comic strip aren't encyclopedic in nature? Are you going to advocate the deletion of numerous similar articles? And please don't use the term fancruft, it's offensive. Thanks! FrozenPurpleCube 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Fancruft. Fancruft has become a regular term on Wikipedia, applying to any information that is relevant to fans, but not so much on its own. And, as is mentioned bellow, if the villains don't have their own articles, they probably don't need an entire article dedicated to their appearance dates. Joiz A. Shmo 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that page. It's an essay, and I would prefer if the advise against using the term were written in much stronger language, and I wish that fewer people would slap that derogatory term around as if it were a convincing argument. And some of the villains do have their own articles. Should all of them? I don't know, that's another issue. Besides, there are many things which don't deserve their own article in the individual, but are more notable in the aggregate. FrozenPurpleCube 06:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Wikipedia:Fancruft I am saying the article is not notable.--Bryson 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course the article isn't notable, it's a single article on Wikipedia. Very few of them are notable. But what's wrong with the subject of the article? Do you think Dick Tracy isn't notable? Do you think that the villains of the strip aren't notable as a whole? Should the ones with individual articles be deleted? Should all dates of initial appearance be deleted from every article about comic characters? Sorry, but just saying "This isn't notable, it's fancruft" is not persuasive reasoning, it's just using a pejorative. Could you please try explaining in more detail exactly what you consider is not encyclopedic about this article's subject, without making use of that term? I would much appreciate it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I added some citations and references, to establish notability, and allow people to double check all the dates if they want. - Peregrine Fisher 05:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Dick Tracy is very notable, some/many of the villains are notable as well, but what is the point of an article that lists the date of their first appearance? The question is not if these villains are notable, but if the dates of their first appearance on its own is notable. This list says nothing but "there are a lot of villains, they were all created by the creator of the comic (duh) except one, seventeen years later, and ... well, that's about it". This list is furthermore redundant with List of recurring characters in Dick Tracy, which gives a lot more information (even though it needs a lot of work as well). Fram 11:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would say that this list is incomplete, since obviously it stops relatively short of the modern era. Thus the various people who took over after Gould are unlisted. Incompleteness, note, is not a reason for deletion. If it were, we'd have to delete a lot more pages. It's just a reason for somebody to finish the article. I don't see how the dates of first appearance aren't notable though, since that information is included on pretty much every page about a comic book or strip character. So as a whole, I don't see that as a problem. And yes, I did notice that this page is somewhat redundant to List of recurring characters in Dick Tracy, but the more I think about it, the more I think something else besides deletion needs to be done. That page has a section describing first appearances, but it's much more poorly formatted than even this page. I think it might be worth splitting off the villains from that page, merging it with the information from this one instead. Deletion, however, seems needless. FrozenPurpleCube 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wish this page was fancruft in a way, it would have more editors. Dick Tracy isn't a fan hotbed, it's a historically significant comic strip. Maybe 50 years ago it would have been fancruft, now it's just encyclopedic. - Peregrine Fisher 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Rowan High School

North Rowan High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not Notable - Mike Beckham 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel so? Small townships with population of 5 have Wikipedia articles with nothing more but demographics. Tgpuckett 02:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because for some reason, the policy is that all cities/towns/villages are notable. No such policy exists for schools (which is why I hate when people try and say that "all schools are notable" as their only reason for voting Keep). TJ Spyke 07:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It contains little informational content and only houses sections with little to no content. Has no encyclopaedic content. - Mike Beckham 06:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 06:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep arguments are very weak here, but delete arguments aren't much better. I don't feel comfortable closing in this state, so am relisting to see whether notability and attribution can be addressed, as late comments indicate they can. Shimeru 06:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • bbx and alkivar, how about basing you decisions on GUIDELINE and POLICY rather than your personal belief? Almost all of the keep votes consist soley of that BS opinion that all schools are notable. Their is no guideline or policy that says this, so I hope admins ignore people who only say that and don't actually state something to support them. The article fails WP:N, which is a policy and not just an opinion. TJ Spyke 07:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mere comment. I'm staying out of this one but I would like to point out that WP is built on consensus. WP is not a democracy but one of the very basics is that policy is not set in stone - please don't dismiss other's opinions (in this case, that schools should be exempt from WP:N or that they should by default always be notable unless proven otherwise) as a mere policy violation. -- Seed 2.0 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no consensus that all high schools are notable. It used to be that most were kept by default, but thankfully others users have started to crack down on this and realized that schools are not exempt and that they have to follow the guidelines and policies arleady established. TJ Spyke 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was even an consensus at one time that all middle schools were notable, and that one has thankfully be laid to rest, though there are a few dissidents. The rational part of the concept that all high school are notable is the assumption that if the subject was examined closely enough, then something notable would eventually be found and eventually documented. This may even be true of some schools--many large long-established schools might prove to have the minimum of two notable graduates if sufficient search were made. But a similar argument could be used about almost any subject. It could for example be made about apartment buildings, which might quite possibly turn out to have had at least two notable residents. Or hospitals. And hospitals also have an influence on the thousands of patients that pass through them. WP is apparently to not be a collection of indiscriminate information, except for [whatever your favorite subject may be]. DGG 01:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TJSpyke and DGG Baristarim 04:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yvette Rosser

Yvette Rosser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested Prod Prodded by admin candidate Jreferee. Deprodded by anon IP, possible sock of banned user. Bringing here to complete procedure.Hornplease 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple published works, etc.Bakaman 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted academic and author. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

–Please excuse the lack of Wiki protocol, but I am the person being discussed on this page. I have had several previous discussions with the person known as Hornplease because he wrote lies about me on another page. I wrote to him and then complained to others, but nothing became of it. Since I am Y.Rosser and being on Wikipedia subjects me to untruths and propaganda about what I have done and believe, I would just as soon not have a Wikipedia page because many of the things that are attributed to me on Wikipedia I have not done or written. It is a very public place where a person like me can be flayed and lied about without any recourse. It's a place where anti-Hindus like Hornplease can create his own hyperbol Wiki-reality about someone like me.—RRani 08:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a non-notable biography and probable attack page. Mak (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zolar

Zolar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:ATT. No reliable independent secondary sources. Written like a resume or advertisement. Nv8200p Nv8200p talk 02:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Not an easy decision, but a review of the sources shows that several have little or nothing to do with John Machemehl. Much of the information can be sourced only to a genealogy, and most problematically, the claims of notability are not sourced or supported. The sources do provide evidence for the notability of relatives, such as Louis Machemehl, but this does not confer notability on John by association. While I dislike deletion of historical biographies, what's needed here is a reliable (preferably secondary) source backing up the claim that John was a leader in the migration or the subsequently-established community. If we were to remove the uncited claims, the claims not properly supported by their citations, and the material relating to descendants from the article, we would be left with a very sparse collection of family data, mainly consisting of dates of birth, marriage, and death. Regrettably, this is not enough to meet WP:BIO. Shimeru 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Machemehl

John Machemehl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable person, fails WP:BIO. No reliable, independent sources establishing notability, only genealogical sources or sources about his descendants. He may have many notable qualities, as claimed on the talk page, but these aren't recognized in any independent reputable sources, which makes this look a lot like original research. Article fails WP:ATT. Fram 07:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second attempt

Fram has already attempted to delete this article once before. The article John Machemehl was shown to be a notable article as John Machemehl is a historical figure within the German-Texan historical context. Thanks. User:Bhaktivinode 28 March 2007

In addition, Fram fails to state why these sources are not independent and/or reputable. They are valid sources and Fram should show otherwise if it believes so. Thanks. User:Bhaktivinode 28 March 2007

Please read WP:ATT and WP:RS to see what are reliable, reputable sources per the Wikipedia definition. The main source, dericbownds.net, is the page of someone who has created his family tree. This is not independent, and certainly not a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. The other sources are not clearly reliable either (austinoldies.com / wintermannlibrary.org (a copy of the former), rootsweb.com) or have at first sight nothing to do with John Machemehl (visiteaglelake.com, reflectionsofyesterday.net, texas-settlement.org, sportsillustrated). In fact, all info on John Machemehl except for him being the father of Paul, comes from one source, Dericbownds.net. Fram 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find evidence of a previous AFD discussion, but Bak may be referring to this diff, where it was nominated for Speedy A7. -- saberwyn 07:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was tagged for speedy deletion (db-bio) by user Evb-wiki on March 21, and deleted by me the same day. It was recreated by Bhaktivinode on the 23rd (as is his right), and tagged by me for db-bio on the 27th. This was removed by FloNight, with the mention on the talk page that it could go to AfD. This seemed reasonable, and so I did just that. The article was not "shown to be a notable article" expect by these statements on Talk:John Machemehl by the creator of the article, Bhaktivinode. As I indicate in my response to Bhaktivinode above, his one main source is not a reliable (nor an independent) source per WP:ATT, and neither that one nor his other sources are indicating any notability for John Machemehl (I have e.g. no idea where Bhaktivinode gets the idea that John Machemehl is a "notable German"). Fram 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe Fram is only refering to the old version of John Machemehl. The new version explicitly establishes his notability first as the forester for Annaberg, Saxony. Then for leading a group of Forty-Eighters to Central Texas from Saxony. Another issue is his involvement with the German Texan community during the Civil War era. User:Bhaktivinode March 28, 2007

No, I'm referring to the current version. Besides, all the info was already in the article when I started this AfD notice, and even when I nominated it for speedy deletion[35]. Being a forester etcetera is interesting, but does not mean he is notable. And I can't find anything in your sources that indicate that he was "Leading the Voyage to Texas"? The genealogy says that "Sometime between 1845 and 1850 John Machemehl, his father Michael and very young son Paul came to Texas from Germany. Their coming to the U.S. was part of the sizeable German migration". It seems like he was just one of the many migrants, and that only in the next generations did the family become somewhat notable locally. I would like to urge everyone judging this AfD to go through the sources provided in the article, to determine for themselves their value and the notability they give to John Machemehl, per WP:ATT and WP:BIO. Fram 10:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Issues and Sources

It is issues such as these listed above - that makes the John Machemehl entry a notable one. in addition, sources such as The Eula and David Wintermann Library is a proper source. [36] & [37] User:Bhaktivinode March 28, 2007

Perhaps the Wintermannlibrary is a notable source (it is not directly clear), but it only gives some info on Paul Machemehl, none whatsoever on John Machemehl, so this source cannot be used to determine the notability of John Machemehl. And I don't agree that the "issues" listed above make him notable at all. Fram 10:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not true.

