Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 5

< November 4	November 6 >

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. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese bao

Unsourced one liner, basically a WP:DICDEF, with no indication why it's important/notable. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary as it is essentially a dictionary definition. TonyBallioni 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The syllable "bao" doesn't even appear in Japanese, no idea what this thing is talking about. If it were about a real object with a real name, it might be expandable from a dicdef (who invented it, what materials it requires, what are the major centres of manufacture), but this isn't. cab 00:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 00:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless this is properly sourced. Right now it seems like a mistake or a hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 00:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per comment above, it is either a mistake or hoax, as it does not appear in dictionaries or Google as a hair accessory. --DAJF 01:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent hoax --Polaron | Talk 03:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Misprint for "boa"? Fg2 21:50, 8 November 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. LOL at the bit where it says "...is a strip cartoonist". Oooh, Matron. -Splash - tk 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Darenne

French cartoonist completly unknown, even in France Pymouss44 Causer 23:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The french article is about to be deleted (see fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Charlie Darenne) Pymouss44 Causer 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator on the french wikipedia, gotta love babel fish translations ;-) TonyBallioni 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Brad Chandler. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by pressing the "history" tab at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G10. GRBerry 15:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Geduld

This article is about a person whose notability is in question, and for whom there appears to be very little relevant information. His only claim to fame seems to be as a voice actor on The Skeletor Show, as well as some minor work for Blake's 7, but outside of this, there's very little. The article was nominated for speedy deletion as an attack page, and I originally deleted it under CSD A7, but restored it when an editor pointed out that it did satisfy basic requirements to avoid A7 deletion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is clearly being maintained as an attack page for SomethingAwful Forums user FlyingSquid. I have cited some of the more egregious examples here. Cumulus Clouds 04:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mr. Geduld's resume includes work done for the Sci-Fi Channel, Hanna-Barbera, and Radar Magazine. He has also been profiled by both the International Herald Tribune and National Public Radio. I believe these accomplishments have assured Mr. Geduld's notability. It is rather unfortunate that a few immature Wikipedians have taken to vandalizing the article and adding unverifiable facts, such as that Mr. Geduld is "known affectionately as Geodude by his close friends," but to delete the article outright would be, in my view, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --Rubber cat 05:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer - I am the creator of the article is question. --Rubber cat 05:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the edits you've made, anonymous ips continue to revert back controversial information into that article. It's always going to be used to attack FlyingSquid, in the same way that Brian Peppers was used to attack that man, despite whatever marginal notability he might have enjoyed as a disfigured sex offender. Furthermore, FlyingSquid's interviews on NPR and his work for Hanna Barbara do not make him any more notable than the army of animators they have in their studio or the thousands of people that NPR has interviewed over the years. In my view, callling Daniel Geduld notable would do substantial harm to the continued employment of that policy on this encyclopedia. Cumulus Clouds 05:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really not notable enough for a page.Alberon 10:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rubber cat. I agree, it would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --ForbiddenWord 15:03, 6 November 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. Compelling nomination; observation re GBW deleting the same is also pertinent. -Splash - tk 18:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Petrosino

The subject of the article is notable for one thing only: for breaking beer-drinking records when he was a young man, notably in 1977. He has a Wikipedia account himself (apparently), yet there is nothing else to suggest that he merits a full biography for any other reason (having a PhD, being a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, being a Mensa member, having been in the Marines and being married with two adult children just add up to nothing in terms of real notability). Fails WP:BLP1E. The external links in the article appear not to be reliable sources (blogs, mainly), there are no Google News or Google Scholar hits, and the only reliable sources for this biography appear to be documentation of his drinking records. I don't know, maybe we can have an article on him, but I'm not sure he passes WP:BIO right now. What do you think? h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Schumann (adventurer), a similar Guinness World Records holder who was notable for nothing else than being a record breaker, and that got deleted.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not possible to verify whether he was competing at the top level of his sport. I mean, if this were like the Nathan's hot dog contest.... --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Steven Petrosino's 1977 recorded entry is the last beer drinking record to be entered into the Guinness Book of World Records before they (Guinness World Records Limited) removed beer drinking related events from their scope. On this basis this information is of wide interest, more in relation to the history of Guinness Book of World Records, rather than any negative impacts it may have on the Dr Steven Petrosino of today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.26.225 (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete the Guinness Book of World Records saw fit to drop the category of beer drinking records from it's roster of tracked accomplishments, I don't think Wikipedia is obliged to pick up the slack. Even if WP were to decide that this is a record worth tracking, then it would deserve an article on the event listing this name. Per the spirit of WP:BLP1E, an biographical article of this otherwise non-notable individual isn't merited, at most his name ought to be listed in an article covering the putatively notable activity. Pete.Hurd 14:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"do not delete" This article is interesting and should not be deleted. I think that it's reasonable to have Wikipedia entries on Guinness record holders, and the fact that the title has been removed from the Guinness record book doesn't negate the fact that it was won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.192.55 (talk) 03:02, 10 November 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. There is no basis for redirecting a non-existent term to somewhere that does not mention it, and no basis for merging such poor content to anywhere. -Splash - tk 18:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Thug

Neologism unsupported by credible evidence ElKevbo 22:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this is in the catagory of computer crimes and cyberbullying. it is notable and easily can be found on google. it is pretty much the same as a http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=internet+thug cyber gangsta http://www.google.com/search?q=cyber+gangsta&hl=en or cyber gangster http://www.google.com/search?q=cyber+gangster&hl=en or internet gangster http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=internet+gangster It is a developing article. UnclePaco 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Evidence suggests that this is a notable neologism for which a well-cited article could be written. This is not that article. For one thing, the very definition probably needs multiple citations - neologisms are highly susceptible to being interpreted differently by different people, and the last thing we want is to define the term according to one Wikipedian's OR. --Hyperbole 22:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd also support a redirect to cyberbullying per Dennis The Tiger, although I think there may be legitimate content that could be merged into that article. --Hyperbole 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With all due respect to Hyperbole, I disagree. I see little real notability here (although with the exponential growth of troll presence on Wikipedia, maybe a new definition is needed....) AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No reliable sources. Fails WP:NEO, badly.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to cyberbullying. There's nothing to merge that isn't necessarily covered there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to cyberbullying. The subject isn't notable enough to justify having its own article, and no references are given. There's no reason to keep this article. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/mergeper above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astroview120mm (talk • contribs) 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to cyberbullying and redirect. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:27, 6 November 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, following editing. -Splash - tk 19:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

States Reorganisation Commission

No assertion of notability; possible copyvio; primary source not suitable for Wikipedia. Contested PROD John 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - Since subjects on Indian politics are quite under-represented on Wikipedia, I would suggest that a) the direct cut-and-paste from the report be transwikied to Wikisource (given the date, I doubt if copyright is an issue, and I also doubt that the text is online), and b) that a stub, consisting of the lead and anything else reliable that can be found online, be kept. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Has the appearance of notability to me. Per WP:BOLD, I've cut out unencyclopedic content consisting of more than 90% of the article - what appeared to be a cut-and-paste from a Commission report. That leaves the article as a stub. I'd support keeping it in that form and seeing if it grows. Regarding Akradecki's suggestion, I have no objection to moving the source material to Wikisource, but I can't find it anywhere online, so it's difficult to verify. Is it a translation? Who translated it? --Hyperbole 22:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good idea Hyperbole. I nommed it here because I thought it didn't work as a complete document, and without that there is so little there, and without any verifiable references... it's better now, I suppose, but I still can't see it as a viable article unless we could get some kind of source there. Still, good work. --John 00:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - I agree with moving the report text to Wikisource. As to the remainer. this page and States Reorganisation Act are about the same subject, with this page being the report that lead to the Act. A review of both article would be good, to determine if two separate articles would be better than one combined article. If two, then some material could be moved from the Act page to the report page. AAt this point, I honestly don't know the best approach to take, as it depends to some extend on how much more material exists that can be added to either page. - BillCJ 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:17, 7 November 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). Qst (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Brand's Ponderland

