Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 1

< November 30	December 2 >

Guide to deletion

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 delete. Core desat 03:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Still At It

Mix tape by a non-notable musician; fails notability criteria. No links given to reliable sources, so verifiability also failed. I initially prodded the article, which was contested by an anonymous editor. —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the above the article has a problem under WP:CRYSTAL. Xymmax 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mix tapes aren't really notable to start with, unless they're by a major artist. A mix tape that won't be released for four months is very much not notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone, nn.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nn Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 00:11, 6 December 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. Core desat 03:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Taxonomy

Aside from being an apparent neologism (contra WP:NEO), this borders on the puzzlingly nonsensical. What, exactly, is meant by phrases like "Epiphany and self actualization still is best with date and rank, but removed to its own notebook of sorts," or the baffling "Propriatism internalized perception of metabolic activities from pain right through to pleasure. Circulatory awareness via meditation attached to geography, mode and time helps with citation of condition or self state in a higher resolution understanding"?

Beats me. But even if there's a seed of actual meaning floating behind all that gobbledygook, it is one unique to this entry. While I found 2K ghits on the phrase "personal taxonomy", it usually refers to what you'd think it means: custom organizing of stuff. Searching for the phrase in conjunction with "transhuman" or "transhumanism" provides only links back to this entry. (Note that this is categorized under "Transhumanism").

Also, the external links have no connection whatsoever to the topic, and the Wikimedia Commons and Wikiquote entries alluded to on the page are empty. All in all, feels like a sandbox accidentally set loose in WP proper. P L E A T H E R _talk 23:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I personally classify this as genus nonsensica, species extincticus. Clarityfiend 00:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsensical. JJL 02:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense and WP:NEO Chris! _ct 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A neologism and nonsense. Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensical. Chri$topher —Preceding comment was added at 01:30, 3 December 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. Core desat 03:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Adams County, Iowa

Wikipedia is not a directory Whitstable 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a directory. It is intended to be expanded by those who are familiar with the cemeteries in question, similar to a stub article. The cemeteries don't need articles of their own, yet are points of geographical and historical interest, hence the list. Such lists are not unusual in Wikipedia; for example, there are various lists of places that appear on historical registers in various states. Omnedon 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that 30+ cemeteries in Adams County are notable. I can think of one cemetery in Atlanta, off the top of my head, that is notable - but then, Margaret Mitchell is buried there. I don't think a list of all the others in the city would enhance the encyclopedia, especially if they can be readily located from the USGS. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are thousands of cemeteries in the world. Should we list them all? No we shouldn't because it is trivial and non-notable information. Same here. Chris! _ct 03:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. After all, one might argue that there are many towns in the world, so we shouldn't seek to list them all (particularly since one can readily find them through Google Maps, Mapquest, etc.), but I suspect few of us would advance that argument. Burial grounds are generally accepted to be both historically and culturally significant, and the utility of documenting such things is already well accepted in Wikipedia as Omnedon points out -- see List of Registered Historic Places in Indiana, for instance, and many other similar articles. I can see no reason why this one should be treated any differently. Huwmanbeing ★ 04:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Majoreditor 04:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot of non-notable cemeteries in a list adds up to one big collection of non-notability.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I think this is the what the spirit of WP:NOT a directory is aimed at. RFerreira 08:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. This article doesn't fit any of the examples at WP:NOT. It is a standalone list. It can be expanded to describe each individual cemetery, which is the goal -- to provide a brief encyclopedic description without having to have a separate article for each cemetery. This sort descriptive information is not available from USGS. Notability is relative; by the standard that is being suggested by some here, a lot of existing articles should be deleted because relatively few people care or know about the topics -- such as small towns. This would be a low-importance article, just as many other Wikipedia articles. Omnedon 13:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood the notion of notability. According to WP:N, a subject is notable if it received significant coverage in reliable sources. Since there are virtually no significant number of reliable sources per this Google test search, the subject (cemeteries in Adam County, Iowa) is therefore not notable. Also please noted that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Chris! _ct 06:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia discourages the subject has X hits, ergo it's non-notable argument -- please see WP:GOOGLEHITS in Arguments to Avoid. I think the point is that sometimes the determination of notability is necessarily less quantitative and more comparative, as the guidelines acknowledge. In this case, the subject is something that reliable geographical/cartographical organizations like the USGS document, is described by some local/historical/genealogical websites, and is likely also the subject of local research (though that'd require someone with access to local sources to say for certain). Huwmanbeing ★ 13:27, 4 December 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 Nomination withdrawn with only "keep" votes placed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music City Mall

~~Non-notable mall in Texas, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep In addition to its 750,000 making it a very large regional mall, being the site of a TV station and the only skating rink in a 300-mile radius would seem to be strong claims of notability. Alansohn 00:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a TV station in a mall? That is notable. Listed references address RS. Article expansion is encouraged. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn, large regional mall with certain notability. RFerreira 08:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I withdraw my nomination; consensus seems to be that malls in the 700,000 square foot range and upward are notable. The TV station and ice rink add notability, so I say keep it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:37, 2 December 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 - Redirect Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi Community School

Minor fictional subject with no real world notability Ejfetters 22:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Redirect to Degrassi. Blueboy 96 19:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I like watching the show and all, but both articles are pure fancruft that fail WP:FICT and are mostly WP:OR and WP:PLOT. Excessive detail that is might be necessary or appropriate for a Degrassi fansite or wiki, but not for an encyclopedia. Collectonian 09:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite Notable setting for a highly notable and popular television series. If this were to be merged, the proper target would be Degrassi: The Next Generation. However, given the length of that article, a summary style sub-article about the fictional setting seems appopriate. But this article does need to be rewritten from an out-of-universe perspective. DHowell (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and do not keep. I'm sure that this fictional school could be covered in the other articles about this series. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into another Degrassi article. Doesn't need its own article. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 December 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.--Kubigula (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South African Chamber of Commerce in America (SACCA)

Non-notable organisation, with no third party sources, playing the "worthiness" card in an attempt to justify continued existence of the article Mayalld (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Organisation is notable and is refered to in other places within Wikipedia itself. Other aspects too: recognised at Clinton Global Initiative- featured at the event (highlighted). Organisation opened recent Wharton Africa conference as keynote alongside ex President of Mali. Organisation opened recent TEDGlobal event- look at Wikipedia entry for TED. 2 other entries for "Jacob Lief" and "Cedza Mandela Dlamini" have these Wikipedia profiled persons sitting on the SACCA Board. Need to be fact based. Not an issue of worthiness card but relevance is high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.222.70 (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, found nothing but press releases, so no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See http://commitments.clintonglobalinitiative.org/projects.htm?mode=view&rid=209757 it outlines a global initiative of SACCA showcased at The Clinton Global Initiative, providing a strong and well recognized independent source with an attribution of Transaltantic notability.
Comment see http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/view/id/138 Organisation featured on global platform. — SAChamber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Also see Clinton Global video honoring org to international audience in last 10 minutes same stage as Tanzanian President http://video.clintonglobalinitiative.org/health_cast/player_cgi2007_nointro.cfm?id=3606 — SAChamber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Group is low key but South African Chamber is notable as feautured at wharton business school as key note alongside some other global groups like GE etc http://www.whartonglobal.com/africa/index.html — SAChamber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Speaking at a conference is insufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Tuf-Kat (talk) 14:58, 9 December 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 and redirect to List of minor characters in Star Trek: Enterprise. Please create the article and merge the content there within the next few days. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left a notice at WikiProject Star Trek asking that this merger be completed so that it can be done however they determine is best. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mallora

Minor fictional character with no real-world notability Ejfetters 21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following minor fictional subjects from Enterprise due to lack of real-world notability as well:

Merge and redirect ~~most~~ instead of deleting. Merge Mallora and other ~~Xindi to List of Xindi. Merge other~~ characters to new List of minor characters in Star Trek: Enterprise; Arik Soong is probably worth keeping. Pa'nar to Stigma (Enterprise). ~~etc.~~ - Fayenatic (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are lists exempt from notability requirements? Is these are merged and redirected to the articles you suggest, does that confer them the requisite notability? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect most instead of deleting per above. Pa'nar Syndrome appears to be a subject that should have more outside impact and most likely could be brought up to spec. Agathoclea 23:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not -- Descriptions of fictional works. Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should provide sourced information to provide commentary on the works' real-world context, such as development, production, distribution, and cultural reception and impact. Both for encyclopedic purposes, and also to qualify as fair use, summary descriptions of plot, characters and settings are appropriate only in the context of real-world information, not when they are the sole content of an article or told entirely from an in-universe perspective. This applies both to stand-alone works and to series. (See also Wikipedia:Television episodes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot.) These articles are not notable enough in their current forms to stand alone because they are almost entirely in-universe reiterating plot subjects. There is doubtedly enough real-world information on these minor subjects/characters to add that would rectify this. These are great articles for memory alpha though, but as for Wikipedia I am afraid not. Ejfetters 06:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect i do not see why this needed to come here in the first place--combining this into lists of minor characters, etc. is a reasonable editing decision. If the eds. involved think one or two worth keeping separate they can discuss it there. DGG (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per nom. Without reliable secondary sources, there is no justification for these articles, nor their merger into an even longer list of characters with no real world notability. --Gavin Collins 12:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply (with acknowledgements to User:Carcharoth): This is verifiable non-notable information that can be merged to an article on a notable topic to provide the wider context that is needed. A list does not require reliable sources to establish the independent notability of its constituent items; all that is required is that the concept being listed is notable. The individual items do not have to be notable. Wikipedia:Notability quite clearly states the following:
"If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context" [...] "For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event."
It is clear here that mergers of the minor characters are viable, and would provide sufficient context to retain brief character information when the excessive plot summary info had been stripped out. For the non-character articles, keeping redirects is cheap, allows categorisation, and prevents existing links from going red. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Fayenatic. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect --LeyteWolfer 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge Trellium-D to Delphic Expanse if that one survives its own AFD (which it should, as it provides context for the whole of season 3). - Fayenatic (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
- I was wondering where that particular one could go, and that sounds like a good place to merge it. Good idea. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I can agree with merging these into the various lists of Star Trek characters. The articles are mostly about charcters that appear in only a few episodes, or even just one episode, and are of almost no importance to the Star Trek universe let alone our own, real universe. As for Trellium-D, it can be merged into the article on the episode it appeared in, "Impulse" Johnred32 (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now proposed that Delphic Expanse be merged into a list of regions, see draft at User:Fayenatic london/List of Star Trek regions of space. Trellium-D could still go into that section, or into "Impulse"; it's significant in other episodes e.g. "Damage" but "Impulse" may be best as that is where its effects were introduced. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Would be really good to do as they are all non -notable stubs on their own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect would be the most appropriate options here. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Star Trek has been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:09, 11 December 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. Core desat 03:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Stackhouse

Article which had been proposed for deletion but had already had the the prod tag removed earlier by the article creator. Reason for deletion was 'According to WP:FICTION, characters are generally described on the main book page, unless reliable sources exist to show that the individual character is notable.' Davewild 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the original reason. David ovic 00:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor character, no reliable secondary sources discussing him. Hal peridol 03:12, 2 December 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. Core desat 03:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Space Cowboy

This article is entirely self-sourced and almost certainly an autobiography (sole edit of the creator). Appearing at Edinburgh is essentially a matter of turning up, if you're a street performer - as is appearing anywhere of course. It says he's appeared round the world; maybe so, but that would be consistent with a busker working his passage. There's no evidence at all to back up the florid claims to fame, most Google hits are unrelated. I call self-promotion and advocate deleiton. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having problems getting anything substantial to back up the claims of touring with rock bands et al; searching under his real name gets minimal results, and the name "The Space Cowboy" gets upwards of 180,000 - stuff like a Jamiroquai album, other people who use the name, probably some Steve Miller references... I dunno if there's reliable sources to back this up. Delete unless someone comes up with some verification. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or have third party sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without verifiable references doesn't pass WP:BIO. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:30, 5 December 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture

This is simply a cluttered trivia collection of any mention to Cthulhu Mythos. Just because something is in popular culture, doesn't automatically make this type of list notable. Also, Wikipedia isn't a directory. RobJ1981 22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's a lot of trivia, but whether it's worth an article is dubious. No vote.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination is in the vein of WP:ITSCRUFT, and characterizing it as a "directory" is not borne out by anything stated within WP:NOT#DIR. However, it might be a good candidate for merging with Cthulhu in popular culture.--Father Goose 07:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as is almost always the case with these "...in pop culture" articles, what we have here is a list seeking to capture every time something, no matter how vaguely, makes some reference to the Cthulu mythos or something that in the unsourcable opinion of whatever editor spots it is such a reference. Indiscriminate list and directory rife with original research. "It mentions Cthulu or something that I think sounds kind of like Cthulu" is not a theme. Otto4711 13:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 16:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge as per Father goose. The subject matter and settings of fiction is a notable topic. And it is now firmly established by consensus that popular culture is not necessarily or usually trivia. I just did a quick scan of the university press books published last week on literature--more than two-thirds of them deal with them plot or setting over a range of topics, or with reception and popular culture specifically. Less than a third deal with the traditional author-based topics or discussions centered around the details of a single specific work. People did not discuss these things much 50 years ago, but WP is not a 1960 edition of the Brittanica. Probably should be rewritten in a more paragraph based fashion, and some of the items removed, but those are just editing decisions. We do not delete articles because they could have perhaps been better organized differently. It's time to recognize that the world does include this sort of topic, that it is notable, that with work it can be documented--and stop bringing these nominations. those who think the articles inadequate -- and I do not really blame them -- should start to work on improving them. DGG (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of your research into what the various university presses are covering would be much more relevant if the mere mention of a thing qualified as either "subject matter" or "settings." You have this weird idea that the simple reference to a thing makes a work in some way about that thing or makes the thing a theme of the work containing the reference and it just is not so. See for example note number three which clearly states that a one-sentence mention in a larger volume does not constitute anything other than trivial coverage. A one-line mention in a two hour film or multi-episode television series is just as trivial. The passing inclusion of a thing that may or may not be named after something that Lovecraft mentioned in the Cthulhu mythos does not create an encyclopedic relationship between it and every other thing that contains a similar passing reference. Lists of in-jokes are not encyclopedic when they're from a standalone series (see recent deletions of indiscriminate lists of such jokes from Seinfeld and Friends, among others). Lists of in-jokes that span series are just as unencyclopedic. Otto4711 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then you should advocate paring back the list to significant instances and mentions (of which there are several), instead of deleting it. AfD is not cleanup.--Father Goose 08:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, I am not saying that the mention of a particular thing in a particular work is enough to make the thing, the work, or the specific pairing notable enough for an article, which is what WP:N is talking about. WP:N does not talk about content. I am saying that the relationship of a notable thing which is notable in its own independent right, to multiple notable works, each of them notable in its own respective independent right, that this altogether is a notable relationship, and the individual pairings appropriate content as sentences or listings within such a comprehensive article. To illustrate, I do not think an article by itself on the subject of Dagon in Good Omens justifies a WP article by itself, but it is relevant content--and when 50 or so notable sf & fantasy novelists use the theme, then it does become notable. DGG (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but see, the thing is, you have this tendency to elevate any passing mention of something to the level of "theme" and it just ain't so. A work that includes, for instance, mention of a character passing a store that has the same name as something from Lovecraft doesn't mean that the trivial Lovecraftian mention is a theme of the work. Otto4711 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if there are such mentions, they could be proposed for removal in editing, but it is no reason to delete the article entirely--in this case, most of the items are ones where the theme or background or significance is major--indeed, sometimes central. But in the the academic and critical literature about movies, every individual object included is taken as a deliberate inclusion by the director and analyzed for its purposes, so actual references may indeed talk about it. This is the way that art form works. I agree that in many cases it may be unimportant--a monster in a game may be named without any great thought simply because other games have similar monsters--but this is an editing question. And even if your concept is correct here, it is still no reason to delete this or any other article. DGG (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a discriminate and referenced list. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think "discriminate" means what you think it means. Otto4711 19:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. In and of itself, "Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture" is certainly an important and notable enough topic to deserve an article. Whether the current article as it stands is good or not is not the topic of this debate. Regardless of how unsourced or trivial individual individual entries may be, I fail to see how an article like this would not be justified, considering the immense influence that the Cthulhu mythos has had on certain fiction and popular culture at large. AfD is for articles that shouldn't exist at all, not articles that need improvement, no matter how large. EldKatt (Talk) 21:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate when someone actually writes something about Cthulu in popular culture instead of a list of trivia. Note, Cthulhu in popular culture should probably be added to this. - Francis Tyers · 19:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the uncited parts, but still the only parts that actually have citations are either citing the webpages of myspace bands, webcomics and imdb. Still should be deleted, although at least now it isn't such a monster of a bad article. - Francis Tyers · 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article about the influence of Cthulhu Mythos would be a valid subject, but this is just a list of trivia. bogdan (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a cited article, or merge with Cthulhu in popular culture. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 11 December 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/keep. References appear to exist, so hopefully someone is willing to properly source the article. — Scientizzle 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Spud Goodman Show

This reads as a personal essay and opinion, not as an encyclopaedia article. There's not much to go on to improve it, only 65 unique Google hits, and it's the creator's only contribution to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a real television programme, and because of its age (1980s), internet-based sources are a lot less likely to exist.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is poorly and subjectively written, but the series was rather pivotal in the Pacific Northwest. Hopefully someone can clean it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.214.154.100 (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak Keep. If it was pivotal, there should be newspaper articles on it, at the very least. Someone can recreate it when they find one. --Alvestrand (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The program got regular newspaper coverage when it was on the air. Not many articles from the 1980s and early 90s are on line, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.214.154.100 (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that a reference be online. If you can go to your local library and look at an article about the show, and write a wikipedia article based on that information, citing the newspaper (name, date and page) as source, that's a beautiful source reference. --Alvestrand (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found references to 9 newspaper articles mentioning the show from 1994 to 2004 (see article talk). I can only get the intro to the articles (I'm a cheapskate, so don't want to pay 3 dollars an article), but several do seem to be about the show, not just a passing reference. --Alvestrand (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources, and notability is doubtful as it appears to be only of local interest. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who used to work on the show, I re-wrote the article to try to make it more objective, but with the holidays upon us I won't have time to insert references for a few weeks. If that's too late to save it, well so be it. However, I don't understand how something of regional interest would fail to meet the notability requirement as there are tremendous numbers of articles here that cover regional and local topics that aren't flagged as offending that criterion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.214.154.100 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. As per Alvestrand, references exist, but are not readily web-accessible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 11 December 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. Core desat 03:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood operating system

Unreferenced original research. None of the references are remotely reliable and the entire article is inherent original research. Add to this that much of what is described as unrealistic has nothing to do with the operating system as such. EconomicsGuy 21:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable unreferenced OR. Chris! _ct 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:57, 2 December 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. A strange case: none of the merge proposals are sensible. These characters are not in the books, so merging into a book-related article doesn't make sense, and there is no coverage of these characters in the film article. None of these articles contain any useful content anyway, so if someone ever does want to access the deleted articles, I can help. Mango juice^talk 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeke (character)

Unnotable character from the Oz film. Fails WP:FICT and is unsourced WP:PLOT. A minor character of no notability, though could be covered in the The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) -- Collectonian 21:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because thye are also relatively minor, unnotable characters that, if any notability does exist, should be covered in the The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) as its the only film they are in:

Merge them all into Minor characters from Wizard of Oz. Although they are too minor to merit their own article, one article for all of them is suffice. In fact, a lot of the characters from [1] can be merged into one article. I'll even do it if it isn't deleted.Tavix 22:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the characters in that category are already in a HUGE list of List of characters in the Oz books that is just a list of links to the article. I agree the book characters should all be merged into that article, with the minor characters removed all together. The characters from the film, however, that are unique to the film should simply be mentioned in the film article, if at all. Collectonian 23:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - No notability outside of the plot section of Wizard of Oz. Judgesurreal777 22:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is not much that can be said about such a minor character. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Professor Marvel to Frank Morgan. He portrayed the Wizard in the film. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nikko (The Wizard of Oz) and Zeke (character). Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to either The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) or The Wizard of Oz book to film comparison, or to a new article about minor characters in the film (and its stage adaptations). A good reliable source for secondary and real-world information about these minor characters is The Making of the Wizard of Oz: Movie Magic and Studio Power in the Prime of MGM. DHowell (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Wizard of Oz (1939 film), or just redirect'. There seems to be nothing of interest to say about this character, and it is certainly not worth its own article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all into List of characters in the Oz books, to which I have already redirected Minor characters from Wizard of Oz. One decent article should be able to handle them all. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 11 December 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, particularly on the strength of DHowell's argument for potential expansion and sourcing from reliable secondary sources. — TKD::Talk 21:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Tiger

Unnotable character from the Oz series. Fails WP:FICT and is unsourced WP:PLOT. Could possibly be merged into List of characters in the Oz books, if that article is given some serious clean-up/overhauling. Collectonian 21:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable character. Page needs work. This is a major character in the Oz series. Is Oz less notable than Transformers and Masters of the Universe? --Scottandrewhutchins 00:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important character in a longrunning and successful series of books by multiple authors. Title character of one of those books. Edward321 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable character in multiple books by multiple authors. Significant coverage can be found in multiple reliable secondary sources: "The Oddness of Oz" by Osmond Beckwith, Kulchur 4 (1961), reprinted in Children's Literature 5 (1976); American Ritual Dramas: Social Rules and Cultural Meanings by Mary Jo Deegan; "The Royal Historian of Oz" by Martin Gardner, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction #45 (February 1955); and "The Father of Oz" by Daniel P. Mannix, A Sense of History: The Best Writing from the Pages of American Heritage. DHowell (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - DHowell has demonstrated the existance of multiple secondary sources covering the character, which is sufficient. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep with rebuke of whoever suggested deletion. The Hungry Tiger is a major Oz character. He debuts in Ozma of Oz and recurs throughout the rest of the series, including having one book named after him, The Hungry Tiger of Oz. Hiergargo (talk) 19:11, 6 December 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. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Bean Cobain

Biography of a 15 year-old minor, whe has done nothing notable in her life other than been born to Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love. That fact is recored in their biographies. The article is full of unencyclopedic personal facts - about, for instance, when an otherwise unnotable girl last saw her dad alive and what age she was. It's an amalgam from various sources - none of which are interested in the person as an individual. We have all relevant information recorded elsewhere. Doc^g 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Unless notability can be demonstrated independently of her heritage then I would say it is not an encyclopedic topic. 1 != 2 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; merge not necessary per nomination. Notability is not inheritable, and there isn't enough data to justify a split-out article. Mackensen (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Courtney Love (or possibly Kurt Cobain). The subject would need to have an independent significance in order to be notable for herself. The only claims of Frances Bean Cobain doing something on her own are the three press interviews; if the contents of those interviews were about something other than her parentage, then it might have been a different story, but they are not. If people are looking for information on Frances Bean Cobain, it's appropriate to include some in the biographies of her parents. Sam Blacketer 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason Steve Ballmer is notable is that he works for Microsoft. Interviews about him talk almost entirely about his work at Microsoft. But it would still be ridiculous to merge his entry into the Microsoft entry. By the same token, Frances Bean Cobain is famous primarily because she has famous parents. But she is, nevertheless, famous. Major media outlets have repeatedly done interviews of her and written profiles of her. Millions of people know who she is. Therefore she's notable. It's not our place to second-guess the reasons someone has become famous. Binarybits 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't matter whether her fame was inherited. She is a well-known figure who is a subject of interest to people, and that's enough. Owen 21:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this person well known? For what? 1 != 2 21:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter what for. True, she hasn't done anything obviously significant. But neither has, say, Princess Ariane of the Netherlands. Simply being known by a significant number of people is enough to make her culturally significant. Owen 00:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That other such articles exist is not a reason to keep this. Yes she is known, but so are the Queen's corgis. The point is that the undoubtable notable facts about her (who she is and her relationship to her parents) is included elsewhere. There is no specific and notable information about her that requires a seperate article.--Doc^g 00:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's corgis aren't individually notable because they're almost never discussed by name. Contrast with Buddy (dog) and Socks (cat), which do, in fact have their own Wikipedia pages despite not having done anything "notable" other than being owned by a very famous family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binarybits (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that you don't have to do anything notable to be notable. Whether you like it or not, that's just how things are. Someone could easily argue that the Pepsi Girl has never accomplished anything, but that is simply our opinion. Like it or not, she is well known, and has a place here. Owen 03:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some of this is redundant information in her mother's or father's article is not a sufficient reason to delete it either, and is not something that should factor into this discussion. I don't think there's a policy or guideline that states that simply because two topics have overlapping information they should be merged. I'm sure Kurt Cobain has a lot of redundant information with Nirvana, or The Blues Brothers with The Blues Brothers (movie), or incisor with tooth. The question isn't "What has she done that's notable?" but "Are people aware of her and are they taking notice?" Clearly they are. It doesn't matter if the articles focus on her relationship with her parents or they define her by her father's legacy; it's still her relationship and her definition they're talking about. Torc2 19:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if not "what for", how about by who? I don't see any demonstration of notability. 1 != 2 06:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect. Non-notable child of a celebrity. Until she does something of notability (not just something "interesting" to a few), she doesn't need an article on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 22:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, no independent notability. Hal peridol 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Kurt Cobain; we've had precedence for this kind of thing where the kid of a celebrity has done nothing; witness Suri Cruise and whatever Brangelina's kid's name is... Tony Fox (arf!) 06:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To not go with the flow of this AfD, strong keep. Her magazine interviews guarantee sourcable material along with the other material in existence about her to allow at least a Start-class article, and as Owen points out she is notable enough to be of interest to a wide number of people. Frances Bean has much more notability than the children of most celebrities. Plus, it would be inappropriate to merge this to either Courtney Love or Kurt Cobain without undue weight on those articles. I am willing to defend that this article be kept and would like to engage in proper discussion about it with the delete voters. Take John Smeaton (baggage handler), Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) and Chantelle Houghton - these people are kind of just famous for being famous, but I would not support that any of these articles be deleted because there is enough reliable source material on each to write an article well beyond stub status, like there is here. -h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chantelle is not famous for being famous. She's famous because she won a reality television show, married a pop star, authored a book, presented a television show, wrote a few magazine columns and divorced a pop star. Smeaton is famous because he helped prevent an act of terrorism, won an award and write a newspaper column. Crocker is famous for expressing public opinion and being interviewed numerous times on television. The subject of this article is currently assumed to be notable because she was born. You've got apples. And you've got oranges. I get your point, but it's not about where you start, it's about where you finish. Whilst we have an article on Smeaton, where's the articles on all the other have a go heroes? Whilst we have Crocker, where are the articles on all the other You Tube stars? Whilst we have Chantelle, where are the articles on all the other television show one off wonders? Notability isn't what you do, it's what the world does with you. Britney was just another child tv star until... Madonna was just another wannabe pop star until... Ian Wright was just another plasterer until... A better comparison is with Peaches Geldof. Someone who is more than just the child of a celebrity union. Hiding T 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I definitely agree that Peaches Geldof is a better comparison than any of the others here, although she's that critically significant three years older than Frances Bean in which she's had time to do notable stuff.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - By that rationale, we shouldn't have an article on Frances Bean until she's done notable stuff. Which is my point. Hiding T 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't work out where to redirect. My own preference would be a protected dab stating Frances Bean Cobain is the child of Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love. Although a redirect to either parent with a hatnote, "Frances Bean Cobain, the child of Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love redirects here. Certainly no article though, per Sam Blacketer. Hiding T 16:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The first AfD had it right, and there is no reason to overturn that. Enough people thought she was notable then, and per WP:N#TEMP notability is permanent. Also, don't overanalyze and overuse WP:NOTINHERITED - that's just one section in an essay and simply states that notability is not automatically inherited; it's a warning against an argument for keeping, not an argument to be used for deletion. The fact FBC's name is well-known and can be used, for example, by The Onion without fear of people wondering who they're talking about, or that she's had a photoshoot in Elle magazine that was discussed elsewhere is sufficient evidence of notability. Let's not let Kurt's and Courtney's extreme notability overshadow Frances's minor-but-still-sufficient notability.Torc2 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I totally agree, and think that the deletionists need to chill out a bit. There are enough reliable sources to write an article, so I really don't see what the point of deleting this would be. Everyone should also remember that since WP:ATA is an essay and not a guideline, we are under no obligation to follow what it says at all.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With her father's article. Jmlk 1 7 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Google shows 1200 stories about her, including multiple interviews and profiles in major publications. The fact that she hasn't "accomplished anything" is irrelevant: she's been the subject of sustained public interest and media coverage for over a decade now. She's indisputably notable as that term is defined in Wikipedia guidelines. Binarybits 16:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I would agree with a merge to the article of a parent if only one were notable, since both are notable, there is no logical merge target. In divorce court custody of the children must be decided, but in an encyclopedia, there is no need to try to split the baby. Also since there are several media interviews of the subject, we have multiple secondary sources, which meets WP:BIO. Dhaluza (talk) 02:09, 5 December 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 redirected to The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda links awakening

Non-notable game; likely cruft. —Animum (talk) 20:35, 1 December 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. Core desat 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former Delta Air Lines destinations

Former airlines and destinations have been discussed before (1, 2, 3), and the arguments are that it's not encyclopediadic, difficult to verify, does not assert notability, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons - they're the equivalent articles for different airlines:

--Matt 20:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel directory. Majoreditor 04:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and Majoreditor. The fact that these are former destinations makes it even less encyclopedia-worthy.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:59, 2 December 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 with possible merge. This discussion does not establish consensus for any particular merge action, so such actions should be determined by discussion on the article talk pages of the affected articles. Danaman5 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banik