The Wintermann Library says that around the time of the Civil War that, "John was discussing the hostility between the North and the South with Paul Machemehl of Bellville, Texas. Many Germans did not believe this was their fight and many joined Paul Machemehl and rode south to Mexico to sit out the war before returning."

This is just one source. Thanks. User:Bhaktivinode March 28, 2007

The "John" referenced there is Johann Struss, not John Machemehl. Nothing there suggests that it is about John Machemehl. Fram 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons for nomination. What is verifiable through reliable sources may be merged to the more adequately sourced descendants. Genealogy homepages crowding the refs do not meet WP:ATT, nothing to verify "noted forrester" or "leader of men", and there is currently advertising posing as a reference. MURGH disc. 15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to add that there are many points to consider in debating the notability of the John Machemehl article. Being the forester for the city of Annaberg, or the size of the migration are just a few of these points.

Aside from these points above is the context of John Machemehl in German-Texan history. Here, what is historically significant, aside from the points above, is that John Machemehl led a group of Forty-Eighters from Germany to Texas, not to any normal destination for German Forty-Eighters. This in itself is an important and notable event in the context of German-Texan history. There are many points to be considered. They should be treated one at a time. Please. Thank you. User:Bhaktivinode March 28, 2007

  • Keep There is no reason that the information in ths article should not be added to Wikipedia. It is valid historically information that can be categorized in a manner to make it available to people interested in this type of information. FloNight 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Some early pioneers will be notable, if they were political or community leaders. DGG 03:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And on what reliable source do you three base that assertion? We only have a genealogical site by a direct descendant as "evidence" for all this... Fram 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this situation that type of sourcing is adequate. We need not hold every type of subject content to identical standards. That is the reason that content is always decided on an individual basis, article by article, by groups of editors rather than rulings of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. If you carefully read our policies and guidelines related to content, you will note that sources written by individuals or groups can be used for articles about the individual or group if there is good reason to think that they are true and are in fact a good source for the information. If we did not take this approach, we would not be able to fulfill our mission of collecting free, encyclopedic information on all possible topics. Many topics would not be covered adequately. Historically some groups were not covered by what we consider reliable sources today. Pioneers, historical women, U.S. slaves and other minority groups are examples of groups that are not adequately covered by traditional sources for varying reasons. Therefore documents such as letters, other historical documents, and well documented oral histories can be used if the information is not contentious. I hope this explanation helps explain why I support the inclusion of this article. Take care, FloNight 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the above. Also, I would like to add an additional point to those listed above. The fact remains that this is a new article and both minor and major events have yet to be filled in historical gaps. An example would be that I only recently came across the birth, death, and cemetary records for both John Machemehl and Henrietta Borel Machemehl found at [38]. This is just one example. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007
Thanks for replying, FloNight, but, well, I have a completely different understanding of our WP:ATT policy here, and I feel that this interpretation opens the door (or more precisley the floodgates) for almost every person willing to spend an hour writing something down to have an article on Wikipedia as long as they have a trustworthy looking source about themselves, no matter who writes or publishes it. The claim that we have no reliable sources for historical groups and figures and completely irrelevant and is plain wrong: we have no contemporary reliable sources, but there is no reason we can't have more recent reliable sources,and in fact we have such sources for every notable person (since that is exactly the definition of being notable of course. If those more recnt reliable sources are absent (as is the case here), then the person fails WP:BIO (which John Machemehl clearly does) and fails all but the most liberal interpretation of WP:ATT.Anyway, even accepting your interpretation of the use of self-published or questionable sources: this is the full extent of the sole source we have: Sometime between 1845 and 1850 John Machemehl, his father Michael and very young son Paul came to Texas from Germany. Their coming to the U.S. was part of the sizeable German migration which resulted from the unrest in the various German principalities in the revolutionary period of the 1830’s and 1840’s. John’s wife, Henrietta Borel, brought with them on the 10 week sailing voyage a china set which now is in storage at the Mohle Drive home of Helen and Marlin Bownds where my son Jonathan lives. John had a university education, was forester for the city of Annaberg in Saxony. His wife Henrietta, born in Switzerland, was a French Huguenot who was a governess for the family of a Russian prince of Courland whose estate was on the Baltic. She met John Machemehl in Saxony while traveling with the Russian Family. Henrietta died in Texas in 1850. John married two more times, had four more children, and died in 1880. Why would you want to have an article on this person, even if you would accept the source as good enough? What distinguishes him from thousands of other persons? The only thing that distinguishes him is that someone has put this info on his personal website... Fram 15:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fram if you bring this back to a debate on what distinguishes John Machemehl, you are returning to our early debate for speedy deletion, which was denied. These reasons are:

  • He was a notable member of the German community of Annaberg as he was the city's forester.
  • He was a member of the Forty-Eighters.
  • He was an early German-Texan settler.
  • He provided leadership for the early German-Texan settlers.
  • He was the central figure in an historical German-Texan family.
  • He was the father of Paul Machemehl.

These were a few of the items which distinguishes him. Thank you for your reply. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

Comment. I completely agree with Fram. No matter how inadequately one may feel someone is covered by the chronicles, it doesn't expand licence to overlook Verifiability. WP as a tool to connect with reliable sources is diminished by accepting article material on this basis. How can this article get away with just claiming JM was the forrester of Annaberg, leader of men etc. A valid article will point me to trustworthy doccumentation of this. There's that, and additionally the genealogy flavour about this. MURGH disc. 16:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment This article does need work. This is for certain. It is only a few days old. There is still new information to be filled in. I have only been researching this for the past few days. Today I found a reliable record for the Machemehl Cemmetary. This link can be found at [39]. Also, I recently found that he recieved his American citizenship in 1856 at this site [40]. There is informatin concerning his father and sister at this link [41], and more on another sister here, [42]. Also for general archives conerning Johns involvement in the German Texan heritage of Bellville can be found at [43]. These links helps fill some more information about these early German Texas settlers. I will be adding more when I come across it - BUT, frankly I believe there is already enough information to substantiate and article entry. Thanks again for your comments and review. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007
I am not bringing it back to a debate on notability, notability is just one of the aspects in this deletion debate. And an article that is not speedyable is by no means exempt from deletion through AfD: the requirements to delete something through speedy are much stricter, and it is enough that one editor (apart from the creator) disagrees to make the speedy impossible. For speedy, you need an article that does not assert notability. To survive AfD, you need to show that notability with verifiable, reputable, independent sources. I think this article fails on both accounts, since all the claims made are not enough to make someone notable (interesting, perhaps, but not notable), and those claims are not supported by verifiable, reputable, independent sources: all we can verify is that he lived and where and when he died: I have no trouble accepting that he was the father of Paul either. But I have seen no evidence that he "provided leadership" or was a "central figure" beyond being the father of one barely notable person and the grandfather of one notable person: notability is not transferable. Information on his family is irrelevant for this discussion: it may be interesting to add to the article if it is kept, but it plays no part in the decision to keep or delete it. Please check out WP:BIO and see for yourself how John Machemehl thoroughly fails this. Fram 19:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You start out saying you are not taking the debate back to notability, but your article above is centered on this question of yours alone. John Machemehl was an early German Texan settler. That is enough. He does not have to part any seas as Moses did. I have shown above that there are many sources. I strongly disagree with you and am confident that this is the beginnings of a sound article. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

comment I have edited the article on John Machemehl, added soucrces and primarily - I have tried to place the disagrements over sources within context. If others are willing to assist, I would be more than appreciative. Thanks for review the above. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

  • Weak delete I think that being among the first European settlers in an area is potentially notable, depending on the historical circumstances, especially if the person is one of the leaders of the group. The problem is sources. The sources you are using are primary sources from which a biographical or genealogical account could be written. But if you were to do so--and it does look as if you are setting about it in a reasonable way--this would be the first time the material had ever been compiled, and would count as OR. I am not very restrictive about NOR--I think that assembling together obvious public sources into an article is legitimate. I believe that an article about a person based on a suitable secondary work but incorporating something from the primary public record is justifiable. But gathering a number of primary sources, checking the inscriptions of tombstones and on library collections of primary sources in unpublished genealogies and (in some other articles) prison records or social security records or deeds or immigration records, or the Sanford map series, --not here, but in other similar articles -- is OR, in the most basic sense. This is what local historians do. I'm not sure that there is yet as suitable wiki for the purpose, but there surely will be--and then we can discuss whether compilations there count as reliable secondary sources--I think it would depend on the standards of the Wiki. I might be prepared to accept such as site as the Wintermann library site as RS for the purpose if it gave sources (which it doesnt) --but not for this particular subject as he is only mentioned in a summary account of another family. So in conclusion, weak delete as probable OR. DGG 23:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have no indication that he was "among the first European settlers in the area" though. Among the first German ones perhaps... Fram 05:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since information discerned from the Bownds Archives has at times been at the center of this debate, I have placed it, within the article, in sequence - as an afterthought. Please do judge the article in this new context, with a much reduced reliance upon this source. Thank you for considering these issues. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

I have added a series of edits to the article in order bring it into line with some of the criticisms leveled above. I now please ask for any responses concerning these recent edits, in this process, from people yet to be heard from, or those who have some constructive input. Thanks you for reviewing these comments. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Machemehl Family House. The person is generally notable for a few things but lacks attribution in places, such as being a forester; the article reaches too far at present. On the other hand, he and his father describe the beginning of the USA branch of the family tree in which contains Paul Machemehl, Louis A. Machemehl, Chuck Machemehl, and Charles W. Machemehl. As a result various facts about the historical roots of this family will become attributable over time, and the Machemehl Family House article is the best spot for them to land on wiki. John Vandenberg 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve I agree with the above but only in part. While I do think that the Machemehl Family House is a page that should mention John Machemehl, as a member of the Forty-Eighters who led his family and companions from Annaberg to Austin County - John Machemehl should have a page in his own right as such an early German Texan settler. Right now, the article does need to improve more, but it has improved over the past few days, and I suspect it will continue to improve quite more over time. Presently, I and am open to any and all constructive ideas. Thank you for reviewing the above. User:Bhaktivinode 30 March 2007
  • Keep relevant to German Texas history.