Unsourced one-line article, little context, and no reliable third party soucres showing us notability. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I tend to think that programs aired for a national audience are inherently notable. I've fleshed out the article a bit - enough to where a reader can actually tell what s/he's reading about. --Hyperbole 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:N. See the AfDs for House Auction and The KNTV Show (both of which I created the articles for and were kept).-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is on one of the only five terrestrial channels in the UK, and is a notable departure for russell as it's more of his own stand up comedy rather than just presenting a show. [1] strong mention in the guardian, [2] review in 'time out', paragraph in the telegraph [3] [4] review by someone else at channel 4, now I know the Sun is not RS for gossip, but for discussion/review I think it contributes a bit [5] a very long article in the New Statesman lol [6] happy now?:) Might not seem like it to those in the US, but that means the show's been mentioned in most of the main papers in the UK, and discussed at length.Merkinsmum 00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you're going to research all those references, it really wouldn't hurt to put them in the article :) --Hyperbole 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, please do so or let me know and I'll do it. Thanks for digging these up.--A. B. ^(talk) 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK -- here's the list; I added it to the article:
      - Cooke, Rachel (2007-10-27). "The really wild show: Russell Brand's "anarchic" comedy is as carefully coiffed as his hair". New Statesman. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
      - Blackburn, Jen (2007-10-24). "Russell Brand: the naked comic". The Sun. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
      - Davies, Patricia Wynn (2007-10-23). "Last night on television". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
      - Duggins, Alexi (2007-10-22). "Russell Brand's 'Ponderland'". Time Out London. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
      - Clark, Alex (2007-10-28). "Birth of the original good-time girl". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-11-06.

--A. B. ^(talk) 13:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Merkinsmum's good reference-checking. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitly deserves keeping as above.Alberon 10:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 13:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to A.B. for doing the work lol.:)Merkinsmum 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: broadcast on a major TV channel, performer is notable, plenty of press coverage. -- Karada 21:05, 6 November 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 & redirect to Mallee Football League (South Australia) - I'm going to be bold and merge these. --Stormie 02:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Border Downs Tintinara Crows

Delete unsourced article about a team in a league where games are often forfeited because it's difficult to get the lads to away games - doesn't sound professional or notable to me. Also nominating the following teams in the same league, some one-liner articles, some "for more information see our website" sorts, nothing indicating notability in any of them.

Carlossuarez46 18:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Google search has Australian newspaper reference for Border Downs Tintinara such as [7]. The club articles could either be merged into the main league article or (in the case of those that have no information) deleted. --Sesameball^Talk 18:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Coverage of individual football matches (ie: match reports) indicate notability of a LEAGUE not of either TEAM. Between seasons is the best time to see if the team is in fact notable: if people care about who the coach will be, then there will be a story about it meaning the team is notable.Ga rr ie 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suspect I like it is not a valid argument, but I will say that most of these clubs (with multiple teams) have been around for over 100 years in some form and are the predominant sporting and social group in their communities. The clubs will nearly all have had a least one player who has made their way to the Australian Football League or its predecessors and/or a former player from that competiton come and any play with them as a semi-professional after his pro career was finished. Do the articles need verification? Absolutely, but they can be verified; local sources are available. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Auroranorth (sign) 02:24, 3 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, ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: per User:GarrieIrons and Carlossuarez46; they said it all. Ibid et al 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Personally, I support a merge into an article on the league. A mention in the article for the town would also be appropriate. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Mallee Football League (South Australia) and redirect. Since we have that article on the League (and I see nobody proposing it for deletion), it would serve no purpose whatsoever to delete the club pages rather than merge their content to flesh out the list of clubs there. --Stormie 04:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Auroranorth. Twenty Years 15:58, 10 November 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 Russell Simmons. --Polaron | Talk 03:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atman (brand)

Delete unsourced article about a product line with no evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources per WP:N. Carlossuarez46 21:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Russell Simmons, and mention Atman in that article. (I'd suggest a merge, but there's no real content to merge.) If anyone agrees, they could just do this boldly and save the community some trouble. --Hyperbole 23:06, 5 November 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone-bender

Unsourced one-line article about a nn product from a nn company, with virtually no context. Carlossuarez46 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wonder if that Chapman, R. was Roger Chapman. Probably not, but still...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly use title as a redirect to Tremolo arm? Grutness...wha? 01:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete faster - as totally nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:28, 6 November 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. This has been active for the standard AfD period, as well as an additional re-list, yet no further arguments have been presented. Due to the lack of significant weight either way, rough consensus cannot be established. Anthøny 16:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Edge

Deletion nomination The group may do noble work, however in order to merit an article at Wikipedia, the article about the group needs to provide evidence of notability per WP:N and WP:ORG guidelines. This only only cites the organizations own website, which is not an independent reliable source. If independent sources can be provided, that would help, but as it stands now, this group seems to fail notability guidelines. Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, going on Google hits, and Google News and Google Scholar results, if anyone wants to source it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Just because something doesn't get many google hits doesn't mean it doesn't merit an article. The organization has won the Mildred Robbins Leet Award for the Advancement of Women, and was named one of 25 Best Small Companies by Working Mother magazine. Kingturtle 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i enjoy knowing about this org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.202.30 (talk) 17:03, 6 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, Daniel 09:32, 11 November 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instant Star (Season 4)

Unsourced article about tv shows which haven't aired. WP:CRYSTAL & WP:OR. Carlossuarez46 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 00:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal-ball-ism, and no content other than two alleged (unsourced) episode names. --Stormie 04:48, 8 November 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Me Down (Motion City Soundtrack song)

Unsourced articles about album tracks - apparently never released as singles and no added reliably sourced indicia of notability as should be present per WP:MUSIC.

I am also nominating two other unsourced "Airplay Only" releases from the same album:

L.G. FUAD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Everything Is Alright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carlossuarez46 21:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 00:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. dissolve ^talk 21:42, 6 November 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. The dissenting view's assertion isn't very persuasive. Daniel 09:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Samra-Mathers

Notability is not inherited. Having been in a number of his brother's videos is not grounds of notability. Corvus cornix 21:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination.Ibid et al 21:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Above arguments are valid, but imo this kid is notable. Tiptopper 14:29, 10 November 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, still unsourced. Daniel 09:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FormulaTech

There are no reliable sources to support notability. I think it may assert notability however so I bring it here for the community to decide. JodyB_{Roll, Tide, Roll} 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article was also created by the author, so it may violate WP:SPAM Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. Doctorfluffy 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:08, 9 November 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 the articles with no great claims to notability and no independent sources. GRBerry 02:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Networks

Deletion nomination Non-notable corporation. Contains no reliable sources which indicate notability as required by WP:N and WP:CORP guidelines. Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling with this nomination is MOVEit Freely, a non-notable product produced by this non-notable corporation. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:19, 5 November 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, though we really need to get on with cleaning this up.--Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars creatures

Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT#DIR). Additionally, this is very long list of fictional characters with no real world context. Pilotbob 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:DELETION#Merging and WP:LIST, lists are a proper method of collecting information like this rather than as individual articles. Now, this particular list is bloated and needs serious clean-up and sourcing, but as there are SOME notable Star Wars creatures, there is no need to delete the list, instead it should be cleaned up and reduced down to those that have reliable sources. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia is not paper. Wikipedia has many lists very similar to this one; it seems to be consensus that sourced facts about notable fiction are encyclopedic, regardless of how trivial they may seem. And, as Jayron32 points out, it's certainly better that this information exist in a list than in separate articles. --Hyperbole 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kepp per Hyperbole – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOT#DIR where is says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic" and per WP:SAL. Viperix 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is just a giant plot summary (see WP:NOT#PLOT) with no analysis and nothing to indicate real world notability. It is just info about characters with no real world context at all. It has been tagged for a while and shows no signs of improvement. It does not cite reliable secondary sources per WP:FICT and is cannot be cited to meet the criteria of notability established therein (A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT#INFO) Pilotbob 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that these fictional characters have any real-world notability, or provide justification for the extensive in universe plot summary. --Gavin Collins 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Star Wars is itself an undeniably notable fictional universe, and the creatures therein absolutely help make it what it is. The article is certainly not a plot summary an any way. I would have no problem with trimming the article down to more notable and/or better-sourced creatures, but an outright deletion is out of the question. AndalusianNaugahyde 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hyperbole, Viperix, and AndalusianNaugahyde, as a useful list. This is so obviously notable as an idea to be covered by WP:OUTCOMES. I'd go along with trimming - it should only include notable characters, whether major or supporting, in books or movies. Get back to me if you want me to do the dirty work. Bearian 19:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Plot, WP:WAF and I'm sure others. There is already a Star Wars wiki for this stuff.Ridernyc 20:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Hyperbole (talk · contribs), and also there seems to be good referencing, even if there could be more. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
To be honest, as co-founder of Wookieepedia, I would say that the information is well-protected there and this list can technically be seen as unnecessary on Wikipedia. However there seems to be enough people that want to keep up with it, though someone will add things from our wiki here and make it even worse. Weak delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many books have been written about the fictional Star Wars universe, meaning that lots of fictional Star Wars stuff should stay on Wikipedia. Some of these, such as ewoks and sarlaccs, are also very well known icons of pop culture. And, you know. 96T 16:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by KieferSkunk. (Note: non-admin close.) szyslak 03:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Nemo 2

False information, no IMDB page or official information on this sequel.

Comment how about asking the original editor where he got the information? He is a new editor, so remember not to WP:BITE the newbies. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 20:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as the contributions of a banned user. Its contributor, Hype44 (talk · contribs), has one other contribution outside this article, the addition of a link to a deleted article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halloweentown: She's The Witch. The user's edits seem to vaguely follow the pattern of Lyle123/StealBoy, a hard-banned user known for hoaxes about Disney "sequels". See also Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Lyle123. szyslak 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not adequately convinced that Hype44 is Lyle123 (although certainly a check may be in order). Notwithstanding, this article has no sources, appears to be a hoax, and if nothing else, fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Hyperbole 23:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No sources, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:54, 6 November 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. Mr.Z-man 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie A. Lewis

Single-incident coatrack masquerading as a biography, which violates WP:NPOV and places undue weight on a single piece of a person's life. FCYTravis 20:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Integrity of this AfD has been compromised. The nominator, an administrator, has protected "his own" version of the article, which deletes most of it, including more than half the references. Certainly this undermines the integrity of the AfD process, as even I myself would vote for deletion with what is now left. Anyone commenting on the article should have a look at the version before he protected it, which is here. Reswobslc 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The protection was temporarily necessary, as an editor removed the "Living persons" category and reinserted a self-published blog which was removed for being a patently unreliable and unacceptable source for an article about a living person. The protection has been reduced to semi. FCYTravis 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean ME? I don't have a blog, so this "self-published" accusation is nonsense. Now, why semi? Are anonymous users vandalizing this article or something? And are the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News "blogs"? As you have removed these too. Last I checked, these are in-print newspapers. Look, the point of an AfD is to gain the community consensus, which you cannot get by manipulating the AfD itself. I propose this AfD is NULL AND VOID and you start a new AfD, with the most recent un-manipulated version of the article, and then DON'T TOUCH (aka protect) it! Reswobslc 22:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the blog "SammyTaylor.net," which I removed specifically because it's an unacceptable, self-published source which cannot be used. You reinserted it. FCYTravis 22:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot be used to support statements about living people, true, but cannot exist as a relevant link in the article, not true. Reswobslc 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. We do not link to blogs in biographies of living persons except for blogs written by the biography's subject. Blogs are specifically cited as links to be avoided, and BLP requires that all external links must be of high quality and reliability. A personal blog does not meet either of those criteria. FCYTravis 22:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so this is why the article should be deleted/protected? I don't even see this as relevant to this AfD, even if as, you say, "I'm Wrong". Reswobslc 23:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Um, with all due respect, her widely publicized grassroots-organized ouster is what she is notable for, if being an elected official somehow wasn't enough. Nominator hasn't even looked at the massive amount of supporting media coverage, otherwise he would have known that the contents of the since-removed YouTube video are well documented by reliable sources and he would not have removed it claiming they were somehow unverifiable. If NPOV is still a concern, deletion is not the answer. Incidentally, I can't help but notice that more than half of the nominator's last 50 edits are to undo or delete my contributions... Travis, what did I do to piss you off? Reswobslc 21:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article is exclusively concerned with a single incident in this person's life to the exclusion of every other part of her life, and thus improperly gives undue weight to that incident. It is established policy that Wikipedia does not create "biographies" about people who are temporarily in the news because of a single incident. FCYTravis 22:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply The same is true of Amelia Earhart, and we're not AfD'ing her. Non sequitur. See WP:COATRACK#What is not a coatrack. Reswobslc 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete due to BLP concerns in conjunction with borderline notability. Of the three sources cited, one is local news and hence not especially reliable, one is a court document giving verification of a tangential fact, and one is a blog/opinion piece which has no place on wikipedia. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This one should not count in light of the fact that nominator has deleted the citations, leaving only three behind, and then protected the page so they could not be re-added! OF COURSE reliable sources are "missing"...Reswobslc 22:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin I'm changing my Weak delete to a Delete after reviewing the sources (including those in the earlier version of the article) and giving further consideration to the BLP issues raised here. In cases of borderline notability - and that's what this is: moderate interest in predominantly local news sources for a short time - BLP concerns should be enough to indicate that deletion is the best course. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I peeked at the recent non-protected version and I believe it is indeed a BLP violation, specifically WP:BLP#Criticism. I also know that semi-protection and protection are ways to prevent BLP violations. I suggest that the protection be lifted so the community will not be suspicious that the nominator is abusing admin powers (false or otherwise). Should protection be necessary, an uninvolved admin should do so.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- question Perhaps you can clarify "criticism". The deer video and the ouster is what this lady is most notable for, just like Timothy McVeigh is notable for a bombing. In both cases, the focus is on these negative events and not the person's childhood or upbringing. Focusing on the events is not "undue weight" or "criticism". An example of "undue weight" would be an article dwelling on this judge's, or McVeigh's religious beliefs that are irrelevant to the things that made them notable. Reswobslc 17:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like the principal source--the transcript of the CNN show is what I can best describe as a one-sided lynch mob. I know CNN is supposed to be a RS, but the WP article on Nancy Grace indicates very clearly why nothing said on her show can be used as negative information about anyone. DGG (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- reply It is unclear which version of the article you're looking at. This is an unusual case where post-AfD the nominator removed content from the article and then protected it. Three sources were deleted by the nominator before the page was protected, and because two of them in Lewis's jurisdictional area, I would personally have considered them more "principal" than Nancy Grace. If you have seen these, and still believe CNN is the principal source, then can you acknowledge it so your position is clear? Reswobslc 15:33, 4 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, Sandstein 19:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:BLP1E. No version of the article contains any information about her life, or any sources for same, except for this one affair. Deor 21:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The behavior of any editors involved notwithstanding, the article cites reliable sources, and those sources indicate non-trivial coverage. There is likely to be further information availible to fill-out the article in other sources, and thus this is in need of keeping and expanding per WP:HEY, and not deletion issue at this point. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I would tend to believe that, while Circuit Court judges (who are Federally appointed) are probably inherently notable, District Court judges (who are generally local elected officials) are not. The question, then, is whether Lewis's bad press and subsequent retention election is enough to confer notability on her. This is a really close call, but I tend to believe that a hostile CNN talk show and some otherwise local furor does not clear the notability bar. Delete as nn. (Note that I do not see WP:BLP violations here: if a person becomes infamous for a single incident, that does not bar Wikipedia from writing an article mostly about that incident - see, e.g., Mark David Chapman) --Hyperbole 23:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear WP:COATRACK. Far below WP:BIO standards, and the attention briefly attained by a viral video clip isn't really notability. --Dhartung | Talk 00:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The fact that a YouTube video single-handedly influenced an election so much as to swing the majority vote is in itself novel enough to make her and this incident notable. Reswobslc 01:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've already !voted "keep" once, Reswobslc. That's all you get. Deor 03:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The CNN bit lets us know it wasn't local interest only. This news aggregator lets us know that the Salt Lake Tribune published an article 8-Nov-2006 (no longer available online) saying in part that she (and another judge not retained the same day) were only the third and fourth judges not retained in the 21 year's Utah has had retention elections for its judges. I believe that she is notable. Decent merge target - an article on all four of the judges that Utah's voters have declined to retain. GRBerry 03:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The view from England: "US judge gets voted off" is hardly notable, worldwide. I've not heard of WP:COATRACK before, but having read it, this fits perfectly (yes, I know it's only an essay). This might make a para in a putative article Effects of YouTube videos, else write a proper bio of the woman and see if that's notable. Smalljim 19:56, 11 November 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 non-notable street, and create redirect to Drake Circus Shopping Centre. Sandstein 20:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Circus