Non-notable fictional race. Consensus has been strong about the much more in-universe-notable races Ancients (Farscape) (AfD) and Peacekeeper (Farscape) (AfD), so I'm making this a group nomination of almost all other Farscape races articles and let the community decide. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Belongs in a Farscape transwiki, maybe, but not in an encyclopedia. Collectonian 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT -- "Summary descriptions of plot, characters and settings are appropriate only in the context of real-world information, not when they are the sole content of an article or told entirely from an in-universe perspective. This applies both to stand-alone works and to series." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all these have been tagged, prodded and AfDed in the past, and no sources have appeared. AnteaterZot 00:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of these should be deleted, but the list is enough of a mix between significant and non-significant species that a big sweeping deletion would be a mistake. Certainly the central Luxans and Delvians, for instance, can't be lumped in with the one-episode-only Builders! Is there any consensus on what makes a fictional species notable? Would articles on Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons, Cylons, Hobbits, etc. be deleted? --Icarus ^(Hi!) 10:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The significance or lack thereof for a species cannot be determined without any notability established by multiple coverage of reliable sources -- which would be items like mainstream publications or making-of books, not fan websites. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many Star Trek species' articles cite primarily episodes, Star Trek magazines, Star Trek books, and official websites as sources. These all exist for Farscape, too, so the major Farscape species at least could be given sources on par with many of the Star Trek species. Some of the minor species should be deleted, but again, the major species need to be considered separately and improved with sources rather than deleted for lack thereof where appropriate. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These do not aspire to an encyclopedic standards that emphasises real-world significance. This is better off as wikia content where there is no prohibition on in-universe focus. Eusebeus 13:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge as appropriate there is no prohibition here on a in-universe focus, just on writing articles in such a way that they do not refer to the real world at all, in an exclusively in-universe fashion as in a fan wikia where the working assumption is that they are the real world. Note two key word in the nom, which need to be empahsised, "sole" content , and " entire;y" in-universe. By combining this, it can be related to the development of the series--unlike the characters, the fiction as a whole does exist in the real world. DGG (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as all of these articles are basically plot summaries with no primary sources to verify the origin of their content, and no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 11:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not only should these articles be kept (without prejudice to merging some of the less notable topics to other articles which provide better context), but the two deleted articles should be restored. I think people are confusing the requirement to write from an out-of-universe perspective with a perceived prohibition on "in-universe information"; in-universe information is not prohibited if it is presented from an out-of-universe perspective, which makes fixing these articles an editing and merging issue, not a deletion issue. Plenty of reliable sources exist to establish notability for numerous significant plot elements in Farscape, such as: Science Fiction Television from the Praeger Television Collection, Farscape: The Illustrated Companion, Investigating Farscape: Uncharted Territories of Sex and Science Fiction, The Farscape Season Two Episode Guide : An Unofficial Guide with Critiques (and those for the other seasons), and Farscape Forever!: Sex, Drugs and Killer Muppets. These sources include copious coverage of the Ancients and Peacekeepers, as well as significant coverage of other Farscape races. DHowell (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The two AfDs mentioned in the nomination each had only six commenters, only three of which said delete. I know AfD is not a vote, but the idea that 3 out of 6 establishes a "strong consensus" is ludicrous. DHowell (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly merge where appropriate. Agathoclea (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly merge. And I agree that the two previous AfDs that resulted "delete" were pretty darned weak. If a merge is done let me know and I'll create redirects and undelete the histories so that the deleted material can be incorporated in a GFDL-compliant manner. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without sources, all we have is a bunch of calls for WP:ILIKEIT. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As DHowell and I have noted, there are sources to demonstrate the notability of several of the species, the articles just need to include them. If an article is notable but has a problem, the solution is to correct the problem, not to delete the article. Non-notability is a criterion for deletion; inadequate listing of sources for a notable topic is not. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was around for the tumultuous AfD on Eidelon. Sources were promised, vigorously searched for, and not found. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Eidelon were in a total of 2 or 3 episodes, for a total screen time of maybe 15 minutes. I would have supported deletion if I'd been around for that AfD. Other species in this mass nomination, however, are absolutely central to Farscape. The non-notability of some species does not make them all non-notable. That's exactly why this mass nomination is a bad idea. It's like nominating Neo and "Robot #3" from The Matrix in the same AfD. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sounds like a train wreck, then. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are countless wikipedia entries for subjects and events that exist only as part of a fictional world relating to a tv show, movie, book etc. What are you going to do? Purge them all? Atraxus (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all and thoroughly re-write as per WP:WAF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cut the true cruft to Fictional races in Farscape or the like. While each is NN, the total group is probably notable. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator I am a little surprised that the recommendation for these less-notable races is more in favor of keeping/merging than the Ancients and the Peacekeepers. (I recommended merging in both AfDs, but thought after the deletion that a merge is no longer wanted by the community). If the result of this AfD is to merge, can the closing admin please resurrect the Ancients and the Peacekeepers article so that they can be included in the merge? As I said, they are far more in-universe-notable than any of the ones listed here. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:43, 11 December 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. Core desat 03:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K. David

I am fairly certain this article could fall under the criteria of a Bio speedy deletion. However, it is one of a number of articles on Christian leaders in India which have been worked on by the same group of editors. I cleaned the article up a bit before putting it up for Afd so that it asserted notability more than when I first found it and it still looks fairly non-notable. That said, I am taking the side of caution that this may appear non-notable because of my American POV which lacks much knowledge on Christians in India. My vote is delete, but I wanted to see what others thought first. Is this a notable person who just needs a more well written article, or is this genuinely non-notable? Thanks. Hiberniantears 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Well written, but I don't think this person quite meets WP:BIO. Doesn't appear to have notability independent from the organisations he worked with.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- SECisek 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ? Why is this article being proposed for deletion all of a sudden ? It had been on wikipedia for quite some time and none made any comments either during its creation nor at a later stage. If need be we can re-work the article. KEEP.Pavani (talk) 15:16, 10 December 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. --Oxymoron⁸³ 10:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson Z500a

Non-notable product. Few substantial references exist beyond reviews and press release announcements, so a meaningful Wikipedia article will be hard to support. Listed after {{prod}} was contested. Mikeblas 20:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This product is as notable as any. Im sure there was a million made. the template on the bottom of the page shows a list of phones that seemed to be important enough to keep. ZyMOS 06:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Mass production doesn't confer notability. Otherwise, we'd have an article on every model and size of rivet ever manufactured; there's hundreds fold more of those than these phones, for example. -- Mikeblas 08:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable cell phone, but as notable as the LG Voyager, but still worth keeping on Wikipedia. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as notable as any other mobile phone. If this phone's article were to be deleted so should almost every other. --EJF 19:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please see WP:WAX. Fact is, a number of cell phone articles have been deleted because they're not notable. If it's as notable as those other phones, then this one should be deleted, too. -- Mikeblas 08:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there should be a total review of this cell-phone issue. I hope I don't offend anyone by saying so, but I have started to dislike what seems to be a salami-tactic used to delete all the cell-phones. Also, it is my conviction Wikipedia should - in general- have an article of all cell-phones with notable sources, so people comming and looking for information, will find it here. Greswik (talk) 14:48, 6 December 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 and then redirected to Pac-Man Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puckman

Non-notable mascot of college. No sources indicating satisfaction of WP:N, appears a bit of a neo. meshach 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC) meshach 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pac-Man as the original name; nothing to suggest this Puckman is notable. JuJube 01:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Pac-Man. Puckman and Hockey are a big deal at RPI, but as college mascots go, he isn't that notable. I think I will use that image in the RPI article, however. Danski14^(talk) 02:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. Per above. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pac-Man. The game is well known as Puckman (or more precisely, Puck Man) so it makes perfect sense to redirect there. RFerreira (talk) 22:35, 9 December 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in the Firefly universe

Per its own definition, this is a list of minor characters, which do not meet notability requirements, fail WP:FICT and fall under multiple sections of WP:NOT. Completely unsourced fancruft that belongs in a Firefly wikia or the like, not as an encyclopedic article. Collectonian 19:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Soft Redirect to Firefly Wiki. Per nom. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 20:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. When it comes to pop culture, one of the reasons I come to Wikipedia is to learn information about minor characters from television series or movies. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is the ability to include information about things that are minor and perhaps not as notable as they would have to be to be in a print encyclopedia. If the requirements for inclusion in wikipedia is going to be as strict for Wikipedia as it is for a paper encyclopedia, then basically there is no call for wikipedia to exist. In this particular case, just about everything on the page could be sourced to the original sources. Shsilver 21:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article must establish its notability through out of universe referencing. Judgesurreal777 22:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then tag with a request for sources before trying to delete.Shsilver 14:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - You have got to be kidding me. This does not fail anything. Do you realize how many lists of minor characters there are on the Wikipedia? Here, I will name one right away: List of minor Star Wars characters. On that one, the lead is even smaller than the one currently up for deletion. Still not convinced? Ok. List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, List of minor Angel characters, and just click on this link [2] to bring up a slew of minor character lists. If you are going to put this up for deletion, you might as well put all those others up for deletion.--Kranar drogin 15:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you comparing the minor characters of a 14-episode show (plus movie) to those of a 40-year franchise and a 144-episode show (plus movie) and a 110-episode show? Also, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's not apples and oranges, it's apples and slightly different apples, well worth comparing. This is precedent, not just otherstuffexists, and Firefly was critically acclaimed, highly popular, and certainly notable. --Cheeser1 14:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with the other characters to Characters of Firefly. They don't meet WP:FICT on their own and probably can't/won't ever. Possibly transwiki. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're proposing a merge to a page that doesn't exist? --Cheeser1 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? – sgeureka ^t•c 17:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:BEANS tells a cautionary tale, not a hopeful one. - Dravecky 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? – sgeureka ^t•c 23:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The number of episodes does not tell the story of how notable or important this series is/was. There is clearly room for this content - Wikipedia is not going to fill up, and it's not a gigantic mass of fancruft (each character has a small paragraph or two). If each character does not merit their own article, that does not mean the list is not appropriate. --Cheeser1 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#PLOT. And WP:FICT disagrees with you as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, your interpretation of those guidelines disagrees with my idea of what they mean and how they apply. That's how a deletion debate works. "I disagree with you in my reading of policy" is not a valid rebuttal. --Cheeser1 14:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - If this was a raft of individual articles about individual minor characters then perhaps the nom would be meaningful but as it stands this is a reasonable collective article on a useful and notable subject with sufficient secondary sources. It doesn't matter if some Star Wars character article is more notable than this one. Wikipedia is not a competition. Notability and verifiability should be enough, especially on topics of proven interest. - Dravecky 20:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if we delete this, we will face the question of which characters to include in a likely "Characters of Firefly" article. I guess I am inclusionist on these things, although I would oppose an article on any of these on their own. I would also support a merge/rename to an all-char.s article where these are listed as minor and maybe given some sort of max. lines per entry, with the major cast on top with more information. Lundse 22:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It looks like the guideline that allowed many pages of characters to be consolidated into these lists was changed, without being well advertized, back in August 2007. One editor, in fact, changed how the policy reads, although supposedly this was a stylistic change of some sort. Since that seems unfair, we should retain these lists and return the guideline to its pre-August state, and then debate it openly later. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fee Fi Foe Fum. Rray 03:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of real world content can be found and included in the article as required by WP:FICT - (which after much discussion was changed by consensus to match with other existing guidleines and polcies such as WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NN). [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment - Doesn't look like that issue is entirely settled yet re: discussion and consensus on key features and notability. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a discussion on what wording to put into an essay, an essay is formed by the consensus of those who wish to use it. Two essays can say completely opposite things, the policies and guidelines I mentioned are supposed to be formed by the consensus of the whole community. [[Guest9999 (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Quite right, they are... but I've been following the discussion related to WP:NOT#PLOT, and it doesn't seem like the issues being discussed in that essay and the changes being made to the guideline are at all distinct concepts. Since we're talking about consensus, though, there seems to be something of a discrepancy between what you're saying is a legitimate change to that guideline and the outcomes of some recent AfDs. It turns out, from my informal observations, that the guidelines themselves often reflect the consensus (and oft-times imperfectly at that) of those editors who are primarily concerned with editing those guidelines. This is one of the things that leads to the "blind spots" another poster mentioned during the course of the discussion I mentioned above. This isn't necessarly meant to be a rebuttal of what you were saying, per se, or even a criticism of the process... I'm just pointing out that the guidelines appear to be pretty fluid, especially with WP:FICT, particularly at this point in time. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a technicality but WP:NOT#PLOT is part of a policy not a guideline. The ongoing discussion on the talk page seems mainly to be about fair use/copyright concerns currently but the previous proposal was to change the wording so that it directly refered to all fictional aspects rather than just plot summaries. I would say that this AfD and many like it may reflect the views of a small group of users rather than the community as a whole; but like the policy pages and discussions any editor is free to contribute. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Of course, policy, not guideline - sorry about that. I wouldn't be able to agree, though, that keeping the elements of very notable topics where there's enough data to generate distinct articles is reflecting the view of only a small group of users. It's pretty standard at this point, unless by "small group of users" you mean that contingent that contribute to AfDs, which is probably a smallish percentage of Wikipedians. I agree with some of the criticisms of these articles that the sourcing tends to be weaker than stand-alone topics, but the alternative is to either have very long base articles or limit the amount of information we can have about well covered topics. I don't think that either's an acceptable course of action. ◄Zahakiel ► 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Finite, discriminate list of features from a notable show. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shsilver, Cheeser1 , Lundse, Zahakiel all who make valid points about notability, fan cruft, inclusionism, and What Wikipedia Shoud Be. As long as the editors keep the OR off the character pages, it will be fine.--Knulclunk (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep. - When I first looked at this article, I was not convinced of its keepability. As an inclusionist, I tend to err on the side of keep, but this one is marginal. Better to modify the article to List of Firefly characters in the same way that List of A-Team characters is done: One top section for majors with links to their main articles and then the current information in a second top-level section of minor characters. Perhaps even divide that into "recurring guest characters" and "non-recurring" characters. This article needs work to keep, but I think it could be transformed into a keepable page. VigilancePrime (talk) 19:48, 8 December 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. Core desat 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian Lineage and Ancestry in Modern Nations

The purpose of this article is unclear. While the title talks about "Mongolian Lineage", the subtitle above the list talks about "Turkic People", which is something very different. The list itself is a potpourri of peoples, tribes, clans, and other ethnic entities where someone thought they might have something to do with the Mongols. In its current and entirely unsourced form, this list doesn't provide any useful information, let alone encyclopedic value. --Latebird 19:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletions. —Latebird 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, any sourced information about this should be included in Mongol people - am I right? Article's title does not comply with WP:MOS either.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: The article List of medieval Mongolian tribes and clans lists related historical tribes in a more encyclopedic manner and with reliable references. Btw: An IP just added some nonsense with unreliable sources to the nominated article again, which I reverted (just in case anyone wants to check in the edit history to make up their own mind about it). --Latebird 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a basically unsourced list without a direction. Bearian 00:10, 4 December 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 User:Irishguy as an attack page. Dloh cierekim 23:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Johnson

WP:V and WP:OR. Doesn't google. —Caesura ^(t) 19:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V (WP:HOAX?). --Brewcrewer 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only source is a personal interview. Totally fails WP:V. Also not inherently notable (although use as an insult against LBJ is possibly notable in the Lyndon B. Johnson article). Totnesmartin 19:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability, no reliable sources cited. Potentially very serious BLP violation. Heidianddick 19:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see, but not in good sources, a claim by a particular individual to have born a son out of wedlock fathered by LBJ. To the extent I can find any name for the son even in unreliable sources, this isn't it. The claims of that particular mother are all wrapped up in a conspiracy claim that LBJ masterminded the death that led to him becoming president, which tells you just how far outside the mainstream they are. Hoax, I believe, and have so tagged. But I can't see that it meets any CSD - though if any of the named parties were known to be alive, we would have reason to ax at least some of the content quite quickly. GRBerry 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was really tempted to go ahead and speedy delete this, but we should not be hasty. Unless a verifiable source can be found, it should go. Not sure how strong the assertion of notability, "illegitimate son of a president" is. Perhaps there is a non Google source??? Dloh cierekim 22:47, 1 December 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 as verifable, with many possible reliable sources. Cleanup of advertising terms is not a reason to delete, but to clean up. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblioscape

Spammy, and has no claim to notability. — Coren ^(talk) 18:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 01:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Clearly some people have taken note of it (in reliable sources), which should make it notable in theory, but in practise... I'm not totally convinced.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm obviously missing something here. I got 8,000+ ghits on "CG Information" + Biblioscape. This included a bunch of reviews. If needed, it would be real easy to add more external links. It may or may not be great software, but it appears to be significant software. And, in truth, the article doesn't even seem especially spammy - no claims to greatness (or even adequacy). Tim Ross·^talk 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above. -- Nikolaj Winther (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an appreciative user I want this software/company to be known and stable as a result. -- AW 9 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.141.158.118 (talk)
Keep I agree with some of the comments that have been made here already. I don't see why this isn't a notable software product. The article describes the program in what appears to me to be a neutral fashion. It is included in Comparison of reference management software, where it is shown to be one of the few products that interfaces with WordPerfect (which should make it notable within the field). It is a good products well. Yehuda Falk (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep but please add sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 11 December 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. Core desat 04:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeravla

Spammy, terribly written, probably not verifiable. P4k 18:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Turning up at a few events isn't sufficient grounds for notability. Totnesmartin 19:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources offered in article to show notability, first several pages of non-wiki ghits don't turn up reliable sources that show notability. (FWIW, "terribly written" isn't a valid deletion reason).--Fabrictramp 23:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we'd have to delete 2/3 of the site I guess.P4k 02:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and I wasn't really able to confirm it all that well; if someone turns anything up, I'd be happy to reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no reliable sources covering her or the parties she threw. They were probably a lot of fun but not verifiable. This may even be speedy deleteable. Capitalistroadster 06:57, 2 December 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, withdrawn. Core desat 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Hampshire

~~Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.~~ • Freechild'sup? 18:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdraw. • Freechild'sup? 13:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even given that only notable churches should have articles, and that non-notable churches should not be redlinked, this is nevertheless an obviously useful indexing page. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a list can be made does not mean it should be. A list of churches in Manchester is not inherently any more valuable than a list of pizza parlors in Manchester, per Malinaccier. • Freechild'sup? 19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indexing and cross-indexing remain one of the weaknesses of the project. Lists help remedy this. And yes, a list of churches in Hampshire is indeed more valuable than a list of pizza parlors; few pizza parlors have any historic, artistic, or devotional significance, in other words they are not notable, but churches definitely have that potential. Suggest that some centralized discussion of all these AfDs might be appropriate. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - there's no reason for deleting this that wouldn't apply equally to all lists in Wikipedia. Waggers 20:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep. In WP:NOT it states: Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. A listing of places (like churches in my opinion) in a city would qualify as this. Despite this, the argumentst presented by all above have persuaded me to ignore this, and change to keep. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If implemented consistently across wikipedia, all "list of..." articles would also be deleted. In fact, the reasons given by all those who have indicated "Keep" are most convincing, and the one offered by Freechild is utterly unconvincing in this instance. DDStretch (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this information is not indiscriminate Mighty Antar 23:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The notable information in this list is redundant to Category:Churches in Hampshire. • Freechild'sup? 01:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The notable information in this list is synergistic to Category:Churches in Hampshire. see WP:CLS Mighty Antar 01:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep A good set encyclopedic information befitting WP. The only thing indiscriminate here is the deletion nomination. Hmains 03:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is becoming tedious in the extreme to duplicate identical counter-arguments in every similar AfD Freechild has proposed regarding lists of churches. I suggest people look through the other nominations and note the general issues regarding deletion that people have raised there. In fact, I suggest all of the nominations are immediately closed and the nominator invited to resubmit them as a "job lot", so they can be considered together. There are about 6 or so of them. DDStretch (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list contains encyclopedic information that is not duplicated in the category. It is not "an indiscriminate collection of information" as claimed by Freechild and it is not in breach of the WP:NOT#DIR policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. In addition to clearly violating WP:NOT#DIRhis, this is listcruft and there are plenty of current precedents, including List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana (2nd nomination) and List of shopping malls in Malaysia. • Freechild'sup? 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As previous refutations have indicated, it does not clearly violate WP:NOT#DIRhis, and the label of listcruft, as the article itself states, cannot stand on its own as a sole reason to delete the article. Indeed, reading the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Lists, one can see that this article is a completely valid example of a list (see the "In a Nutshell" summary section, and the main sections.) DDStretch (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep in accordance with WP:CLS and Wikipedia:Lists. --Paularblaster 02:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Since there are no citations on the page and there is no content of notable reference, this list clearly violates WP:V. • Freechild'sup? 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is so clear, I am puzzled why it did not form part of the justification for the initial AfD. Similarly, if it lacks citations, then label it as such (the templates are there to be used). An immediate AfD is an extreme first step to take. I suggest you withdraw this AfD, as you have already done with at least one other, and issue the appropriate warning labels if required. DDStretch (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation added. --Paularblaster (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Paularblaster, your apparent attempt at citing Google Maps illustrates the inanity of this list: according to your source, there are "4,706 churches near Hampshire". Let the list grow! Why limit it to a limited group of a few dozen churches when there could be 4,706 churches listed and redlinked? Using Google Maps as a source tells the average reader that simply because something exists it should be in a WP article. However, that does not qualify a topic as worthy, and the subject of this list (Churches in Hampshire) has simply not been proven to be notable with your citation. Moreso, your citation simply proves that this is an indiscriminate collection of information. • Freechild'sup? 04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Freechild (and others) I suggest you read the refutations of this latest attempt to justify this AfD in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Venice and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Florence. The reason you accuse me in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Oxford of incivility is because you simply are ignoring quite reasonable refutations of your arguments. So, they get repeated. When you can no longer maintain them, you find other reasons that you think show the articles to be deficient. As two other editors have now stated, the assumption of good faith is being stretched to its breaking point here. Once again.: assertive disagreements with your position do not constitute incivility. DDStretch (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Of course, the allegation that this is an indiscriminate list of information fails. The referenvce supplied need not be the only one that can be added. Now that i see you are withdrawing the AfDs against the other list of churches articles you initiated, I trust that the very similar, even identical arguments used in this AfD will result in its withdrawal by yourswlf. DDStretch (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have now added a more complete and specific set of references to the article. DDStretch (talk) 14:00, 5 December 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, withdrawn. Core desat 04:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Greater Manchester

~~Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.~~ • Freechild'sup? 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn per Pit-yacker's comment below. This article has more content than a simple list, and could/should grow with more substantive information. • Freechild'sup? 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this to prevent Greater Manchester articles being cluttered with lists of churches, but now I agree the lists don't really belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Epbr123 19:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a list can be made does not mean it should be. A list of churches in Manchester is not inherently any more valuable than a list of pizza parlors in Manchester, per Malinaccier. • Freechild'sup? 19:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smerdis of Tlön and Malleus Fatuorum. If this is deleted, the lists will just end up back in the individual articles, which is against Wikipedia:Embedded list. Epbr123 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even given that only notable churches should have articles, and that non-notable churches should not be redlinked, this is nevertheless an obviously useful indexing page. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not believe that this list is in any way in breach of the WP:NOT#DIR policy and, as Epbr123 pointed out above, it was created to remove clutter from Greater Manchester articles. If the consensus is to delete, then I'd request a reasonable time period to copy the relevant sections back into the relevant articles. But I do not agree with the argument that a list of churches (or schools) is the equivalent of a list of pizza parlours, on the basis that pizza parlours are commercial organisations, whereas churches are part of their local infrastructure. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep. In WP:NOT it states: Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. A listing of places (like churches in my opinion) in a city would qualify as this. Despite this, the argumentst presented by all above have persuaded me to ignore this, and change to keep. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 20:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments of all the previous respondents who have indicated "Keep" are most telling, whilst the arguments of Freechild would, if adhered to across the board, mean almost all "list of..." articles would be deleted from wikipedia. The deletion that might occur in that last case would be a great loss generally, and most specifically in this case. DDStretch (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This article adds no substantive value to WP, and WP is not a Yellow Pages. Simply listing all of the churches in a city devalues the potential of WP; there needs to be some notable information here that goes beyond simply listing the churches. For an example, see this. WP must have higher standards than simple lists that have no value unto themselves. • Freechild'sup? 23:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. You have to consider what this is a list of; it is a list of places of worship, not a yellow pages directory. Places of worship are a part of our local infrastructure; each one of them doesn't need to be notable. If this list did not exist, then exactly the same information would be repeated in every Greater Manchester article. As I note that it is already in the Shaw and Crompton FA, but re-formatted as a table. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This list replicates the Category:Churches in Manchester and does not add any notable content. • Freechild'sup? 01:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. First, Manchester is not the same as Greater Manchester. Secondly, the claim of replication misrepresents the situation. This list contains many more churches than are given in the category, because the category only contains churches for which an article already exists. To immediately forestall a response al;ready given in a number of your other similar nominations at the moment, one can add that the absence of an article for a church does not guarantee an absence of notability. So, the article is more comprehensive than the category. Thirdly, the two things serve different purposes, as others have already pointed out, and so all your counter-arguments fail. DDStretch (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A good set encyclopedic information befitting WP. The only thing indiscriminate here is the deletion nomination and the additional misrepresentation of the facts regarding the content of the article. Hmains 03:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. No, it does not. Manchester is not the same as Greater Manchester. The first is a city and a metropolitan borough, the second is a metropolitan county. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Further illustrating the point that everything included in this list is already detailed in the category, you are right: Category:Churches in Manchester is a subcategory to Category:Churches in Greater Manchester. • Freechild'sup? 05:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of categories is different from the purpose of lists. Categories exist to provide metadata, lists exist to provide information. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freechild's point fails also on points raised above by myself. DDStretch (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list probably needs more explanatory text on the development of churches from various denominations in Manchester. However, it contains information not available from a category such as denomination, date of foundation and ___location so it is worth keeping. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Okay, there's no sources, but that doesn't mean deletion. It's just an example of a list that has been neglected, I'm sure once this has finished it'll be back to normal activity, and verifiability won't be a problem. — Rudget _{contributions} 11:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am confused by the proposers assertion that this article should be deleted yet Churches_in_Omaha is ok. If we deleted every article that didnt come up to FA status after its first edit, their would quite literally be nothing left on Wikipedia. Surely, the above mentioned articles survival of an AfD sets a precedent? Whilst it would be nice to be able to write fully fledged articles in one go, some of us have lives in the real world or dont have access to all the information we need immediately (Wikipedia is also a world of infinite amounts of work, I have no shortage of things I am working on, finding time to do them all is a different matter entirely) . This article is certainly a very good start of an article (beyond a stub) and should be kept. Pit-yacker 11:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Churches in Omaha has substantive content beyond this simplistic list. • Freechild'sup? 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the time to grow, this article will also contain substantially more information than it does now. I think the trick when thinking about lists is to consider what information might usefully be added to the list. For instance, what could be added to a list of record companies whose names don't begin with an alphabetic character? As compared to a list of churches in Manchester – or anywhere else – where it's fairly easy to imagine all sorts of information being added about the arrival of various religions, the first church, and so. Just my two penny's worth. :) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - However, this article has had a substantive amount of time to grow from its initial inception. The simple fact of the matter is that in its current form the article is less than significant. • Freechild'sup? 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So if your view is that this article ought to be either expanded or deleted, then why did you not tag it as such instead of initiating an AfD? It's very difficult not to come to the conclusion that you are being disingenuous. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) So, why is this deletion proposal not one which falls into the same class as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Venice‎? To recap, when pressed you said that the AfD you initiated was really a kind of plea to improve the article, and yet, when criticised for this by two editors and questioned you said it did not apply to the other AfDs for lists of churches which you had initiated at roughly the same time. When pressed further, on the basis that identical arguments in favour of deletion had been advanced by yourself in all the AfDs you had proposed, which meant one could interpret each of your proposals as being a attempt to get people to improve the articles, you backtracked a bit, and said that the Venice list deserved deletion as it stood, and that I should discuss each AfD separately. Nevertheless, they can be linked together, and I therefore claim that this AfD, along with all the others you have proposed, should be rejected as we can no longer rely on them being anything other than a plea to improve them. DDStretch (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ddstretch, please be civil. Continuously badgering will not change the point that each nomination is unique, because each article is unique. This article had previously existing information that makes it a more substantive contribution than the others. • Freechild'sup? 23:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am being civil. I am "badgering on" with the same points, because I am replying to the same arguments advanced by yourself that occur in identical ways across all the list of churches articles you proposed for deletion. It is useful to point out these parallels to people to inform the debate. I apologise for not agreeing with you, but a lack of agreement and being assertive does not constitute incivility. Neverthekless, since it seems that my contributions may cause you some problems, I will stop now, as I think all that needs to be said has been said on the matter at the moment. DDStretch (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my view DDStretch was being perfectly civil, and was not badgering but simply expressing a different point of view. Disagreement is not the same as "uncivility", as too many on wikipedia appear to believe. May I suggest that you listen to his point of view, and in future consider posting some kind of a tag on those lists that you consider to be without merit before nominating them at AfD? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is becoming tedious in the extreme to duplicate identical counter-arguments in every similar instance where Freechild has proposed regarding lists of churches. I suggest people look through the other nominations and note the general issues regarding deletion that people have raised there. In fact, I suggest all of the nominations areb immediately closed and the nominator invited to resubmit them as a "job lot", so they can be considered together. There are about 6 or so of them. DDStretch (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per User:Hmains. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this article is to be deleted, then perhaps we should also delete the list of acts of the uk parliament? Parrot of Doom 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These churches are as notable as the list of tracks in an album of any song. They are just as essential as the list of denomiations of churches. I also agree with the person above. JamestheJust 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.90.104 (talk) [reply]
keep in accordance with WP:CLS and Wikipedia:Lists. --Paularblaster 02:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep This list will be a valuable resource for people across the world researching their family history but it needs to be more comprehensive and needs some more sections as mentioned above. Richerman 17:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Whilst I have repealed my nomination, I still think it worthwhile to mention that since there are no citations on the page and there is no content that has notable references, this list also violates WP:V. • Freechild'sup? 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you consider it lacks citations, then issue the appropriate template. An AfD was an extreme first step to take given any of the reasons you advanced. I suggest you consider carefully the other AfDs you initiated for deletion in the light of pit-yacker's very apt comments, since they can be applied to each and every AfD for lists of churches you initiated. DDStretch (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A tag has been put on the list which claims that it lacks notability. In the course of this, a tag (which I had added) inviting people to expand the list has been removed. Since the AfDs for churches in Venice and churches in Florence now claim that the lists are deficient in as much as the churches listed n them areb not notable, it is useful to place this refutation here about the relevance of this argument: The article topic in this instance (and all the other instances of the AfDs initiated for churches) are not the individual churches, but it is the list of churches, and this can be verified. This can clearly be done by referring to various ecclesiastical sources, amongst others in order to construct the list. It does not require that the individual churches themselves be notable. Thus, this claim should not be used to influence matters here. DDStretch (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ddstretch, please note that I removed the incomplete tag that I placed there - the one you inserted is still intact. Also, special thanks to Malleus Fatuarum for working so hard on this list. • Freechild'sup? 13:09, 5 December 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. Core desat 04:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Philadelphia