User:Merknorton 1 April 2007


Comment Because this debate has gone on for five days and the above parties, who have either commented, voted to keep or delete, have made their case in the comments above. Should this debate be closed? Thanks you for reviewing the above. User:Bhaktivinode 2 April 2007


very weak keep On a site brimming with commercial junk & pop culture fan noise, it's good to see actual historical data. I would prefer a merge to a deletion, but I pick keep by a thin edge. Ventifax 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallow

Hallow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is a dictionary definition of a word, which according to 'what wikipedia is not' belongs on wiktionary. Sandpiper 07:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is not a dictionary, and is probably speculation for Harry Potter 7.Olin 13:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve. The article seems to be more than a dictionary definition as it gives a history of the word. RockerballAustralia 09:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve as per RockerballAustralia. --Phill talk Edits 09:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Editor Sandpiper, with all due respect, is incorrect. The Hallows article, while possibly constituting a stub that is under construction, already constitutes (after only 2 days of existence) far more than a simple "dictionary definition of a word", although it certainly contains definition material (cited to dictionary). The article also links to the existing Wiktionary entry on the word, for a "more proper" definition and derivation reference. There are well cited definitions and usage examples, regarding Halloween and Hallowmas, and a well cited reference to Hallows literature (Tolkien's use of Hallows in The Return of the King). The "Immediate Deletion" recommendation appears to be connected to the ongoing debate at the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article on the Talk Page. Admittedly, the article was also created in response to the same debate. The reason to keep is this: As the seventh J. K. Rowling Harry Potter book comes closer to release, many many young people and adults will be looking for information on what Hallows might refer to, and it is the Wikipedia editors' duty to at the very least provide information on what the Hallows "currently are" (outside of the Potter books). That said, speculation about what Rowling's Deathly Hallows might be, should be at the very least restrained and controlled, if not banned. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all the material in the article was exported from the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article, which is the sole reason for the creation of this article. All the material fits the definition of a dictionary entry as described in the relevant page from what wikipedia is not. The current wiktionary entry is a one line stub. This article as it stands is exactly what ought to be on the wiktionary page. Now, I have no objection to the material being reinserted into the page where it came from, where it served to explain the rather obscure title of the book. But by itself, it is only a definition, because the word has no other real-life usage. This article has become the centre of a debate on the 'Deathly Hallows' page. I would not have taken this to AfD so quickly if it was a simple stub, but the conclusion of the content debate on DH rather depends upon whether this is in itself a legitimate article. I contend that its sole reason for existing is to contain a definition of the word for the benefit of the parent article, and it would much better exist inside that parent. As a separate article it serves to confuse rather than inform readers, who would expect the information to be in 'Deathly Hallows'. There is no issue of excessive length in the parent articleSandpiper 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - There is already an independant hallow entry at the wiktionary --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
which has a stub one sentence definition.Sandpiper 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actually, according to the 'Wiki is not a dictionary' page this extended definition is just exactly what a wiktionary entry ought to be. Sandpiper 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not exactly sure where this belongs, whether on the encyclopedia (it does provide more than a mere definition, which is not against WP:NOT) or on the dictionary (it is basically an elaborate definition, with uses), but I strongly support the keeping of this information somewhere on Wikipedia or its sister projects. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful for the parent article which surely will be a top read article, it's too bad wikipedia doesn't have contactable sections, but it doesn't so making a new page is whats going to end up happening for now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Owlofcreamcheese (talk • contribs) 03:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and improve Okay, right now the article is only a bit more than a definition, but it has improved, and I suspect it will continue to improve. This articles very existence has been helpful in reducing conflict about HP7 to this page. If the article can keep up a comprehensive list of non-speculation about HP7, but rather what Hallows are as used in various pieces of literature, I think it's worth keeping. Tuvas 16:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from WP:WINAD referring to what a wikipedia article is.
Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth.
Hallow fits this description. It is an article about the concept of "Hallows". It talks about what hallows are considered in many contexts. Compare this to the same line for the wikitionary:
Articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.
This article does not fit this criteria. It doesn't deal with it's part of speech, puralizations, usage, etc. It only deals with the concept of Hallows, which are mentioned in many works of fiction. Thus I conclude that the article fits far better the entry for wikipedia than wikitionary. Tuvas 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super speedy keep, this article is far more than just a definition. Also, the existence of this article will partly solve the persistent debate which lasts over a month just circling around the "hallow" issue. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not sure what it looked like when this AfD appeared, but right now it looks like a well sourced and very informative encyclopedia article about several different historical and mythical items referred to as "Hallows", far more than a dictionary definition. --Maelwys 18:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: I think we all know that Sandpiper has initiated this just to prove a point and to try to push speculations back into the HP article. This reason is already enough to debunk this deletion request. But we can also see that this article is absolutely not a "dictionary" entry since it contains a history of the word in the literary context (moreover, the fact that the Grail is a hallow, increases the value of this article in the perspective of a "arthurian legends" category). You see, hallows are not mere objects, they are a the very center of many, many myths, both christian and celtic, and that's precisely the focus of the article, to replace hallows in their literary context. Thus this article is extremely relevant, and certainly won't be deleted just because of some petty rivalries over speculations about a fantasy novel that has not much to do with the real focus of the article. Sandpiper seems to have forgotten that the word Hallow has existed way before HP, and that such an article is just an essential part of a bigger work here in Wikipedia, on english traditions, and always leading the discussion back to his own petty disputes about an ultra-minor aspect of Hallows, shows Sandpiper's unability to have a general view on things. Folken de Fanel 20:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil and assume good faith 01:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It is important that this matter be settled before any decision on the HP page is decided, rather than this page being deleted one month afterwards. Wouldn't want that to happen, would we? Note that the WINAD page says about articles which would not be appropriate for wikipedia:
note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length. A full dictionary article (as opposed to a stub dictionary article, which is simply where Wiktionary articles start from) will contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed. Sandpiper
I have read the section, and for the life of me, I can't see whether this is an argument for inclusion or exclusion from wikipedia or wiktionary. It seems to be more an observation on what makes a good entry in either. Sandpiper
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article suggested for merge already has the substantive information from this article including source. Gnangarra 06:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper Nicholas Trebeck

Prosper Nicholas Trebeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

His only stated claim to notability is having built the first structure in Winchelsea, Victoria, Australia. No proper citations, and one of the "Winchelsea" links is actually to Winchelsea in England. DoorsAjar 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A bad link is something easily fixed. Editors are human and make mistakes. And I can't seem to find this bad link... -- saberwyn 08:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was trying to point out improper use of citations--this was listed as source material, so the author should've read it. I take your point, though. The incorrect link is to winchelsea.net. DoorsAjar 08:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this AfD resembles a WP:POINT listing as it was referred in on AfD then listed here. The consensus here is that its not an "indiscriminate collection of information". Gnangarra 05:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBC slogans

List of NBC slogans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Similar to list of Seven Network slogans, which is also on AfD, this is an indiscriminate collection of information. Resurgent insurgent 08:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And according to [47] there is a hall of fame for such slogans. It may be an industry group, but that they are doing it points to some validity of the subject on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party 3 minigames

And also List of Mario Party 4 minigames, List of Mario Party 5 minigames, List of Mario Party 6 minigames, List of Mario Party 7 minigames, List of Mario Party 8 minigames
Previous nomination, which was withdrawn, can be found here.

Trivia. Not encyclopedic. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No actual improvement since previous AFD. >Radiant< 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The List of Mario Party minigames decision was entirely opinionated.Bowsy (review me!) 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep or merge to main articles: Not trivia, I will source it very soon, this isn't an unencyclopedic list, passes WP:NOT as it isn't game guide material, the list just goes on .....Henchman 2000 10:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As these articles are linked to a major CvG sereis, a merge would also be appropriate. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A prose section in the main article using a combination of secondary sources and the primary source is more appropriate an encyclopedia-like. As it is, this is not useful for people who already know about the games and not useful for people who don't. This is fairly analogous to a plot summary and I believe the reasoning behind articles not being plot summaries is applicable to this as well. No improvement since at last AFD too. Wickethewok 14:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC
Wikiproject:Nintendo's aims, is to provide a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo, which is what this list does. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how are these lists not useful for people who don't know the minigames? Henchman 2000 08:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look, you will find that only the LMP3mgs is unsourced, so WP:ATT is no reason for deletion. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See comment above. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: In no way is this trivia. Mario Party is about minigames over anything else. Bowsy (review me!) 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THis doesn't fail WP:NOT, also, you must show why you think it *can't* pass WP:NOT. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, one could interpret this as failing either WP:NOT#DIR and/or WP:NOT#INFO. Note that there are no hard and fast definition of NOT given, just examples and a rough definition. The purpose then of the AfD debate is to establish consensus as to whether an article passes guidelines - if a user feels that it violates WP:NOT there is nothing in the guidelines or policy that says the user must show why the article cannot pass inclusion criteria. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a strong argument, then yes, you must. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how do they do that? Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cruft is no valid reason for deletion, and look carefully at almost every comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft, there you will find that any delete vote of "cruft" of any description should be discounted and there is a consensus for this. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THis benefits those that are looking for precise information, and an encyclopedia is supposed to give precise information, isn't it? And this is not indiscriminate as it is linked to a notable sereis. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these articles cannot be kept, put them on my userspace Henchman 2000 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT an INDISCRIMINATE collection of info but this isn't indiscriminate as it is on a notable subject. f it was random crap I could understandbut it's not. Also, they are NOT GAME GUIDES because a game3 guide gives THROUGH instructions with hints and tips. Oh, and the articles ARE sourced. Have you seen the "References" section yet? Bowsy (review me!) 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot of them. WP:NOT a game guide works well here, as well as no claim whatsoever to any sort of notability. Game guides would be a trivial work here. Remember the standard is that it has to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial works before it can be considered notable. -Mask 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, can you please simplify what you're saying about notability and why these articles don't qualify. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All The Mario Party series of games are indeed notable, but the individual games within Mario Party certainly are NOT. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of city nicknames

List of city nicknames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article fails to maintain a NPOV proclaiming many, many places as the x capital of the world without referencing. Todd661 08:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC) COMMENT Keep in mind[reply]