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}}.

A non-notable small sub-district that isn't much more than a roundabout in Plymouth. It doesn't appear to have any historical or geographical significance. The article was primarily created by a local to disenfranchise the term "Drake Circus" from a nearby controversial shopping mall (Drake Circus Shopping Centre). The talk page has attracted a lot of attention by trolls, vandals and disgruntled students and locals, as a result the article required semi-protecting. In spite of all the rhetoric there has been no attempt at providing proof of notability per WP:N using WP:RS. The small area contains some run down shops, part of Plymouth University a church cum war memorial and a museum and art gallery which are all irrelevant to the article's notability due to non-inheritance of notability. gHits of any note are minimal, the search term being sidelined by the shopping mall. What's left is either non-independent or trivial. -- WebHamster 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've taken the unusual step of putting this late vote at the top because the whole article has just been replaced with a fully-referenced and I believe uncontroversial version. The only issue that would remain is notability, and I think that's shown now. Smalljim 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*keep

This is a bad faith nomination Talk:Drake_Circus_Shopping_Centre
The Drake Circus areais home to the Faculties of Health & Social Work, Social Science & Business, Science and Technology, and part of the Faculty of Arts and the Peninsula Medical School. As you can see from a mapit includes the Drake's reservoir Drake reservoir and theMusuem and art gallery

It has an immense history which users have been blocked from adding to this article by those wishing to promote a nearby shopping mall. For example in 1881 snow on Sheepstor caused the most severe water shortage ever experienced in Plymouth. Records of 29th January show that there was no water in the leat or the reservoirs at Crownhill and Hartley. There was only three inches in the Drake’s reservoir, which was reserved for fire. There had been no domestic supply for the previous three days. Its reservoir once fed by a In the wall above the now disused conduit, which was rebuilt in 1671 is the inscription ‘Made in the Maioraltie of John Trelawnye 1598’. Above this are the Arms of and crests of Drake history of Drake Resevoir The area includes one of the largest universities in the UK

as for gHits are minimal and 'run-down' shops if we refer to google and for example search 'uk silver jewellery' there are globally 3,230,000 sites. The consistent number one site is a ___domain of a shop in Drake Circus who sold their previous ___domain www.plymouth-england.com to arespected local historian. What reference or verification is given to the claim that it has some "run down shops".
over a long period attempts by anybody to publish a true and accurate account of 'drake circus' have been systematically vandalised with legitimate references constantly being deleted.2007 copyright chris robinson81.155.65.71 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