~~Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.~~ • Freechild'sup? 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. • Freechild'sup? 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even given that only notable churches should have articles, and that non-notable churches should not be redlinked, this is nevertheless an obviously useful indexing page. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a list can be made does not mean it should be. A list of churches in Manchester is not inherently any more valuable than a list of pizza parlors in Manchester, per Malinaccier. • Freechild'sup? 19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - there's no reason for deleting this that wouldn't apply equally to all lists in Wikipedia. Waggers 20:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep. In WP:NOT it states: Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. A listing of places (like churches in my opinion) in a city would qualify as this. Despite this, the argumentst presented by all above have persuaded me to ignore this, and change to keep. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 20:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments of all the previous respondents who have indicated "Keep" are most telling, whilst the arguments of Freechild would, if adhered to across the board, mean almost all "list of..." articles would be deleted from wikipedia. The deletion that might occur in that last case would be a great loss generally, and most specifically in this case. DDStretch (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note The notable information in this article is already in Category:Churches in Philadelphia. • Freechild'sup? 23:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two things are clearly not identical: the category includes only churches for which there are articles already in existence, whilst the "List of churches in Philadelphia" includes many more, and perhaps all of them–including the ones without articles at the moment. The absence of an article does not in itself guarantee lack of notability. In fact the complete list adds more than is given by the category. So if one were to be deleted, it should be the category. However, both are useful as they serve different purposes. Hence both should stay. DDStretch (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep A good set encyclopedic information befitting WP. The only thing indiscriminate here is the deletion nomination and the additional misrepresentation of the facts regarding the content of the article. Hmains 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is becoming tedious in the extreme to duplicate identical counter-arguments in every similar AfD Freechild has proposed regarding lists of churches. I suggest people look through the other nominations and note the general issues regarding deletion that people have raised there. In fact, I suggest all of the nominations areb immediately closed and the nominator invited to resubmit them as a "job lot", so they can be considered together. There are about 6 or so of them. DDStretch (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list contains encyclopedic information that is not duplicated in the category. It is certainly not "an indiscriminate collection of information" as claimed by Freechild and it is not in breach of the WP:NOT#DIR policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. In addition to violating WP:NOT#DIRhis, this is listcruft and there are plenty of current precedents, including List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana (2nd nomination) and List of shopping malls in Malaysia. • Freechild'sup? 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As previous refutations have indicated, it does not clearly violate WP:NOT#DIRhis, and the label of listcruft, as the article itself states, cannot stand on its own as a sole reason to delete the article. Indeed, reading the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Lists, one can see that this article is a completely valid example of a list (see the "In a Nutshell" summary section, and the main sections.) DDStretch (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep in accordance with WP:CLS and Wikipedia:Lists. --Paularblaster 02:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Paularblaster & DDStretch's through listing of wikipedia's policy on lists. Waarmstr 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Since there are no citations on the page and there is no content of notable reference, this list also violates WP:V. • Freechild'sup? 17:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is so clear, I am puzzled why it did not form part of the justification for the initial AfD. Similarly, if it lacks citations, then label it as such (the templates are there to be used). An immediate AfD is an extreme first step to take. I suggest you withdraw this AfD, as you have already done with at least one other, and issue the appropriate warning labels if required. DDStretch (talk) 18:12, 4 December 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. Core desat 04:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Venice

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. • Freechild'sup? 18:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even given that only notable churches should have articles, and that non-notable churches should not be redlinked, this is nevertheless an obviously useful indexing page. Note also that Venice is full of churches that merit articles. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a list can be made does not mean it should be. A list of churches in Manchester is not inherently any more valuable than a list of pizza parlors in Manchester, per Malinaccier. • Freechild'sup? 19:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indexing and cross-indexing remain one of the weaknesses of the project. Lists help remedy this. And yes, a list of churches in Venice is indeed more valuable than a list of pizza parlors; few pizza parlors have any historic, artistic, or devotional significance, in other words they are not notable, but churches definitely have that potential. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, pizza parlors may have a great deal of value to foodies. This is not an AfD against churches, merely insignificant lists of churches. • Freechild'sup? 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an insignificant list of churches, but a list of significant churches. There is a very big difference. -- Necrothesp 09:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep. In WP:NOT it states: Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. A listing of places (like churches in my opinion) in a city would qualify as this. Despite this, the argumentst presented by all above have persuaded me to ignore this, and change to keep. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 20:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments of all the previous respondents who have indicated "Keep" are most telling, whilst the arguments of Freechild would, if adhered to across the board, mean almost all "list of..." articles would be deleted from wikipedia, and are most unconvincing. The deletion that might occur in that last case would be a great loss generally, and most specifically in this case. Furthermore, it is not clear whether Freechild is distinguishing enough between insignificant lists of churches, lists of insignificant churches, insignificant lists of insignificant churches, or list of churches, from the later comments made by Freechild. DDStretch (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Given that WP is not the Yellow Pages, this article has little or no value not already granted by the Category:Churches in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Let's let the taxonomy work, and be done with lists that add no notable information. • Freechild'sup? 23:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of an article does not guarantee lack of notability, and yet this is what is required implicitly to be the case in order to make this point valid. Since it cannot be maintained, the point made by Freechild fails. DDStretch (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This list also replicates Category:Churches in Venice. • Freechild'sup? 01:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two things are clearly not identical: the category includes only churches for which there are articles already in existence, whilst the "List of churches in Venice" includes many more, and perhaps all of them–including the ones without articles at the moment. So the claim of "replication" misrepresents the situation. If redundancy were the only issue to determine the matter, it would have to be the category that should be deleted. But it isn't (the only issue to determine...), so it shouldn't be (deleted). DDStretch (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep A good set encyclopedic information befitting WP. The only thing indiscriminate here is the deletion nomination and the additional misrepresentation of the facts regarding the content of the article. Hmains 03:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't believe Freechild's argument that a list of pizza parlours is just as relevant as a list of churches in one of the most historic cities in the world. Churches have centuries of history behind them; pizza parlours do not. Most churches in Venice are worthy of their own articles in any case and a list is a useful way to determine which need articles creating for them. -- Necrothesp 11:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is becoming tedious in the extreme to duplicate identical counter-arguments in every similar AfD Freechild has proposed regarding lists of churches. I suggest people look through the other nominations and note the general issues regarding deletion that people have raised there. In fact, I suggest all of the nominations areb immediately closed and the nominator invited to resubmit them as a "job lot", so they can be considered together. There are about 6 or so of them. DDStretch (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list contains encyclopedic information that is not duplicated in the category. It is certainly not "an indiscriminate collection of information" as claimed by Freechild and it is not in breach of the WP:NOT#DIR policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. In addition to clearly violating WP:NOT#DIRhis, this is listcruft and there are plenty of current precedents, including List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana (2nd nomination) and List of shopping malls in Malaysia. • Freechild'sup? 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a world of difference between lists of shopping malls and lists of churches in a smallish modern city, very few if any of which are deserving of their own articles, and lists of churches in Venice, which is full of historic churches deserving of their own articles (as you can see from the number which are already bluelinked). You can't just take comments made about one list and apply them to another list just because they're both lists - that is illogical. The article is not in clear violation of WP:NOT#DIRhis in any way. You may not like lists, but no Wikipedia policy or guideline says they shouldn't be created - see Wikipedia:Lists and particularly read the first point in the "in a nutshell" section for a contradiction of one of your previous arguments. -- Necrothesp 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its not that I do not like lists; rather, I think they have a potential that they should live up to. This AfD is intended to prompt somebody to do something about the sorry condition of this list, rather than to get into a war of words over the value of lists, or the value of churches. If the buildings are all historical, as Sjakkalle proposes below, then insert their date of construction into the article. Just make the article better, rather than arguing this AfD. Editors should be editing - not arguing. • Freechild'sup? 15:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you have nominated a list to get it improved then you shouldn't have nominated it at all. That isn't the purpose of AfDs. In any case, the list isn't in a "sorry condition". It's a list, doing what lists do. -- Necrothesp 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agreed. I presume this goes for the others in the swathe of AfDs for lists of churches you made. DDStretch (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This does not go for the others, as each is its own case. In this article, if it is not improved it should be deleted. • Freechild'sup? 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you would be better explaining yourself further here. What is special about this list which makes your now-declared intention here that the AfD was a prompt for improvement of the article, but which means that the other articles are not in such a privileged state according to your intention in posting their AfDs? After all, you have put forward almost identical arguments in favour of deleting each of them, and yet now, in this case, you say it falls into a completely different case according to your opinion. I don't think any such distinction can be made: if this list's AfD should be taken to be a call to improve it, then so should the others, and in each case, therefore, that is what should be allowed to happen, rather than deleting them. In which case, I you should consider withdrawing your support for the deletion of this article immediately, and seriously consider doing the same for the others. DDStretch (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As it stands, this article should be deleted. If you are interested in discussing other articles nominated for deletion, please discuss them on their relevant talk pages. • Freechild'sup? 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the churches of Venice are historic buildings with a history so great that they are notable. List serves a navigational purpose. For most cities, a list of churches runs afoul of NOTDIRECTORY, but Venice is a clear exception since articles on the individual churches can be justified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep in accordance with WP:CLS and Wikipedia:Lists. --Paularblaster 02:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Since there are no citations on the page and there is no content of notable reference, this list clearly violates WP:V. • Freechild'sup? 17:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is so clear, I am puzzled why it did not form part of the justification for the initial AfD. Similarly, if it lacks citations, then label it as such (the templates are there to be used). An immediate AfD is an extreme first step to take. I suggest you withdraw this AfD, as you have already done with at least one other, and issue the appropriate warning labels if required. DDStretch (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote the page you have just cited: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." In what way is this material likely to be challenged? It's not controversial and it contains no quotations. Please don't claim that policies or guidelines justify your opinion when they clearly don't. Unreferenced pages are not automatic candidates for AfDs. -- Necrothesp 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am challenging the verifiability of the material in this list with this AfD. None of these particular churches are notable enough to warrant their inclusion without citations to support them, and this list does not add any encyclopedic content to WP due to the absence of the verifiability of the existence of the churches that are listed on it. The policy clearly applies under those circumstances. The implication that simply because a church exists or has existed for any period of time and that that inherently makes it notable is false. Churches are not the same as towns and rarely warrant inclusion on WP, neither as their own article nor in a list such as this. Read Wales' quote for a direct response to the assumption behind all of these "keep" votes. • Freechild'sup? 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article topic in this instance (and all the other instances of the AfDs you have initiated for churches) are not the individual churches, but it is the list of churches, and this can be verified. This can clearly be done by referring to various ecclesiastical sources, amongst others in order to construct the list. It does not require that the individual churches themselves be notable. Thus, this latest claim also fails. DDStretch (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - With all due respect, initiating an AfD is not the most best or most appropriate way to ask for the verification of something that you wish to challenge. You did not initiate this AfD on the grounds on non-verifiability anyway, but on the basis that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The basis on which you raised this AfD has been refuted, your new-found concern for sources can be easily dealt with, and your argument that because the elements of a list are not notable then the list itself cannot be notable is simply a logical fallacy. And as was said earlier, it is tiresome to have to keep repeating the same points in each one of your List of Churches in ... AfDs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the policy does not "clearly apply". It is there to make sure that controversial material does not appear without references, not that uncontroversial material like the existence of a building is deleted without a reference. Adding a reference to a single guidebook to Venice would verify all the material on the list. Your argument simply does not hold water. Neither does the claim that churches "rarely warrant inclusion on WP". Historic churches in historic cities most certainly warrant inclusion. Most of the churches in Venice are architecturally significant and contain artworks by noted artists, which definitely justifies their inclusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 5 December 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. Core desat 04:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Oxford

~~Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.~~ • Freechild'sup? 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. • Freechild'sup? 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even given that only notable churches should have articles, and that non-notable churches should not be redlinked, this is nevertheless an obviously useful indexing page. Oxford, like Venice, is probably also full of churches that merit articles in their own right. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a list can be made does not mean it should be. A list of churches in Manchester is not inherently any more valuable than a list of pizza parlors in Manchester, per Malinaccier. • Freechild'sup? 19:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a subpage leading from a section on the main page Oxford, to make that article more compact. The ecclesiastical architecture & history of a city is generally regarded as notable. --mervyn 20:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep. In WP:NOT it states: Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. A listing of places (like churches in my opinion) in a city would qualify as this. Despite this, the argumentst presented by all above have persuaded me to ignore this, and change to keep. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 20:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments of all the previous respondents who have indicated "Keep" are most telling, whilst the arguments of Freechild would, if adhered to across the board, mean almost all "list of..." articles would be deleted from wikipedia, and are most unconvincing. The deletion that might occur in that last case would be a great loss generally, and most specifically in this case. DDStretch (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This list does not add anything of value not already included in Category:Churches in Oxford. • Freechild'sup? 23:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant Oxford so I chnaged it. --Bduke 06:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that lists differ from categories in that lists can display redlinks, indicating future development.--mervyn 10:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep A good set encyclopedic information befitting WP. The only thing indiscriminate here is the deletion nomination and the additional misrepresentation of the facts regarding the content of the article. Hmains 03:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oxford has many notable churches and I think this article could be expanded and improved to give useful information that is not available on individual articles on some churches. --Bduke 06:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is becoming tedious in the extreme to duplicate identical counter-arguments in every similar AfD Freechild has proposed regarding lists of churches. I suggest people look through the other nominations and note the general issues regarding deletion that people have raised there. In fact, I suggest all of the nominations areb immediately closed and the nominator invited to resubmit them as a "job lot", so they can be considered together. There are about 6 or so of them. DDStretch (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list contains encyclopedic information that is not duplicated in the category, as stated above. It is not "an indiscriminate collection of information" as claimed by Freechild and it is not in breach of the WP:NOT#DIR policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. In addition to clearly violating WP:NOT#DIRhis, this is listcruft and there are plenty of current precedents, including List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana (2nd nomination) and List of shopping malls in Malaysia. • Freechild'sup? 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As previous refutations have indicated, it does not clearly violate WP:NOT#DIRhis, and the label of listcruft, as the article itself states, cannot stand on its own as a sole reason to delete the article. Indeed, reading the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Lists, one can see that this article is a completely valid example of a list (see the "In a Nutshell" summary section, and the main sections.) DDStretch (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep in accordance with WP:CLS and Wikipedia:Lists. --Paularblaster 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Since there are no citations on the page and there is no content of notable reference, this list clearly violates WP:V. • Freechild'sup? 17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is so clear, I am puzzled why it did not form part of the justification for the initial AfD. Similarly, if it lacks citations, then label it as such (the templates are there to be used). An immediate AfD is an extreme first step to take. I suggest you withdraw this AfD, as you have already done with at least one other, and issue the appropriate warning labels if required. DDStretch (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This badgering about the AfD is what I referenced earlier ddstretch, and I am going to ask you once again to please be civil. It is rather offensive to me that you continuously harass me with demands to "withdraw the AfD", and that you continuously harp my having listed multiple AfDs. If you have something constructive to add to the discussion please add that; otherwise, please stop with your line of incessant nagging. • Freechild'sup? 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please do not misrepresent the facts. As others have commented in some of the other discussions, you are misrepresenting them in the matter of the nominations (see comments by User:Necrothesp and others in almost all of the other nominations), and in your description of my actions, you are misrepresenting them again. "Demands" do not equate with the form of words I have used: I use "suggests" and related forms. "Harrass" is not appropriate, since you continually make the same erroneous claims, they deserve to be countered. And, to paraphrase another editor in response to your claim that I was being uncivil in another of the nominations (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Greater Manchester): "to disagree with you, or to voice my counter arguments in an assertive manner does not equate to incivility". Furthermore, to say that I am engaged in "incessant nagging" can be explained by the fact that you are very often repeating the same erroneous claims many times, despite having them refuted by many other editors. DDStretch (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation added to verify that churches do (notably) exist in Oxford. --Paularblaster (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But hang on a moment - you're the one that's worrying about it, and in the time it's taken you to fuss here, you could have gone out and verified it yourself. My assumption of good faith is being stretched to breaking point. --Paularblaster (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - there's no reason for deleting this that wouldn't apply equally to all lists in Wikipedia. Furthermore it seems clear to me from their other nominations and the trolling within them that the nominator is WP:POINTing (although goodness knows what point they're trying to make). Waggers (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. It's always hazardous to guess the intentions of others, but I suspect the POINT is that the deletion of List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana shouldn't have been allowed to slip under the radar. Clearly the consensus (minus the original point-making nomination) is that these lists should be kept. How do we get an administrator to close this time-wasting thread? --Paularblaster (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant might be List of churches in Edmonton, Alberta in which the editor referred to many of the lists in the swathe of AfDs here. The editor also made very similar comments in many more AfDs about lists of churches. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Omaha, Nebraska (a geographic area of interest according to other edits) the editor made edits which saved it from deletion. It is sad that he is not willing to afford this current swathe of AfDs the same leeway. DDStretch (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And all the rest of the AfDs for list of churches in ... nominated by this editor on 1st December or thereabouts. DDStretch (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paularblaster, et al: There is no significant connection to this string of AfDs. After participating/watching the series of AfDs alluded to by ddstretch I became concerned about the veracity of the lists of churches on WP. Paularblaster, you pointed me to a useful tool in Google Maps: that particular source shows that there are at least 449 churches near Oxford. I think we can all agree that they should not be included here - unless they all prove to be notable. How is notability proven? Citations! Alas, the source of my AfD: this is a wholly uncited article, and as such it is merely WP:Listcruft. I am challenging that, and not trying to make a point. • Freechild'sup? 12:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - ddstretch, nice sleuthing. I have nothing against you, and this isn't personal. • Freechild'sup? 12:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, once again, you repeat an supposed characteristic of this list (listcruft in this case), which has been dealt with in a previous message on this page without even attempting to deal with the refutations that your first mention of "listcruft" attracted. Note: i also do not have any personal against you, but I am against sloppy argumentation, and misleading and WP:POINT-like arguments. DDStretch (talk) 13:09, 5 December 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. Core desat 04:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barcs (rapper)

Non-notable rapper. Prod declined, message left to the effect that there would be more sources soon. There haven't been. tomasz. 18:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanispamcruftisement. Also fails WP:V. Precious Roy (talk) 17:04, 5 December 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/nom withdrawn (closed by non-admin) . RMHED (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Kent

~~Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.~~ • Freechild'sup? 18:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdraw. • Freechild'sup? 13:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We aren't the yellow pages, either. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even given that only notable churches should have articles, and that non-notable churches should not be redlinked, this is nevertheless an obviously useful indexing page. There are historically important churches in Kent, aren't there? - Smerdis of Tlön 19:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a list can be made does not mean it should be. A list of churches in Manchester is not inherently any more valuable than a list of pizza parlors in Manchester, per Dennis and Malinaccier. • Freechild'sup? 19:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indexing and cross-indexing remain one of the weaknesses of the project. Lists help remedy this. And yes, a list of churches in Kent is indeed more valuable than a list of pizza parlors; few pizza parlors have any historic, artistic, or devotional significance, in other words they are not notable, but churches definitely have that potential. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - there's no reason for deleting this that wouldn't apply equally to all lists in Wikipedia. Waggers 20:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep. In WP:NOT it states: Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. A listing of places (like churches in my opinion) in a city would qualify as this. Despite this, the argumentst presented by all above have persuaded me to ignore this, and change to keep. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 20:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments of all the previous respondents who have indicated "Keep" are most telling, whilst the arguments of Freechild and others would, if adhered to across the board, mean almost all "list of..." articles would be deleted from wikipedia, and are most unconvincing. The deletion that might occur in that last case would be a great loss generally, and most specifically in this case. DDStretch (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This article is redundant to Category:Churches in Kent. • Freechild'sup? 01:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This claim has been refuted many times in the other AfDs made by this editor at the same time. The same arguments apply here: The category lists articles for which wikipedia already have articles. The list of articles is more complete. Consequently, it is not redundant. Please see other nominations of list of churches to see the arguments in more detail. DDStretch (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep A good set encyclopedic information befitting WP. The only thing indiscriminate here is the deletion nomination and the additional misrepresentation of the facts regarding the content of the article. And these nominations just waste our time. Hmains 03:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If there is already a category, what's the need for a list? The list provides no more information than categorization. Majoreditor 04:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the case, please see refuations, above, and in the other AfDs for list of churches initiated at the same time. DDStretch (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is becoming tedious in the extreme to duplicate identical counter-arguments in every similar AfD Freechild has proposed regarding lists of churches. I suggest people look through the other nominations and note the general issues regarding deletion that people have raised there. In fact, I suggest all of the nominations are immediately closed and the nominator invited to resubmit them as a "job lot", so they can be considered together. There are about 6 or so of them. DDStretch (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list contains encyclopedic information that is not in the category. It is not "an indiscriminate collection of information" as claimed by Freechild and it is not in breach of the WP:NOT#DIR policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. In addition to clearly violating WP:NOT#DIRhis, this is listcruft and there are plenty of current precedents, including List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana (2nd nomination) and List of shopping malls in Malaysia. • Freechild'sup? 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As previous refutations have indicated, it does not clearly violate WP:NOT#DIRhis, and the label of listcruft, as the article itself states, cannot stand on its own as a sole reason to delete the article. Indeed, reading the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Lists, one can see that this article is a completely valid example of a list (see the "In a Nutshell" summary section, and the main sections.) DDStretch (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep in accordance with WP:CLS and Wikipedia:Lists. --Paularblaster 02:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Since there are no citations on the page and there is no content of notable reference, this list clearly violates WP:V. • Freechild'sup? 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is so clear, I am puzzled why it did not form part of the justification for the initial AfD. Similarly, if it lacks citations, then label it as such (the templates are there to be used). An immediate AfD is an extreme first step to take. I suggest you withdraw this AfD, as you have already done with at least one other, and issue the appropriate warning labels if required. DDStretch (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As suggested by an editor in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Oxford, the stating of new arguments, given that the old ones have been dealt with, and the repeated use of the same arguments, despite being refuted, across many of these AfDs, makes it difficult to not think that you are WP:POINTing here. DDStretch (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have just seen that, despite being advised to do so as a matter of courtesy, the proposer did not inform the Kent Wikiproject of this AfD. A slight error there, I believe, since this article is one with which the members would have a great interest. I have now done so. DDStretch (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst this list has the potential to be huge, it is not indeterminate. It has encyclopedic merit particularly if restricted to notable churches. Kent is a historic county and has a vast number of Norman and pre-Norman churches and thus this list cannot be comparable to a more contemporary index of churches in the USA. It urgently needs to be populated and should be descriptive beyond the realms of a category page. Dick G (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Dick G, thank you for a reasonable reply. I do agree that there are a great number of historical churches in the vicinity of Kent; however, a quick search of Google Maps shows there are at least 6,343 churches near Kent. There is no verbiage in this article that limits inclusion to historic churches or otherwise, and surely all of the 6,343 churches Kent Florence are not historical. The editors of this list had a responsibility to present a discerning criteria for inclusion on the list and contributors should have included citations to prove the veracity of the claim that each listing merits inclusion. This list does neither, and as such merely demonstrates that it is merely listing-making for the sake of list making. • Freechild'sup? 12:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This allegation of listcruft has been made on the other AfDs (sometimes more than once), and it has been refuted on the other AfDs as well. I fail to see why you are repeating these supposed criticisms when they have been refuted without addressing the refutations. Wikipedia:Lists, including the "In a nutshell" section shows that it is a perfectly good example of a list. The wikipedia definition of listcruft [[(WP:LC]]) is that it is an indiscriminate or trivial lists. This is not. Neither does the article deal with a subject that is not part of a legitimate wikipedia article. The lack of verification does not merit AfD as an initial step, and "not verified" does not equate to "unverifiable", which is another characteristic of supposed "listcruft". Therefore, this claim also fails. DDStretch (talk) 13:24, 5 December 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. John254 02:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekmel Ozbay

Only outside link is this person's curriculum vitae. He has won some awards and might be notable enough, but i'm not sure. Yamanbaiia 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on notability alone. Borderline case. That the article is an obvious COI does not justify deletion: it only hinders (and, in this case, totally prevents) the article's promotion on the quality scale (that is Good Articles, Featured Articles). --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar shows that he has had plenty of well-cited publications to make him notable by WP:PROF. Phil Bridger 15:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Phil Bridger 15:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: plenty publications, an invited review in Science, director of a large research institute, well-cited. I have cleaned the article a bit, but it needs some more work and sourcing. --Crusio 16:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger and Crusio. Tim Ross·^talk 17:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I fleshed out & verified one of the more major award pages that he's won; that's for real. --Lquilter 18:22, 4 December 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/nom withdrawn (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Florence

~~Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.~~ • Freechild'sup? 18:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. • Freechild'sup? 13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Additionally, it replicates Category:Churches in Florence. • Freechild'sup? 01:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We aren't the yellow pages, either. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's right, Wikipedia is not a directory. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even given that only notable churches should have articles, and that non-notable churches should not be redlinked, this is nevertheless an obviously useful indexing page. There are many churches in Florence that merit articles. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - there's no reason for deleting this that wouldn't apply equally to all lists in Wikipedia. Waggers 20:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep. In WP:NOT it states: Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. A listing of places (like churches in my opinion) in a city would qualify as this. Despite this, the argumentst presented by all above have persuaded me to ignore this, and change to keep. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 20:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments of all the previous respondents who have indicated "Keep" are most telling, whilst the arguments of Freechild and others would, if adhered to across the board, mean almost all "list of..." articles would be deleted from wikipedia, and are most unconvincing. The deletion that might occur in that last case would be a great loss generally, and most specifically in this case. DDStretch (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am baffled that churches can be considered "indisciminate information". --Paularblaster 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep A good set encyclopedic information befitting WP. The only thing indiscriminate here is the deletion nomination and the additional misrepresentation of the facts regarding the content of the article. And these nominations are a waste of our time. Hmains 03:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is becoming tedious in the extreme to duplicate identical counter-arguments in every similar AfD Freechild has proposed regarding lists of churches. I suggest people look through the other nominations and note the general issues regarding deletion that people have raised there. In fact, I suggest all of the nominations are immediately closed and the nominator invited to resubmit them as a "job lot", so they can be considered together. There are about 6 or so of them. DDStretch (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list contains encyclopedic information that is not duplicated in the category. It is certainly not "an indiscriminate collection of information" as claimed by Freechild and it is not in breach of the WP:NOT#DIR policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. In addition to clearly violating WP:NOT#DIRhis, this is listcruft and there are plenty of current precedents, including List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana (2nd nomination) and List of shopping malls in Malaysia. • Freechild'sup? 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Could it be that shopping malls and churches are not entirely comparable? (although both sociologically and architecturally shopping malls have many points of interest); and could it even be - it is with hesitancy that I make the suggestion - that "churches in Florence" and "churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana" might not be entirely comparable either? --Paularblaster 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List of historic churches in a very historic city, a large proportion of which are worthy of their own articles. Lists are not rendered irrelevant by categories, as Wikipedia:Lists clearly states. -- Necrothesp 09:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Since there are no citations on the page and there is no content of notable reference, this list clearly violates WP:V. • Freechild'sup? 17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is so clear, I am puzzled why it did not form part of the justification for the initial AfD. Similarly, if it lacks citations, then label it as such (the templates are there to be used). An immediate AfD is an extreme first step to take. I suggest you withdraw this AfD, as you have already done with at least one other, and issue the appropriate warning labels if required. DDStretch (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote the page you have just cited: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." In what way is this material likely to be challenged? It's not controversial and it contains no quotations. Please don't claim that policies or guidelines justify your opinion when they clearly don't. Unreferenced pages are not automatic candidates for AfDs. -- Necrothesp 21:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am challenging the verifiability of the material in this list with this AfD. None of these particular churches are notable enough to warrant their inclusion without citations to support them, and this list does not add any encyclopedic content to WP due to the absence of the verifiability of the existence of the churches that are listed on it. The policy clearly applies under those circumstances. The implication that simply because a church exists or has existed for any period of time and that that inherently makes it notable is false. Churches are not the same as towns and rarely warrant inclusion on WP, neither as their own article nor in a list such as this. Read Wales' quote for a direct response to the assumption behind all of these "keep" votes. • Freechild'sup? 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article topic in this instance (and all the other instances of the AfDs you have initiated for churches) are not the individual churches, but it is the list of churches, and this can be verified. This can clearly be done by referring to various ecclesiastical sources, amongst others in order to construct the list. It does not require that the individual churches themselves be notable. Thus, this latest claim also fails. DDStretch (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the policy does not "clearly apply". It is there to make sure that controversial material does not appear without references, not that uncontroversial material like the existence of a building is deleted without a reference. Adding a reference to a single guidebook to Florence would verify all the material on the list. Your argument simply does not hold water. Neither does the claim that churches "rarely warrant inclusion on WP". Historic churches in historic cities most certainly warrant inclusion. Most of the churches in Florence are architecturally significant and contain artworks by noted artists, which definitely justifies their inclusion -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it does clearly apply. This list is clearly open to what Google Maps refers to as "1770 churches near Florence, Italy". There is no verbiage in this article that limits inclusion to historic churches, and surely you aren't implying that all 1770 churches near Florence are historical. I know its an old place, but we must agree here... There has to be a more defining criteria for inclusion on the list and each listing must be cited in order to prove the veracity of the claim that they are worth being noted. This list does neither, and as such merely demonstrates that it is merely listing making for the sake of list making. • Freechild'sup? 12:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say near Florence, I said in Florence. And yes, most of the churches in Florence, including all those on the list, are of historical significance and worthy of their own articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - However, there is no way for a reader to know that other than your assertion Necrothesp. Because it doesn't pass the WP:OR test, once again this list proves to be WP:Listcruft: "Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources.". • Freechild'sup? 13:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Issuing an AfD because something is not verified is an extreme first step. Also, "not verified" does not equate to "unverifiable". All you are saying here is that the article needs more doing on it, so why issue the AfD in the first place? Your allegation of Listcruft holds no water unless you unpack what you mean by this. I consider that the list is not indiscriminate or trivial (which is the definition of listcruft given in WP:LC), and this point has been already dealt with many times in the various AfDs you have proposed at roughly the same time for lists of churches. DDStretch (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Freechild, now you're claiming this article is original research, when it does not meet criteria for that either. Really, you do appear to be clutching at straws in your efforts to get this article deleted. I could reference the Blue Guide to Florence in the article and at a stroke every single church on the list would be referenced. As DDStretch says, "not verified" does not equate to "unverifiable". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is a bizarre discussion. As a writer of articles on Italian art, I find such lists immensely helpful in organizing the material that needs to be added.