  • indiscriminate information
  • WP:OR.
  • When something is so blantant is giving a POV we cannot wait for a reference to be included. If I was to put into the article that "George W. Bush is the best President the USA has ever had" it would be deleted straight away, and so it should be! Here, it is EXACTLY THE SAME. Todd661 08:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Sourcing something of this size is a large task, but impossible? Hardly. In fact, there are several sources to draw on that could act as citations for many of the entries. Once the vast majority of it is sourced, the unsourced entries could be deleted, to be re-added if someone finds a citation. After that, it's easy to tell if any given edit is reasonable on the basis of its sources. I'm actually planning to do something very much like this in a massive overhaul of List of tequila brands. -Harmil 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 11:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Subs

Yellow Subs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that the club meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The only references provided are two external jumps, neither of which mentions the club; one provides contact details for the sports centre at which the club is based, and the other is a customer testimonial by one team member on an entirely unrelated site. A proposed deletion template expressing concerns about notability has been removed, as have Notability and Unreferenced templates, without any evidence of notability being provided. EALacey 08:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What evidence would you like? Furthermore, what evidence do you have that it is untrue? It's not like theres video tapes of everything. What is it your wanting to allow this article to remain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 28 March 2007.
    • Comment Nobody is claiming the article is untrue, but truth is not the sole requirement for an article existing. You need to add reliable sources to the article that prove that a) the club exists and b) the club meets notability requirements. Have a read of WP:ATT for further details ChrisTheDude 10:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As described at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), to qualify as notable an organisation must have been the subject of independent reliable sources. The article provides no evidence that this has been the case. In fact, the references provided are insufficient to establish that the club even exists. Your request for evidence that the article is untrue is irrelevant; as described at Wikipedia:Attribution: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." In any case, establishing the accuracy of the current article would not demonstrate notability. EALacey 10:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What evidence would you like? Furthermore, what evidence do you have that it is untrue? It's not like theres video tapes of everything. What is it your wanting to allow this article to remain? The both links serve a purpose to prove that both player and competition actually exist. Secondly, the player link also allows the reader to acknowledge the player's background, showing the type of lifestyle he lives. We could put up a team photo....a video....just because they dont have a website doesn't make it not credible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Neither link proves anything relating to this team. The first one proves that a particular sports centre exists, it doesn't say anything about this team playing there. The second link proves that someone with a name matching one of the players was very impressed with the services of some bank, that doesn't prove anything about this team, which is the subject of the article. If you read the policy I directed you to above, you will see that an article needs to show evidence of independent coverage in reliable sources of the actual subject of the article. If this isn't possible then the article doesn't meet WP guidelines. Hope this helps ChrisTheDude 10:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not operate at a sufficiently notable league level. MLA 10:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have spent time trying to find these sites to prove the existence and i have referenced them.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - club seems non-notable, no evidence of notability provided. Qwghlm 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. It's an indoor soccer club, guys. No wonder there is no substantial external coverage in reliable sources! Does anyone other than its members even know of its existence? Probably not: User:Tal1988 is certainly the founder. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is actually quite a large fanbase. As we are in Melbourne's top division for free age Indoor soccer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs)

I appologize for my act of immaturity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs)

  • Rightio, since you believe it can't be proven, then delete the article on wikipedia for "God". God cannot be proven to exist. So if something established, thats proven to exist, cannot be on the site, then how can something so unsubstantiated be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 31 March 2007.
    • The God article does not make any claim about God's existence, but merely reports what philosophers and theologians have said on the topic. In any case, as numerous editors have pointed out, existence does not equate to notability. Whether or not God exists, the topic of "God" has been the subject of non-trivial published works. That does not apply to Yellow Subs. EALacey 07:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solemn

Solemn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is essentially a dictionary definition. DoorsAjar 09:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of the seven Keep commentors, four are accounts registered after this AfD and which have few edits except here. The other three are all three registered before this AfD, but only a short time before, and which have a reasonable number of edits outside this AfD, considering that they are new accounts. The first four have little or no standing, the standing of the other three is somewhat questionable. That leaves the nominator and one other commentor in full standing. Both suggested Delete. This is not really a quorum. But looking at the links,

  • this seems not to refer to eDesk onine.
  • this, maxine.com, is an online magazine. How popular it is I don't know, but purely online sources have a low entry cost.
  • this, reviewcentre.com, is just a sort of formum for users to post reviews of products. And there is just one such review.
  • this is not a review, just a note that that (small) website is now using eDesk online.
  • The other four links are just sites that are using the software.

So... one legitimate link, its legitimacy low because it is online. Because of the very low publishing cost, online magazines are often closer to being blogs than they are to being real print magazines, although that's not necessarily true of maxine.com.

Therefore the Keep argument falls apart. Herostratus 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edeskonline

Edeskonline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not furfil Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), in particular no refs from suitable secondary sources, all links are from derived products. Only reference is from a public web based review site GameKeeper 09:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on adding reference links. I also paste below an extract of my comments on the talk page below:

I just spoke with the customer support guys at edesk online and asked them about reference links to newspaper/magazine articles about them. They have informed me that few magazines have already reviewed the site, and are expected to publish the same soon. Again I request everyone to help me in improving the content of this article and add any reference links they come across. Dhshah 09:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It is definately a well written article: several links to this article from wiki pages have been appreciated. Eg List of Online Office Suites has a good comparision. Sanjiv swarup 06:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more reference link of an independant organisation has been added. Dhshah 14:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checked out the reference Ramesh debata 10:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been able to locate a fourth reference Sanjiv swarup 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article now fulfills Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Dhshah 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have gone to the site of edesk which is of much benefit not from any particular country's point of view but from the point of view of the whole world. You need not carry any software just your login shall help you to operate from any corner of the world and it has got all features which a ordinary person having least income as well as a big shot having very high income is available. You can store anything you like. You are maintaining the accounts and any outsider cannot access to your accounts not even the tax people. How convinient it is. So I feel that the article should appear and rather it should be given wide publicity Ssunderagarwal 09:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ssunderagarwal 08:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete. - Since i have gone through the above comment I think there should be no reason for the page to be deleted. I visited the site myself and i find it has all tht has been described... This article should be published rather than deleting it.. Vijaykumartb 09:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Миша13 18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big cove ymca

Big cove ymca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Somewhat spammy article on an unremarkable summer camp. Contested prod. MER-C 09:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your face/life is unremarkable.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, discussion regarding potential merge to Arunachal Pradesh can proceed on the talk page but the consensus is to keep the information. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Tibet

South Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not a clearly defined geographical term in English, thus not notable. The article gives two conflicting definitions, without proper sources. —Babelfisch 08:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep regardless of whether this is a currently defined geographical space. Appears to have a historical existence and could potentially be expanded with information about its history. A geographic or political region is notable. I'm no expert on this so happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. MLA 11:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on Arunachal Pradesh and South Tibet is just a Chinese name for that piece of land. The region is disputed between India and China and it makes no sense to have 2 articles on the same topic. --Incman|वार्ता 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis did you jump to that conclusion? The article itself says that "it roughly corresponds to the presently Indian-administered state of Arunachal Pradesh". Therefore, Arunachal Pradesh and South Tibet have the same history, geography, demographics and culture. --Incman|वार्ता 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment,this article is composed based on various contents found in Arunachal Pradesh and Tsangyang Gyatso, 6th Dalai Lama.--Ksyrie 08:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Right now it seems that Arunachal Pradesh and South Tibet are just duplicates of each other; if they do start diverging in the future, they'll probably end up as POV forks. So I say merge unless we can find some way of splitting the scope of the two terms that would result in more NPOV not less, like we've done for ROC / Taiwan. I'm open to ideas as to how this split could be carried out. -- ran (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSouth Tibet may be a older name than the Arunachal Pradesh,moreover,the two regions are not completely the same.I strongly disencourage to merge or delete.--Ksyrie 06:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if "South Tibet" is older than "Arunachal Pradesh"; in fact my impression is that "South Tibet" is just a name invented recently by Chinese activists. The PRC government would probably refer to it simply as "disputed territories along the eastern section of the Sino-Indian border", or "Indian-occupied territory south of the illegal McMahon Line", etc. -- ran (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The name of Arunachal Pradesh wont exist before 1960s,for this regions,there should be one name to describe it.Arunachal Pradesh is a very very new name and nothing to do with the its tibetan connection.And your claim south tibet was a chinese fabrication was totally ungrounded.At least South Tibet emphasised the historic connection for this regions while Arunachal Pradesh is tthoroughy an alien imposed name for its people who lived in these regions.--Ksyrie 21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 11:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flinders soccer club

Flinders soccer club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:PROD by User:Mattinbgn was contested by the article's author, so I'm bringing it here. The club is not notable outside a small university and amateur league soccer circle. There are no secondary sources to create a verifiable article. cj | talk 09:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Virginia Tech.Herostratus 15:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect. Shimeru 15:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech Center for European Studies and Architecture (CESA)

Virginia Tech Center for European Studies and Architecture (CESA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable educational center (nothing etabishes the notability, google give only link to vt.edu, so no indipendent source). Ev. can be merged into Virginia Tech. Cate | Talk 09:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to significant improvement. Cúchullain t/c 05:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Goth Scene

Toronto Goth Scene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy deletion. Reads as original research, no compelling evidence to support the assertion that this is materially different from the goth scene elsewhere, but not a speedy candidate. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This looks like a write-up on how to get into the Toronto goth scene rather than actual, encyclopedic documentation on the subject. This doesn't quite sit as something that I'd really think belongs on Wikipedia - even with lots of data. --Dennisthe2 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given consensus on the discussion below, I'm changing my vote to weak keep - which is actually what I was hoping for. =^_^= The list of clubs and whatnot don't sit well with me, still, as it makes it feel more like a social organization page - but I won't interfere with it. --Dennisthe2 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Epbr123 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Dennithe2 and Epbr123 both make unfair criticisms. I do not believe there are any instructions on how to do anything at all.

This document has no information presented in a how-to do something style.