keep The image by chris robinsonshows Drake Circus. The building on the right still stands today occupied by the agents fulfords maybe shown more clearly at [8] As for run down Drake Circus has benefited from extensive investment over the past five years. I am sure I speak for many that we would like the opportunity of adding and expanding this article but all attempts at doing so over the past 6 months have been met with fierce resistance and blockings of accounts. The motive behind this request for deletion is a vindictive desire to stamp out the truth for the benefit of creating internet presence of a commercial enterprise.Nicole 50dc 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which image on the BBC website are you referring to? (picture 1 is a different building, it's a similar shape but it looks different and is in the wrong ___location, compare with picture 3 in the same gallery, then compare pictures 3 and 7. Which pedestrian street is in the picture? Snigbrook 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to image 1 (the illustration by chris Robinson) which (i think) shows the musuem/library on the right, which means you are looking up to the current Drake Circus area. The Fulfords image shows their buidling which is further up. Either way the images show not 'all' the Edwardian buidlings were flattened in the blitz.Nicole 50dc 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The building on the left of image 1 looks like the building with the Guinness sign in image 3 - all the other pictures in the same gallery are in that area. If that's the case then it's the corner of Old Town Street and Ebrington Street (on the map at [9]), and has been demolished, although it is possible that it's a different building. Snigbrook 01:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will invite Chris Robinson to answer that as I must admit I am little confused as to what building it is. I think what is irritating the locals (particularly the older ones) is that it was the developers who originally disenfranchised the term "Drake Circus" from the locals and not the other way round although I really do not want to get embroiled in that war again.Nicole 50dc 16:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that the ___location is run down does not mean that the article needs be deleted. This seems a real, notable neighborhood in a city, and thus seems inherently notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*keep Whether it is a Street, road, district or whatever is immaterial. It is an area with some notable pre-war and post war history attached to it.86.151.170.3 13:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep like with the other article, the attempt to delete this one seems an effort to avoid the difficulty of writing NPOV articles under harassment from local people with a POV. . There seems to be some local dispute involving the relative importance of the neighborhood, the shopping center , and the town or the university. I think both articles are viable enough. DGG (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that I personally think it's non-notable, my prime motive for bringing the AfD is partly to get a wider audience discussing its viability and partly to put paid to the dissent on the talk page. Additionally there's been a notability tag on the article for a bit now. A properly run AfD will put paid to all these things in one go... at least theoretically anyway. There has been plenty of time for people to add info to this article as it's been there for a year. It's only been semi protected for 2 days. All the IPs had to do was register an account, wait 4 days and they could have added the required info. Instead they preferred to use disruptive tactics instead. This isn't a bad faith nomination, it's to try to get things sorted once and for all. As I put on the talk page, it will either survive this AfD or it won't. If it is indeed noteable then it will give someone a kick in the ass to prove it instead of whining about it. That fact that it's semi-protected is immaterial, info could have been placed on the talk page by IPs for us to include it. In spite of the shouters' complaints there have been plenty of additions to the article as well as deletions. The history is there to see, there is no cadre conspiring to wipe it from the face of Wikipedia. If there were justifiable additions then they would have been included. As you can see from the talk page plenty of offers were made, but no-one took us up on them. ---- WebHamster 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully accept your motivation--it was a little hard to figure out otherwise. Thanks for the clarification,03:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I've just asked the admin who protected it to remove the semi-protection from the Drake Circus page to allow the user currently known as Nicole 50dc the opportunity to edit the page that he feels so strongly about. It seems inequitable to consider deletion when the creator of the page has had only a short time in which he could edit it. He seems to be almost the only remaining active user/IP from those 20 or so socks etc. that disrupted this article and the adjacent Drake Circus Shopping Centre one - (its AfD). I would like to think that, having learned from the experience gained from the other AfD in which he participated copiously, he will now add content to this article responsibly, and, having had that opportunity, will accept the consensus as to its fate (whatever that may be). Smalljim 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Nicole 50dc 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short time? The article was created in October 2006 by User:Burbidget who hasn't taken part in the dissent and/or afd. ---- WebHamster 23:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a series of edits by our old friend Yiwentang (now blocked) on 30 October 2007, culminating in this one [10] that started this disagreement. When I spotted it I copied the last pre-Yiwentang version of this article over to the shopping centre one [11] as a compromise. So I suppose that means this is all my fault… Smalljim 23:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I summarily sentence you to a week in a tent right in the centre of Drake Circus :P ---- WebHamster 23:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! The road or the shopping centre? 'night. Smalljim 23:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment'Thank you although it remains blocked to me. I particularly wanted to publish images with an account of the long lost and concealed entrance to the Portland Square Bomb Shelter in Drake Circus where so many children lost their lives. In April 2008, on the 67th anniversary of the tragedy a memorial will be held for all those killed in the Portland Square, Drake Circus bomb shelter however maybe I should wait until after the event.Nicole 50dc 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Would that be under your own name or as 81.155.65.71? ---- WebHamster 01:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's nothing to stop you uploading the pictures any time you like, you aren't blocked from doing that. Please also bear in mind that WP:NOT#NEWS ---- WebHamster 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just been unprotected. Please behave reasonably! I'm off to bed now, hope to see the makings of a great article by tomorrow morning. --Smalljim 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Recent research by Smalljim and outlined on Talk:Drake Circus#Sub-district shows that Drake Circus isn't actually an official area at all. As best we can figure it, officially, Drake Circus is just the name of a road and part of a roundabout. It's not an officially designated council district, it's not an officially designated postal district. Seemingly it's just a local nickname for an arbitrary area around the road itself. So far, after protection was removed, there seems to be no serious attempt at establishing notability by the outspoken supporters of the article. There have been additions to the article of a similarly named reservoir which ran out of water once and a bomb shelter that was bombed once, but nothing that could be interpreted as notable per WP:N. ---- WebHamster 02:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The large multi-million pound Plymouth business schoolis next door to 50@Drake Circus and as you can see its postal address is clearly 'Drake Circus'. So indeed is the landmark money centre building orthe voodoo lounge which are two or three streets away. If it were just a street or roundabout the council (and post office) would have a sign that says 'Drake Circus Street' or 'Place' or 'Road' or whatever. Instead it is signposted 'Drake Circus'. I hope to upload more images and content over the next 48 hours. In the meantime maybe worth noting that most old (and some modern) maps of London do not officially recognise Chinatown,_London so does that article likewise have no right to be here.Nicole 50dc 14:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Drake Circus is the street name whether you like it or not, it doesn't need a road or street suffix to be considered to be either. Just because a firm or building gives itself an area name does not mean that area name is official. The mail gets there because the local sorting office knows where it is. Given the accusations of WP:COI from yourself and others with regard to DCSC you seem remarkably keen on trotting out the Midas Homes link at every opportunity. What other articles do or don't do is immaterial to this discussion as you have already been told. Meanwhile if you can come up with an official definition of Drake Circus being an area as opposed to a road then please do so, until then it's merely original research and synthesis and is meaningless to WP. Just for those who haven't read Smalljim's research, even the road name hasn't been there all that long (relatively speaking). Apparently it was changed from Tavistock Street to Drake Circus just after WWII. Even now it's only a section of a road as it becomes North Hill a short way along its length. So far nothing has pointed to the area being notable. Photographs of the street and descriptions of empty 19th century reservoirs and bombed bomb shelters does not a notable area make. ---- WebHamster 15:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt you will ever be able to verify the area sign was changed from Tavistock Street to Drake Circus just after WWII. Even if it were remotely true then by your own admission it makes the sign at least 60+ years old!Nicole 50dc 02:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the web pages being cited for the bomb shelter only mention Portland Square, there is no mention at all of Drake Circus. Likewise the reservoir citation also makes no mention of Drake Circus. This being the case it's looking like these two sections need to be deleted. ---- WebHamster 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tragedy was "in the vicinity of the Planeteriumwhich is in "...Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA.."Nicole 50dc 03:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For photographs of buildings you need permission from the architect, not just the photographer. IANAL & IMHO, these pictures cannot by licensed under GFDL of Creative Commons, without permission of the architect.[12] Two of them have come through so i hope to publish them within 12 hours. It has already been established that Portland Square falls within Drake Circus."Hepworth House, Portland Villas, Drake Circus,plymouth or professor in analytical chemistry,A429,portland square development,drake circus,plymouth,Devon,PL4 8AA. I cannot upload any more detail due to the constant edit conflicts caused by your incessant disruption.Nicole 50dc 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the midashome reference was only added to the discussion page to rebut the suggestion the building fell outside the drake circus area. I have absolutely no commercial interest in that or any other organization and if you think links are spammy remove them. My only concern is to further academic knowledge and research whilst ensuring factual history or geography is not distorted for the benefit of a shopping mallNicole 50dc 17:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic digression collapsed

Off-topic digression collapsed ---- WebHamster 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed section reduced because it included some relevant comments --Smalljim 10:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article you quoted properly "The copyright act does not, however, prevent anyone from taking or painting pictures of any building visible from a public place, or displaying such pictures." You aren't publishing plans or blueprints. You are taking snaps from a public thoroughfare, it's perfectly legal to do so without anyone's permission. If you wish to waste your time making the effort then go right ahead, but do not make statements that other people may construe as law.

My "incessant disruption" as you call it, and I remind you of WP:CIVIL, are correcting your basic errors, spelling mistakes and various other mistakes. If you don't wish to read WP:MOS or WP:EL then fair enough, but do not insult other people who have done so and are correcting your mistakes. Either get it right or accept that there are others who will make it right for you ---- WebHamster 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference actually says "The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act, passed in 1990, extended copyright protection to architectural works unless the building was constructed or the plans to the building were otherwise published before Dec. 1, 1990. Courts have generally agreed that all buildings not yet substantially complete as of Dec. 1, 1990, are covered by the act." Few of the notable buildings in Drake Circus were built or designed before 1990 (neither was the mall).How others construe the Law is their choice. My choice is not take the risk and its reference is to explain my choice and the reason why no images have been published yet. It was not intended as any form of legal advice or warning. I have made few if any spelling mistakes that i have not corrected myself.Nicole 50dc 18:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is beyond the purview of this AfD, but I didn't make that quote up, it was from the very article you linked to. Blame them not me. Like I said, if you wish to waste your time then feel free. As regards your mistakes, the history is there for all to see, both your mistakes and my corrections, "vodoo longue" anyone? ---- WebHamster 18:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example property releases reinforce my fears (I know it’s contentious but I am not prepared to take the risk)and explains why I have not published all the images yet. Please bear in mind I have only been able to edit this article for less than two days which in itself was only created a few days beforehand by Smalljim.Nicole 50dc 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote from that page "Definitions courtesy of American Society of Media Photographers." You are in the UK, the buildings are in the UK. QED. [End of troll buffet]. ---- WebHamster 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said 'for example'.( If you must know i was referring to the crucial issue of where the images are first published. i.e. the US - this page is being served from a US based server.) however i do not want to cloud this issue with a legal matter. The only point I want to make is that I have not as yet published all the images relating to Drake Circus.Nicole 50dc 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above discussion is at ALL about the status of this article WRT to deletion/keeping. This entire page is being used as a proxy for a discussion that should happen ONLY on the talk page of the article in question. Let's keep the discussion here about the status of this article with regard to guidelines/policies such as notability and verifiability and original research. All other discussions, such as those related to the content of said article, should happen on the article talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis for closing admin - The protection has been off the article for a couple of days now and there have been numerous edits made. There have also been problems as well. The majority of the edits have been by two SPAs, an anon IP and Nicole 50dc, who I believe to be one and the same. Although advice was given to these editors by Smalljim and myself both with regard to the necessary guideline articles and to what was required to establish notability for that article and to stave off any possible deletions due to this AfD. The edits Smalljim and myself have been procedural edits for copyediting, guideline and standards compliance. The two SPA editors have consistently ignored advice and guidelines. There appears to be more intent to promote the area via the article rather than complying with WP guidelines.