From what I recall, the arguments have been: 1) lack of original information - that is not true, some names are otherwise not present in Wikipedia 2) lack of references - that can easily be remediated quicker than it took to argue this case 3) lack of notability - this is bizarre. How should we measure notability? The church of San Marco or Santa Maria Novella contains artworks that are:

1) known or exposed to more people in the world than any specific facts about churches in Indiana or shopping malls in Malaysia 2) the cost of the artworks at auction in just a few churches in Florence would dwarf the value of many museum collections in the world. You can make the calculations by asking how much a Pontormo, for example sold at auction at Sotheby's and then estimate by how much Pontormo's painting at Santa Felicita would sell, and so on. That does not even place an aesthetic value on the works.

Most reasonable students of European artistic history would say that Florentine art was highly influential for subsequent European art. Most students would agree that churches in Florence contain major works of Florentine art. (do I need to reference these comments?) Having a list of churches is immensely helpful in sorting out who made works of art in FLorence, hence who was influential in subsequent European art. One place that also helps is that often when I read an article or entry about a work in a church: it might say the work is a Virgin with saints while another refers to a Glory of the Virgin and one entry might say the name of the church is the the Guastato or Vastato or Santa Maria di Guastato or Nunziata or Annunciata, etc. Having a list allows you to rapidly verify the name, and often find the name used in a linkable Wikipedia entry.

If the category of churches in Florence becomes the equivalent of this list, then this list no longer serves a purpose. While adding more information to this list would not harm it, it is best to keep it as a pruned list for utility. Baroque1700 (talk) 06:47, 6 December 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. Core desat 04:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadzilla (album)

Declined speedy (A7 does not apply to albums), but almost certainly non-notable. The band itself, from a quick Google search, is likely to be A7 material. — Coren ^(talk) 18:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I couldn't find any evidence proving that these EPs even exist. Blackjays1 10:34, 2 December 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 and redirect to Human sexual behavior. — Scientizzle 20:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency of sexual activity

Nothing in this article that couldn't be in Human sexual behavior - page is also named Frequency of sexual activity but only mentions humans. Could also be in Animal sexual behaviour or Human sexual behavior but not required as a standalone article that only includes information about one species. Whitstable 18:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant. JJL 18:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Human sexual behavior. TonyBallioni 19:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to any related article. I once wrote the article because it was requested previously. --Brand спойт 19:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge. Certainly it's a notable topic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Human sexual behavior. The 'Human sexual behavior' article is not too large for a merge to be appropriate, and a redirect to a section with the same heading would be useful. Anarchia (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Anarchia. This info does not exist in Human sexual behavior, so deletion would be a loss. — Becksguy (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Anarchia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 11 December 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. Core desat 04:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality in Star Trek

Plenty of original research issues and balance issues. First of all, the topic "sexuality in Star Trek" doesn't deserve an article because there are no reliable sources that discuss "sexuality in Star Trek" as its own topic. As for balance issues, instead of talking about sexuality as a whole the article is mostly speculation about which characters might be LGBT and what moments might be considered "LGBT moments". Literally hundreds of unsourced statements, most of which are baseless weasel words. Chardish 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 11:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't they? There are sources for depictions of race in Star Trek and for a franchise that has run for decades, it's entirely possible for there to be reliable sources for this - and what we're considering is not the rejection of the article in its current state but the categorical rejection of the entire topic, so per The Rules^TM what's important isn't as much what the article is but what it can become. --Kizor 21:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooh! I found this in another Star Trek article's reference section: "Constance Penley (1997). NASA/Trek: Popular Science and Sex in America. Verso, 130. ISBN 0860916170." --Kizor 21:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you are wrong. From the deletion policy: The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how material which does not meet the relevant content criteria is identified and removed from Wikipedia. Reasons for deletion include but are not limited to violation of copyright, content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source, and unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons. AfD in general discusses whether the article in its current form should be deleted and is not a referendum on the topic itself, though if the article is deleted for notability concerns, no such future article should exist that does not rectify the concerns. Chardish 22:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm? My experience is completely the opposite. See this AfD about a then-horrible article on a sex act. --Kizor 23:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But lack of references is not a reason for deletion; it's a reason to clean-up, if it can be shown that the references for the topic exist thus demonstrating notability & RS/V-ability. --Lquilter 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research with a tad of synthesis. Majoreditor 04:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete major WP:SYNTH and original research issues, amongst other problems. RFerreira 08:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serious WP:NOR and WP:NPOV problems. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of thing. Xihr 09:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no sources that discuss sexuality in Star Trek? You mean other than the sources which quote the creator of Star Trek on the topic, the sources that quote others involved in the creation of Star Trek on the topic, the sources that discuss the efforts of people within ST production and fandom to convince TPTB to include an unambiguously LGBT character and so on? Otto4711 13:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is a totally notable topic. If you find that sources are missing or there's OR, that's a reason for cleanup, not deletion. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as AfD is not for cleanup. Sexual orientation issues for Star Trek have been widely discussed both in the media by sociologists. The topic is notable - we should not delete an article simply because coming up with a satisfactory title for it is difficult. Tag for cleanup, remove OR but keep the article. WjBscribe 16:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs a clean-up and a lot more sources, but it's definitely a notable topic. --Brian Olsen 19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are already plenty of sources in the article establishing notability. Fireplace 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Lots of secondary sources, and such weighty subjects to be covered, as one of the first inter-racial kisses (some say, *the* first) on broadcast television. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 05:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's covered in Trekkies, I can ~~downl~~ check that. --Kizor 12:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No acceptable deletion rationale has been given. Article may require cleanup, but this isn't the place for that. faithless (^speak) 06:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NN, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV as well as this article being out on the extreme end of fancruft. At the absolute very most this deserves two lines on the show's main page saying words to the effect of "some sexual encounters occur, they can be inter-species but are very rarely gay" although to be honest if each individual LGBT or quasi-LGBT sexual encounter in question is notable then it's going to get covered in the episode's article anyway. A1octopus 13:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaking sexual activity with sexual orientation. Otto4711 14:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, that was a bit ambiguous of me because I missed a couple of words out. Now corrected. A1octopus 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh, see the thing is, you're mistaking sexual activity with sexual orientation. Otto4711 02:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And even more to the point, Aloctopus is mistaking what is or isn't addressed in a work of fiction with critical commentary about it. Star Trek could have all gay characters or no gay characters, and it would be irrelevant to this CFD if there are a lot of publications discussion sexuality on Star Trek -- which there are. It's kind of ironic that in one of the few places in Wikipedia's coverage of fictional topics where the subject of the article isn't the majority of the source for the article, that someone would argue WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and WP:Fancruft ... We need more articles that rely on the published literature about fictional workers; not fewer such articles. This sort of deletion will strip Wikipedia of academic relevance and leave only the articles that include plot summaries. --Lquilter 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitely Strong Keep — clean it up; don't delete it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this to be a very interesting article. In fact, articles such as these are why Wikipedia is better than the EB - and it has more references than a typical EB article too. Certainly one that should kept, not deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - First time I have ever put "strong" into a keep vote. I am amazed that this is even being considered for deletion. It is well written, well referenced, and and shows (as Dev920 points out) why we are better than a paper encyclopedia. If there are concerns about original research, then people should look for cites rather than nominating for deletion. Jeffpw 10:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This article has just been made WP:LGBT's Collaboration of the Month. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Clean it up (there seem to be sources and topic is notable), don't delete it. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Article needs help but who amongst us doesn't. Per WP:AfD if an article can be improved through regular editing it's not a good candidate for AfD. This article needs better writing and possibly some structure work but hardly a reason for deletion. Benjiboi 11:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator is incorrect in asserting there are no reliable sources that discuss "sexuality in Star Trek" as its own topic; I've read a lot with my own two eyes -- and I'm talking about academic literature not fanzines. Will work on refs section. --Lquilter 14:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added 9 cites from the academic literature to assist with the rewrite. These 9 were pulled from MLA Bibliography; probably film studies & cultural studies DBs will be even more fruitful but I was in MLA Bib at the time. --Lquilter 17:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't think I've ever seen Infinitely used as a qualifier for a AfD !vote. Keep per other keep rationale. The article is basically notable and has references to establish that notability, however, it does need additional references. Lacking intrinsic notability is the one problem that can't be fixed (and that's not the case here), the rest (RS, COI, POV, etc), if they exist, can be dealt with by improving the article. I agree with Benjiboi that WP:AFD says that fixing or tagging is preferred to deletion for an article than be improved. In Deletion policy it also says as one of the reasons to delete: ...content not verifiable in a reliable source.... It doesn't say unverified, meaning currently not verified, it says unverifiable, which means it can't be verified. Not the same thing at all. All this boils down to a couple of concepts: AfD is not for cleanup, needs improvement != needs deletion, and deletion should be the last resort, not the first. I might also point out that this article is a B class article in LGBT Studies, which means it's received project assessment. — Becksguy 16:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Sourced and notable. — TAnthony^Talk 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks to have 16 sources right now. Don't know if they are reliable, but still, that is up to the nominator to point out.--Rayc 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rewrite - this article does not need deletion it needs a serious rewrite. The lead is awful and there are far too many unsourced statements. But once again these are not reasons for deletion, since (as pointed out a number of times above) the article is sourced and notable. I would also suggest the article be retitled as: 'depictions of sexuality in Star Trek'--Cailil ^talk 16:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. This article is about a major theme in a major cultural artifact, per WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian 20:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The article seems to contain a lot of wishful thinking. It is rather long considering the amount of sourcing (shortening by 50% might be considered). The references ought to be formatted using WP:CITE. I'm not sure that everything included under External Links would pass WP:EL. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost all of the problems with the article are better solved by editing than by deletion. Rray (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- it was well-sourced before a bunch of other references were added. Rewrite as necessary, don't delete.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wow. Amazed this was even nominated. It needs work but it is definitely an encyclopedic topic. --Fang Aili ^talk 00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- As social issues are the core of what Star Trek was originally based one, human sexuality - both in the Star Trek universe and the real world - are of vital importance to the series as a whole. Esprix (talk) 04:05, 6 December 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 per consensus of established users. Core desat 04:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned to no consensus. --Core desat 21:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moneybomb

DELETE Its is complete propaganda and has POV problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.0.175 (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Numerous problems with this page, primarily the fact that Wikipedia is not for articles on neologisms. Serious point of view issues as well: the article seems to lionize Paul and his campaign and speaking nothing but good things about it. Synthesis issues as well, as the article claims that the term is a widely-used neologism and then immutably associates it with the Paul campaign. Delete this and maybe include relevant information on the article about the Paul campaign. Chardish 17:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete (and/or Merge~~ with Ron Paul). I've noted a number of these articles popping up recently as WP:COATRACK articles created in order to laud this particular political candidate in the US 2008 presidential election race. In this case, the references don't seem to have anything much to do with the protologism, so doesn't meet WP:Verifiable and I suggest that the usage is largely self-generated by the campaign staffers. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After reading all the way through all of the references in the article, and correlating them with what was said about them in the text, I think this neologism is somewhat more widely used than I would have thought from my first examination. I've withdrawn my recommendation -- I'm now neutral -- and I would ask everyone to read this stuff carefully and make up their own minds. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I see another place to hang up my jacket as well. Delete, on the account of WP:COATRACK. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've been working on this page since it was listed on 3O, but now that I read COATRACK, I have to agree. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As the 3O provider on the original content dispute, which is still unresolved, HelloAnnyong may be pushing the limits to make such a nonneutral recommendation. John J. Bulten 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ [see my Neutral 20:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) post below. —A.] ~~Merely inflates a small amount of information. Merge that small amount unless it would merely serve as a magnet for further disruptive and tendentious editing from the coi spa.~~ See also: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Moneybomb. — Athaenara ✉ 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As the admin who blocked me on the alleged WP:DE immediately after writing this (see also unanswered question here), Athaenara also has a vested interest here that was not disclosed straightforwardly. Athaenara, what do you propose to do with the media coverage of moneybombs for Thompson, Huckabee, Kucinich, etc.? John J. Bulten 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE: If you actually read Wikipeida's policy on neologisms, you will see this article does not violate the policy. The policy does not outright ban articles on neologisms. It says sometimes it is appropriate to remove articles on neologisms, and gives two specific criteria for removing the article. The moneybomb article does not meet either of these criteria for deletion. The neologism argument is invalid. Byates5637 17:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Byates5637 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --El on ka 19:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save: I concur that this article does make the cut for a legitimate article on a neologism. It also doesn't meet the coatrack criteria since the term money bomb was coined by Ron Paul supporters and has been popularized mainly through their fundraising drives, especially the November 5th donation drive. So it is legitimate to bring up it's widespread use by Ron Paul supporters as they coined the term and popularized it's usage. Also, while I certainly agree the article is weighted down by bias that is something that can be removed through editing. Isn't that why Wikipedia exists? Anyone who has objections to the content should just find a few sources and edit the content themselves to make it neutral.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Devil's Advocate (talk • contribs) 19:35, December 2, 2007
- — The Devil's Advocate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look at my editing history if you're suspicious of my motives. I find your implicit attack shameful since the vast majority of my contributions have nothing to do with Ron Paul.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Devil's Advocate (talk • contribs) 20:46, December 2, 2007

Comment: if the notability of this neologism is in fact tied to the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, it seems to me that it would be most sensible to merge the content appropriately in that article [and others: see Elonka's post below] and redirect Moneybomb ~~to it~~ [Addendum below]. — Athaenara ✉ 19:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I think Elonka's suggestions below in re where it is appropriate to merge specific content and for the redirect to go to Google bomb are more encyclopedic solutions. — Athaenara ✉ 21:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the term originates there and has been used a lot specifically by Ron Paul supporters it has been used significantly by the media and on a smaller scale by other candidates' supporters. The term has not been used as much by other candidate's supporters because there has been a lower level of success and there's also less enthusiasm behind their candidate. However, while it was coined by Ron Paul supporters the media has picked up on the term and in one instance used it to refer to a Fred Thompson donation drive that is cited in the article on the money bomb. It's actually being used a lot by Kucinich supporters for their planned December 15th drive: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ApF&q=kucinich+money+bomb&btnG=Search —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Devil's Advocate (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge to Ron Paul and Google bomb. I was initially weakly in support of this article since the term appeared to have some traction in mainstream press, and the term had been used in other (non-Paul) context as early as 2004. However, it's clear now that the article is just being used as part of the Ron Paul advertising campaign, by Paul's cult-like followers.[3] This Moneybomb article (and other Paul articles) have become a magnet for edit-warring and soapboxing, and on the Moneybomb article, the Paul supporters are redirecting everything non-Paul (including the 2004 reference) away to other pages. I agree with the WP:COATRACK argument, as there seems a clear intent on the part of the Paul supporters to demand "credit" for inventing the neologism. If they want to make this case on off-wiki websites, fine, but I don't want to see Wikipedia used as part of this campaign. The least disruptive course, as I see it, is simply to merge this information (that can be sourced reliably) to the Ron Paul article(s), and redirect the "Moneybomb" term to Google bomb, where a mention can be added of the multiple forms of "Money bomb", from 2004 onwards. --Elonka 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I fail to see how to take this comment in good faith (especially weighing Elonka's allegations of move-away of non-Paul material against this and this). Political fundraising and search manipulation are already easily disambiguated: "This article is about the political fundraising technique .... For the search manipulation technique also called 'money bombing', see commercial googlebombing." Also, "from 2004 onwards" ignores the 1983 book also helpfully stubbed and disambiguated. The suggestion by Elonka and Athaenara that fundraising content should be shifted to google bomb (which is not about political fundraising) solely because of similarity of phrasing, in all honesty, strikes me as an abuse of disambiguation, rather like saying this: the neologism "sudoku" was first called "number place"; "number place" has been cited twice before as a synonym of "positional notation" (the math principle); therefore "sudoku" should be deleted and its content split among "positional notation" and "logic puzzle". If anyone can disabuse me, please do. John J. Bulten 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Although I have in the neighborhood of 1,000 to 1,500 contributions, I will preface my comments by stating that I have not contributed much over the past year and I do consider myself to be biased in that I am a Ron Paul supporter. I do believe the information to be verifiable and notable, however, I will let others decided if it should be kept as its own article. If other regular contributors believe this information does not warrant its own article, please consider moving it to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 or Fundraising for the 2008 presidential election. It is likely that there will be much more newsworthy information on this topic after December 16th. Finally, I would also urge other Paul supporters to resist commenting in this particular AFD if you have not substantially contributed to Wikipedia previously. -Medtopic 23:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to Ron Paul as suggested. It's just a neologism for a time-focused fundraising campaign, a more Internet-savvy version of a telethon. It doesn't take a whole article to say this. Gordonofcartoon 03:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well a telethon gets its own article. If a telethon is so significant to merit its own article then surely an Internet version of it would also be significant enough. I just don't get why anyone would put it in the Ron Paul section. It seems to merit its own mention as the term has been used widely by the media and supporters of other candidates like Kucinich and Huckabee.--The Devil's Advocate 05:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE (KEEP). First, this article already won one AFD battle when the term was less noted (and why can't I find that discussion?). (WP:DE: "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.") Second, there is ongoing third opinion discussion (which I understand constitutes mediation), which means that the content is not settled and judgments should not be made on the paucity of the article because much sourced material is awaiting consensus on its reliability and I have not boldly reinserted it the fourth time due to this discussion. (WP:ATD: "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." Also WP:NOTAGAIN: "It is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article.") Third, the fine arguments above for this article meeting neologism and NPOV criteria are unanswered: the proper weighting of such an article is to concentrate on its origin (Paul supporters), rise to prominence (Paul supporters), and ongoing use (six campaigns). (We are striving for proper weight; I have just readded a sourced anti-Paul comment, because I promised I would, and because it indicates my neutrality.) Fourth, I have particular concerns about the deletion faction, such as the tagalong coatrack charges upon a withdrawn vote, the inexplicable desire to pretend search manipulation has anything to do with this article other than disambiguation, the comments by the third opinion provider (whom I had regarded as a mediator), the attempts to discredit neutral analyses as SPA's (don't tag me SPA, I've just joined a wide Wikiproject), and the combined arguments "Delete, moneybombs are all about Paul" and "Delete, Paulites are hiding info that moneybombs are about lots of campaigns". (Careful review of the talk and edit histories will reward the inquirer after truth.) Fifth, it is clear that prominence was achieved on 11/5, and there was $1.8 million pledged and $4.2 million raised-- but for 12/16 there is $2.5 million pledged already and reliable sources have taken note. Just saying. (Side issue: since AFD nomination, the article has admittedly attracted notable pro-Paul editing (and pro-other editing), but these edits should be handled by normal consensus, not deletion.) Sorry I joined here late-- I was sick. In short, it would be disappointing if a careless admin made the deletion lacking even rough consensus and without addressing the quality of the arguments here and in the prior case. WP:DGFA: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." WP:DP: "If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept." John J. Bulten 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question. Perhaps I'm missing something, but where was the prior AfD nomination? I only see a couple CSD deletes in the actual page history, and as for this page there are no deletes; plus, this AfD only has "Moneybomb" in the title (as opposed to "Moneybomb (2nd nomination)"). Therefore, I can only currently assume that this is the first nomination for this article. If I'm mistaken, please point me in the right direction. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 10:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply: He [Bulten] can't find it because it doesn't exist. He's probably confused about different processes (afd, prod, speedy). The article previously was deleted (logs) as a dictdef. — Athaenara ✉ 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply: That's what I figured, because I saw the prior CSDs. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara's statement is incomplete because the deletion mentioned is wholly unrelated; my and Slakr's question is still open. The deletion mentioned results from my neophyte attempt to move the article. As you can see in talk, it was originally located at "money bomb" with a redirect from "moneybomb". I wished to swap and was uncontested in talk, but incorrectly attempted to move the redirect "moneybomb" first, which didn't work and then required me to request speedy deletion of "moneybomb" (namely, for an uncontroversial move). When that happened, before I finished, another editor recreated "moneybomb" as a dict def, which Orangemike properly quoted and re-speedied as such. Then I completed my move, all on 11/20. Those two speedy deletions had nothing to do with the text currently disputed. However, the original discussion about deleting then-"money bomb", which according to talk was requested by Orangemike 11/5 and contested by Kazvorpal (so it could not be speedy or prod, though I looked), is still missing; there is no record of deleting its expected page. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to Slakr (1) specified the dictdef deletion and (2) linked the log which lists its 07:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC) occurrence. — Athaenara ✉ 00:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous deletion debate, that Bulten was talking about, is at the original Money Bomb talk page. --Kaz (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The new paradigm of campaign fundraising that the article describes is real. The article name is dubious, but that can be fixed if necessary. The Ron Paul focus is unfortunate, but does not invalidate the subject; it too can be fixed, if editors are willing to engage the Paulites. I'd be tempted to merge this into Campaign finance in the United States, but that article is really oriented towards types of funds raising and which types are regulated; this is about new ways of gathering non-controversial individual contributions. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This practice is not just limited to one candidate like some have suggested. Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama (with "Barack Friday") have both organized "moneybombs" that failed, but that won't stop others from trying and succeeding. I see this type of media promotion becoming more and more mainstream in the future since people are really starting to use the power of the internet to collaborate. --pie4all88 (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those are excellent points which support keeping a balanced article; it is still very skewed toward the Paul campaign. — Athaenara ✉ 03:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rule for being a GOOD editor is that if something is broken, you fix it...not delete it. If the article seems to be too pro-Ron Paul, you make it LESS pro-Ron Paul, not try to get it deleted altogether. Typically, people who object to a mere formatting or presentation issue and then want to delete it instead of fixing it have a POV agenda.

Their goal is censorship, not fixing whatever technicality they're citing.

One guy above actually says that he'd support the article, except that it's too pro-Paul. This is, in essence, a direct confession that he's wanting it deleted because of a POV agenda, over something entirely fixable.

I see, here, a lot of evidence of precisely that kind of bad faith. The attacks are on obviously reparable issues, yet the agenda is to remove the article entirely. The idea that an event setting the record for one-day Republican fund raising is not noteworthy is laughable. The idea that a word documented in mainstream media, and used on over 311,000 websites that Google has noted, is still too much a neologism to be noteworthy is ridiculous.

All words are new at one time or another, but:

- seven different political campaigns (six other than Paul) trying moneybombs
- hundreds of thousands of pages using the word
- and a record-setting event using the name

...more than qualify as something worth an article -- or two. --Kaz (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: It is my view that articles which do not comply with the neutral point of view policy should be edited in conformity with it or, if that is not possible, deleted. AFD itself: The AFD process is well suited to a community overview of such borderline articles in that it brings them to the attention of editors who were not previously aware of them. This has nothing to do with politics, and I have struck out my "Delete" above to reflect this. — Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 5 December 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. John254 02:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Suit Gundam: Gundam vs. Zeta Gundam

un-sourced, non-notable fancruft β^_command 17:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is unsourced, but appears to be an actual video game. Edward321 22:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there something this could be merged into? Wryspy 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you could create a list of Gundam based video games and merge it there. 132.205.99.122 23:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have removed unsourced data, added news and independent reviews and tagged it as a stub. I have neither played the game nor know other websites considered reliable other than IGN or Gamespot so expansion is more than welcome. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add relevant tags No sources is a reason to add cleanup tags, not to AfD. AfD is not meant to force article cleanup.

Also, fancruft is a perjorative term and should not be used as it merely inflames debate. Jtrainor 02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" a reason to add cleanup tags," - this comment from this editor makes me laughGundamsRus 13:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're trolling, but I'll respond anyways. Cleanup tags should be added to articles that are in bad shape and need work. You, on the other hand, add them only to articles edited by myself and User:MalikCarr despite the generally high quality of those articles. Jtrainor 17:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a very good article, but an article on a game that saw a fair bit of mainstream critical commentary, as well as international mainstream release. This could easily be turned into a proper article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:48, 4 December 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. Core desat 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The realm of possibility

WP:OR and WP:V. Note that this is not an article about the phrase the realm of possibility, which could conceivably be verifiable, but instead an essay about the realm of possibility itself. Could redirect to Possibility, but probably safe to just delete. —Caesura ^(t) 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from being rather nonsensical—"Realm of Possibility is infinite and multi-dimensional, but it is restricted to what is possible (emphasis mine)—this is clearly an essay. Maralia 17:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources. looks like WP:OR to me. -FrankTobia 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, unverifiable, and an essay.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow I'm new here. I think this essay can be helpful. However, I'm learning the rules. If this does not fit the specs of Wikipedia, please be so kind as to point the violation. As Caesura pointed out, this isn't so much about the phrase, as the idea/place. Is that the problem? You want history on the phrase? Then what? Can I post to that? Lord Challen 15:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Userfy as it is clearly an essay and WP:OR, though I certainly like it WP:ILIKE. Sadly, however it is not in this form an article. Perhaps as Lord Challen suggests it could be reformatted to a history of phrase article, but I doubt that would be notable enough.Earthdirt (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The realm of possibility is not a new idea, or place for that matter. The fact that everything I know about it is WP:OR is simply unfortunate. I actually tried to do some research on it and couldn't find any . . . . which is why I thought it would be nice to have it here. I'm sort of a spiritual guy and think of things in spiritual ways. I'm aware of the use of spiritual objects in everyday life. In a spiritual sense, The realm of possibility is as real as a Red Robin or Blue Whale. One of the things that got me hooked on Wikipedia is the spiritual perspective that is written in some of the articles. Sometimes when chasing a chain of related links you hit the exact thing you needed to understand something that might not been directly attached the orignal question. Spiritual objects are real . . . to some of us. Wikipedia should be everyone . . . . even the psychic, seer, nut case, or other [one off] type personalities in the world. This isn't a case of WP:ILIKE as much as it is I see, use, and thought others might find it to be useful. I don't know who [coined] the phrase, I don't know where it came form, or how long we have been using it. But I do know that it is a commonly accepted idea, term, phrase, and that it can be a very useful tool when brainstorming. If it will help, I will try to make it more neutral and not so much a promotion of faith, personal power, or so usable. However, I declare The realm of possibility to be as real as the nose on your face, (for those of you that have faces.) I find articles like this to be useful as articles on Metallurgy. Granted, most people think that spirituality is a matter of opinion, but there is consenous on many things. Wikipedia can be a place we hash out and find common ground with terms that we all use, but perhaps don't agree on. This is a real article. . . if badly written. I would love to see people edit it, refine, and allow it to take its place on the things that we use. This verifiable for the most part. Granted, I don't think we have authorities on The realm of possibility but that is exists, or used in thought process is absolutely verifiable, just ask anybody.Lord Challen (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My main objection to this article is that it is completely unsourced. I consider it original research because of this and because the facts aren't very "hard," that is, while the realm of possibility may be as real as a "Red Robin or Blue Whale" to you, I've never seen an instance of "the realm of possibility". I'd like very much to see some sources, even one, and even if it's not great. Oh, Lord Challen, I don't think you're supposed to vote twice, but discussion is definitely a good thing. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:31, 5 December 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. Core desat 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Tie Dynasty

Article fails to establish notabilty and reads like an advert. Lugnuts 17:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have reverted this edit by Brwnigrl (talk · contribs) as copyright infringement on http://www.evilsponge.org/albums/BlackTieDynasty__Movements.htm. This is the edit that made the article read like an advert (or, to be more accurate, a review). Still does not establish notability, and at this point probably qualifies for speedy deletion for that reason. —Caesura ^(t) 17:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, unusual vote time. Weak speedy delete under A7 (band). Only two sentences in the article, but the note is that they have released something on a notable label - thus it is weak. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:23, 6 December 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. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furyondy