    • It doesn't matter at the moment about the style of the article. All you need to do is provide a reliable independent source which talks about the Toronto goth scene. Epbr123 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You think I'm being unfair? Change my mind. Make it into something that doesn't appear to have those qualities that I found in the article. I will be frank: if I wanted this kind of information in an encyclopedia, I'd locate it in the Seattle Weekly - which itself is everything except encyclopedic. --Dennisthe2 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Epbr123 and Dennisthe2: originally you stated it reads like a how-to article. I said I did not believe it read like a how-to, but that I would make certain changes. I said it was unfair to characterize it as a how to article because the data was historical information and therefore even if some statements seemed like they were instructiions, those were merely defects in the phrasing and not in the entire article itself. The article has since been ammended and presently you've both come back and seem to have dropped or did not continue the "how-to" criticism.
        • putting aside the new issues, are you now satisfied that the ammendments made to the article addressed the "how-to" issue to your satisfaction?
        • Epbr2: you state that all I need to do is provide reliable independent sources which talk about the toronto goth scene. I have provided sources which are both reliable and independant. They are not all independant of the city of toronto itself. The only self published source in the article heads up a ghost research historical society (something distinct but not utterly unrelated to goth), was never a goth himself, and is regular content contributor to a licensed commercial Toronto area radio show on the paranormal, he would not just make up historical facts on the origins of the goth scene. The rest of the sources are taken from third party secondary sources, or toronto mainstream culture reporting. Its fully cited and their statements are verifiable. If their vernacular is informal its because the are culture media. Where claims of reactions from the "goth community" are made, these media sources are making such claims and have indicated who they were getting such reactions from. I'm not putting in rumours or my personal anecdotes. references are provided for everything. And if the reader may object to a specific one, that is not a defect in the ENTIRE article. The facts given are from these sources and the information is presented in chronological sequence as is appropriate for such an article. Even 'OR' sounding claims such as the Ann Rice preponderance in the scene are merely claims as reported in those media sources (and the ann rice connection is repeatedly stated by seperate media). The claim about "fashion victims" was from an interview published by the authors of a published printed book called the Goth Bible, as part of his or her own seperate secondary research. One of his or her interviewees was from toronto. And that is what the interviewee said and I quoted it exactly as said as to show its nature. These are not a self published statements, however but published by a independant researchers. in any event this article contains no original research, even if it may seem to. References are provided.
        • Dennisthe2: you said "Make it into something that doesn't appear to have those qualities that I found in the article. " The only issue you raised was that it seems like a "how to". and you talk about not wanting a certain "kind" of information in an encyclopedia. if you are saying the history of major subcultures in a city of 3 million is not worthy of an encyclopedia, then there is nothing I can do to convince you because that is the topic of this article. But this is not a current events article. Its 30 years of history. history doesn't change. It is encyclopedic. If an article on Grunge speak """Grunge speak was a hoax created by Megan Jasper""" is appropriate for wiki, if there is an article on a commin book about the goth scene Johnny the Homicidal Maniac in wiki or on a so called goth/punk clothing store Hot Topic on wiki, what makes an article documenting the history of the transformation of a "freak" subculture tranforming into a specific form of goth subculture which in turn became pop-culture, and finally imploding in the aftermath of columbine over a 30 years period in the 5th largest city in North America inappropriate for wiki? Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia. And I think its unfair to call this a how-to or prohibit this kind of information in this specific case but allow even more trifling information about a hoax of a fake gruge slang or a comic book in wiki. TheDarknessVisible 01:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • But, there are a number of problems. First, the article still reads like...well, a Village Voice Media article about where to go to be part of the local goth culture and what to expect. Second, and much more importantly, the article doesn't tout why it's notable. What's so notable about the Toronto goths? Do they exclusively listen to Closed Caskets For The Living Impaired, right after listening to A Prairie Home Companion? Is there a larger concentration of $religion in this group? You get the idea - but of course, you'll also have to explain why those are significant! Every locality has its goth clubs/raves/cliques/whatever - you go to Los Angeles, Orange County, here in the greater Seattle area, you name it, you'll find it, and as near as I've seen, there is no more notability in each individual scene than in Toronto. So that's going to be the big one. If you can tell me why Toronto goths are more notable than goth at large, I'll compromise on the first pointer and change my !vote. But if you can't do that, then there's no way to hold it against WP's standards and make it stick. Reference here for notability standards, here for verifiability, and here for what are considered to be reliable sources. --Dennisthe2 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There is a lot of self-research in the article. However, there does seem to be a decent amount of validity in keeping the article if it's overhauled (although I think someone other than TheDarknessVisible should step up to do so; I won't). Toronto is actually known for its goth scene. --Iriseyes 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing how excellent the article is now, I've changed my vote to strong keep. --Iriseyes 14:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I was the editor who originally flagged this a speedy. However, this article has undergone worlds of improvement since being AfD-nominated, and is still in the process of being improved. Dozens of sources are being worked into the article, several relevant pictures have been added, and the situation is really looking up. I urge the closing nom to compare the state of the article before (when some of the above !votes were cast), to the current state. I read through it all, and I might go so far as to say this article is on the verge of B-class. --Czj 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notability: "A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."

The article does not need to tout why it is notable.

Toronto Star is independant. Eye Weekly is Independant. Now Magazine independant. Montreal Mirror is independant. The Vampire Book is published in MI and hailed by the independant Chicago Tribune as "the most comprehensive collection of vampire lore". Its notable and It is independant. doubledeckerbuses is independant. torontogoth might be the only source that is not independant of the goth scene, but it is cited specifically only to list goth bars.. and it is independant of those. The Gothic Bible is independant.

The Toronto Goth Scene has been the subject of multiple non-trivial or even substantial pubished works. That passes the notability requirement.

As for verifiable: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. "

the links are all there. any wiki reader can follow them and verify them.or go to amazon.com and buy them.

Dennisthe2:"Every locality has its goth clubs/raves/cliques/whatever - you go to Los Angeles, Orange County, here in the greater Seattle area, you name it, you'll find it, and as near as I've seen, there is no more notability in each individual scene than in Toronto. So that's going to be the big one. If you can tell me why Toronto goths are more notable than goth at large, I'll compromise on the first pointer and change my !vote. If you can tell me why Toronto goths are more notable than goth at large"

I believe you have misinterpretted the wiki rules. I don't see a wiki requirement that the subject be must more notable than other subjects. this is not a paper encyclopedia. TheDarknessVisible 01:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Perhaps you don't understand. What I am applying is a combination of rules and precedent. Each region in my explanation has its own goth scene, but each region has nothing particularly unique about it other than geographic center point that makes it notable, and even then, the geographic center point becomes little more than an identifier - a commonality for any subculture. That lack of notability keeps them off of here - and frankly, I have a few goth friends that dismiss claims of regional notability in general. Never said anything bad about Toronto, but that's an aside. (Just that it's a decent place.) Granted, too, that this is something more of a gauge, rather than a hard factor - but gauges can point to what is there. So now you're left with the fact that you now need to have the article tout its own notability - this is not only contrary to your claim above that it doesn't, but is in fact per the guideline found at WP:N. A history of the area's goth culture is great, but again, why is it notable? Hell, furry fandom is on here as notable - not because it has a history, but because of its pervasiveness on the 'net alone. I have a history, but I'm not notable. At any rate, until you can answer that question, my !vote stands. A suggestion: if you need more time, preserve and modify the article in your userspace, and bring it up in deletion review if you can get it up to snuff. --Dennisthe2 17:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 05:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennisthe2: I read the rules on notability (for the 20th time). I'll bring you attention to a few.

""""Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".""""

Also: you've made a big deal of this particular view that you hold "as near as I've seen, there is no more notability in each individual scene than in Toronto. So that's going to be the big one." and also you say "I have a few goth friends that dismiss claims of regional notability in general." and yet:

""""Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc.

General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.""""

You seemingly have conceded that Toronto Goth Scene is actually technically notable according to standard wiki rules. However now you've stated that you believe there is a wiki rule or "precedent" that is a standard wiki policy stating that subcultural topics must go BEYOND the standard wiki rules of notability, but actually must establish they are somehow MORE NOTABLE compared to other things that editors suspect fit in the same catagory.

The issue of a "history section" was merely to justify that this is NOT a "how-to" article, it has no bearing on the argument of notability which deals strictly and objectively with whether or not its been noted in independant publications.

can you please direct me to the wiki page describing this precedent you have referred to so that all the people who are voting are able to assess the comparative notability according to the wiki guidelines, if such a guideline actually exists.

the article actually does provide an independant music journal based out of Montreal (another city, and ___location of the later dawson college shooting) noting that toronto (which is the 5th most populous city in North America) had the highest concentration of goths anywhere in the WORLD and Toronto may as well be called "gotham city". no one EVER made such a claim for orange county.

But I am not going to argue that toronto is MORE notable than orange county or whatever your "baseline" is, unless there is an official wiki guideline.

on google if I search for "toronto goth" I get 15,900 hits, "orange county goth" gets 9,710 hits. "Seattle goth" gets 3,520 hits. "LA goth" gets 12,200 hits. "Los Angeles Goth" gets 599. "New York Goth" only gets 694. "New York City Goth" gets 3,460, "Chicago Goth" gets 821. "Mexico Goth" gets 670 hits. "San Fransisco Goth" gets 1,240. "Montreal Goth" 306

Perhaps you would like to see that in the actual wiki page, if you think the page is obligated to TOUT its notability.

It seems that more people talk about Toronto Goth than any other place in north america, that I can think of typing into google. of course this, like the opinion of you and your "goth" friends doesn't really matter unless there is in fact a rule about establishing something is MORE notable than another thing.

here is a reference specifically referring to "Vancouver's Goth Culture".. obviously someone distinguishes it from Toronto's goth subculture. [1]

Here's a ref specifically saying "Toronto's Goth Culture" [2]

there is a notable difference or people would not make note of it. and it is not for wiki editors to subjectively judge these things.