There are problems with verifiability with pretty much all aspects of the article. The actual area and its boundaries are as a result of original research and synthesis in spite of the fact the editors were repeatedly informed as such and of the relating guideline articles. There is a continual reliance on postal addresses for some of the university buildings alleged to be in Drake Circus when it appears that the main university mailbox is in an office on the road called Drake Circus so all mail is delivered there regardless of the actual physical ___location of the relevant buildings. There are repeated instances of citations they have provided being either non-relevant (e.g. don't actually mention Drake Circus itself) or non-independent (e.g. the majority are from the university website itself, including their PR department). In spite of calls for documentary evidence of an official area/boundaries there has been nothing substantial (or non-OR/Synth) provided.

Any attempts to sort out the procedural problems are met with accusations of "promoting the shopping mall" in spite of evidence to the contrary. additionally there is still sock-puppetry going on, though admittedly not to the levels there were earlier on in this 'event'.

Additionally there appears that there may indeed be a conflict of interest but not with Smalljim and myself, instead it's with regard to Nicole 50dc and the new Midas Homes estate being built on the Drake Circus environs, this has been repeatedly mentioned by and linked to by Nicole 50dc and is referred to by themselves as " 50@Drake Circus". I'm sure that fact plus closer inspection of Nicole 50dc's user name, i.e. 50 DC is hardly coincidental. Meanwhile the article is no closer to establishing notability, the priority seemingly being given to providing artistic photos of local buildings which are more eye-candy than informational.

-- WebHamster 19:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ~~from what I can see in the links provided, this is a shopping center and not a neighborhood or district.~~ Regardless, it is unverified original research ~~(calling a shopping center a district with that collection of sources is blatant OR synthesis)~~, and there do seem to be conflict of interest problems as WebHamster indicates. The closing admin should consider ignoring several SPA arguments above that assume bad faith against the AFD nominator, and established users arguing to keep should strongly reexamine this situation. --Coredesat 22:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This also seems to be a POV fork of Drake Circus Shopping Centre. --Coredesat 22:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - After reviewing the rewrite, my argument is still to delete, as a non-notable street. --Core desat 23:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, synthesis for a place that doesn't exist. The confusion in this page, the articles and their talks seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the two uses of "Drake Circus". Drake Circus Shopping Centre is exactly what it says it is. However, there is no district by that name, merely a street. The street of Drake Circus (which is the real subject of this article) is not notable by itself. Regarding the oddities in addresses: The Moneycentre appears to be a street away, but when the roundabout existed was adjacent to it. The Shopping Centre's address is Bretonside as its main entrance is actually on the street Bretonside. All mail to the University goes through an office which is situated on Drake Circus, hence why the whole campus appears to be in "Drake Circus".--Nilfanion (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably more of a shopping area than a district, and it seems to me that most of it was demolished and replaced by the shopping centre and roundabout (btw, the new shopping centre's address is Charles Street, not Bretonside, and the old one was apparently 'Eastlake Walk'). Snigbrook 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and question/request: I wish "my" library had a copy of Pevsner and Cherry's Buildings of Devon or indeed anything authoritative about Plymouth. It doesn't, and no library that does is within easy reach. As it is, I have to rely on dribs and drabs in individual web pages, and also "plymouthdata.info", which lacks any obvious academic credential but does seem to have been assembled very conscientiously and disinterestedly. The latter site doesn't have a page on Drake Circus, but it does have a couple of pages on the "Blitz": Blitz.htm on March '41 and Blitz2.htm on April '41. The former includes a photograph of a building on fire in Drake Circus. The latter doesn't mention Drake Circus but does talk of the hit on an air-raid shelter that's described in the WP article as "nearby Portland Square". This kind of thing is compatible with the notion, suggested above, that Drake Circus is merely the combination road and roundabout; perhaps a significant road, but no more. Now, if this is indeed the extent of its formal recognition, it would not be surprising if it were also informally used to mean an area. But I haven't seen any convincing sign of this. Plymouthdata.info says little more about it, but of course it's hard to say whether this is because there's little else to say, because the author hasn't yet got around to it, or simply because what can be said about it doesn't happen to interest the author. So let's instead turn to finished (and respected) books, rather than works in the making. What do Pevsner and Cherry say? What does Pevsner say (in Devon or South Devon) about pre-"development" Drake Circus? What do other authoritative books say? Off to your libraries, ladies and gents. -- Hoary 01:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucky me - I have copies of both Pevsner and Cherry's Devon and the original South Devon. Neither of them says anything significant, though. There are entries in the later work for the museum (I used this as a ref in Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery), the then Polytechnic (which would belong in Plymouth University) and the Moneycentre. Also mentions of Sherwell House and Queen Anne Terrace etc. There's more about North Hill: not surprising because it's much longer. The Edwardian roundabout with the Guinness Clock was demolished before the later much-expanded edition was revised, so there's nothing about that, but nothing in the original either. I spent half an hour in Plymouth local studies library earlier in the week, but it wasn't long enough, I only really confirmed that the road was called Tavistock Road until at least 1955. // I should perhaps clarify here why this article exists at all: until 30 October it was the article about the shopping centre, but on that day it was hijacked by an SPA who rewrote it as a POV article about a "sub-district" of the same name. At the time the existence of such a sub-district seemed possible to me, so, apparently being the first to notice the change, I left it as it was and copied the pre-hijacked version over the existing redirect to at Drake Circus Shopping Centre. Then much vigorous discussion between the SPA and (mostly) WebHamster while I looked for evidence and built up an alternative article based on what I found. Then yesterday an attempt at compromise where I added parts of the SPA's article to my fork, and late last night copied it into main space. // Looked at dispassionately this morning, it should go, really - there's nothing to make it more notable than thousands of other city streets, unless we want article on all those too. Some do, I know. Smalljim 11:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the good work, Smalljim. -- Hoary 11:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Struck through prior vote. After further review, it does seem more and more that this really is a non-notable street, rather than a neighborhood, and also seems an inappropriate POV form from the shopping center article. Per the research done by Hoary above, it does appear that this street/neighborhood (if it may be called that) lacks any real independant sources to expand the article past the stub stage, and likley is non-notable.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, following Smalljim's (non-) findings. -- Hoary 11:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC) .... PS yes, as Smalljim suggests below, redirect to the article on the shopping centre. -- Hoary 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the result is going to be delete, as now appears likely, can I suggest it should be redirect to Drake Circus Shopping Centre instead, because most people coming here looking for an article on the shopping centre would expect to find it under Drake Circus. Other existing redirects are Drake circus and Drakecircus. --Smalljim 11:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some of the information could be useful for a Plymouth City Centre article, but I don't think Drake Circus needs an article of its own. Snigbrook 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — if anyone wants a copy for merger purposes, just ask. --Haemo 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg the Gorilla

Non-notable fictional character. Article is a summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and a trivia section, which is discouraged against in WP:TRIVIA. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Greg the Gorilla' -wikipedia" on Google returns only 7 hits, entirely non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite, or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to List of Bloody Roar characters. Pinball22 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Bloody Roar characters. (A fair number of character articles linked to from there could also use merging into it.) —Quasirandom 20:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen that merging to a unified list is a common proposed solution in many AfDs, but I don't see how that addresses the issues since there appears to be no notable information in the article. Even if you trimmed it down and then merged, instead of a bunch of non-notable articles, you simply have a single non-notable article. Without reliable secondary sources, the presentation of the subject matter doesn't change anything as there is still no way to establish notability and the article would still fail WP:FICT. Likewise, instead of a bunch of individual plot summaries, you have a single article with combined list of plot summaries, still lacking any real-world context or significance. I just don't see there being enough content in the character list to deserve a fork from the main game article itself. Doctorfluffy 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I don't think the list is likely survive a notability argument, but until the merged list is actually created we won't know -- and certainly a merged list has a better chance of finding sources to support the notability of the subject (the characters as a set, as opposed to each character), one that the editors deserve a good-faith chance at. In general, I strongly prefer incremental improvements: lots of small changes have a better chance of creating opportunities, by letting editors see other possibilities, than sweeping changes do. —Quasirandom 21:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point about the whole set of characters being more notable than the sum of each individually, but I really doubt reliable sources are going to emerge for these characters. This one had 7 ghits, a few others in the category were actually worse with 4 ghits, and, after googling maybe 10 at random, I didn't find any that broke 200. I wouldn't haven't nominated it for deletion if I thought there was any hope of salvaging anything notable from the article. Doctorfluffy 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above STORMTRACKER 94 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no primary sources to verify the content is not original research, nor reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that this fictional creature has any real-world notability.--Gavin Collins 10:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. The entry in the List is sufficient. Smalljim 20:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:41, 12 November 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, given the target is gone. There's a unanimous agreement that this article shouldn't exist by itself, and (now) no viable place to merge, hence the deletion. Daniel 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violet fungus