Stock ___location for a role-playing game that fails WP:FICT for lack of reliable secondary sources. It is not normally advisable to split out a separate article on a ___location from the game, as each split lowers the level of notability. Gavin Collins (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into an appropriate sub-article of Greyhawk. — A notable state within the context of a notable setting. 21,300 ghits. — RJH (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RJH. Gavin, can you lay off a little? This is getting relentless and annoying. You're proposing these so fast that it's requiring interested parties to check Wikipedia every day just to keep up with your rampant deletionism. Iquander (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RJH.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RJH and Iquander. BOZ (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being completely in-universe and failing to show how this is culturally relevant or notable at all. Notability is not inherited. - Chardish (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is, regardless of how you interpret your silly guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innerroads (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Innerroads is a blocked sockpuppet. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's not. Notability of the parent does not imply notability of the child. This article must show that it is independently notable and not merely notable because the game itself is notable. - Chardish (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your argument is completely bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.247.31 (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BLACKKITE 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted after discussion; the first Keep vote claims notability and 21000 Ghits; there are in fact only around 300 unique hits on Google ([4]). The other Keep votes are per this vote. Without enough rationaled comments, a relisting is appropriate. BLACKKITE 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Greyhawk. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Only in-universe notability, but seems to have enough to back it up, if only just so. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Only in-universe notability is reason enough to delete on its own. — Coren ^(talk) 19:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator incocrrectly list this as a stock ___location. There are ample primary sources, the article just needs sourcing and a bit of cleanup. Edward321 23:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to be cleaned up but there are references out there. There is more to research can running a Google search, sometimes you have to actually *work* and not slap a tag on something. Web Warlock 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you show us some of these sources then? I (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I had to get my kids to bed. Plus these are in stacks of old magazines I have so I have to go through them one at a time. Real research takes a while. Web Warlock 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added four and will have more to add tonight. Still and going through physical stacks of magazine, journals and various books. Web Warlock 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft, no stated external notability. --S.dedalus 22:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:ITSCRUFT, "cruft" is not enough of a reason to delete. I am in the process of getting external sources to establish notability. Web Warlock 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IINFO, this article is clearly utterly non notable. --S.dedalus 23:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Splitting articles into sub-articles is perfectly acceptable. It prevents articles from becoming overly long. Rray 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refactor as split from Greyhawk—As currently written, this article does not qualify as a split-for-convenience from Greyhawk as it is not a cross-referenced sub-topic article. Rather, I would suggest this being refactored into a sub-topic article entitled Kingdoms and cities of Greyhawk with an appropriate Template:Main cross-reference from the Greyhawk#Political powers section. The sources provided at present are primary rather than secondary sources; it is my opinion that these would be sufficient for a sub-article of the type suggested here, but not for the current stand-alone article that this currently is. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would support this plan. (no time to do anymore digging for articles from 80's gaming journals) Web Warlock (talk) 15:23, 5 December 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 per consensus (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottawa churches

~~Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.*~~ • Freechild'sup? 16:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. • Freechild'sup? 04:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even given that only notable churches should have articles, and that non-notable churches should not be redlinked, this is nevertheless an obviously useful indexing page. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - there's no reason for deleting this that wouldn't apply equally to all lists in Wikipedia. Waggers 20:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments of all the previous respondents who have indicated "Keep" are most telling, whilst the arguments of Freechild would, if adhered to across the board, mean almost all "list of..." articles would be deleted from wikipedia, and are most unconvincing. The deletion that might occur in that last case would be a great loss generally, and most specifically in this case. DDStretch (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. It may, however, be better to rename the articles to "List of churches in Ottawa" to make the naming convention identical across articles (at least amongst the ones nominated for deletion that have been listed by Freechild today.) DDStretch (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is already a Category:Churches in Ottawa. Let us not be redundant. • Freechild'sup? 23:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I hope you don't mind, but I've corrected your reference to the category as it wasn't showing up in the text, and only a diligent reader would spot the category membership announced) The two things are clearly not identical: the category includes only churches for which there are articles already in existence, whilst the "List of Ottawa churches" includes many more, and perhaps all of them–including the ones without articles at the moment. If redundancy were the only issue to determine the matter, it would have to be the category that should be deleted. But it isn't (the only issue to determine...), so it shouldn't be (deleted). DDStretch (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep A good set encyclopedic information befitting WP. The only thing indiscriminate here is the deletion nomination and the additional misrepresentation of the facts regarding the content of the article. Hmains 03:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is becoming tedious in the extreme to duplicate identical counter-arguments in every similar category Freechild has proposed regarding lists of churches. I suggest people look through the other nominations and note the general issues regarding deletion that people have raised there. In fact, I suggest all of the nominations areb immediately closed and the nominator invited to resubmit them as a "job lot", so they can be considered together. There are about 6 or so of them. DDStretch (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list contains encyclopedic information that is not duplicated in the category, as stated above. It is not "an indiscriminate collection of information" as claimed by Freechild and it is not in breach of the WP:NOT#DIR policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this is not a directory of churches. I wouldn't object to a navigational aid, but the category does a better job because it only lists churches that have articles. (And BTW, most of the bluelinked entries in this list look like they're at best marginally appropriate -- none that I looked at had sources and only a couple seemed noteworthy from the text, although there are some good pictures.) Many lists like this one have been deleted for this reason, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana (2nd nomination) for instance, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Malaysia. Mango juice^talk 21:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no general requirement that the objects on a list be all notable enough for an article--in fact, a list is a good way to handle the ones that are not sufficiently notable.DGG (talk) 00:28, 6 December 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. Core desat 04:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logical necessity of inconsistency

Article written by User:CarlHewitt on some minor theorems on his Direct Logic, which have not been published in any peer-reviewed journal. —Ruud 16:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete The content of the article is somewhat beyond my expertise comfort level, but I get about 400 ghits, many of which are seemingly independent and unrelated to Wikipedia. To me, it seems to have sufficient notability, and it's certainly a legitimate topic, even if not (yet?) found in peer-reviewed journals. Tim Ross·^talk 18:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You should not have relied on a simple Google search and certainly not on a shallow inspection of them: almost none of them have not been written by Hewitt. Furthermore note that WP:OR is non-negotiable. —Ruud 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess I didn't phrase my thoughts very clearly, Ruud. Yes, of course WP:OR is non-negotiable. I did not realize that you were making a WP:OR argument, since the article has something like 19 references. I had supposed that they showed publication and comments. As far as I am aware, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is not a Wikipedia requirement. My recommendation was based on the seeming notability of the article's topic, for which a Google search is not inappropriate. Perhaps you can expand a little on your original argument. Tim Ross·^talk 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only a single reference (Carl Hewitt (2007b) "The Logical Necessity of Inconsistency") supports the bulk of the article, a presentation given at a seminar and has therefore not been reviewed thoroughly enough to be considered published research. The Google query you have ran only returns results from Wikipedia and it's mirrors, or work published on the Internet by Hewitt himself. This does not establish that there exist independent sources. (Finaly it may be important to note that the title of the article is somewhat misleading; is mainly discusses two theorems on Hewitt's Direct Logic, not the "logical necessity of inconsistency" in general.) —Ruud 23:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm convinced. Delete it is. Tim Ross·^talk 11:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the style and subject of the article, I am convinced that it is written by Carl Hewitt. The Arbitration Committee ruled that he is not to write articles in his research area, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt#Remedies. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of being a notable theory. Once you omit Wikipedia and Hewitt's blog from the google hits, all that're left are a list of his works, and notifications of a talk by Hewitt on the topic. Someguy1221 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this installment in the continuing Carl Hewitt self-glorification saga. --Lambiam 06:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Properly, we should consider the topic rather than the content. On the other hand, considering that it is an extended abstract of a recent paper, we can delete simply because WP doesn't welcome such abstracts. So the recreation of a better survey at some point in the future should be noted in this debate, as a possibility. Still, this article is premature and not proper encyclopedic material. Despite the impressive reference section, it is essentially orginal research supported only by what may be reasonably expected to be writing falling under WP:AUTO, or close to. Since the ArbCom has a broad ruling in place against Hewitt's autobiographical writing, this article should be cleared off the site. (NB I prefer PROD to do this; contestation of the PROD by classic Hewitt-like IP number editors and single-use throwaway accounts can then be treated as mere gaming of the ArbCom ruling and ignored. The advantage is that if a PROD like this was genuinely contested or queried after deletion, the article can be brought back in two seconds by an admin.) Charles Matthews 14:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against re-creation if notability can be shown and the article can be written properly. The mentions of Gödel seem anecdotal, and the theory of direct logic lacks evaluations or even comments on it by reliable sources. Carl Hewitt is still under editing restrictions due to past self-promotion, so there is no incentive at all for us to bend the rules in favor of this article's existence. EdJohnston 17:41, 2 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hood

Afd to decide if the community considers whether Adam Hood meets WP:MUSIC or not. I am neutral, leaning towards keep, though wouldn't claim to have must expertise in the area. Whitstable 15:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that I see with meeting WP:MUSIC is the notability of the record labels on which his albums were released. He does seem to have toured extensively, though, and played festivals.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He's toured (thus weak), but so have many other unknown musicians - and that's where they sometimes start, is touring. Good luck to Adam, whatever happens here, but it doesn't look like this should be here yet. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be relisted for more discussion.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone provides some sources indicating notability. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some independent reliable sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Is referenced.[5] seems to establish notability. Could do with some expansion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no independent sources. There is no evidence of his touring nationally. His labels are non-notable. Thus he fails WP:MUSIC. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some more sources that indicate notability, and more can possibly be found based on Hood's own press coverage page. — Scientizzle 21:05, 11 December 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.--Kubigula (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impulsiveness

Originally a speedy A1, this was contested by the author so I'm putting this to AfD for consensus - no vote. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a valid stub. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 15:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid stub, the article creator saw a gap in Wikipedia and tried to fill it, as he explains. Bláthnaid 16:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only real problem I have with it is that it's a short dicdef-type article - and may thus be difficult to expand on without original research.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe me, there is plenty of stuff about impulsiveness out there. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - given the poor shape of Wikipedia articles on psychology, it seems counterproductive to have more unsourced dictionary-definition stubs that will more than likely just become dumping grounds for original research. - Chardish 17:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: its a valid stub, but could use a source ZyMOS 06:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Chardish seeems to be arguing to get rid of this because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is quite original. However, we have WikiProjects to fix up such stubby articles. Bearian 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bearian, they have taken the text from my fingers. It is a valid stub.Earthdirt (talk) 01:31, 6 December 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. Deli nk (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evermeet

Non-notable fictional place. {{prod}} removed by User:208.253.100.91 without comment, so here we are at AfD. Mikeblas 15:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here we are again, indeed. Notable ___location within the Forgotten Realms. Hazy memories suggest to me that it was also the setting of at least one Elaine Cunningham novel; perhaps a Forgotten Realms fan can clue me in. If the people who submit these articles would source them better, they could be better defended. BOZ 16:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! That couldn't have been more obvious. Thank you, Google! Evermeet: Island of Elves it is. [6] BOZ 16:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per BOZ --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep, with a possible eventual merge. I'm less certain of Evermeet's eventual notability than Menzoberranzan (also prod'ed by Mikeblas), but if out-of-universe information proves difficult to find, it should be merged into an article on Faerun instead of deletion. Tentatively, I'd suggest Northwest Faerûn, and think that many of the more minor locations that currently have articles should probably be merged as sections into articles linked from the main Faerun page. Anyway, I know from some friends that there are is in fact a wide corpus of "behind the scenes" material on D&D from generally reliable sources (as in, not just the company itself), so I think it's possible to cover this topic well. The fact that it hasn't yet... well, Wikipedia is not on a deadline. (Note: Came here due to User:208.253.100.91 leaving a message on my talk page.) SnowFire 05:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep but apply WP:WAF and see what it looks like then. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 11 December 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. Core desat 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tezija Zararić

Non-notable musician, does not meet WP:MUSIC. "Discography" section apparently lists singles. GregorB 15:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, unless someone can prove me wrong. Does have an article on the Hungarian Wikipedia, but even if third-party sources do exist, she still falls short (at the moment) of WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is it too much to ask authors to read WP:BIO and provide references? Lacking references, subject is non-notable. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:39, 5 December 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 --JForget 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LG Chocolate (U830)

Non-notable commercial product. This phone doesn't have enough substantial resources to reference a sustainable, meaningful Wikipedia article. There are many capsule reviews and press release postings, but no substantial or useful papers or articles about the product. Listing after removed {{Prod}}. Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. Mikeblas 15:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I remember this product from Telus billboard ads that were plastered all over Canada. So, to a Canadian, no further notability assertion is necessary. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 15:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adverts may make a product notable in Canada, but certainly not on Wikipedia. See WP:CORP. --B. Wolterding 16:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, how about 400,000 ghits, most of the top ones being independent reviews? --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Similarly, Google hits don't confer notability. See WP:GHITS. -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a noteable product. The article is quite wretched at the moment but can easily be improved and expanded. There is no lack of good secondary material on the Chocolate, per Blanchardb. However, I'd suggest dumping the existing Criticism section due to a lack of proper references. Majoreditor 04:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above but remove the unsourced criticisms immediately. RFerreira 08:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. What about the rest of the unsourced material? Then, what's left? -- Mikeblas 08:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RFerreira --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's beyond the scope of this AfD, but I really think it makes more sense to merge the five articles about the Chocolate models into a single article. I hope that someone, perhaps the original nominator, can consider reproposing the deletion with that in mind. --Nlu (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - all 5 articles about LG Chocolate would be better served as a single article --EJF 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there should be a total review of this cell-phone issue. I hope I don't offend anyone by saying so, but I have started to dislike what seems to be a salami-tactic used to delete all the cell-phones. Also, it is my conviction Wikipedia should - in general- have an article of all cell-phones with notable sources, so people comming and looking for information, will find it here. Greswik (talk) 14:51, 6 December 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. Core desat 04:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Code Brown

Unverifiable, neologism at best. Apparent slang for fecal incontinence; was redirected but then restored by original contributor. Accurizer 13:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. GregorB 14:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Toddst1 15:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a dict-def. -- Mikeblas 15:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally unencyclopedic, should probably close early per WP:SNOW.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree with both the concept of "unencyclopedic" - "delete as uncyclopedic" is a tautology - and this being it, but the matter of medical slang is covered elsewhere, with sources for the vocabulary and non-dic-def description of history and significance. --Kizor 20:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You could probably have safely marked this up as vandalism. Chri$topher —Preceding comment was added at 01:25, 3 December 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. Core desat 04:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Run Over The Canadians

Not notable works by not notable author. I prodded the articles and they were deprodded by the creator. Article about author speedily deleted twice for not meeting WP:BIO. Dlohcierekim 13:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 13:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be erased. I can't find anything notable about this. Theseven7 14:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all - completely non-notable and unverifiable, no third-party interest in these plays at all.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both unless notability shown. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; no assertion of notability. Both appear to be unpublished (unfinished?) scripts that have never been performed, let alone written about. --McGeddon 00:09, 4 December 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 violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faithful (Martin Hernandez Song)

More than likely a hoax (one of several perpetrated by Maneisis). WebHamster13:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:ANI#Dubious edits by User:Maneisis for details. --WebHamster13:43, 1 December 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 violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin (album)

More than likely a hoax (one of several perpetrated by Maneisis). WebHamster13:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:ANI#Dubious edits by User:Maneisis for details. --WebHamster13:44, 1 December 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 CSD G1. — Edokter • Talk • 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime (film)

Non-notable film which is more than likely a hoax (one of several perpetrated by Maneisis ). No such film listed at IMDb, virtually impossible to search for on Google due to the generic name. WebHamster13:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:ANI#Dubious edits by User:Maneisis for details. --WebHamster13:44, 1 December 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. Core desat 04:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candy punk

No non-spelling related edits since close of previous VfD in June 2005. Only supporting Ext. Link has since gone bad. No relevent GHits noted. Possible hoax? its not turned out to be an actual genre. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not viable. Punkmorten 13:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced nonsense, but redirect to pop punk. The term exists in reliable sources, used for bands incl. Green Day, Allister, Sum 41, Blink 182, etc. Does not seem to be addefinable genre, though. --Dhartung | Talk 13:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one example, and it's a redlink. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 15:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable, non-notable neologism. I also wouldn't object to a redirect per Dhartung.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and do not redirect. RFerreira 08:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable genre, probably coined by the only band listed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:29, 6 December 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 SkierRMH (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Carter (poker player)

Non-notable person doesn't meet WP:BIO or any criteria under discussion at WP:POKER. One seventh place finish in his career, and some local home games where he lives is about a thousand miles short of notable. 2005 10:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... only sourced assertion of notability seems to be his winnings, but they aren't notable enough. Epthorn 10:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not even close to being a notable poker player. Clarityfiend 11:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a biography of a non-notable poker player. Masterpiece2000 12:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't really know much about how to judge the notability of poker players, but I still think this person is probably non-notable going on the article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikiproject:Poker has a proposal that we are working on hereBalloonman 17:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails by a mile any of the proposed criteria.Balloonman 17:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Came in 7th in the $1,500 No Limit Hold'em at the 2005 World Series of Poker(not the main event) winning $91,670 which is his only result in live tournament. play.[7] without this result everything else would fall user CSD A7.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 17:05, 1 December 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. John254 02:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Felice Brothers

No assertion of notability, I would have speedied this had speedy not been previously declined. Prod was removed without comment by an anonymous editor. The only cited "source" is anonymous, and I can find little to nothing further. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the number of Google hits and what looks like some reliable sources. I don't know the band and whether they would meet WP:MUSIC, but there are sources in existence (Drowned in Sound, The Guardian) and I think having toured with a notable band is an assertion of notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HisSpaceResearch. I'll add the Guardian article to the article as a reliable source. Bláthnaid 16:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The Felice Brothers are an important up and coming band, they are producing a strong following in upstate new york and are beginning to become well known in other parts of the US. They are notable because of their relationship with levon helm and his midnight ramble. Willm1122 00:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band has come to my town (woodstock) twice and between the shows i witnessed the creation of a large and determined fanbase. Also id take one of their Shows over Ramble at levons any time and ive been to several of each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.251.17 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a tour with Bright Eyes recently achieved for the Felice Brothers a number of favorable mentions in show reviews, mostly for small local and college campus newspapers, but still their clout seems to have increased quite a bit from their sets on that tour. Nietzscheanlie 18:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; touring with Bright Eyes is a big deal, never has the band's fan base been larger. THis band is going to be fucking huge.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.238.247 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an article in a major national newspaper of a different country to that of the band's origin is, I respectfully opine, somewhat suggestive of notability in a folk band. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 5 December 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 redirect. Secret ^account 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saya Otonashi

Fails WP:FICT and WP:PLOT. Saya is radically different in the two, a separate article is not only unnotable, but also unnecessary. The individual articles for Blood the Last Vampire and List of Blood+ characters already cover her sufficiently. Note, first AfD closed with recommendation to merge, which was done, but someone undid it later. Collectonian 09:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 21:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 21:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated by Collectonian. The article is comprised of regurgitated plot summary, whilst the lack of primary and secondary sources throws doubt on the notability of these fictional characters outside of the Blood+ franchise. --Gavin Collins 13:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous AfD and the guidelines in WP:FICT to List of Blood+ characters. Does not meet the guidelines of WP:FICT for a separate article. —Quasirandom 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and recent afd. We already have enough information here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per all of the above. This article is already covered at List of Blood+ characters#Saya Otonashi and I agree with WP:WAF and WP:NOT#IINFO. Greg Jones II 00:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous AfD. The content has already been merged, and this title can be kept as a suitable redirect. —TangentCube, Dialogues 02:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, But try to expand in some way possible... RedEyesMetal (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-merge. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 10 December 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 Blood: The Last Vampire. The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiroptera (anime)

Unnotable, fails WP:FICT and unnotable outside of the series and movie, in which they are totally different. Mostly OR and plot regurgitation that is already sufficiently covered in the respective articles. AnmaFinotera 08:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Blood: The Last Vampire. --Brewcrewer 08:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 21:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated by AnmaFinotera. The article is comprised of regurgitated plot summary, whilst the lack of primary and secondary sources throws doubt on the notability of these fictional characters outside of the Blood+ franchise. --Gavin Collins 13:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the guidelines in WP:FICT into Blood: The Last Vampire. Does not pass WP:FICT's guidelines for an independent article, but is a good example of the sort of information it suggests be merged. —Quasirandom 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it's just original research. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable outside of the specific works directly involved in. MrMacMan^Talk 05:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is notable, then demonstrate such notability by providing sources. Words are naturally not enough here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Blood: The Last Vampire per WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:47, 11 December 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. A merge has been proposed and should proceed once consensus has been determined on the relevant talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sito Jaxa

This minor fictional topic has no real world notability asserted Ejfetters 08:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As stated in the article, this character appears in various Star Trek novels as well as one memorable episode. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the subject was not sufficiently notable for its own article, it should have been proposed for merger & redirect to List of Star Trek characters: N-S rather than deletion. (N-S because Sito is the family name.) - Fayenatic (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the real-world notability asserted in the article. While it could use a couple more sources, I believe she clearly passes WP:FICT. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no real world notability in the article, aside from the fact that DS9 writers considered bringing her back and she is in novels. If real-world information exists it just needs to be added to the article. Ejfetters 22:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Redirect There will be an inevitable section in a list of article if this article gets deleted which would cause GDFL headaches, so it would be better if the article history would be available if a standalone article is not needed at this moment. Agathoclea 22:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article makes no claims to notability, consisting essentially of plot exposition and production trivia (which would better be served in "Hard Time"). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with {Fayenatic} ZyMOS 06:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think its better to merge, I change my mind about delete. Ejfetters 08:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unlike the case of Ro Laren I agree with you here. I'm not sure what the Italian Wikipedians are thinking in this case. In any event she was only on two episodes and then she died. I'm not sure she classes as more notable than "Minuet" or Picard's nephew.--T. Anthony 12:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind too: merge and redirect, same as Robin Lefler who is even more notable in novels. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this character is more memorable from the television series, IMO, than Lefler. --LeyteWolfer 16:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But memorable is hardly a ground for keeping the article. It asserts no real-world notability. Merge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejfetters (talk • contribs) 17:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to agree. Whether a character is "memorable" only matters if this quality has made it notable. The article gives no indication it's notable on its own. There are many things at "Memory Alpha" that might not belong here. Beta 5 computer, Klaa, Harrad-Sar's ship [8], etc.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a vote decision here, this is a discussion on the article at hand to be deleted, administrators don't simply count votes and make the decision based on that. That said, I think merging is okay to List of Star Trek characters: N-S but if somwhere else, let it be known here, or better yet, just tag that article in question with the merger tag. Ejfetters 18:33, 4 December 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. Core desat 04:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will MacKinley

Unnotable author that fails WP:BIO. Brewcrewer 08:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His only novel was "published" by iUniverse (a "supported self-publishing" outfit) and appears to have gone unreviewed, and there's no evidence that his screenplay has been optioned or otherwise attracted attention. Vanity bio of a nonnotable individual. Deor 13:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't merit a biography currently, so it would seem.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; unable to locate any independent coverage of Mr. MacKinley, nor even his book or his screenplay. Maralia 17:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-publishing does not lend notability and the rest is irrelevant; as per above, vanity bio. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:28, 1 December 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. John254 02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Tribune-Herald

does not assert notability β^_command 08:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like the major daily paper on the island of Hawaii, and though it needs some expansion it has certainly more history and an outline of the paper than some of the other small-town paper articles I've seen. Nate · (chatter) 09:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A newspaper running for nearly ninety years seems notable to me. Nick mallory 10:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Do remember that newspapers are unlikely to be discussed by competing media outlets, so a strict interpretation of WP:N is not advisable here. Zagalejo^^^ 10:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I wish that there was some guideline for notability of a community's newspaper. There are 12 radio stations in Hilo, Hawaii, each of which is considered notable as a matter of policy (all FCC-licensed stations). Under the bizarre (and not well-planned) "all places are notable" theory, an article about an unincorporated ___location on a map of Hawaii County would be kept. The city's newspaper, though, has to be defended by the rest of us. This isn't the "Bargain Banner" we're talking about here. Mandsford 13:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Major newspapers, especially those that have a long history, should bed notable. Where there is not enough info in the article, give it time; it'll build up. -- azumanga 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, a newspaper that's been running for more than a century? Keep - that longevity asserts notability, to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone, I guess. Maxa megalon 2000 07:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Egad yes this is of course notable, suggest speedy keep closure on this one. RFerreira 08:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- clearly notable. Even given the very correct comment above about the lack of press coverage of competing papers, a 30-second Google News archive search still turns up 130 press mentions. The circulation is approximately 20,000^[9] and the paper is the largest paper on the Island of Hawaii (population 150,000+). This should never have gone to AfD. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 20:45, 3 December 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. John254 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital River

Non-notable β^_command 08:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems pretty notable to me. Lots of Google news hits: [10], [11]. A more detailed nomination would be helpful. Zagalejo^^^ 10:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Digital River is a major internet company. They do the e-commerce for big companies like Symantec, Staples, EA, and IBM. Plenty of sources available to pass WP:CORP. A quick Google/Google News search yields: [12] [13] [14] [15] and much more. As per above, a brief description of the subject or an explanation why it is not notable would be helpful. • Gene93k 13:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like retailers, Digital River distributes products made by others. Like retailers, they merit an article. Fg2 01:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Zagalejo's Google News links. 10,000 press mentions in Google's News archives -- why are we even discussing this? --A. B. ^(talk) 20:33, 3 December 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. Core desat 04:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbakar Adam Ismail

Notability β^_command 08:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Brewcrewer 08:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. There is no assertion in the article of notability; nor are there any reliable sources that can be found through Google, mainly you get Wikipedia mirrors. I'm tagging it as A7. If this had been an American or European author with the same basic biographical details, I think people would have been more likely to tag it as A7.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I removed the A7, since it is asserted he has published a novel. This is not much of an assertion, but it defeats A7. The English version of the name is also spelled Abakar Adam Ismail, and under that name the novel was published in translation as The Road to the Impossible Cities by "Key Publishing", an Arabic/English publisher in Toronto--probably not a vanity publisher. Their transliterated version of the Arabic title is Al-Tariq ila Al-Mudn Al-Mustahila They have also published another novel of his, "The Other Shore." (Aldifa Alokhra). The website quotes some reviews that seem to be in Arabic, but not Unicode, so the characters don't show on my computer . I'm looking for more info on them. I wasn't being clever with the name, Google suggested it. I cannot check what might be in Arabic. -- Specialist needed. I don't think it safe to delete an article about someone asserted to be an author until someone who knows the language checks how much the person has written; often a person who has read just one book does the article. DGG (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Key Publish House" does at least some self-publishing.^[16] --A. B. ^(talk) 19:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable; I've tried Google web, news and news archive searches but turned up nothing to meet WP:BIO. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 19:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the subject meets WP:BIO. Moreover, I note that his books are not available through Amazon.ca or Chapters/Indgo. His books are not held at Library and Archives Canada, as one would expect. It would appear that Key Publishing is a vanity publisher, as evidenced by the "Self-Publishers' Aid" found on their website. It should not be confused with Key Porter Books, one of Canada's largest publishers, which is also located in Toronto. Victoriagirl 20:20, 3 December 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. I can read Lithuanian and i found non-obvious coverage in third-party sources in Lithuanian. This article does have a POV problem, but notability is reasonable. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baltijos Garsas

Doesn't seem to establish notability. Not a significant amount on Google. Hammer1980·^talk 00:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 07:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. --Brewcrewer 08:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It seems to me like the Lithuanian equivalent of Triptych (festival) which is closer to home for me (which doesn't have an article currently but that doesn't mean it's non-notable, it should be notable). Just because the sources are in Lithuanian doesn't make the article unverifiable - it means that we need someone who speaks the language to cite these sources (it is acceptable to use non-English sources for articles), bring it to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania. That having been said, the coverage may not be enough in reliable sources for an article but I cannot determine this myself.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Translating the sources won't be a problem. Yes, there is such a festival, and it's notable.--Lokyz 21:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has anybody got the Lonely Planet or Rough Guide for the Baltic States? Any mention there? --Paularblaster 21:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am the author of this article. Being one of the organizers of Baltijos Garsas festival, I'm directly responsible for all the written material regarding the festival in Baltijos Garsas website and also in other websites where descriptions about this festival are required. I wrote this short article about Baltijos Garsas in Wikipedia purely as an original one, but since the information stated there is basic, it can look or sound similar to the information, written about this event in other websites. I definitley plan to expand this article in the very near future. Thank you for your good will. --Sodas 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodas (talk • contribs) 00:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:sounds like a serious COI problem ... --Paularblaster (talk) 01:27, 11 December 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. Core desat 04:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pofmagazine

Unverifiable article on a non-notable magazine. The 68 unique ghits don't help. MER-C 08:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several free city-specific magazines in the Netherlands (at least 2 in Utrecht for example). It would be quite possible for this to be noteworthy depending on the circulation. Have you tried to get someone from Turkey to do a search in their own language? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 07:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE. --Brewcrewer 08:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... this has been re-listed and still has no references supporting notability. Epthorn 10:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 12:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable third-party sources that appear to exist.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:46, 1 December 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. Core desat 04:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Grasty

I gave this a PROD for WP:COI and WP:AUTO - it was created by tpgrasty (talk) (contribs). The PROD notice was removed and some links added by anonymous IP 71.121.39.104 (talk) (contribs), which has edited no other articles. Issues are conflict of interest, autobiography and notability. JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. is my voice as nominator. JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 07:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two unproduced screenplays, a couple of behind-the-scenes jobs. Nothing on IMDB or AllMovie.com. There was a press release various places in Google News Archive, but nothing else. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. --Brewcrewer 08:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 12:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't merit a biography.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:47, 1 December 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24/7 Customer