TheDarknessVisible 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since we can't agree, it would be wise at this time to allow somebody else to make their call. As such, my !vote stands as is, but I'm stepping out of the debate. I have nothing more to say here. --Dennisthe2 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I only asked you to provide the wiki page which discusses the precedent you cited that Toronto Goth Scene must be *more notable* than other scenes. Why would you refuse to disclose that? You and some other 'delete', in fact MOST of you. seem to believe a topic must establish GREATER notability than others, and none will show the wiki policy page.TheDarknessVisible 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Distinction from goth subcultures elsewhere is gradually being backed up by reliable sources. The article is still not near where it should be but it will get there. Look at the diffs to previous versions over the past few days since creation and please acknowledge the genuine efforts made to comply with all policy. Toronto's goth culture may not be any more notable than ones elsewhere, but it is notable by being discussed in various sources (reliability of some is questionable, but I'm looking into it) and works in pop culture. It is not this article's fault that articles for other cities do not exist. At least some of this information is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but a merge into Culture in Toronto would make it excessively long and too heavily focused on one subject, which means it should be split per WP:SUMMARY. –Pomte 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no wiki rule requiring "compelling evidence to support the assertion that this is materially different from the goth scene elsewhere". (and the history of no other goth scene whatsoever is actually documented in any detail anywhere on wiki) DennisThe2 can not back up his claims that this is a "how-to article" and has abandonned them, hoary said delete because he found an earlier style of narration humerous.. this is no longer the case. The article is extensively referenced and is not OR (or none remains), but rather a neutral summary of many independant sources reporting on the topic. The article advances no position. Otherwise as per Pomte.TheDarknessVisible 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has turned into quite an impressively detailed and well referenced article. If only other subcultures were covered this well. - SimonP 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a shame none of the references are reliable and independent. Most of them don't even mention the Toronto goth scene. Epbr123 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pardon, the bulk of the information seems to come from Eye Weekly and NOW, which are both prominent news magazines in Toronto and can certainly be considered reliable and independent. - SimonP 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Has anyone outside of Toronto ever written about it? Epbr123 20:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • They might not have, but widespread coverage in several local media sources is certainly enough to provide verifiability. - SimonP 00:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The answer is yes in fact. several are outside of torontoTheDarknessVisible 08:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which one's? Epbr123 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Goth Bible, Montreal Mirror, Mardust music and The Vampire Book were all written and published outside toronto. the first 2 from montreal, the next 2 from michigan. goth bible discusses at least 2 goth stores in toronto, how "gothic" fashion was brought from the UK to toronto by Groovella, and includes an interview with a St.Catherines (small city nearby toronto) DJ who discusses bands from toronto and how the lack of local bands has forced local goths to be more involved with what goes on overseas. Also the same author publishes some interview material with toronto goths. mardust has an article about toronto's goth scene called "Rennaisance City", and talks about how in 2003 the scene in Toronto was still hanging on unlike other cities. montreal mirror in 1998 talks about how there are so many goths in toronto and said toronto may as well be called "gotham city" and Mitch Kroll's opinion that toronto goths are shallow and pretentious and in fact are glam more than goth. vampire book talks about groovella and siren, the worlds oldest vampire/goth fashion store (closed since 2005). there are 4 non trivial publications talking specifically about the toronto goth scene, published and written outside of toronto. dont interpret this as me agreeing that newspapers inside Toronto can't be relied upon; they are independant of the goth scene. however you asked. there are also some other sources which talk about it, but their reliability in wiki terms is unknown right now so I am not mentioning them here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDarknessVisible (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

References

  1. ^ Goth culture defended in wake of triple murder
  2. ^ [1]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No assertion of notability or verifiability. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Phi Psi

Nu Phi Psi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obscure fraternity that fails WP:CORP. Created by single-article editor User:Nucahpo88. Tagged for notability 6 weeks ago when I didn't see any non-trivial Google results. Mereda 10:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by JzG[48]. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 14:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graffitixpert

Graffitixpert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This service/company fails corporate notability. They only have 76 google hits, and no online news articles. No notability I can find Peripitus (Talk) 10:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.--Wizardman 13:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously kept in 2005, I believe consensus on notability has moved on since then. Specifically, of the cited sources, four are from the subject (not independent) and those which are independent do not appear to include the name Kinsella. Does this person pass the primary notability criterion? If so, the article does not indicate it. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time.
Here are multiple independent sources:
  1. citation of Kinsella by Robert P. Murphy and Gene Callahan re: Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics
  2. CV for Walter Block listing four articles coauthored with Kinsella and published in notable venues (Block even tests his Law & Economics students on Kinsella's IP views)
  3. Notable debate about intellectual property with Kinsella and Ilana Mercer on one side and James DeLong on the other, from Insight Magazine. (linked article above is hosted on Kinsella's website, although not originally published there)
  4. Google Scholar search for "Stephan Kinsella" that yields 232 results (including a lot of his patent work, his articles in various journals, and many, many citations in the work of other notable scholars, including Walter Block, Roderick Long, et al.)
I think it is abundantly clear that Kinsella is notable enough for inclusion. DickClarkMises 14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity, and as the initial author of the article (my first contributions to Wikipedia, I should add :), I think it is important to note that the nom is correct about the fact that the article needs improvement. I fully intend to expand the article using the sources I found above. Right now I am just a little busy. Others are obviously encouraged to expand the article if they have time. DickClarkMises 19:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Capitol Recordings

South Capitol Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable record company, fails WP:CORP. Part of the never ending spam campaign by Profound Intent, see here, here, and here One Night In Hackney303 11:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by A Train. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley Central

Smiley Central (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert the notability of the subject per WP:WEB. Nv8200p talk 11:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximus (rapper)

Maximus (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per the guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 12:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnangarra 06:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cabramatta black dragons

Cabramatta black dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Anon-removed Prod. I can't find any sources (reliable or otherwise) for a gang of this name, which is perhaps not surprising when dealing with street gangs in general. Obviously there are notable street gangs, but there's nothing that seems to demonstrate that this particular one is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Water polo

Glossary of Water polo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Nv8200p talk 12:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Current consensus on WP:LOCAL seems to be that proof of existence is sufficient notability for human settlements. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gobabeb

Gobabeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert notability of the subject per the guidelines of WP:LOCAL. Nv8200p talk 12:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, bad-faith nomination. AfD is not for solving content disputes, as long as everybody agrees there should be an article on this topic. Which is pretty obvious in this case. If the nominator wants a clean rewrite, he can write one any time (but he'll be well advised to get consensus for that beforehand, difficult as it may be.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch (ethnic group)

Dutch (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsalvageably inaccurate, POV fork of earlier 'Dutch people' article slanted to Greater Netherlands ideology, clean-up, cn and accuracy tags are constantly removed, no consensus after months of circular discussion and reverts, scrap this version and begin again with 'Dutch people' Paul111 12:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. The nominating editor has long tried to completely change the article. As anyone can see, the article has plenty of references. Currently there are 91 footnotes alone. No other article on an ethnic group, not even featured ones, have that many references. This user has accused contributors of hidden far-right agendas and repeatedly flooded the articles talkpage with supposed claims that were not even in the article. Because his version, or adaptations of the article were reverted by multiple users many times, this is just another attempt at disrupting the wikipedia process of writing a good article. To me personally this request for deletion just radiates the following thought: "If I can't have it my way, nobody will have it his/her/their way". I hope (but don't really doubt) others will follow and also oppose this request.Rex 13:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, as this is a content dispute (as admitted by the nominator: "..begin again with 'Dutch people'"). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, nominator tries to solve content dispution and edit war with AfD - unacceptable. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Nominator tries to solve content dispution with AfD, not acceptable. Arnoutf 13:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Wizardman 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Dov Wolpo

Shalom Dov Wolpo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:BIO, his books seem to be self published, I don't think that he qualifies for an article yet. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that PinchasC is nominating this article for deletion because he is a Chabad anti-messianist, and he wants to keep all material about chabad messianists out of wikipeida. This guy is the originator of Chabad messianism which is why he (a) he is 100% notable and (b) PinchasC wants this article deleted.m Also note that his books have been discussed in numerous scholarly books and journals as they represented a paradigm shift in Chabad thinking. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is not true, I don't have the time to get into a petty argument now as to the conspiracy theories of why I nominated this article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so why have you nominated an article for deletion (part of a patern) which has numerous not-trivial sources, and when you know full well that the man is very very notable? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse killer

Spouse killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 9/11 REcommission Report

The 9/11 REcommission Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Promotional; non-notable Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources quoted. If actually mentioned in some of the references (other than Alex Jones), might deserve a section in Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11, but no sign of adequate notability for an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr.

Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - article was previously nominated and closed with no consensus. There has been little improvement to the article in the intervening time. The article remains an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any time the words "Sammy Davis Jr" are mentioned in any film, song, TV show or podcast. Reasons offered for keeping last time boiled down to "there are other articles like it" which is not a good reason for keeping an article and a suggestion that the article be "cleaned up" and "verified," which did not happen. See similar AFDs for John Coltrane, The Who and Aerosmith. Otto4711 13:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably should be a section under Sammy Davis, Jr. if allowed per talk page. BlackBear 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion on that would be that the only part of it that might possibly be acceptable in the main article is a list of the people who played him. I can't see any need to clutter up the main article with such gems as how They Might Be Giants said his name once. Otto4711 13:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate information. Plasticbottle 02:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As the editor who created Wikipedia's featured list called Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc I can see what this editor has been trying to do here. I've reorganized it a bit and removed the lone podcast. The other entries are notable and verifiable. Actual verification would help, as would a clearer inclusion criteria: depictions of Sammy Davis Jr. ought not to include instances where he acted or sang. Wikipedia has plenty of articles of this sort of varying quality. Slap a cleanup template on this rather than delete. DurovaCharge! 13:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comparison? Have a look at the featured list's embryonic form as it was on October 26, 2005 (two days before I started editing).[54] Doesn't look promising, does it? Wikipedia has a large contingent of deletionists who probably would have jettisoned that material from the project. A similar wholesale deletion actually happened at Alexander the Great, but fortunately a deletionist was conscientious enough to repost the material to the talk page so that it could get rescued as a separate list. Where's the dividing line? The facts on this page are notable and verifiable - maybe not so highbrow by today's standards, but exactly the sort of information typically discarded as ephemera until it's nearly impossible for later generations of scholars to recover it. In the late twentieth century it took a doctoral dissertation to track down all occurrences of Joan of Arc in film. Many of the early prints no longer exist at all. Electrons are cheap - let's not repeat that destructive cycle. DurovaCharge! 03:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Electrons are cheap" is also not particularly compelling. We have policies and guidelines and articles that don't meet them are deleted regardless of how cheap electrons are. And no, there is no comparison between the JoA or the ATG lists and this one, which seeks to capture such vitally significant items as Adam Sandler's singing the name in a song, which is in no way notable. Otto4711 04:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarcasm is not particularly compelling. Social historians read such data as evidence that this individual remains known to younger generations. One of the principal questions such people must address is whether a celebrity of the past is a forgotten name or an iconic figure. If one happens to be a biographer preparing a book proposal about Sammy Davis, Jr., the ability to cite recent references such as Adam Sandler's is quite meaningful. DurovaCharge! 00:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't being sarcastic at all. Perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means. And may I also add, free of sarcasm, that if any writer proposing or publisher considering a book proposal about Sammy would even mention the Adam Sandler song in the course of the negotiations, let alone sell the book on it, I'll eat Sammy's glass eye. "Oh yeah, all the kids'll be running out to snap up the book based on their intense curiosity about Sammy that was ignited by Adam Sandler's throwaway line in a novelty song!" Otto4711 18:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (yawn). or merge into his article. I agree with the non-comparison with Joan of Arc. --FateClub 21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Durova. She had shown these list are inherently doomed and the suggesting to clean up and maintain the list is much better than to delete the text and see the references to jump back into the article. Those who disagree with this kind of articles have chance as anybody else to propose effective Wikipedia policy to deal with them (including 3RR & blocks). It would be much better than to move even more burden on maintainers of the main article. Pavel Vozenilek 09:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mínus