This article (originally created at 247 Customer) has been re-created 8 times. It was deleted 5 times on October 13, 2006 as a copyright violation, and repost, deleted January 26, 2007, and June 19, 2007 (G11). I have redirected the page to the company's actual title, (24/7 Customer), and I have removed the sections that I could identify as blatant copy/paste of information from the company's website, http://www.247customer.com/ but the company still does not appear to satisfy WP:CORP, and I think perhaps a formal discussion and decision should be done, and if a delete consensus reached, a salting of these two pages may be in order. Ariel♥Gold 12:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, they actually have a surprising amount of independent coverage. I just cherry picked from a few of the notable publications I'm familiar with which seem to have a 'more than passing' mention of the firm and have cleaned up the article a little more. There are many, many Indian publications which have more in-depth coverage, but I'm afraid I can't tell which are reliable sources and which are self-published. I ignored the WSJ article - it seems to be part of a "WSJ blog", and I'm not sure how much editorial control is in place for that. Concur with the salting if the article is ultimately deleted; at least they've improved their adcopy since the first version in 2006 (yikes!). Kuru ^talk 17:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable, and we have an ongoing COI issue with the editors that isn't about to get better Mayalld (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 07:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and deal forcefully with improper COI edits. It doesn't make our job any easier but they do seem fairly notable and successful in the outsourcing/offshoring world (and that's a real WSJ article, not a blog post). --Dhartung | Talk 08:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CORP - even if it is mentioned once in WSJ, as it's not notable. The services it provides may be useful and notable, but notability is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the sources highlighted by DHartung and Kuru. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:22, 11 December 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 Vampire (World of Darkness). The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golconda (World of Darkness)

In-game term with no real-world notability. Fails WP:N, WP:RPG/N. Disputed prod. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree, but note that other WoD pages had linked to this entry which redirected to Inconnu, which made more sense; I filled out (somewhat) an existing lacuna. If this page goes, for consistency so should many other World of Darkness pages. See the Talk page for prior discussion. Mindstalk (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 07:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't know what other articles exist (and whether they should be merged/deleted) but this one certainly establishes no notability. On reading it, I don't think there's even any real reason to try and merge it given the sparsity of sourced material or even information. Epthorn 12:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vampire (World of Darkness) Umbralcorax 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vampire (World of Darkness). This does not seem to have much importance outside the realms of that game. Capitalistroadster 18:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this stub has no real world content, particularly primary and secondary sources, just unsubstantiated plot summary. --Gavin Collins 09:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge -- merging will involve duplication, since the concept is in both Vampire games. As for the previous comment: plot summary? What plot? It's a concept in a game. And that goes for "real world content" as well -- game, fictional. A plot summary of Pride and Prejudice won't have real world content either. And there are two reference right there in the article. Which, yes, is minimal; I don't play Vampire, I just know enough to add something to what was an empty and misguided re-direct page already on Wikipedia. Mindstalk 21:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Vampire (World of Darkness) as per Umbralcorax and Capitalistroadster. Article clearly fails WP:N, but that guideline recommends we "consider merging [a problematic]...article's content into a broader article providing context" and offers as its first example "For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..." This condition involving characters within a work of fiction seems very similar. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a World of Darkness metaplot article might be very helpful; there are dozens of similar articles, as Mindstalk points out. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Axl (talk) 11:36, 10 December 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 'Redirect to season article. Delete would only create a redlink beckoning to be created... Fram (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Red

articles about individual Tv episodes are generally not notable. delete

This is notable because this is a special, groundbreaking, and important episode in the history of power rangers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge to episodes page. Sales Actor MSK (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this does have real-world context, as Rick lay95 says. JuJube (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to episodes page. Hammer1980·^talk 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge, unless sources can be found that document the episode's notability. The episode itself can be used as a source to confirm the information provided - but, without asserting or proving notability, that doesn't matter. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe that Forever Red was and is a significant Episode in the Power Rangers Universe in a matter very similar to PROO's Once a Ranger. However, it does need major improvements. I would suggest seeing what the Once a Ranger article has for content and copy that manner of writing and improve on the Forever Red article.[[User:Nsmith4658|スミスナサニア
This is a notable enough episode to have it's own article.User:monkeyjb1988

ル]] (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 07:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Sdoll555 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate? Please remember these are discussions, not votes. :) See WP:JUSTAVOTE. The Evil Spartan 04:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article satisfies notability standards. AfD clearly appears to be a bad faith nomination. Alansohn 18:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It might be notable in the PR fanbase but having this is like writing an article on the 100th episode of FOX's 24 or CBS's the King of Queens. ZordZapper (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the most notable Power Ranger episodes ever. Plus, the OP might have a bias against Power Rangers because any other show's episodes, no matter how notable, get an article. Why does Power Rangers only get articles for their most notable episodes? ^---SilentRAGE! 02:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources proving notability are provided. Currently the article, like many comments here, is unsourced original research.. Nuttah (talk) 21:14, 9 December 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. Non admin closure.The Evil Spartan 06:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alluvial desert

The term alluvial desert does not appear to be in use, at least not in the way implied. ~~Common usage is as a compound adjective (alluvial desert soil), never as a refinement of the noun "desert".~~ The premise of the title, that an alluvial desert is a desert that has been created in an alluvial valley, is hopelessly confused at best. Perhaps the author meant to say "occurs" instead of "created", but the context indicates that man-induced desertification is a required characteristic of an alluvial desert. This may be the context the term was used in the reference cited, but I have failed to locate a readily available source to corroborate this perspective. Concerns about the confused nature of the article have been posted in the article discussion space for over a year. Paleorthid (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and article talk page comments. Vsmith (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a recent source listed in the article, so it appears the term is in use. I also found the term in use here here here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. The last source is an answer to a question on an anthropology exam given earlier this year at Penn State University.. "Alluvial desert soil" is simply soil found in an alluvial desert. Personal confusion does not outweigh WP:V,++Arx Fortis (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. I have struck-through my incorrect sentence per this information. The term is in use. I did not see the "created" or "man-induced connotation" in any of these sources, making "alluvial desert" simply a self explanatory compound term, like "underwater soil" or "fast car". If it was a term of art, like subaqueous soil or a name, like the song Fast Car, I could see keeping it. My personal confusion lay in not being able to distinguish it in these terms. Thank you for clearing this up. -- Paleorthid (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 07:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep although from what I can tell the article is incorrect -- at least the "confluence of two large rivers" part. It's any desertified alluvial plain. But I couldn't find a real definition out there. --Dhartung | Talk 14:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. However, I also can't find a good definition from a reliable source. Bláthnaid 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subset of alluvial plains, it is a valid term for a type of desert. While there is no category list as of yet, there are similar articles,such as Hamada, Erg (landform), Playa,etc.--12.72.148.166 20:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Arx Fortis.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:06, 2 December 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. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neschastny Sluchai

Subject appears to be a non-notable band. (adding) This was speedy tagged, but seems like there's an assertion of notability, albeit without sources, so I have brought it here instead. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC) (added at 18:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. It would appear that from the way it is written, but a google search turns up LOTS of notablility-establishing links, including:[17] and[18]. There are likely MANY more russian language sources too, but I don't read russian. If they get this much press in English, the likely existance of russian language sources would indicate notability in spades.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: transcript in Russian is "Несчастный Случай". Please remember that millions of google-links don't make the crappy article any better. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with that statement 100%. However, the existence of real, reliable sources like the two English langauge source I directly cite above WOULD make this crappy article better. I am inclined to believe that since such sources exist in English, they are more than likely to exist in Russian as well. The use of Google to find reliable sources does not invalidate the content of those sources merely because they were found using Google. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being Russian, I know this band and its leader (Aleksei Kortnev) very well. I can even say its one of my favourite bands. I attempted to find English-language sources. One doing so should remember that there are numerous ways to transcribe the band's name. The English for Несчастный случай is The Accident and I found a few Google hits for that. Possible English names include Neschasty-Neschastni-Neschastij-Neschastniy/Sluchay-Sluchi-Sluchai-Sluchaj etc. Here's what I found: [19], [20], [21]. I also found that there is enough sources for Aleksei Kortnev's separate page. --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 07:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the apparent existence of reliable sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:16, 2 December 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. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan 06:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Mill Shopping Center

Apparently a non-notable mall. No independent sources have been given since March. Google returns some hits, but these seem to be largely directory listings in shopping and tourist guides. The previous AfD nomination (November 06) resulted in "speedy delete"; a recreated article was PRODded in March 07, but the PROD was contested. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable mall. I can't find any good sources either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, precedent is that super-regional malls are generally notable and this one is big enough to qualify. Hopefully the sources from Zagale-whatever will be sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was a major shopping center when originally built (before 1956) and remained one of the largest in Chicagoland until perhaps recently (a decade or so). Not sure why there are so few sources but WP:N can be a bitch. I will say its heyday was definitely pre-internet. --Dhartung | Talk 03:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A large super-regional mall with a gross leasable area just short of one million square feet. The mall dates back to 1960, making it one of the earliest large malls in an area that is now home to some of the nation's largest malls. A Google news Archive search on "Golf Mill shopping center" found 3,160 sources, not all of which seem relevant to expanding the article, but there seems to be more than enough here and available elsewhere to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 07:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ahh, I know this mall well. :) There's actually lots of material available in the Chicago Tribune archives at ProQuest (found using just "Golf Mill" as my search term). Stuff like this, this, this, this, this, etc. I'm confident I could whip this article into shape; just give me a little time. Zagalejo^^^ 10:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought there was a consensus that super-regional malls are inherently notable centers of commerce. RFerreira 08:36, 2 December 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. Core desat 04:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Superheroines Turned Evil

Delete subjective list with no clear inclusion criterion. Every superhero and superheroine has been depicted turning evil, however briefly, whether possessed, mind controlled, insane with grief, or through an alternate/parallel/imaginary version. Doczilla 07:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doczilla makes an excellent point-- EVERY superhero and superheroine has, at some point, "gone bad". Usually, the character has to be well-established before the Jekyll/Hyde plot is done. Mandsford 13:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, dramatic twist and character development are too large to merit a list. In addition the criteria for evil is not defined fully. -66.109.248.114 21:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per all above. JJL 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Seems POV, unsourced and original research.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 07:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List lacks unambiguous criteria, looks like original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 3 December 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 per G7 . Core desat 04:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugo Volt

Possibly non-notable h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is notable, it is the first ever game to be produced by an all Portuguese development team, it has also articles on various well known internet websites such as IGN and Askmen. -- Ricardo-Quaresma (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's only claim to notability is that it is the first portuguese video game. This is uncited, but even if it were cited, it is a pretty weak claim to notability.Balloonman (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is so different about it? I have seen such thousands of articles without reference. Nobody tell me how much time we should give to creator to provide references. No opinion. Just want to bring to your kind notice that whole wikipedia policy on references is dubious. No support from admin at all. If I keep tagging every article without reference for deletion, I will be blocked. sharara 11:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, take this Purity Dilution. What references it has given to claim notability? sharara 11:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to Portuguese press (Focus magazine, November 8, 2007), the developer has received an offical approval by Microsoft to publish Ugo Volt on the Xbox. So, it is somehow relevant, as nearly 200 Xbox games are already listed on Wikipedia. Also, Portuguese press (Weekly "Sexta" November 16, 2007) and international blogs [22] have reported about Lisbon as scenery for the game. As this has all some relevance, I would opt for keeping this article in Wikipedia. --Bacalis (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC) — Bacalis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Uh... how does having Lisbon as scenery for a game somehow award it more relevance? Epthorn 12:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bacalis. Bearian 17:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 07:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there are no external sources for notability and arguments here seem to be using the flawed 'but what about article X?'' argument. The question is not why a non-notable article should be deleted, the question is what could possibly establish notability for it. Basically, per nom. Epthorn 12:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First fully Portuguese videogame licensed for XBOX, with scenes set in Lisbon - I'd say that's a pretty notable case of videogame localization. If it was up to me all videogames would fail on notability, but I can't see why this one in particular should. --Paularblaster 22:13, 1 December 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 and redirect to List of Star Trek regions of space. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delphic Expanse

This minor fictional topic has no real world notability asserted Ejfetters 07:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this minor topic because of lack of notability. --Stormbay 19:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to MemoryAlpha or, if this is not possible, Delete. Cumulus Clouds 21:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a brief context. This was the ___location for the entire third season of Star Trek: Enterprise, with a 24-episode story arc. Instead of deletion, I propose merging other articles into this one ~~including Trellium-D~~. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But it has no real world notablility - WP:NOT, WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:OR, fails these Ejfetters 19:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say the setting of an entire season has some nontrivial real-world significance. Also, when you cite WP:NOT, don't just throw an acronym out; there are section links to specify some part of it, such as WP:CRYSTAL for future events, etc. Also note that WP:PLOT is part of WP:NOT, so that would suffice. With a little bit more sourcing and phasing work, it won't fail WP:OR or WP:PLOT. We have the technology. We can make it better! —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, reread the article twice now, can't seem to find any real-world notability, it appears totally in-universe. Could you please point out the notability? Ejfetters (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge & redirect into a new article on the entire Xindi story arc, including Sphere Builders and perhaps even Xindi (Star Trek). This would put the ___location and other story elements into a context which I believe would be sufficiently notable. Merged article might be titled Star Trek: Enterprise Season 3. Any improvements on that? - Fayenatic (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a setting/plot device. Without any material to explain how it was developed, critical reaction etc., it should be deleted. If there are critical sources out there, better to incorporate them into a third-season section of the Star Trek: Enterprise article. --EEMIV (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better proposal: Merge and redirect to List of Star Trek regions of space, drafted at User:Fayenatic london/List of Star Trek regions of space.

With acknowledgements to User:Carcharoth: This is verifiable non-notable information that can be merged to an article on a notable topic to provide the wider context that is needed. A list does not require reliable sources to establish the independent notability of its constituent items; all that is required is that the concept being listed is notable. The individual items do not have to be notable. Wikipedia:Notability quite clearly states the following:

"If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context" [...] "For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."."

A merger of the locations is viable, like minor characters. Putting this alongside e.g. Briar Patch (Star Trek) actually strikes me as rather helpful and encyclopedic. As for redirecting: keeping redirects is cheap, allows categorisation e.g. by series, and prevents existing links from going red. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incredible list you have there. Merge and redirect per Fayenatic. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced with reliable, independent sources. Just because Star Trek is notable, it does not make every plot setting notable. Nuttah (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, and nor is every minor character notable. However, the concept of minor characters is notable, and so is the concept of locations. So, apply the policy, and create a list (e.g. using my draft). - Fayenatic (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a Season 3 article, along with Sphere Builders et al. Per guidance and (interpreted) intent of WP:EPISODE relating to season pages. VigilancePrime (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Fayenatic - appears to be a better option as far a classification of material is concerned. Agathoclea (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Fayenatic as well. I think this is a good compromise (and I echo Disavian -- nice list!). • WarpFlyght (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and created List of Star Trek regions of space, as requested by the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badlands (Star Trek). It includes this article. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:51, 11 December 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. Core desat 05:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's on Your Mind

Unnotable show, fails Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Guidelines. --- Brewcrewer 06:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability, hardly any info, no references...Epthorn 10:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could be a speedy A1, not enough context for an encyclopedic article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:19, 2 December 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. Core desat 05:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NHL playoff lists

AfDs for this article:

All of these lists are excessive and indiscriminate in the amount of information they show. Notable playoff series in each of these matchups is already mentioned at National Hockey League rivalries. Unlike List of Canadiens-Leafs Playoff Series (AfD), there really isn't a suitable target for merging any of these articles. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 18:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GoodDay 18:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Pparazorback 23:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, indiscriminate lists. Of course they've played a lot of series against each other; they were among the only six teams in the league for 40 years. Skudrafan1 00:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Skudrafan. --Djsasso 16:34, 4 December 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. Keep section didn't have one policy based reason Secret ^account 21:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Captain Proton

This minor fictional topic has no real world notability asserted Ejfetters 06:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a significant thread of the Star Trek: Voyager stories. Anthony Appleyard 07:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article has no "real-world" notability. It needs real-world information as its primary information, and I doubt enough real-world information can be found that it can stand on its own. The article is presently only in-universe information. Ejfetters 07:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ejfetters; this is not StarTrekPedia.com, there must be some establishment of notability in the real_world to have an article standing on its own. Epthorn 09:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is somewhat relevant as a commentary on 1950's and 1960's real space stories. Anthony Appleyard 09:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia purposes, real-world notability means acknowledgment by the real world of the element of fiction. What has been published by reliable sources about Captain Proton independent of Voyager plot summary? • Gene93k 14:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over 20 pages point to it. If it must be deleted, can it be replaced by a stub with a pointer to http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Captain_Proton ? Anthony Appleyard 17:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a major aspect of Star Trek and no significant coverage in independent sources. - Chardish 17:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is actually a primary component of several Star Trek Voyager episodes - a real world sci-fi series. Deleting this page would represent a biased choice regarding what aspects of the Star Trek universe deserve representation on Wikipedia. Its inclusion in said universe cannot be countermanded and thus it deserves continued existence. User:Enmerkar04 11:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Captain Proton game was a significant part of two, maybe three, episodes. Beyond that, it was the holodeck-backdrop-of-the-season, a minor subplot. It was minor to the overall ST: Voyager story and gets little notice from the real world as an independent work of fiction. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(comment changed to vote) • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Granted, it isn't the biggest of all things, but where every episode has a Wikipedia entry, how is a major focus of multiple episodes any less notable? If we're going to delete things like Captain Proton and Section 31, which are larger than single episodes, we might as well go and PROD or DEL tag every episode entry and simply make "List of Star Trek: _______ episodes". VigilancePrime (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, has anyone looked at Category:Metafictional characters? I mean, I know that just because Other Stuff Exists, but look at the slew of similar and yet less-used characters that are just as decent of articles. They all have interest value, as does this one. Think Emperor Zurg, Mooby the Golden Calf, Squiddy Awards, Captain Astro, and Reptar! This isn't OSE, it's precedent. Can we all come down off the recent deletionist movement? None of these articles has vast real-world notability or references, but each is minimally worthy of some mention here. Remember, we're not bound by paper-encyclopedia limits. VigilancePrime (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to remark that it seems like this is relying a little heavily on WP:OTHERSTUFF for my taste...Epthorn (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but remember "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." (emphasis added) VigilancePrime (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is as informative as any other article about individual characters or other notable content from popular culture topics. I see no reasons for deletion. 74.132.200.129 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if it is important for the series, otherwise delete. No assertion of real-world notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per VigilancePrime. Showers (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - As per VigilancePrime. Its notable within the Star Trek universe to at least have some detail, I would also argue that since the articles already here it may as well be left alone rather than merged. --Bisected8 (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced with reliable, independent sources. Just because Star Trek is notable, it does not make every plot setting notable. Nuttah (talk) 21:28, 9 December 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. John254 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. Winston Morris

Non-notable professor. Corvus cornix_talk 06:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to see some sources to back up the assertions, but notability in music with the tuba ensemble is asserted in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Provided the author can back up claims of notability, this seems a valid stub-class article. In a previous discussion, the author mentioned that the subject is mentioned in the article Tuba. --carelesshx _talk 06:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legit source establishes notability. --Brewcrewer 06:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 08:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The PROF standards dont apply directly for performers and composers and visual artists -- they need to be judged by the standards of their professional field--as is the case in actual university settings. Given the performances and recordings, he'd seem to qualify. DGG (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, qualifies for notability standards. RFerreira 08:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you play tuba or euphonium in the United States, you know Winston Morris's name, for two reasons: 1) he founded the first university tuba-euphonium ensemble, one of the first ensembles of its kind anywhere; and 2) he was the source of tons of the early tuba-euphonium ensemble literature, either because he arranged it himself or because he commissioned for his ensemble. Without R. Winston Morris, neither the tuba-euphonium ensemble nor its literature would exist today. --NetherlandishYankee (talk) 02:38, 6 December 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 05:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timbuk2

Non-notable company with no claims of notability. Corvus cornix_talk 05:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add its non-notable founder - Rob Honeycutt Corvus cornix_talk 05:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extremely well-known product line, probably the best-known messenger bag. 2 million ghits, although many are sales. Many product reviews online, e.g. CNET. SF Chronicle article demonstrates some notability -- how many companies get write-ups just for changing manufacturing locations? More refs would be nice. bikeable (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please address the Ron Honeycutt article as well. Corvus cornix_talk 06:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - yes, we edit-conflicted over that. Addendum: merge or simply redirect founder article; non-notable except for Timbuk2. bikeable (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rob Honeycutt (or vise versa). Keep, but only if Rob Honeycutt is merged into it. One article is more then enough. --Brewcrewer 06:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very notable per Bikeable. If merge, merging Rob Honeycutt into Timbuk2 is preferable. hateless 08:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Timbuk2 as a notable and popular product. Rob Honeycutt seems very thinly notable as he has founded a second company after selling this one, but obviously anyone can merge. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both as notable. --evrik ^(talk) 14:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Honeycutt article and include the information in the Timbuk2 article. I don't see widespread notability for Mr. Honeycutt aside from the product and I'm not sure that's enough to keep the article by intself.. Some better refs might help... - Philippe | Talk 15:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Timbuk2 for failure to demonstrate that it meets our generally accepted inclusion criteria for companies. The links in the article are, respectively, a press release, a minor article in the local paper, a slightly lengthier article but still in the company's local paper, and the company's own website. The CNet link here is a mere product review. None of those yet demonstrate that this company is significantly more notable than the dry-cleaner down the street. Straight google hits are, as noted above, not a reliable measure in this case because they are so skewed by the retail operations. A google news search is more useful - and in this case, shows only 7 returns, none of which mass muster.
Delete Rob Honeycutt for failure to demonstrate that he meets our generally accepted inclusion criteria for businesspeople. Again, none of the links provided so far demonstrate notability. Rossami (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is Rob Honeycutt.... Would it help or be allowable for me to personally include descriptions of my contributions to lean manufacturing, mass customization and/or domestic manufacturing in the sewn goods industry? There's a lot of material there that I think has been overlooked IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhon (talk • contribs)
- In general, that would be a bad idea. Editing your own biography is an inherent conflict of interest and almost always ends in bad feelings both from the subject and the other editors involved in the discussion. If you are famous enough to be covered in an encyclopedia article, it's best to let others write the page.
  However, if you're asking if you can provide evidence here, you may certainly do that. Please provide any links or references to reliable, independent sources that document achievements or awards that would meet the project's inclusion criteria. (Note that press releases and other coverage that traces back to the subject is never considered independent.) Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I am a biased party in this discussion but it happens to be a fact that Timbuk2, running the very same production cells that I designed and set up, is the only company in the world successfully doing fully implemented adaptive customization (per Joe Pine) for sewn goods. Nike and Rebok now do customization on shoes but have not been nearly as successful and treat it as a marketing tool. I'm not quite sure how to document this but I would think that at least as notable as a huge number of articles that reside on Wikipedia. Even Levi's had a customization program that eventually failed. As far as I know I'm the only person to pull this off successfully with sewn goods. Timbuk2 is now over $15M in revs and 60% of their sales, according to the current CEO, Perry Klebahn, still come from the original three panel messenger bag I designed.--Robhon (talk) 01:15, 5 December 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. Secret ^account 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of families in EastEnders

Unsourced fancruft that fails WP:FICT, WP:OR, and WP:PLOT and is just another version of List of characters from EastEnders Collectonian 05:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 05:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of characters from EastEnders. --Brewcrewer 05:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the EastEnders wikiproject don't even want this. Our attempt to prod it was reverted recently.Gung adin ♦ 16:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As Brewercrewer instructs. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nowhere to merge it to, it doesn't fit in to the list of characters, and all characters with family members have their family members listed in their own articles so there's no loss of information from it being deleted. ^anemoneI_projectors 22:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 00:21, 7 December 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. Secret ^account 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dot

AfDs for this article:

This minor fictional topic has no real world notability asserted Ejfetters 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom. If it is important to Degrassi, then it should be included in the shows' article. - Rjd0060 05:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:PLOT and WP:FICT with some WP:OR on the side. Collectonian 05:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 05:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Degrassi: The Next Generation. --Brewcrewer 05:52, 1 December 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Child Executions Campaign

This article appears to be about a non-notable campaign to prevent individual executions of children in Iran; however, Amnesty International did or does operate a campaign of the same name. There is no evidence that the two campaigns are directly related on researching various Amnesty International websites and databases, although the website for the campaign that is the subject of this article includes much information from the Amnesty International websites. After many hours of research, I have found no reliable sources that treat this campaign as the primary subject of the reference, and only one that describes it briefly as an avocation of the primary mover of this campaign. I could find no evidence that this campaign is a registered charity in any country; it does seek donations on the home page of the website, raising echoes of the issues that cropped up in relation to previous questionable charities. Risker 05:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am assuming that this org isn't a part of the Amnesty International campaign (with the same name, as the nom stated). I cannot find any sources which would assert some notability either. 3 G-News hits, however they appear to be referencing the Amnesty International campaign. - Rjd0060 05:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Amnesty International is unquestionably in the forefront on human rights advocacy, there's no such thing as a monopoly on that cause. Nazanin Afshin-Jam is notable, particularly among neo-cons. The listed supporters might not be as well known, but you can't have "too many" advocates for human rights. The suggestion that this is a "bogus charity" raises the question of whether anyone has found any criticism of the group. Mandsford 13:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust you are aware that there is indeed an article about Nazanin Afshin-Jam, and that the article includes discussion of her charitable and community service work? Risker 20:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You trust correctly. Under that logic, perhaps we don't need to mention famine relief in Ethiopia, since it's discussed in Bono. Mandsford 18:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looks like a well writen article, and seems notable enoughZyMOS 06:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The campaign does not claim anywhere to be part of or affiliated with Amnesty International, although they cooperate closely with them. SCE is an independent volunteer based Camapign which has made substantial efforts in saving children facing executions. A simple search of its co-founder name (Nazanin Afshin-Jam) shows international coverage of her and the SCE campaign by all major media from CNN to FOX to BBC to Al Jezeera. Deletion of this page difinitely would be a loss of reference and research for a well publicized campaign. Amnesty International has no claim to be the only organization working for human rights LiveLife 12:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding

unsigned comment added by LiveLife (talk • contribs)

keep This movement is noteworthy and growing—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.110.227.32 (talk • contribs)
Delete - I see no reliable sources to support this organization's notability. What I can find in my searches references Amnesty International. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 6 December 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. Core desat 06:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digit kingdom

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Fails WP:V and WP:FICT. —Caesura ^(t) 04:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Brewcrewer 04:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no ref's to verify any of this, and I cannot find any relevant sources via a google search. Per nom. - Rjd0060 04:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per everyone.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:21, 2 December 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 after triming back to Deadpool (comics). The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Deadpool

Gigantic, unsourced plot summary article about a fictional Marvel Superhero — something Wikipedia is not. There are no reliable sources which indicate the real-world notability of a biography of a Marvel Superhero — though the character itself is notable. Urge deleting this article — a merger is also possible, but this is too much. Haemo 04:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Deadpool (comics). --Brewcrewer 04:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Deadpool (comics)#Fictional character biography: Per the nom. Complete, and unnecessary plot info. The content should be greatly reduced prior to the merge though, removing things that a sufficient source cannot be found for. - Rjd0060 04:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The content was split from the Deadpool (comics) article because it was way too big. If someone has the time to reduce and merge, that would be great, but I think it may be easier to start from scratch. Also, most of the later content is more relevant to the Cable & Deadpool article and there is no need to have it in both.~ Dusk Knight 19:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Deadpool (comics)#Fictional character biography and Cable & Deadpool, per nom, but only after reducing detail greatly. (I didn't think that splitting it was a good idea in the first place, due to the fact that I just knew that this would inevitably happen and someone would AFD it as "unsourced," since the content relies entirely on the primary source.) Rdfox 76 00:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 23:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging after paring it down sounds like a great idea. There's nothing wrong with giving people who might be curious about a popular character background information, but we don't want to turn into William Morrow, summarizing things from other media and getting sued.71.191.42.74 (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge. The Deadpool (comics) article is actually better without a plot summary. WP:NOT#PLOT says "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Plot summaries are neither required or encouraged. Note: article was spun out fromDeadpool (comics) [23] in the first place, and I suspect this will begin to grow again to state it is currently in. --Phirazo 18:51, 10 December 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. Core desat 06:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Machetero

Fails WP:BIO. A POV plagued entry on poet/spoken word artist/MC/DJ and community activist whose main claim to fame appears to be a nomination for a 2005 Canadian Urban Music Award for Best Spoken Word Recording. Victoriagirl 03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of WP:N, no WP:RS, hopelessly POV. JJL 04:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --Brewcrewer 04:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The person may barely meet the #4 inclusion criteria of BIO but as the nom and JJL stated, the PoV in this article is massively overpowering my ability to make a "keep and cleanup" decision. - Rjd0060 04:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - really struggles to meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:23, 2 December 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. The arguments were equally balanced between those who consider that the page fails to demonstrate real world notability and those who regard the article as notable overall. TerriersFan (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 31

This minor fictional topic has no real world notability asserted Ejfetters 03:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense... first Ejf places the PROD tag to ask about notability, and then when an answer is given both in the change summary and on the Talk page, an AfD instead? Isn't that the opposite effect? If the initial question was rhetorical, just AfD it in the first place... Anyway...

Strong Keep - As said earlier: This particular aspect of Trek encompasses multiple episodes, all of which have individual articles on Wikipedia, but do not completely document this organization of the Trek world. This article is the central repository and center of information regarding this part of Trek and is necessary (and notable) for the impact it has had on the Trek universe in general, in addition to having spawned many books. VigilancePrime 03:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PROD tag was placed because it lacks any "real-world" notability. The article is in-universe, and needs to be primarily "real-world." Placed in AfD because the PROD was removed and other user disagreed with nomination, so this was the next step. I feel if the in-universe information was stripped to bring it up to the real-world standards, there would not be enough real-world information to stand on its own. This article is more suitable for memory alpha instead of Wikipedia for these reasons. Ejfetters 03:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the in-universe information was reduced drastically in many character and ship pages throughout Wikipedia, but these had enough real-world information to stand alone. Ejfetters 03:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article establishes notability. --Brewcrewer 03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, where is the real-world notability. Ejfetters 04:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While there isn't any real-world notability (and for this I'd usually lean toward delete) StarTrek is so notable, that it would take an article in a lot worse shape for me to say delete. - Rjd0060 04:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is real-world notability in its consideration as the basis for a Star Trek movie or new franchise, and as the theme for a series of paperback novels. --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being part of the star Trek universe does NOT equal real-world notability. Fails WP:Plot, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF. It is just plot summary, with "non-canon" info added in. A whole article is fine for Memory Alpha, but it does not meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia. 05:43, —Collectonian 05:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By that argument, even United Federation of Planets doesn't meet notability, right? I can agree that the article should be deleted, but first it should be merged back into United Federation of Planets then you can proceed to delete it. Let that work happen first before deleting it please! I don't know how to merge it properly, unfortunately. I'm still working on learning how to write for the wiki. Jimmy C. 06:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 05:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no establishment of REAL WORLD notability (claims that there might be the basis of a new movie sometime aside), article is in-universe. Epthorn 09:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: the article just needs some positive reinforcement to improve upon its notability. --LeyteWolfer 16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this can be merged to Starfleet Ejfetters 19:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or barring that, I suppose a merge with Starfleet would be acceptable. The series of paperback novels ( see MA: Star Trek: Section 31) give it some nontrivial real-world significance. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects of novels are just as much in-universe as television shows, or films. Ejfetters (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced with reliable, independent sources. Just because Star Trek is notable, it does not make every plot setting notable. Nuttah (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Starfleet for lack of established real-world notability per WP:FICT. The novels can be used for real-world notability, but I can only see one or two sentences squeezed out of them beyond the mentions, not enough to sustain a whole article. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:45, 11 December 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. Core desat 06:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Young (model)

Author of a self-published book and the only other assertion of notability is an unverifiable assertion from an unnamed magazine. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unless the article is a pack of lies, she is notable. Sources are required, however, for a keep.
Keep poorly sourced but bio. page at the book's link seems to establish WP:N. JJL 04:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading the profile closely, I don't see the notability. "[F]eatured Heather in one of its articles profiling ten of Canada's top models" (she wasn't one of the ten), doesn't establish notability. --Brewcrewer 04:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find any references for the claims present in the article. We need "verifiability, not truth". -- Rjd0060 04:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:V is somewhat satisfied. --Brewcrewer 04:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells like original research (ahem), and a decided lack of independent sources. Even with references, claims of notability would probably be dubious, at best. Epthorn 09:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Certainly some claims to notability, but reads more like a resume/CV than an encyclopedia article, and may need cleanup per WP:NPOV.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her own web site says "Ms. Young was listed as one of the top ten Canadian up and coming models in Clin d'oeil fashion magazine". The all-important words "up and coming" seem to have been left out of the article in an effort to claim notability. Phil Bridger 15:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly notable if any reliable secondary sources of any standing are found but for now, searching Google's News archive for "heather young" + "more than a pretty face" yielded zero press coverage. I did find this "Canadian Review of Materials" review, but I'm not sure this magazine published by the Manitoba Library Association is sufficiently notable itself to establish Ms. Young's notability. (Any Canadian librarians out there care to comment?)--A. B. ^(talk) 18:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 18:39, 3 December 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 although in the last half of the discussion it was leaning towards keep There were no discussion over the last 48 + hours, but some have suggested a merge, you can continue the discussion on the talk page--JForget 00:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pon farr

AfDs for this article:

This minor fictional topic has no real world notability asserted Ejfetters 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total fancruft, written in-universe and with no indication of real-world relevance, no references apart from a couple of fan sites, need I go on? --Closedmouth 03:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally not notable in our universe, poor references, and (though I admittedly know nothing of Star Trek) seems quite a minor subject. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 03:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content can be merged elsewhere if desired. JJL 04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I don't know where, but it should be merged and redirected. The lack of third party, reliable sources is important to note, however this is a notable part of Star Trek.. - Rjd0060 04:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Vulcan (Star Trek)#Pon farr, which is almost as lengthy. This is probably one of the most well-known "alien" things from Trek, but real-world notability is limited. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheepish keep following vast improvement by Uncle G. --Dhartung | Talk 13:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Vulcan (Star Trek)#Pon farr per Dhartung --Brewcrewer 05:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as suggested. Collectonian 05:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 05:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. This is notable for trekies, but doesn't belong on its own. A section in the Vulcan article is more than sufficient. will381796 05:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easily sourced. Easily written. Capable of becoming more than a stub. Shame on all of the above editors who made zero effort to look for what sources exist, or to see what "real world relevance" the sources document. Such an approach neither helps the AFD process nor helps to write the encyclopaedia. Keep. Uncle G 06:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not notable in its own, not enough "real-world" information to help it stand on its own, better merged, and trimmed down. Ejfetters 06:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are here to write an encyclopaedia, not to erase one. The idea that well-sourced content should be "trimmed down" is exactly wrong. So, too, is your notion of evaluating how much "real world information" there is on a subject by expending zero effort to look for sources and read them. At AFD you are expected to pull your finger out and look for sources yourself. And this subject clearly satisfies the PNC on its own. Note how Colonel Warden has done things properly and expended the effort to look for sources xyrself, below. You should not be surprised when the closing administrator gives more weight to the opinions of editors who clearly have made the effort to do some actual research to see what sources exist, how many of them there are, and how in-depth they are. I cited the ones that I found in the article, thereby improving the encyclopaedia at the same time. Uncle G 11:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So THAT's what we're here for. Please allow us to stay here another day, we beg your forgiveness. Mandsford 16:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Scholar points to several more references as one can readily see. Other relevant articles are Sexuality in Star Trek and Amok Time. The page might become a redirect to one of these but it already seems substantial enough to stand by itself. Colonel Warden 08:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above; minor aspect of the Vulcans, which are a minor aspect of Star Trek. Nowhere near notable enough. - Chardish 17:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge When I first saw this AfD it sounded as ridiculous as the idea of deleting the article on the Borg. (Does WP have a term for that reaction? It's almost WP:SNOW but not quite b/c WP:SNOW requires consensus.) However, I will admit there may be an argument for Merge, but asking for Delete is just a bit much. Vulcans are probably the most widely recognized alien species on Star Trek, so you can't really call them a minor aspect of Star Trek. And when describing Vulcans, Pan Farr comes right after their commitment to logic and what planet they live on. So the info needs to be somewhere on Wikipedia, thus either keep or merge. Mdmkolbe 19:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but

Keep notable enough to be parodied (Comic_Book_Guy#Romance). Do people actually check incoming links before they go on an AFD spree? Agathoclea 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and significance on the topic. I can't disagree with Uncle G's comments above. --Kizor 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has some solid sourcing, and nice job in digging it up. Keep Tony Fox (arf!) 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian 00:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason the article can't be merged to the Vulcan article, preserving most of the article then. Ejfetters 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kizor, WP:HEY. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Kizor. --Goobergunch|? 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vulcan (Star Trek) article. Pon farr has no relevance outside the Star Trek universe. Lwnf360 09:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per external sourcing: as at least one WP:RS has applied it as metaphor for external society, should not be merged.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete into Vulcan (Star Trek) article. In fact the Vulcan article is more than sufficient already to cover this material (almost verbatum). So delete would be fine. Note: If it is decided to keep, then the Vulcan section on the subject should be reduced drastically.Bytebear (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many ST topics have enough coverage even outside of ST to be notable to the rest of the world. --David Reiss (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article as written includes copious real-world data and references. Notability is firmly established. Powers ^T 14:46, 7 December 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. John254 02:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Garnick

Subject has no authoritative biography, has not been covered over time in media publications, does not appear to have contributed in a lasting way to the historical record of the charity/investment community. Even if the group "Ladies in Red" were to be notable, notability wouldn't automatically transfer Mbisanz 03:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her charity work you can forget about, but the External links section seems to establish that she is a big player in the investment community. --Brewcrewer 04:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might be calling a spade a diamond, but I don't see an External Links section. I do see a notes section with her own website and a five year old web interview of four questions from a french-investing site. I also see a References section that includes the Invesco website, the five year old interview, a blog-entry reserach paper, and a rather generic interview style article on investing in futures. How is this a "big" player? Where is there a followup to this 2002 article on futures investing or indpendent critques or opinions on it? Mbisanz 04:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Diane Garnick Guest Hosts Bloomberg's Open Exchange" coupled with an interview in an established magazine (if it was five years age, she was notable five years age) shows that she's a "big player." --Brewcrewer 05:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things, according to the website itself, she didn't "Hosts Bloomberg's Open Exchange" she was a guest on "Bloomberg's Starting Bell", discussing current market trends totally unrelated to the earlier article. If we set the bar of notability at: "Has appeared on 1 episode of 1 tv program and has been interviewed on an unrelated topic in a magazine", that pretty much opens it to any person whose ever been on the screen of CNBC/CNNFN. If you google Frank Viquez, you'll get a ton of google hits, newsbites, interviews, etc on automotive finance, but I doubt anyone would consider him a "big player" in the automotive finance industry. Mbisanz 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a search and I see at least 5 appearance in November 07 alone Garnick news clips. There is also a big difference between auto analyst and strategist. Each company only has one strateist. It's a top job at one of the biggest companies. If everyone wants her on tv and quoted in the financial press, I don't understand why we're debtaing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.202.2 (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be notable per our guidelines. A number of g-hits which help establish notability, ~~this one for example.~~ - Rjd0060 04:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the site you gave me. It appears to be a french-language investing site that reproduced a company generated press-release over the hiring of an employee. I imagine that hundreds of these are released weekly nationwide by Invesco and other companies touting hirings. Mbisanz 04:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. That was not the one intended. That is just a press release. Anyhow, there are several good sources available via a google search. - Rjd0060 05:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, absolutely notable for her work in derivatives. Note that on the "Ladies in Red" page (no, not a notable charity (it's really more about the social aspects of philanthropy anyway), but worth some mention in her bio) the "lucky guy" is a Nobel Prize in Economics winner. --Dhartung | Talk 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, what? She's notable because she took a picture with a Nobel Prize winner and a bunch of other women? Then shouldn't we have an article on all of those other women? Corvus cornix_talk 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, I should have put in bold the part where I said "absolutely notable because of her work in derivatives", since you seem to have ignored it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's a clearer example, a (paywalled) profile from Pensions & Investments:
      Going from college student to global investment strategist helping manage more than $700 billion in just five years is moving pretty fast, but that's what Diane Garnick has done. Only five years after she graduated with a bachelor's degree in business administration from the Frank G. Zarb School of Business at Hofstra University on Long Island, she has been named global investment strategist at State Street Global Advisors, which has $703 billion under management.
    - That and she's quoted a zillion times as a sage and given thanks in the forewords several investment books, although she's never written one herself. If her peers think she's the bomb, what are we quibblling for? --Dhartung | Talk 08:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She just gave a lecture on how charities can become financially self sustainting and we had to watch her recent interviews and read her research reports. http://www.clipsyndicate.com/searcher/search_process/2641669 User:Hbs07pt
- - - - Thanks for the quote, I can't see it all cause its pay-per-view. Still would every head global investment strategist be a notable person? Has she done something really different than stategists in general? Yes she did a paper on derivatives, but where is the analysis and/or criticism of her derivative theories by her peers. Not saying she isn't a good financier whose done excellent things, I'm just not buying that she's notable. Mbisanz 18:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep depends on what people think of them, which tends to depend upon the amount of money involved. The company is large enough that she's likely notable. Success in business tends to have some correlation with money. DGG (talk) 18:56, 1 December 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. Core desat 06:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesboro Mall

Non-notable, very small mall in Kentucky. Only references are the official mall website and its owners' website. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Rtphokie 03:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Brewcrewer 04:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom (NN mall) and a GN search doesn't help either. - Rjd0060 04:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing against Middlesboro, but I'm not sure that any mall is actually "notable", or what the definition is of a "very small mall" (in this case, 33 stores under the roof). Not voting to keep, because I don't think that articles about any mall, other than the Mall of America (which attracts tourists to Minneapolis), belong on Wikipedia. Even if there are 100 stores in the mall, who cares? Does anybody visit, say, Orlando because it has a big mall? Generally, you've seen one, you've seen 'em all. Anchor store, a Spencer's, a food court with an Orange Julius and a Chick-fil-A, a Walden's, a toy store, a Foot Locker, a JCPenney or other anchor store, and a zillion forgettable shops. Pretty well describes every mall I've ever been in. Nominate 'em all, Ten Pound, I'll vote delete for the same reasons. Mandsford 13:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically your saying you inherently biased, and not even willing to consider applying any of the guidlines ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Shopping Malls of of importance from both a historical perspective and a economic persepctive. Up until the 1970's we had downtown shopping. We replaced that nationwide with outdoor shopping centers. We then started to enclose them. This was long before we payed for everything on plastic. This was also back in the days when you had local companies and each mall in a small town often contributed to the economy by bringing all services under one roof. Historically we are all in love with "downtown revitalization" Does this mean that in 30 years when im in my 60's that I am a champion for "Mall Revitalization"... Malls are where we went to the movies, or got our shoes, or went to tell Santa what we wanted for Christmas. It may not be notable compared in size, but there are not very many 3 anchor shopping malls in the smaller towns in Kentucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etittle1978 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletions. —Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article content that does not assert notability. It's a typical small US mall. Maybe if it would show how it meets WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:04, 5 December 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. John254 02:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made in London

Do not feel this article meets notability criteria. The band have received no significant coverage as far as I can tell, either now or when they were supposedly active, and the fact that they have disbanded indicates this situation is unlikely to change. carelesshx _talk 03:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, non-notable band, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep didn't catch that, they have charted a hit, which would satisfy at least one criterion of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Has a charted (#15) hit in the UK. Needs sourcing. I've removed the speedy. - Rjd0060 03:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is sufficient, but it is verification for now. - Rjd0060 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rjd0060. --Brewcrewer 04:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Rjd0060 Doc Strange 15:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Rjd.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:29, 2 December 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. Secret ^account 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Germany starting with S

isn't this what categories are for? Rtphokie 02:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This shouldn't even be a category. faithless (^speak) 02:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't even THINK about categorizing, non-notable junction of trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT. - Rjd0060 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have other articles that consist of lists of places - such as List of municipalities in Quebec and List of United Kingdom locations: Bi-Bn. Both are more than just charts, where this article is... well, it's not good. A list of cities in Germany is encyclopedic - Better, maybe a list of places. But it doesn't need to be split to this level, and it must include encyclopedic content. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ultraexactzz is right, it shouldn't be split up like this at all. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 03:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep if the nominator and the other deletionists would actually read the article and see the category it is in, they would see that it is part of a too long list that was broken out alphabetically into several lists. No this is not what categories are for, this is what lists are for. Categories only show article name; lists show additional information which anyone reading the article can see. This deletion nomination does a dis-service and it editors who contribute content. Hmains 03:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the lists need improvment and another cut at how they are organized? Then improve things and do it. Stop wasting everyone's time with these useless deletions. Hmains 03:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't call this a "non-notable junction of trivia". It's one of a series of articles that are divided alphabetically for the sake of organization. It's not like someone's trying to make a point about German cities that begin with "S".

Though the lists are incomplete, I think we should give them some time to grow. This seems like a forgotten effort to better organize the information here, but these lists could be quite valuable if someone wants to expand them. As said many times before, lists are not redundant to categories. They are often superior, as they can present additional information (like population figures). Zagalejo^^^ 03:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Breaking up long lists into smaller ones is fine, but it needs to be done more logically. What reason is there to list cities by the letter they begin with? Wouldn't it make more sense and aid navigation to list the cities in Germany by the state they're in? faithless (^speak) 04:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the advantage of that? Zagalejo^^^ 10:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think it's more logical to break down the list of cities in Germany into, say, List of cities in Saarland, List of cities in Hesse, etc. than by which letter of the alphabet the city happens to begin with? Where's the logic in that? Listing them by state ensures that they have something relevant in common (___location rather than spelling) and eases navigation through articles. faithless (^speak) 13:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why can't we do both? There are many cases where lists like this can be useful. For example, suppose someone only has a vague memory of the way a city's name is spelled, and doesn't know what state it is in? Zagalejo^^^ 20:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ten Pound Hammer --Brewcrewer 04:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all from A to Z, so to speak. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 09:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just breaking down a big article into more managable chunks. At the very worst, possibly redirect to List of cities in Germany. Lugnuts 10:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only should this article be deleted, so should the ones for A-R and T-Z.--Rtphokie 13:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per all of the above Doc Strange 15:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, there's not a category called "Cities in Germany starting with S" (although it was a clue once on $20,000 Pyramid). There is a category for cities in Germany, and it's in alphabetical order. The article does have information that a category wouldn't, such as population (when was the census?) and what "state" (Bundesland) and "county" (District) the city is in, although I'm not sure that this is useful for comparative purposes. If there's this type of table for cities in other nations, then I don't see why this should be deleted. A lot of hard work went into this, I understand, and I'm not judging it on its title, but I don't think its very useful without a map. Mandsford 16:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is part of a series on lists of cities in Germany beginning with each letter. If we delete this, then we should delete them all - and any other lists of places in countries by first letter.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there's any subject that could use a common standard, this would be it. Actually, this article has more substance than most "List of cities in _______" pages. Many of these (List of cities in Romania, for example) are nothing but blue links. On the other hand, List of cities in Norway has more detail. My belief is that (1) this article may have been nominated because of the title (or at least, the feeling that "cities...starting with S" sounds too narrow a concept) and (2) the article could stand some improvement. As H.S.R. says, if we delete this, shouldn't we delete all the articles? And if we're deleting lists of the world's cities and keeping lists of SpongeBob episodes, is that any way to run an encyclopedia? Mandsford 18:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOT, categories are the place for this -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improving it until it reaches the quality of List of United Kingdom locations, which was resoundingly kept. The value of good list articles of this variety to Wikipedia is well-established.--Father Goose 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOT Brimba 05:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Did somebody seriously AfD one letter from a broken-up list? Has it really come down to this, where the rules are manipulated in such a way that having one redlink in a series is considered "good" for Wikipedia? Torc2 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Hmains and Mandsford who have it exactly right. AndyJones 08:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of cities in Germany is clearly encyclopaedic and if it is necessary to split this list because it is too long then to do so alphabetically certainly seems reasonable. Suicidalhamster 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Hmains. -- Nikolaj Winther (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this would only be deleted if we were to delete all Cities in.... The merit of dividing alphabetically is an editorial decision--probably it is better to avoid the very long articles we would have otherwise. Those who said delete as non-notable intersection would only be right if this were the only one, not one of a series. They should take another look. DGG (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep, but rename For once I agree with DGG. But I think the "starting with" is part of the problem: the title should just be "List of cities in Germany - S". Someone should also undertake converting the table to one that is sortable, which will increase the (already large) advantage this list has over the category. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changing my view. I see now the page is a WP:CFORK of List of cities in Germany, which still exists despite its length. Delete all A-Z until consensus is reached between 1 list and multiple lists by letter. One way or the other, not both. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think I agree. You've identified an editorial issue, and that needs an editorial solution: I cannot see any way in which deleting this article would help to achieve that. If the consenus is pro-split (which seems kinda likely to me) one of (or all of, if we delete all) the necessary articles would have to be DRV'd or re-made from scratch. Has anyone raised the issue on a relevant talk page? Maybe at Talk: List of cities in Germany? Presumably the best thing would be to take the discussion there, and to close down this one. I'll look back at this debate later today. AndyJones (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is, as UnitedStatesian notes above, redundant to List of cities in Germany; however, this and its companion articles are actually better than that list, as they provide additional information besides the city names. Therefore, we should keep these sub-lists, and delete List of cities in Germany instead (or better yet, turn it into a disambiguation page for these articles). Terraxos (talk) 02:58, 7 December 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. CitiCat^♫ 05:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Septaton

Does not follow Notability guidelines. Acidskater 02:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like a delete at first glance, but could you clarify your deletion rationale? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 02:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went into more detail on the talk page. Acidskater 04:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Thanks for clearing that up. Redirect (not merge) to Phi Sigma Kappa. faithless (^speak) 05:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom (NN). - Rjd0060 02:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Phi Sigma Kappa. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 03:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Delete per WP:ORG: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources." I don't see any sources that support the independent notability of this chapter. Deor 03:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And since Phi Sigma Kappa does not contain information about individual chapters (other than ones of historical interest within the organization), I oppose the merge suggested by Merovingian. Deor 03:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not even an external link? --Merovingian (T, C, E) 03:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the addition of an external link is not what I understand "merge" to mean; but since you ask, no. Why should there be a link to this particular chapter when there are links to no others? The Web site of the national organization, which is linked to, contains "Our Chapters" subpages that include links to the sites of the chapters. Deor 03:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per standard. —Scouter Sig 04:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into George Mason University. --Brewcrewer 04:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see why it needs to be merged into George Mason University. While notability guidelines do say that notability does not govern what is placed into articles, I don't see this being important to the George Mason article itself. If there was a page about GMU greek life (i.e.Greek life at the University of Georgia, Dartmouth College Greek organizations, etc.), then I could see a merge. Please expand on your reasoning for a merge. Acidskater 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The social activities and the organizations of the school are part of the description of the school. --Brewcrewer 05:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The organizations and activities of GMU greek life are already listed in the GMU Greek Life section. If you plan on expanding this information for this single chapter, then each chapter should have a section expanded for them as well. I'd suggest creating a page such as Dartmouth College Greek organizations, but you will need to prove notability for that as well. Acidskater 05:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ok, merge it into that section. Just because one chapter is expanded and the rest aren't doesn't mean that it can't be merged into that section. --Brewcrewer 05:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect per precendent (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Delta‎, Delta Pi Chapter of Beta Theta Pi, Delta Sigma Chapter of Beta Theta Pi, Delta Rho Chapter of Beta Theta Pi)

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

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

The result was withdrawn by the nominator. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth High School (Massachusetts)

~~little more than a bookmark. High schools are generally considered notable but this isn't even a stub.~~ Rtphokie 02:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are those who don't like it, but there is ample precedent that high schools are notable enough to warrant an article. Furthermore, nominator hasn't provided a rationale. faithless (^speak) 02:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent that high schools are generally considered notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Nominator hasn't really provided a reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are lots NN High schools, but this one, having recieved significant coverage, is notable. . - Rjd0060 03:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, high schools are kept. This was also the ___location of a student killing that received nationwide attention, including from the New York Times [24], and it instigated a U.S. Senate panel is investigate school violence in general [25].--Oakshade 03:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on grabbing these sources! - Rjd0060 03:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The vast majority of mainstream American high schools will turn out to be notable with a little research. In the future, those wanting to delete such articles should at least present some evidence that they have looked for sources and didn't find any. Zagalejo^^^ 03:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden of evidence is on those saying the article should be kept.
  - Don't be an ostrich. At least do a simple Google News search. Why do deletionists have a free pass to be lazy? Zagalejo^^^ 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why dont these sources get added to the article? This is a very very poor article.--Rtphokie 04:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll incorporate information from the second link if you add info from the first. I should be able to access the entire second article from Newsbank. Zagalejo^^^ 04:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability in the article. The article is just a 1 sentence stub. Also, OUTCOMES is not avalid keep reason because it's not giving any reason. It's basically saying "similar articles were kept, so this one automatically should be too". TJ Spyke 03:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being one sentence is an argument for expansion, not deletion. --Oakshade 03:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Forget about it, the battle over high schools are over. --Brewcrewer 04:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That the article is short is a reason to improve it, not to delete it. Maxa megalon 2000 06:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added the firsr ref. Well done for finding it. Can you add another? Yes I mean you. Thx Victuallers 17:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Withdrawing AfD, article still needs attention but notability has been demonstrated sufficiently.--Rtphokie 17:42, 1 December 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 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montrose Christian School

non-notable school has been there as a stub for 10 months and doesn't even say where the school is. Arthurrh 02:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article isn't even about a school, but rather a basketball player. School perhaps is notable enough to warrant an article, but if it is it needs to be started from scratch anyway. faithless (^speak) 02:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks fine now. faithless (^speak) 08:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article, in its current state, should meet speedy deletion criteria (A7) as the article is actually about a NN person from the school. - Rjd0060 03:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I removed all the info regarding the basketball player. It should be OK now. --Brewcrewer 04:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite. --Brewcrewer 04:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from my understanding of Wiki-precedent stating that all schools are notable. Perhaps this opinion has changed since the last time I was active on AfD. will381796 05:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even after the rewrite it's nowhere near worth keeping. It's almost a year old and has nothing other than a link to a school website, which in no way makes it notable. Arthurrh 09:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly... -- DS1953 ^talk 21:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the article was one sentence when I posted that. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now has several sourced statements demonstrating notability. AnteaterZot 01:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are multiple reliable and verifiable sources covering the school and the achievements of its alumni to easily satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. I would strongly suggest that some of our delete voters might want to revisit their position. A reminder that [{Wikipedia:deletion policy]] requires nominators to review potential claims of notability and to consider editing and improving an article before nomination. My first step in assessing potential notability, beyond the content of the article, is to look at other articles linking to the article under consideration, which would have identified several potential claims of notability in this case. Alansohn 01:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced articles which establish notability of the school. Capitalistroadster 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep obviously. Usual great work by Alansohn has now established unarguable compliance with WP:N with multiple, independent, reliable sources. TerriersFan 03:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we go ahead and move this towards a speedy keep as the article is now well sourced and has been expanded? will381796 03:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References provided. Notability established. LordHarris 08:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of recent expansions, I believe this demonstrates notability. RFerreira 08:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Alansohn's comment. It's notable. Noroton (talk) 02:03, 5 December 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 the consensus seems to be that this program is notable. A lack of reliable sources is a problem but not sufficient to warrant deletion. Systemic bias is always a problem in these type of articles and establishing notability can be tricky. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Dark (P2P)

No assertion of notability. Sources are unreliable (Random wiki, discussion boards). Drat (Talk) 02:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Seems like it might be notable, but I can't find any reliable sources. faithless (^speak) 02:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above, cannot locate sufficient sources, and the sources in the article aren't really reliable. - Rjd0060 03:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on grounds that the Japanese Wiki seems to find it notable enough. Note that locating information on the subject is incredibly difficult due to it being a)Japanese and b)sharing the name of a popular video game. This difficulty should not be held against it.--SeizureDog 04:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concur with SeizureDog, above. Additionally, details regarding projects similar to this, such as Winny and Share are often kept quiet due to possible legal issues surrounding filesharing in Japan. Discussion of them is often limited to discussion boards and the secure P2P network itself. Rintaun 01:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I was the one who requested this article in the first place. There is next to nil English-language sources on this topic, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. We should avoid a systemic bias of deleting articles where there are few sources in English. -Aknorals 08:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability guidelines do state that "exceptions" may be "appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources". While that particular line was speaking of something else and doesn't specifically apply here, it implies that a lack of English printed sources does not necessarily mean something is not notable. The subject of this article is clearly notable in Japan, so it seems dubious to delete it due to a lack of easy-to-find English sources. Layzner (Talk) 21:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Japanese wikipedia isn't much a "random wiki". There are indeed not much trustable English sources, but please keep in mind that it's still in beta phase. ipridian 15:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a popular piece of software in much of Asia. — Joshua Johaneman 06:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Finally got hold of official documentation, Also found some implementation (tests?) and whitepapers that seems to explain of this application. Currently getting them translated. Stay tuned for update. Jef 14:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Popular in Japan. Probably gains more popularity on western world now that it includes English language. Readme and history files of program should be added as sources. Pahajoki (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the "keep" arguments are saying that there are sources in Japanese out there. However, the article doesn't currently have any sources. If someone can add Japanese sources, please do; it's not ideal, but it's better than nothing. While English language sources are certainly preferable, it is acceptable to use other languages if necessary. But if no one adds any sources, we can only assume that they are not out there. faithless (^speak) 23:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jef said that he has some.--SeizureDog (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the meantime I added a slashdot.jp reference. Layzner (Talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have personally used this program, it is not unpopular in Japan, I promise. However, one major issue with references on things like this and Share (P2P) are the fact that there is none. Documentation is the last thing the developers want to create, Japanese law regarding piracy is very different from American law. Because of documentation and similar things, many developers have been imprisoned for creating Share. Perfect Dark is meant to be it's successor, and prison is not fun. --RyuKojiro (talk) 06:14, 6 December 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. With no reliable independent sources, merging doesn't seem appropriate. — Scientizzle 16:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu and Junior

Neologism and/or blatant advertising for non-notable website. AUTiger » talk 02:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into SEC Championship Game Seancp 02:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of internet phenomena. faithless (^speak) 03:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it isn't notable I see no reason to include it in any article. - Rjd0060 03:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into SEC Championship Game. --Brewcrewer 06:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. There are two real people implicated by this meme which insults their appearance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to SEC Championship Game if reliable third party sources exist. Seems like a non-notable internet meme.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:33, 2 December 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 Withdrawn. non-admin closure. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO$GBA

This is a non-notable piece of software that does not have coverage in reliable sources, and will most likely never have anything besides self references to its official site. TTN 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even though the emulator homepage looks very plain and looks like not much information in it, it is the only emulator currently that can play commercial games with reasonable speed. It is used widely and easy to configure, that's why not much discussion about it is needed. Yukuku 17:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Only emulator that can properly emulate commercial games, and due to the nature of the software there isn't likely to be much coverage in reliable sources. Although it somewhat contravenes existing policy I believe it contributes to Wikipedia per WP:IAR. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 02:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN 02:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm open to being persuaded, but I can't find any good sources (most Ghits are from forums and blogs). This is the best I could find. faithless (^speak) 03:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the reasons stated in the previous "Keep" comment. No sources within the article, and I cannot find any sufficient, reliable, third party sources externally, which makes it appear to be not notable. - Rjd0060 03:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Also found http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/gba/nocashgba.html. (Emulator-zone.com is the top result on Google for "game emulators" so its not just some random blog.). Faithlessthewonderboy, why do you think the link you provided doesn't establish notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdmkolbe (talk • contribs) 07:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it takes several sources to establish notability. ~~Also, while I'm willing to accept it as a WP:RS, it's hardly the BBC or the New York Times.~~ Regardless, we need a few more sources to establish notability. Like I said, if they turn up, I'm willing to switch to keep, but I'm not so sure they're out there. faithless (^speak) 08:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck through part of my previous statement, as it seems Eurogamer is a little more respectable a source than I gave credit for. faithless (^speak) 08:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Do a Google search, this bubba gets 1,540,000 hits. Some on reputable secondary/primary sources. It helped make excellent progress in the early Game Boy emulation community. Smile Lee 12:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point us towards these reputable sources of which you speak. faithless (^speak) 13:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's just a few.