Mínus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this band really notable? There are various claims in the text, but the references are all YouTube links! Suggest that this article is either significantly improved, or else deleted. And yes, it is yet another vague band article... Robinson weijman 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if this is deleted then so should Hey Johnny!, Jesus Christ Bobby and Halldór Laxness (album). Robinson weijman 13:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Ain't

We Ain't (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No idea why this exists... not a single, no music video, no chart action. The article doesn't have any content - no infobox, no formatting, no anything. Looks like an Eminem fan creating articles for fun. - eo 14:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 00:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spend Some Time

Spend Some Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No idea why this exists... not a single, no music video, no chart action. The article doesn't have any content - no infobox, no formatting, no anything. Looks like an Eminem fan creating articles for fun. - eo 14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ 17:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puke(Song)

Puke(Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No idea why this exists... not a single, no music video, no chart action. The article doesn't have any content - no infobox, no formatting, no anything. Looks like an Eminem fan creating articles for fun. - eo 14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Deeds

Evil Deeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No idea why this exists... not a single, no music video, no chart action. The article doesn't have any content - no infobox, no formatting, no anything. Looks like an Eminem fan creating articles for fun. - eo 14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cúchullain t/c 04:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Caceres

Marco Caceres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for notability for a few months. Bio article for founder of a charity in Honduras but I see no sign of significant third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Google may not be enough to rule out notability, given that his project is in a developing country where web presence may not indicate notability.

Further, consider these sources. The ProjectHonduras website (admittedly not an independent source) [57] - but it does show that that the Marco A. Caceres, that John Carter links above, Marco A. Caceres, the satellite engineer, the one with quotables established on a quotes website etc., is in fact the same person.

There is independent verification that he was a finalist for the Petersburg Prize, now called the Development Gateway Award

From the Petersburg Prize website, detailing the reasons for his nomination:

Marco Cáceres, Projecthonduras.com, Honduras: For outstanding use of the web to connect potential sources of aid to those in need. Mr. Cáceres created Projecthonduras.com, a website that has been notably successful in using the web to bring together organizations and individuals to form strategic alliances, publicize needs, and better coordinate aid and relief resources for one of the poorest countries in Latin America. Source: [58] - I will add this to the article.

I note that the 2006 winner of this prize is also a Nobel Prize winner, so it is probably a notable prize. Scarykitty 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this. I'm tempted to reconsider, although it's still not so clear to me that we have enough sources to properly reference the content. Pascal.Tesson 20:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Even after the information found, I still think the subject fails notability guidelines (especially through independent sources). I am attempting to wikify the article, but if kept, it would probably still look like it needs a substantial rewrite. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 06:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Another "Who's Who" entry, which I don't really mind. But looks very much like self-promotion. Ventifax 22:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 07:46Z

Florida Trail Riders

Florida Trail Riders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I had tagged this for speedy deletion as advertising, but I think it's possible that it's notable enough to have an article, so I'm opening discussion instead. Leebo T/C 14:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungrykids

Hungrykids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable non-profit organization, probably created by Brad Hines (see also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Utzchips, Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_66.131.7.78 . OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cúchullain t/c 05:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in Harry Potter

Dates in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT for plot summaries, and has no reliable secondary sources for most of the statements (in fact, the article says that "Harry Potter fans have created a timeline..."). Furthermore, Wikipedia articles should be written from an out-of-universe perspective. The info in this article is the (perhaps correct) interpretation of events in the Harry Potter books, but is in no way needed to make the out-of-universe description of the subject (the books, the author, the characters) better understandable or more comprehensive. There are no outside reliable sources (like newspapers) discussing when the events in HP "really" happened, never mind when broomsticks were first used for transport. Fram 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the dates all come from the books, other publications by Rowling or have been endorsed by Warner bros on the film DVDs. This example merely illustrates a case where 'fans' have published something, which has then been confirmed by official sources. It rather illustrates that Warner do not share the poor view held by some wiki editors of fan sources. Sandpiper
  • Comment This article has been around since 2005. How did it last this long? From what I've seen of the history, evens admins have edited the page. Acalamari 23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I will agree that this article is not written from an out-of-universe perspective, it is not original research. The Harry Potter Lexicon has compiled this timeline; the Lexicon is a site which the series' author J. K. Rowling uses to fact-check information while without her books and writing; the films' producers also use the site almost every day for reference. As for the significance of the timeline, perhaps it would be better to merge all this information into appropriate articles, but it is appropriate somewhere. I know that articles, meant to be written from an out-of-universe perspective, would not include this information, but to mention this as a "within the series" sidenote is something I feel is okay. I don't have a strong vote for keep, nor for delete, but the information is what is important here, and I feel it belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fancruft.--Bryson 02:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a valid argument. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Wikipedia:Fancruft I am saying the article is not notable.--Bryson 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fancruft is "a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the amount of editing and input into that article - including from admins who, surprise, surprise, didn't view it as unimportant - would suggest that it is of importance to more than a few. Michael Sanders 16:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - The fact that admins have edited the article doesn't mean much. Personally, I'll edit articles that probably should be on the chopping block, just 'cause I can't stand all the terrible grammar in some of these things. (Worst is when they write a multi-clause sentence and lose track of or ambiguate who the subject of the sentence is) Now, if you want to bring said admins into this discussion and have them explain why they think the article should stay, that would be different...Zaku kai 16:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Harry Potter is notable, but the "Harry Potter timeline" is not. Unless there are multiple non-trivial sources (excluding fan-related sites) that discuss the Harry Potter timeline. Plasticbottle 03:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a question – you are aware that, though this is what one would term a "fan site," it is supported and recommend by Rowling for research relating to her series? She has a close relationship with her fanbase and knows how to sort out the right from the wrong in terms of reliable sites. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but you are absolutely and irrefutably wrong about that. This is not a fansite, it is an encyclopaedia. It doesn't matter what Rowling or her fans think it is, a fansite it is not. And I say this as both a Wikipedia admin and a Harry Potter fan, father of two sons both of whom are also Harry Potter fans. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I think you know that that argument is a thoroughly stupid and childish argument. The standard for inclusion in wikipedia is sources and notability. The article is sourced - not well, but since it all comes from the books or Rowling's site, it can be improved - and it is about a fantastically popular and widespread phenomenon. Whereas no-one googles to find your cat. Michael Sanders 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No rules are being bent. There is no Original Research in the article - the information all derives from the books or from Rowling herself. And whilst the style is slightly poor, it is hardly abysmal. On the other hand, there is no way - unless your cat has been the star of a few films and books - that an article on your cat (let alone its birthdate) would be at all notable. And such facetious arguments are hardly to your credit. Michael Sanders 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I don't understand the meaning of your comment about dates in an encyclopedia then. The only reason for including an article with dates in it, in your comment, is that it encyclopedia's have dates. I'm saying that the presence of dates alone has no bearing on the article's status. Leebo T/C 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly not. My comment was in answer to the claim that 'this is not a fansite, it is an encyclopaedia'. Right. It's an encyclopaedia. My point was that encyclopaedias contain dates, and since this is an article containing dates relating - and this is the part your cat will be disappointed to hear - to a notable subject. Its justification in being included in an article is jaw-droppingly obvious. Michael Sanders 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that's what you didn't indicate - dates related to notable subjects. I don't disagree that Harry Potter is notable, and that my cat is not. I do think that it's in-universe original research though. That's why I think the fact that it being notable in-universe original research shouldn't override it. Leebo T/C 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there isn't original research in it - all the information in there derives from Rowling. If you want, you can flag up what you believe to be OR on the article talk page. Michael Sanders 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Fbv meant that the Harry Potter Lexicon, from which the article's information is drawn, is a fansite. Zaku kai
  • Keep Since the series refers repeated to events taking place outside the span of the narrative, and since a recurrent theme is the reconsideration of the roles of the characters, a timeline is clearly relevant and notable. DGG 03:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A couple of tiny -- and not entirely consistent -- reference points spun up into a giant original-research-o-rama. Kind of like cotton candy/candy floss, where a little bit of sugar is spun up into a giant fluffy cloud. --Calton | Talk 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But not spun out by us, merely reported by us and sanctioned by Warner Bros who have adopted the result of this research into their official background information. Sandpiper
  • Keep Gives the reader a greater understanding and grasp of events in the series Michael Sanders 08:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe information all comes from the books, and as such is all sourced, or in principle could be, to the relevant reference to a book/chapter.(or comments by Rowling) A similar list was compiled and published by HP-Lexicon on their website. This list was adopted by warner bros, and included in the DVDs of the films which they have issued, so again the timeline itself has also been largely published separately and is accessible by anyone with a copy of the film DVD and a computer. To be more precise on this claim of authorship, Warner have acknowledged privateley assistance from HP-Lexicon in creating their films, but have not publically acknowledged where they got the info. However, Lexicon maintain their claim, which is published on their website, and also comment that a mistake in their original posted timeline was reproduced precisely in the one published by Warner. The information collected in this way is useful to any reader wanting to better understand the events of the books. It is not a plot summary, as it does not summarise the plot. Rather, it analyses the information and presents in a more useful way than simply re-telling the story. It is not OR, firstly because it is merely a tabulation of dates extracted wherever they occur, but secondly because it has been published elsewhere. As to e.g. when broomsticks were first used for transpot, I fancy this comes from the book by Rowling 'Quidditch through the ages', so is sourced. A lot of trivia about HP has been released by Rowling either in these ancillary books, or in her continuing posts on her website, e.g. 'wizard of the month'. As far as I am aware, being in- or out- universe is no criterion for deleting anything. It might argue for rewriting, but I'm not exactly sure how you would propose rewriting a list of events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
quick, that sometimes irritating bot Sandpiper 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction): Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective. (bolded and italicized in original). Furthermore, retelling plot events, no matter in what form, is to me a plot summary. That it is a widely distributed plot summary is irrelevant in that case. Finally, being WP:USEFUL is not an inclusion criterium. Fram 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the solution to that is to ask someone to rewrite it from an out of universe perspective. Not delete it.Michael Sanders 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:USEFUL is an essay, not a policy. And there is a difference between making wikipedia a phonebook and providing information about a very popular book, which a lot of readers want to read about. Remember, we are here to serve the readers, not the opinions of those editors who dislike 'low-brow' articles. And there are plenty of readers who want to be able to find out information which is important to the novel. And it is better that we provide that information - since we can ensure that it is trustworthy and reliable - than allow readers to slope off to a website that may have wrong information. Is that not the point of wikipedia? Otherwise, why bother? Let the readers go to Britannica or Encarta for information on science and history, let them google for information on their favourite soaps and pop-stars! What is the point of wikipedia, if we do not write about everything that we are interested in - provided, of course, that it is notable enough, and is sourced. This article is on an extraordinarily notable subject, is part of a phenomenon. It is not well sourced, or well written; that can be improved. But if there is any purpose at all in wikipedia, it is to ensure that we provide as thorough articles and subjects as possible. Which this article goes towards fulfilling. We all know that wikipedia's strengths lie not in its accuracy, or writing style - how could it? - but in the breadth and depth of the subject matter. This attitude only destabilises that strength. Michael Sanders 16:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Please understand that the information is not OR nor NN, the article is just not in top form. It should be tagged as unreferenced and out-of-universe, but the content is important. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking a style guideline about how to organise an article is not grounds for deletion. By word count about 50% of the article discusses how dating has been arrived at and is entirely real world , out of universe discussion of the books. As to the list of dates arrived at, I really don't see how this would be significantly different if in officially in-universe or out-universe style. Sandpiper
Unless multi million dollar films and the companies creating them are considedered unreliable sources of information, it is not OR. The description of how the dates were originally derived is accurate, but they have in any event been adopted as official. The article is one of maybe 300 in the HP series, and as such deals with the issue of relative dates for all the articles. It is a necessary part of the understanding the whole. Sandpiper