Main NGEMU article link
Main Nintendo DS dcEMU article link
Zophar's GBA emu list
Smile Lee 13:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are emulator databases that provide the file for download. In no way do they established notability. You claim your links are "articles", but they are nothing other than a listing. --Scottie_theNerd 23:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: For Software information and significant articles on emulation. Keep because Wikipedia per WP:IAR --Cs california 07:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:IAR is not a valid defense. That said, the emulator has received coverage in reliable sources: First Nintendo DS Emulator Running Commercial ROMs Released!. The website, Kotaku, has editorial integrity, is ranked #1598 on Alexa, and is owned by company Gawker Media. The website and its owner both have Wikipedia articles themselves. This source is clearly reliable under WP:NOTABILITY. This would seem to imply that the emulator is notable, and so the article should be kept. --Teggles 08:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is difficult to find sources because search engines actually search for "NO GBA" instead of "NO$GBA". Here's another source: No$GBA offers DS emulator. The website is Eurogamer, which is even more reliable than Kotaku. There we have it. Multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article passes WP:NOTABILITY. My decision? ~~Weak Keep~~. --Teggles 08:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Merge, see below. --Teggles 09:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nintendo DS emulation, which I just created. I voted above for weak keep, because the emulator is notable... however, it barely meets the standard, and content is small enough to merge. Nintendo DS emulation will be far more informative than separate emulator articles, as it will combine the information for maximum usefulness. --Teggles 09:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes sense (only) there since it is a multiple-system emulator, and primarily known for emulating GBA. — brighterorange (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close without comment Emulator articles in general are currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Video game emulator articles - proposed deletions. I see no particular reason for this AfD to be continued at this time while that discussion is in progress. Anomie ⚔ 01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I think the references given above show that the article passes WP:N so it can still be closed keep independent of how the discussion you reference turns out. Mdmkolbe 15:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close without comment per Anomie. The issue is difficult, because the topic, including this part of it, is obviously notable and should have coverage in Wikipedia. Showing that notability from reliable sources will be hard, though, and therefore the WP:VG discussion on the topic is taking place. User:Krator (t c) 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'd like to see more sources, but this has long been one of the most widely used Gameboy emulators, and the one that I used when I was developing GB homebrew. Waiting for the WP:VG discussion to establish notability guidelines might be a good option. — brighterorange (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - May as well let the project discussion deal with it. I'll let someone else close it. TTN 21:40, 3 December 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. no sources for a merge Secret ^account 21:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Zork

List of fictional characters with no real-world notability and no out-of-universe perspective. Does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 02:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Into Zork or the individual articles listed here. Why have a separate article for the characters? The Zork article doesn't currently have a problem with length. - Rjd0060 03:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge. per Rjd. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Rjd --Icarus ^(Hi!) 10:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - Needs to establish notability to keep its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 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. no sources for a merge Secret ^account 21:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures in Zork

List of fictional creatures with no real-world notability and no out-of-universe perspective. Does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 01:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 02:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Into Zork or the individual articles listed here. Why have a separate article for the characters? The Zork article doesn't currently have a problem with length. - Rjd0060 03:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge. per Rjd. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Rjd --Icarus ^(Hi!) 10:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete characters not notable outside the game itself. Cackalackakilla (talk) 20:52, 10 December 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. Core desat 06:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Christian School

Primary and middle school article has been around for 10 months and is still a stub, no notability and seems unlikely to improve. Arthurrh 01:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable school, using WP:N as a basis until a sufficient notability guideline for schools is established. - Rjd0060 03:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary schools are no way prima facie notable. --Brewcrewer 06:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Brewcrewer. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:50, 3 December 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 per consensus of established editors. Core desat 06:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koinup

Non-notable website. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom; website does appear to be notable. Few relevent google hits, however I saw none that asserted significant notability (per WP:WEB). No G-News hits. - Rjd0060 03:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom; I had originally proded the article for notability and lack of external sources. The lack of external sources was addressed, but the notability still isn't there. Ank329 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No delete: Notable website. website is notable, it is part of a debate around avatar culture and virtual worlds. Wired and other big trendy magazine talk about Koinup -- User:Melanyec

Weak delete: Although i can find many links with indications, i can't find any good source about the page. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 09:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No delete: I added other notes about the term Koinup which features a relevant meaning for the community. It refers to Koinè a sort of common gergon for foreign people and it refer to coin-op, that are the first game machine.

I added also a foot note on a debate happening related to virtual worlds featuring koinup as a minot but relevant player

Keep. A google blog search turns up lots of notablility links, including: [26] and [27]. --TayStoop 11:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC) — TayStoop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Rjd0060 16:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Koinup is a relevant resource for machinima users. A search on the website show a lot of popular machinima artist beetween the Koinup members. --SilvyNoel — SilvyNoel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Rjd0060 16:28, 1 December 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. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megullia Dotata

Boccaccio is not an authority on Roman history. There is no reason given to suppose that this is not Boccaccio's fiction, or a Medieval fiction he credulously repeats. A history & practice for which only Boccaccio can be named as an authority belongs in the article on the book in which it appears, if anywhere. This article is only masquerading as a legitimate historical topic. Wareh 01:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also have no credible historical sources and should be mentioned in an article on a book by Boccaccio if at all:

(The articles Lampedo‎ and Marpesia might be worth including here on further examination.)

Wareh 01:47, 1 December 2007 (UT

Weak Keep. There are two sources in the Megullia Dotata including one purporting to be in Adam, Alexander; Roman antiquities: or An account of the manners and customs of the Romans, p. 406; 1842 New York; New York public library 480576A. This is a minor reference stating that she owned 50,000 asses. However, the Boccaccio book was a collection of famous biographies of women both real and mythical. It has been reprinted as recently as 2003 by Harvard University Press. [28]. I am inclined to keep these pending further research. Capitalistroadster 02:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If kept, the articles would need to be extensively rewritten to make it a lot clearer that these are legendary rather than historical figures and to base the articles, not on Boccaccio, but on the ancient sources that he drew upon, frequently adding to the stories while bollixing them up in various ways. (I seem to recall that the ultimate source of the Megullia Dotata story is Valerius Maximus, and, if I'm not mistaken, Boccaccio's "Gaia Cyrilla" is a garbling of the "Gaia Caecilia" in his sources.) Megullia Dotata, Hippo, and Leaena are probably not worth stand-alone articles in any case; and because of the uncritical and insufficiently researched nature of the others as they stand—the linking to the Gaia article in Gaia Cyrilla is particularly egregious, since the name has nothing to do with the Greek word, being merely the feminine counterpart of the Roman name Gaius—I think it best to delete them without prejudice to the writing of acceptable articles on the topics in the future. Deor 02:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as a group: Appear to be notable after a few google searches. Would like to see more sources in all of them to further verify any information that these include, and its obvious that they all need a lot of work. - Rjd0060 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but make clear as our article On Famous Women does that some of the women are of, shall we say, unclear historicity. Megullia Dotato's story, for example, derives at least from Valerius Maximus and the time of Tiberius (long after the Second Punic War, her purported flourishing), so is part of Roman urban legend if nothing else. Obviously we shouldn't be listing fictional people as real, but much of our articles about real people B.C.E. are probably barely more verifiable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Megullia Dotata - upon further research I have been able to find several more sources pertaining to ancient Roman weddings where the bride was referred to as a "dotata" (dowry girl) or dotata uxor, meaning the bride was well endowed, or magulla dotata (great fortune). These have been added to the article I started as additional references to the originals.--Doug ^talk 19:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The sources for Megullia include Valerius Maximus (I've added a note to the article). It's a pity that Boccaccio's biography in De mulieribus claris is so thin. It seems Megullia's name was a by-word for a rich dowry, so perhaps her name may be notable, even if we can't show that Megullia herself was. Xn4 22:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I seem to have laid an unhelpful emphasis in framing it as fictional vs. historical, when I realized that ancient sources do exist for some of the topics. The point was that the articles we have are not on these topics qua topics represented in our ancient sources. For all we know from the articles Boccaccio invented these people, and, clearly, they were only introduced from an inappropriately Boccaccio-centered view. Of course, if someone wants to take the trouble, as Deor rightly suggests, of basing the articles on completely different sources, reducing the Boccaccio mentions to the marginally important curious fact they are, and moving the articles from garbled titles to correct ones as necessary, that'd be great—that's the standard recipe for making a decent encyclopedia article. I'm stupefied that anyone thinks Hippo, a Greek woman is salvageable, though; it's hard to imagine the article's name & contents in its ideal form; I wonder if this discussion would have been different if Hippo, a Greek woman were the lead example. In any event, I am left in grave doubt that all the articles Doug edited on November 30 will be as inoffensive to Wikipedia's purposes by the end of the year as they were on November 29. Wareh 00:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My response above was only on Megullia. If I'm asked about Hippo, a Greek woman, then I agree with Wareh that she would really be better as part of our article on De mulieribus claris. Simply being puffed by Boccaccio can't in itself make anyone notable - or, come to that, historical. Of course, some flexibility is needed, and we have thousands of articles on fictional characters. Indeed, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, surprisingly, has a long article on Arthur, while treating him as someone who may or may not have existed! Xn4 03:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. This is an AfD for five articles. I'm no expert bureaucrat around here, but I believe the outcome of discussion could be to keep or delete any combination of the five. Anyway, I suppose if someone else feels the need later to nominate Hippo or Leaena for deletion, the answer to "But there was already a vote to keep it" can be, "That's because silly Wareh confusingly bundled it with perfectly good articles." Wareh 04:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All The articles provide multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. I also question the basis of the AfD in and of itself. Any history -- ancient, medieval or modern -- is subject to potential inaccuracies and biases. Ancient Roman histories are no freer from potential errors or bias, and we have no assurance that the current-day versions of what are believed to be ancient histories have not gone through edits and emendations that introduce falsehoods. Unless we restrict ourselves to using original copies of ancient Roman newspapers and magazines, we would have to cut out virtually all historical articles more than a few hundred years old. As stated at WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As long as the material is verifiable -- and it is -- the material meets the Wikipedia gold standard. Truth is unverifiable. Alansohn 18:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You seem to misunderstand the basis of the nomination. The problem is not any "inaccuracies and biases" in ancient history. The problem is that someone has got hold of a translation of Boccaccio's De mulieribus claris and is creating articles (and modifying existing ones) as if Boccaccio were the last word in classical scholarship. Simply deleting this fellow's uninformed contributions and starting afresh, where necessary, is preferable to allowing information that's about 600 years out of date to infect a variety of Wikipedia articles. Deor 18:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This statement pertaining to Boccaccio is not totally correct, as the main article here shows. In Megullia Dotata there are numerious other references, amoung them being Saint Jerome, Seneca, Cicero, Horace, and other historians. There are also various external links for references. Some of the other articles have various references besides Boccaccio and additional ones can and will be found by others as the articles develop. While there are a couple of articles (i.e. Hippo, a Greek woman and Leaena) that have, at this point in time, only Boccaccio as a reference for "verifiability" - there are others (i.e. Gaia Cyrilla and Orithya) that either now have multiple references or soon will. Keep in mind that while I used Boccaccio as a reference for being verifiable information, I never said that Boccaccio was the last word in classical scholarship. Otherwise I would not have provided the additional numerous references from others and had only Boccaccio for all the articles. Where I can find other references for verifiable information (not necessarily the truth, since I don't know for sure) I then provide that information as well (i.e. Megullia Dotata).--Doug ^talk 19:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Gaia Cyrilla to Tanaquil - this I have already done, since I was the originator of Gaia Cyrilla, now realizing this is one and the same person upon further research. Tanaquil has already been an article since 2003. All the necessary references have already been provided - showing (if nothing else) that not only is this a legitimate subject, but it is not just from Boccaccio. I wrote Gaia Cyrilla on good faith not realizing it was Tanaquil and have corrected this by merging. Suggest Gaia Cyrilla be a REDIRECT to Tanaquil after the close of AfD.
- Keep Leaena - because the murder of the tyrant Hipparchus and her involvement is well referenced by Boccaccio, Pliny, Plutarch and others.
- Keep Orithya - because she is a famous queen of the Amazons which shows in many references available in university libraries or online.
- Keep Hippo, a Greek woman - because as Boccaccio's Famous Woman # 53 he points out her notability by the Erythraeans worshipping her for a long time as evidenced by a large tomb honoring her deed. --Doug ^talk 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dowry, as Megullia is simply one example of a richly endowed Roman woman. Wikipedia is not a prosopography, and not all 106 women in Boccaccio's De mulieribus claris are going to get individual directory-style entries... one hopes. Boccaccio is a reference for the legendary reputation of Megullia et al. in C14 Italy, not in Rome. --Wetman 22:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is about an ancient Roman noblewoman. A dowry is about physical assets of value that a woman brings to a marriage. This particular woman is the daughter of Caeso Tuccius, which probably is Cerialis Tuccius (a consul with C. Cornelius Rarus) of the first century. In any case, Boccaccio speaks of her as an "ancient Roman", not of the early Renaissance time, and that the name was used by the ancient Romans. He refers to the sum of 500,000 coins as a "laughable" amount, since it would be such a small amount in his modern time. Boccaccio says that the amount is so small that not even "an artisan, carpenter, street vendor, or peasant" would marry for so small a dowry. This would be like comparing today of $500,000 to $5,000 (or 500,000 pennies). He is definitely speaking of a time many centuries before his. In ancient Roman law, the term used for a large dowry was uxor dotata. This term and associated information would be good additions to the article dowry since it is not talked about now.--Doug ^talk 17:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article only has a few sentences about "an ancient Roman noblewoman"--and only translations of Boccaccio are cited for that material. The other citations are for material about dowry in ancient Rome. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boccaccio used Valerius Maximus as his source for Megullia Dotata. Liber IV in Latin here and English translation here.--Doug ^talk 22:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Megullia Dotata; there aren't enough sources to establish notability. (Only one of the sources cited in the article is specifically about her.) Delete Hippo, a Greek woman (she could be mentioned in De mulieribus claris, I suppose). Keep Leaena; she's actually a notable ancient prostitute (the word usually employed is "courtesan"). Merge Gaia Cyrilla to Tanaquil. Keep Orithya (but consider moving to a plausible transliteration of ancient Greek); surprisingly enough, she's mentioned in Marcus Junianus Justinus' Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, and there are some other ancient sources.

I have to say, though, that I am very sympathetic to Wareh and Deor's position; Doug's contributions tend to be of low quality, and in my experience have included significant amounts of plagiarism. It's gotten to the point where if Doug has contributed a paragraph of more than two sentences, I pick bits out of it and run it through Google. Just today, I found this. I haven't checked any of the nominated articles yet, but given my previous experience with this user I wouldn't be at all surprised if passages have been copied verbatim from other sources. In fact, I notice that Wareh has already told us that some of Orithya is plagiarized from the website used as a source; under such circumstances, it really is safer to delete the articles and to start over. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In principle keep all, as either fictional or historical characters. The nominator really should say why he thinks these should be deleted when we have over a thousand articles on Pokemon figures. But I've had experience of Douggery & agree with Akhilleus it might be better to delete those no one is prepared to go over. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Megullia Dotata. This is about as trivial a personage as is mentioned in the Roman record. This person, whether mythical or real, receives only the briefest of mentions in sources that might be considered reliable. Also, the Notability guidelines call for "significant coverage" in reliable sources. Significant coverage addresses the subject directly and in detail. A brief mention or reference does not constitute significant coverage. The available sources tell us nothing about this Megullia other than that she had a large dowry and that her father may have been Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus. I do not think that every name merely mentioned in ancient sources is notable. Apart from that, the article is poorly written and, as others have noted, would need thorough investigation for plagiarism and accuracy. The article as written, is clearly not completely accurate, because it refers to "Dotata" as a surname when it is clearly a nickname or agnomen. Some of this material (e.g. the illustration of the trend toward large dowries in the late empire) might merit inclusion in the Dowry article after thorough investigation, but Megullia Dotata is not notable enough to remain as a separate entry. I don't know enough about the other articles listed by Wareh to comment on them. Marco polo (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The basic documentation isnt from Boccaccio, but Valerius, an acceptable historical source, as ancient historical sources go. The reason for interest in her is the use in Boccaccio's work, and that is a very good reason for it. Historical figures used in a significant way in really notable literary works by famous authors are notable. DGG (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Megullia Dotata. Neither a single-sentence mention in Valerius Maximus nor a two-paragraph life by Boccaccio makes her notable. Most of the article is simply about Roman dowries, and I can't see what an on-topic article would include besides a summary of the (already brief) texts. Delete Hippo, a Greek woman for the same reasons. Redirect Gaia Cyrilla to Tanaquil. For now, I'll say keep Leaena and Orithya; there may be cases for deletion or merging, but dependence on Boccaccio is not the major problem of either article, so they should be discussed separately. EALacey (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all with no prejudice to someone starting over and writing proper articles. Haukur (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess we could keep Leaena since EALacey has already cleaned it up to an extent. Haukur (talk) 22:47, 7 December 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 except "TV" is redirect to disambig. SkierRMH (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats Life (movie)

Unverifiable TV series that airs on an unverifiable television channel. Suspect hoax. Delete. Bearcat 00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Bearcat 01:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. GJ 01:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is a hoax. Nothing out there. Poorly written article to boot. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax with no sources to be found, though I have boldly redirected the article about the television series to the actual 2000 TV show which aired on CBS. Nate · (chatter) 02:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, unverifiable. (TV) could be redirect as Nate made or to the dab at That's Life. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This needs sources to be verified, otherwise can only be considered a hoax. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 03:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Whole thing smells like a hoax, especially since there's no station, TV or radio, with the calls KCTM either in official broadcasting records or on Google (and stations with "K" are US stations, not Canadian). Also, I've taken a similarly bold step of changing the Thats Life (TV) redirect to That's Life, as there are several TV series with that name. -- azumanga 03:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article addition -- I've added Peter Millsroad to the deletion package, as that article's about the character in the movie and series. -- azumanga 04:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously a hoax. - Rjd0060 04:46, 1 December 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. Core desat 06:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Red (radio personality)

Non-notable radio personality. Ridernyc 01:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless sources demonstrating notability appear. Michaelbusch 01:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on account of COI. Last line notes that info wasp provided by Rick Brooks, and check the edits in the history. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to be notable, with only one source, and I cannot find any other sufficient ones. - Rjd0060 03:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --Brewcrewer 06:39, 1 December 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. Core desat 06:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of towns in Sri Lanka

short list which could be better implemented as a category Rtphokie 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Category:Cities and towns in Sri Lanka already covers these and the article provides no extra content. - Rjd0060 01:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rjd0060. ----Brewcrewer 06:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless in its present state. Punkmorten 13:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Rjd0060. Hammer1980·^talk 17:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significantly improved. The only reason for such an article would be to provide a list of redlinks - at present there are none. But... I'm sure there are more than half a dozen towns in Sri Lanka, so there is potential for improvement. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:11, 3 December 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 as rumours have it... Without prejudice to recreation after it's actually released/source-able. SkierRMH (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ready To Go (Chamillionaire album)

Based on rumors, fails WP:NOT#CBALL Rtphokie 00:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rumor has it....that this article is going to be deleted unless some great sources pop up very quickly, and content gets added to the page. - Rjd0060 00:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, contains no verifiable info. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no mumors. Seal Clubber 01:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL as stated before. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 03:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 17:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per everyone with no prejudice against recreation in future.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:34, 2 December 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. Per OR, V, & SNOW. SkierRMH (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotistyle

Returns absolutely 0 relevant google hits, only page that appears to be about it is a forum post by the author on the website it is talking about, which itself returns only 4,350 google hits and has no article. It appears to be a forum with 220 posts and 66 members. Clearly non-notable. Atropos 00:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is obviously original research. will381796 00:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've removed the link, as it is from a forum, and not a reliable source for any of this Original Research. - Rjd0060 00:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, non notable, incomprehensible - take your pick. Maralia 05:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT, with subtle notes of patent nonsense. hateless 12:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 17:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, possibly original research, unverifiable. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 05:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per everyone.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:34, 2 December 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. --Oxymoron⁸³ 11:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LG Voyager (VX10000)

Non-notable product. Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. This phone doesn't have enough substantial references to support a meaningful Wikipedia article; just piles of reviews and press releases. Mikeblas 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This product has only been on the market a week...not nearly long enough to confer notability. will381796 00:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - the iPhone hadn't even been released yet when it had an article, the amount of time a product has been on the market shouldn't be the defining attribute as to if an article should exist. This comment was signed by User:TheUncleBob but is no longer attached to the signature due to the insertion of other comments.

- Comment - the iPhone has been released for a couple of months now. Simply because it hasn't been released in your market doesn't mean it hasn't attained notability in other markets. If this phone has been previously released in another market and has gained notability there, then I change my vote to "keep." If not, my opinion stays. will381796 05:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The iPhone article dates back to two years before the phone was released. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I'm surprised that it wasn't delete two years before its release. I would have nominated it as wikipedia is not a crystal ball and an unreleased product cannot be notable. That being said, once the iPhone was announced it was notable as it was Apple's first foray into the cell phone market and due to the very unique features and design of the phone. LG releasing yet ANOTHER phone in their long list of cell phones hardly makes the Voyager notable in its own right. Perhaps a section in the iPhone's article listing and describing some of the "iPhone Killers" that have been released following the iPhone's introduction would be more appropriate, as that would be the only reason that the LG Voyager should even be mentioned anywhere. It is not notable in its own right. will381796 22:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well looking at this direct comparison by Cnet, the phone seems to be able to hold its own against the iphone and be a notable achievement. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good Cnet review doesn't confer notability. By this logic, the "Motorola Q9c" also compared should have its own article too. From the brief search I performed, it doesn't. will381796 00:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ops, i thought I removed that. I had created a custom comparison of the 2 phones. I briefly put the Motorola in because I wanted to compare something for a friend. My mistake. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it is your opinion that having a higher Cnet review rating than the iPhone confers notability. Being able to "hold its own" against the iPhone is purely a matter of opinion (which is what a review consists of). This makes no sense when deciding what products deserve inclusion. Having only been on the market for 10 days does not permit this phone to have had any appreciable impact on the cell phone market. Users have not been flocking to the Voyager rather than going to the iPhone. The Voyager, while cool, has not added anything unique to the cell phone market. will381796 03:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I should note that the iPhone article was deleted several times before the phone was released [29], including failing a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone. The previous revisions were eventually restored to the edit history, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, the amount of time that an item has been on the market should *not* be a reason for determining if an article should be deleted or not. I could pull up plenty of articles about products that haven't even been released yet (or never will be, like, say The Phantom). What we should be discussing instead is "What makes a cell phone notable"? I'd say a cell phone by one of the largest cell phone manufacturers that includes some major features (touch screen, true HTML Web Browsing, etc) for the first time is pretty notable. The article needs some work, yes... But deleted? Naw.TheUncleBob 14:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe someone should go and nominate THAT product for deletion as it is a cancelled product. I don't understand how a hypothetical, never going to be released product can be notable enough for inclustion. I can go incorporate a company and say that I'm going to release a flying car in the next 3 years. I can draft up some 3d images of what it will look like. I'll make up some of its projected specs (estimated speed, MPG, empty weight etc). Can I go make an article on my not-yet existing article? It would be the first flying car, after all... My understanding is that wikipedia is not a crystal ball. How can the inclusion of a not-yet existing product be justified? Similarly, how a product that has hardly been on the market long enough to reach a large number of consumers be notable? As for its features...come on. These two features are not innovations in the design of cell phones much like the iPhone was. And many cell phones already released in Japan and Korea already have features far beyond these phones. Hardly notable. But whatever. will381796 15:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, you couldn't make an article about your own company and flying car - that'd be using Wikipedia to advertise your own product. :) Anywhoo, my point wasn't about these features themselves, but the fact that one of the world's largest cell phone manufactures has, for the first time, combined these features into a cell phone for mass release in one of the world's largest cell phone markets. As for the amount of time the product has been on the market - can you show me *any* Wiki policy or guideline that addresses the amount of time a product is on the market in regards to the notability of the product? Until then, I don't see how this arbitrary "time table" you've introduced can be allowed to have any influence on the determination of the inclusion of this product on Wikipedia. And, as much as I hate to pull out other articles to show my point, [[30]] is an article dating back to Jan 2004 about a product that wasn't released until Nov 2006. The article has come a long way since then. At the time, the product wasn't yet released, nor did anyone know if it was going to be released, nor did anyone know how much (if at all) it was going to disrupt the market at the time of the product's release - but none of this prevented the article from becoming both a "Good Article" and a "Featured Article". TheUncleBob 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs work, yes, but considering this phone is a rather large part of Verizon Wireless's 2007 Holiday line up, not to mention that it's going to draw a lot of iPhone comparisons (and thus, a lot of people are going to be looking up info on it), I think the article for this phone can be well developed. As with any Wikipedia article though, it'll take time. Rome wasn't built in a day. TheUncleBob 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. After the holidays, should the article be deleted? The article doesn't mention Verizon's holiday line-up, and doesn't mention the phone's role in the line up. Your assertion, like most information about this phone, isn't easily verifiable. -- Mikeblas 15:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree completely with TheUncleBob --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is actually one of the more notable cell phones. Needs more references, but keep. - Rjd0060 00:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mikeblas do some research before prod/afd'ing phone articles. This is frequently used as an example of an iphone killer / iphone clone. [31][32]Rhobite 03:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your first link is to a blog post of less than 90 words. This is not a substantial, useful link, per WP:V. The second link is another review, just over 1000 words. -- Mikeblas 15:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is that the phone has been covered at the two biggest gadget blogs, in multiple articles. Please search around if you're still not convinced that this is a notable phone. Rhobite 19:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If word count is important to you Mikeblas, which it shouldn't be, here is one by Cnet with over 3000 words. As Rhobite said, just google around and you'll find plenty of sources with little to no trouble at all. I'd work more on this article myself, but I have finals in under 2 weeks I'm trying to keep my head above water here. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Word count is important to everyone on WikiPedia. Read WP:V to learn about how only substantial references are useful. It also explains how self-published material on a blog isn't a viable reference. -- Mikeblas 08:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me ZyMOS 06:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article seems alright to me, just needs a few more sources (even though there is a sufficient number already) to help. If you think about it, all you have to do is search. I'd recommend trying to add sources and/or notifying the user who created the page before actually propping up for deletion. — Rudget _{contributions} 11:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 'Reviews' (if independent) often provide meaningful, critical and neutral evaluations. As pointed above, this phone has a few reviews already (and potentially more in the near future). Also, the article should now be deleted when the phone stops being current (this is an encyclopedia, not a current catalog of whatever). --Yury Petrachenko 04:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems pretty good. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Can be re-written to make it better. soldierx40k 07:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, we can rewrite it to greatly improve it's quality. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample notability and sources. Colonel Warden 11:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's notable and verifiable. Yes, it just came out... exactly, so give it some time to develop into a great article. It's been two months since this article was created. iPhone's article looked like this at that time. Let it be edited by more people. Give it the chance to develop. The article may not yet be a "good article", but the product certainly deserves one. нмŵוτн τ 21:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEEEPPP!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.113.251 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 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. Core desat 06:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Washington

This person barely escapes CSD A7. Jonathan (talk•e-mail•contribs) 19:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Jonathan (talk•e-mail•contribs) 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per A7 --carelesshx _talk 19:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Founding something does not constitute an assertion of notability. —Caesura ^(t) 19:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and no assertion of notability. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 05:45, 2 December 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy

News article that has had no developments in thirteen months except for the boys being sentenced Will ^(talk) 22:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks pretty useful to me. Just because there are no new developments, doesn't mean that it should be deleted. Tavix 00:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Will ^(talk) 00:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except, this is not a biographical article so only WP:NOT#NEWS applys.Ga rr ie 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable incident with plenty of sources. The article needs a bit of work but the nominator provides no reason why this article should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 00:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have. It's a news article, and the main subjects are notable for only one event. Will ^(talk) 01:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 00:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The controversy is certainly interesting. I'm not Australian but will this have influence beyond the shock value and backlash caused by this incident? There aren't any hard and fast rules but it seems like a scandal that received national scandal only for a short time and has been forgotten. mirageinred 04:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N with the various sources stated in the article. Twenty Years 06:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename I think it should be Cunt: The Movie or something that doesn't sound like a news article. But it is notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZyMOS (talk • contribs) 06:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I do find the subject matter saddening, I do believe that it passes our tests for encyclopedic notability. RFerreira 08:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no problem of notability exists and no there is no question of a "routine" incident. Nor is there a suitable article to merge this into. Policy rationales are being cited with no indication of how they apply; NOTNEWS tells us to consider the historical notability of news events and BLP1E tells us not to write biographical articles about persons notable only for one event. Article passes both. <eleland/talkedits> 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the number of sources cited it's clearly notable. We won't have articles on all 15+ people involved (12 teens plus the girl and her father plus the homeless person ....) so keep the whole thing in one article is the best approach. I pretty much agree with ZyMOS about the redirect, but I don't know if that's the right title - I was aware of the controversy but not the name of the dvd till this article.Ga rr ie 22:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this incident was heavily covered in the Australian press, and the light sentences given to the offenders has led to much criticism. You never know, laws might end up changing because of it. I think that's notable. Lenky 13:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this got a lot of coverage in Australia and lots of tut-tutting from politicians. The avalanche of sources should be an indication that this was indeed notable. Plus, since when has "no new updates" been a valid rationale for deleting an article? Lankiveil (talk) 08:32, 5 December 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.