*Keep : simply NOT OR because all this was used in an official Warner Bros DVD that is JKR-sanctionned (thus it is false to say "has no reliable secondary sources"). Had WB not re-used this timeline in an official product, I would have agreed that despite obviously being correct it was still OR according to WP's criteria. But that's not the case, it's featured in an official product. Folken de Fanel 20:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: opinion changed after reflecting upon this. Article is non-notable on Wikipedia, it is enough to write the revelant dates in one single sentence in the relevant articles.Folken de Fanel 22:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the whole timeline was published on a Warner Bros DVD, why is the Wiki page not a copyright violation? Did Warner Brothers credit Wikipedia, or did WB or some other author claim copyright? Thanks, TheronJ 20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For one, it appears WB took the information from the Lexicon without attributing claim to that page (see the section on that page called "The Official Timeline"). For another, it is not a word-for-word copy. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. The original data, then, is copyrighted either by Warner Brothers or by the website that alleges that they copied its material; in either case, it's not public ___domain. If the page were attributed to the DVD, that would resolve OR problems, but, IMHO, raise copyright problems. Even with minor rewording, I don't think the page would avoid copyright issues. With major rewording, IMHO you would be back to an OR problem. TheronJ 21:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Surely anything from the Lexicon would be in the public ___domain (their issue with WB was crediting of derivation, rather than with demands for royalties)? Michael Sanders 21:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Lexicon website has a copyright notice "Original content (c) 2003-2007 The Harry Potter Lexicon", and they've disabled copy paste so that when you copy, you get a copyright notice instead of their site text, so I would say it's not public ___domain. More generally, if Wikipedia is copying Lexicon material, then it's just wrong for Rowling to be directing traffic to us; we should have a link to the Lexicon, and they should get the hits that their work has generated. TheronJ 21:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • er what? information is not copyright, only the particular form of words. Otherwise there would be nothing in any article here at all. Sandpiper 22:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't follow either. Rowling is not directing traffic to Wikipedia, she has sanctioned the Lexicon. She has never acknowledged Wikipedia. And, as Sandpiper said, how can information be copyrighted? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ugh. I'll give that some thought, but let me get this straight. (1) The dates on the Wikipedia page weren't calculated by Wikipedia editors, they were calculated by the authors of The Lexicon page. (2) Rowling has stated that she personally relies on The Lexicon. Is that right? Also, where has Rowling stated #2 and why isn't it sourced in the article? TheronJ 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • (1)I would say the majority of dates-events are simply extracted from the books or specific statements by Rowling. e.g, Minerva McGonagall is asked how long she has been teaching and says so. Therefore a trivial calcualtion says the date she started was that number of years before the year in which that book is set. The clues referred to in the introduction were used to determine the school year of one set of characters. From, this a number of other dates simply follow. Similarly, another set of clues defines the school years of a second set of characters and more dates therefore follow from the text. The assembly of these clues was originally done and first published as an argument for particular reference dates by Lexicon. The resulting dates were then effectively confirmed by their publication as official background information, by Warner bros. So while the Lexicon proposed one method of fixing dates, I am not sure precisely whether this is Warner confirming their method, or simply using authorial fiat to choose to make the official dates happen to agree with those suggested by Lexicon. No one has exactly confirmed that Lexicon's orignal arguments determining the reference dates were right or wrong, the dates have simply been adopted. In one sense, the reference dates may literally not have existed before lexicon's contribution. However, now they officially do exist as background information about the characters. So essentially the dates now exist on many websites simply as information extracted from the body of official information published in connection with the series. The dates on this page are a collection of such information, and a similar page (well, several and in more detail) exists on Lexicon. The now official dating therefore has many sources outside wiki or Lexicon. However, Lexicon lays claim to the method of dating and to an original contribution to the stories. This is, in its own right quite interesting. A website arguably altered the course of the books.
              • (2) is a bit easier. See Harry Potter Lexicon. Rowling stated that she is in the habit of working in cafes etc, and that she has been known to check a fact about her books on the Lexicon website, rather than go to a bookshop and buy a copy to check something. Sandpiper 21:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but is a plot summary, which violates WP:NOT, and which was the first reason it was nominated. It is just a different method to present the stories, fundamentally in-universe, and is thus a plot summary. Ergo: it should be deleted. Fram 12:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic and plot summary. How has this survived so long? Bartleby 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My reasoning is different than the original nomination though. If this was published on the DVD's, it would be a copyright violation to reproduce it. If it were real life dates, then no one can copyright that, but this is not the case here. Slavlin 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is plagued with constant Original Research and speculation. I can't see how sentences like "It is possible that Fudge could be referring to a more distant predecessor" is in any way relavant. There is not ONE singal source that states Rowlings world is meant to parrallel the real world. All other sources are fan sites trying to compare the Harry Potter universe to the real world and is completely original research, or where sourced, it is still unreliable sourcing (citing fan pages)... which don't have notibility. Thought of course this will end as no consesus because it is to popular... I gave up trying to remove OR from Harry Potter pages ages ago because the fandom is to strong. Even the timeline is a copy edit problem, stolen from the DVD, the rest of the article is just plain OR and fancruft.--Dacium 09:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it all derives from the books, and from what Rowling has said. It matches the timeline from Lexicon and the DVD, yes, because they wrote it out from the same sources. I already asked those editors who believe there is OR in the article to demonstrate it on the article talk page. No one has done so. Michael Sanders 21:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have it backwards. For Wikipedia, you have to show that it is NOT original research under guidelines in WP:OR. This includes Unpublished synthesis of published material. "The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Slavlin 21:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It comes from the books, Rowlings interviews and websites. And yes, it hasn't been sourced properly. But that can be done in time. However, there is nothing in the wikipedia rules to justify the deletion of an article if assured that it is not Original Research; rather, you point out questionable figures or claims. Michael Sanders 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I voted keep (mainly because the claims that the dates in themselves are OR is false), but I might change my opinion...It's true that if we remove all the OR in the article, there only remains the list.
So, what we have to know is what would be the use of such a list ? Knowing the age of the characters ? This can easily be mentionned in a single sentence in the relevant articles. Knowing when the books are supposed to happen ? Again, a mention in the relevant articles is enough.
Really, such list can only be interesting on fan websites, and since dates have never been of great importance within the story of HP (JKR didn't even bothered to mention precise years, except for one occasion, Nick's "deathday" -or whatever-) the notability on Wikipedia is probably close to zero...Folken de Fanel 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A description of the way the date references were originally derived by lexicon is not OR, in fact it is more by way of history now, since it is detailing how the relative dates in the originally published books became absolute dates confirmed by warner bros. But leaving aside why we might dismiss half the article from consideration, the dates are important. Firstly, the article serves to collect all the date information in one place where it can be referred to from all the articles rather than being repeated all over the place. Second, it helps to understand how events relate to each other, if there is a straightforward list which can be referred to. The article is one part of a rather large series. Sandpiper 00:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we could argue that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, above all for such a trivial subject (dates in themselves are not important, otherwise JKR would have elaborated on them -but the events are important, of course). Then, WP is not a plot summary either, what's the point of summing up all the events in a chronological order, if it's already given in the books (with indications concerning the order) ? We would have to add analyses and all to avoid being exclusively in-universe. What could we say more ? POV statements that Warner stole lexicon's chronology, and OR to fill in the blanks between JKR's various inconsistencies (btw, would these exist if dates were so "important"? ) ?Folken de Fanel 00:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_28&oldid=118517313"