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. No real world context, not notable in the real world Pilotbob 19:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and don't delete that article -- see comments at its deletion discussion page. Pinball22 19:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Pinball22. BOZ 19:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above STORMTRACKER 94 20:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless trivia. No real world notability. Bombycil 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) was subject to AFD, which closed as "Delete, and expand whatever Creature type gets renamed to." That article is itself on AFD at the moment. GRBerry 03:08, 11 November 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, given the target is gone. There's a unanimous agreement that this article shouldn't exist by itself, and (now) no viable place to merge, hence the deletion. Daniel 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treant

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. No real world context, not notable in the real world Pilotbob 19:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and don't delete that article -- see comments at its deletion discussion page. Pinball22 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Pinball. BOZ 19:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pinball22 STORMTRACKER 94 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless trivia. No real world notability. Bombycil 16:30, 8 November 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, given the target is gone. There's a unanimous agreement that this article shouldn't exist by itself, and (now) no viable place to merge, hence the deletion. Daniel 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tendriculos

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. No real world context, not notable in the real world Pilotbob 19:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and don't delete that article -- see comments at its deletion discussion page. Pinball22 19:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability. If Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) gets deleted, this plant could be mentioned in a footnote in The Day of the Triffids, where the idea for this plant probably originated. --Gavin Collins 11:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless trivia. No real world notability. Bombycil 16:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 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, given the target is gone. There's a unanimous agreement that this article shouldn't exist by itself, and (now) no viable place to merge, hence the deletion. Daniel 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrieker (Dungeons & Dragons)

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. No real world context, not notable in the real world Pilotbob 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and don't delete that article -- see comments at its deletion discussion page. Pinball22 19:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Pinball22. BOZ 19:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless trivia. No real world notability. Bombycil 16:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's more useful than you are.
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:28, 8 November 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, given the target is gone. There's a unanimous agreement that this article shouldn't exist by itself, and (now) no viable place to merge, hence the deletion. Daniel 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shambling Mound

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. No real world context, not notable in the real world Pilotbob 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and don't delete that article -- see comments at its deletion discussion page. Pinball22 19:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Pinball22. BOZ 20:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this fictional plant has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability. --Gavin Collins 11:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless trivia. No real world notability. Bombycil 16:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 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, given the target is gone. There's a unanimous agreement that this article shouldn't exist by itself, and (now) no viable place to merge, hence the deletion. Daniel 09:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom fungus

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. No real world context Pilotbob 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and don't delete that article -- see comments at its deletion discussion page. Pinball22 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Pinball22. BOZ 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ghits show that no reliable secondary sources exist to demonstrate notability outside of the game. Shame it can't speak or sing, otherwise this could be merged with Little Shop of Horrors (musical).--Gavin Collins 11:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless trivia. Bombycil 16:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 09:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin vine

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. No real world context Pilotbob 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) and don't delete that article -- see comments at its deletion discussion page. Pinball22 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Pinball22. BOZ 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unlikely secondary sources exist. Doctorfluffy 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ghits show that no reliable secondary sources exist to demonstrate notability outside of the game. --Gavin Collins 11:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless trivia. Bombycil 16:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 20:22, 10 November 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. Done. Neil ☎ 14:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metallic dragons (Dungeons & Dragons)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Metallic dragons (Dungeons & Dragons)

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources. Solely a summary of in universe information. No real world context is or can be estabilished. Pilotbob 19:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Pinball22 20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Pinball22. BOZ 20:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article doesn't have an AFD notice on it. BOZ 20:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of throwing the notice up. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 14:57, 6 November 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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creature type

This article has insufficient content, real world context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this creature type (or is that type of creature?) outside of the game rulebook from which these fictional creatures are derived. Gavin Collins 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination as written doesn't make sense, since this isn't a creature type, it's about the concept of creature types in D&D and a list of the different types that exist in the game. This is the sort of thing that would be a section of the main article if we had infinitely big main articles, but since we don't, it makes a good supporting article. Pinball22 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Would the main article be allowed to go into infinite detail about game mechanics? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing quite says "deletionist on a spree" more than this kind of error and a over reliance on cut and paste. Basically this set of deletions should be described as "Some fictional things I found that don't have references yet" Artw —Preceding comment was added at 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing says words of wisdom quite like this article: "A plant is a vegetable creature". However, without any sources, we don't know if it is a creature type, a type of creature or.... a creature type concept. In any case, I just don't see how this is a "good supporting article".--Gavin Collins 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Pinball. BOZ 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important element of the rules of D&D. Articles like this are split off from the main article in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. --Polaron | Talk 20:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pinball.--Robbstrd 23:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - to stop a snowball close and keep the discussion going. I gave up following AD&D after the heresy of Unearthed Arcana, so I'm not sure how important the "creature type" category is in the new 3.5th edition; but if this article is simply summarizing game mechanics, shouldn't it get transwikied off to a D&D wiki? Polaron has a point; but, the main D&D article doesn't go into so much detail about game mechanics that this subarticle would need any forking. The D&D article is about the real-world aspects of the game (description, explanation, popularity, past troubles, flagship status, pioneering aspects etc.). The minutiae of game mechanics isn't there. I'd suggest maybe Wikipedia's not meant to teach us how to play the game, but to tell us what it is. After all, the point of an article shouldn't be to summarize a company's gaming manuals, should it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. There are no reliable secondary sources to establish real world notability. There is no real world context to this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotbob (talk • contribs) 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Eventual Merge. While not a member, a glance at the talk page for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons shows that they know that the various creature articles are a problem and need listification. It seems that the preliminary work on listification has stalled for right now, but deleting the underlying material isn't going to help on that. This article should eventually be merged into an entirely new framework for discussing creatures in Dungeons & Dragons, but Wikipedia is not on a deadline. SnowFire 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would not be concerned if this article gets deleted as the material is available on lots of fansites. There are no footnotes to verify the content anyway, so better to delete, rather than copy and paste suspect material. --Gavin Collins 09:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard of "It's available elsewhere" would delete all of Wikipedia... well, all of it except for original research, I suppose. And the material actually is cited in the reference given. I suppose you could ask for specific page numbers for each statement, but that's a standard that is only seen on some Featured Articles. SnowFire 14:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listing the types of creatures in D&D is a job for the Monster Manual, not wikipedia. Even if enough encyclopedic content could be found, it would be better placed in a "types" section in an article about creatures in general. Percy Snoodle 16:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so that the stub and start-class articles on specific creature types can be merged into it. Neon Merlin 19:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a gameguide. Ridernyc 11:14, 9 November 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 by unanimous consent as a poor biography with no notability, and no reliable sources. Also, it is in violation of the rule against prognostication, because the author's first publication date is in the future. Can be recreated when the subject is verifiably notable. Bearian 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalan Edwin Decker

Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO - 4 Google results for "Dalan Edwin Decker" and 5 for "Dalan Decker". Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 18:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO "Writer" with an upcoming vanity-press book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article on an author of a single, self-published book (forthcoming). Fails WP:BIO. The creation of Jorgerodriguez1000 (talk · contribs), a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 20:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the biography policy. STORMTRACKER 94 20:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines, no evidence of coverage in independant reliable sources. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about a non-notable author with no reliable sources. I see no reason to keep the article. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found this in the aforementioned author list, and my recommendation is that we delete the article as non-notable. K. Scott Bailey 15:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless someone strenuously objects, I suggest we close and delete per WP:SNOW. There is no way that this article has any chance of being kept through this process, as there are no reliable sources cited, no evidence of notability, and it clearly fails WP:BIO as well. Objections? K. Scott Bailey 18:13, 6 November 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, because there was no consensus to merge. Future merge proposals (given there appears to be some support for such a move) should be done editorially, where such a procedure can gather a clearer consensus (as the 'delete' option is taken out of the equation). Daniel 09:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foo

This article is a definition of a word and is already included in Wiktionary. Pckilgore 18:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not redirect this page to Foo fighter? --Blanchardb 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant programming jargon, page is already more than a dicdef. (wiktionary:foo is just the first sentence of this article.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although honestly I could see a strong case for merging foo, bar (computer science), and foobar. They are obviously very closely related. --Dhartung | Talk 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep There's a lot more info here than a simple dictionary definition. Also foo as a redirect to foo fighters is a bit vague. A^RendedWinter 19:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but it should include articles on words where those words can support an encyclopedia article rather than a simple dictionary definition. This word seems to surpass that standard, and thus the article should be kept. It should be noted that most words will NOT be able to meet this standard; however this one does and it should be kept. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep ARendedWinter & Jayron32 have it right, an article amounting to more than a dicdef is certainly possbile (and redirect to foo fighters is a bad idea). Pete.Hurd 22:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significantly more than just a dictionary definition. --Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 23:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Strong Keep. Just look at the what links here page. Not to mention that there are Wikipedia policy pages that have links to this article. --Blanchardb 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Most of those links seem to have arisen from the {{SCOTUSCase}} template, which has a variable or placeholder or something named "Foo"... —David Eppstein 04:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to comment This is probably the case, but by pure chance I came across one that doesn't. Something about sockpuppeteering. --Blanchardb 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable term used in computer science. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this is certainly more than a definition. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The term is hardly just a dictionary def. And whoever suggested a connection to Foo Fighters apparently didn't even read the article. There's no relationship at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.218.77 (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Important to computer science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.92.93 (talk • contribs)
Merge to foobar (as User:Dhartung says) or metasyntactic variable. I don't think we should put work into maintaining multiple articles if they describe the same subject. Jason McHuff 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to foobar, or vice-versa. Foo & company are important, but we don't need multiple articles about different common metasyntactic variables. - Daekharel 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daekharel (talk • contribs)
Merge After looking at the metasyntactic variable page, I think I'm going to reevaluate my own opinion to merge. I guess I can see the merit of including this information on wikipedia, but multiple articles on essentially the same subject seems a little silly. At least merge with foobar Pckilgore 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Struck through my prior vote. This should be merged with metasyntactic variable as described above. After reading the article again, and reading the article on metasyntactic variables, it really seems that foo is merely a common example of a metasyntactic variable, and thus really could serve well as a section of that article. A merge would make both articles better. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with metasyntactic variable. There's not much more to say about "Foo" than "it's a metasyntactic variable" and not much more to say about metasyntactic variables than "foo & co." ^L_Wizard @ 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whatever gets done, at least keep Foo as a redirect. I know it's quite popular as a placeholder on WP. shoy (^words _words) 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with foobar and bar (computer science) into metasyntactic variable. No reason to have four articles discussing essentially the same concept. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:15, 11 November 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: I've found this [13] which seems to back up the article. --- The Anome 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cristyle

Unferenced, and attempts using the usual search engines to confirm the assertions in the article have failed to come up with anything. Delete per the verifiability policy, unless verifiable cites from reliable sources can be provided to support it. The Anome 18:36, 5 November 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 obvious hoax FisherQueen 12:11, 7 November 2007

Larrwitt

WP:HOAX. Correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty sure there isn't an Egyptian god of sexual deviancy. Also a google search for the word Larrwitt returns no matches. A^RendedWinter 18:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is obviously a hoax. Mr pand 18:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The name doesn't even sound semitic, and neither does the mantra. --Blanchardb 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - also could not establish any WP:RS, let alone WP:N. MatthewYeager 18:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to this I have found many references to Larrwitt in biblical terminology and the god was in fact worshiped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryman33 (talk •

— Larryman33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

contribs) 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Guys, I'm not an expert on this, I was merely providing a stub for a Egyptian expert to build on. I cant write Hebrew so I had to write the mantra and name phonetically. :( Sorry about that! I'm surprised larrwitt didn't come up on a Google search, but like i tried to point out, this is an ALMOST non-existential God, who isn't worshiped anymore. Its no wonder he's difficult to find on the internet.[reply]

- Comment well, can you back up your claim? --Blanchardb 20:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found my data in the book "The the death of Egypt" Larrwitt was so unknown the only traces of his existence were destroyed in the raid of cyro undertowns in which many smaller religions were wiped out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryman33 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete obviously a hoax. STORMTRACKER 94 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys deleteing my rebuttles?! I tried to say that I found out about larrwitt from Dr Jakob Stark (Writing phonetically again) In St Peterberg university. If you have any query's about larrwitt or want to clarify some larrwitt facts, goto the St Petersberg university website and send a message to them. I found they were helpful people. The reason most of you haven't discovered larrwitt is because Larrwitt was only discovered recently, because the cartouche/hieroglyph for larrwitt is very similar to the cartouche/heiroglyph of Min the Egyptian God of Fertility and Sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panikmachenmann (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC) — Panikmachenmann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, and block hoaxer. Corvus cornix 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not being biased! Anyone checked with mr Stark yet? He appears to be ignoring me. Panikmachenmann 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a full bibliographic citation for this source, so that it can be evaluated? exact title, author, publisher, year, and so on. —Quasirandom 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched numerous databases of journal articles that included archaeological papers and found nothing that matched "Larwit", "Larrwitt", "Larwitt" or "Larrwit". There were several results for "egyptian God of sexual deviancy" but none relevant to the subject of this article. If there is ongoing research at St. Petersberg University, it is original research. Bobby1011 01:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - an obvious hoax. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the most obvious and poorly done hoaxes I've seen. Edward321 04:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah Bobby, I have to assume that it is original research then, I will fight no furth ur for it. Sorry, I wasn't aware of OR policy.Panikmachenmann 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination, this is an apparent hoax. Yamaguchi先生 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt a hoax, but Dr Stark has verified with me that his work on this subject is still only in the research stage, and he is looking for some proof which directly refers to Larrwitt, instead of just referring to him in passing. However, it is due for deletion under to Original research....thing Panikmachenmann 22:50, 6 November 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 Salted --JForget 00:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinch day

Seems to fail WP:MADEUP. Google returns nothing to suggest that this term has any relation to birthdays. The only thing of interest I could find was a few sites linking this term to St Patricks Day (however none were very reliable). Maybe a redirect if there is any merit in it. A^RendedWinter 18:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. I got a feeling that if the article is just deleted it will pop up again. --Blanchardb 18:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An anon just added a link, but it is to some blog that states it's being done in one family. Is that the best that can be done? --Blanchardb 19:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ibid et al 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Google reveals nothing. There's nothing to suggest that this term exists. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nonsense. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 21:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense and nonnotable. Nburden ^(T) 21:26, 6 November 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 --JForget 00:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mulloy

Appears to be a hoax-neologism. I can not find any info to support that this is even a real neologism. It is tagged for transwiki consideration already, but if not a true term, that should be cancelled as well. Arakunem^Talk 17:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Doh, too late. The wiktionary bot has transwikied this nonsense. More cleanup now... Arakunem^Talk 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)~~ Speedied off of Wiktionary. Arakunem^Talk 15:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the last paragraph, I would also go with Speedy. --Blanchardb 17:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this garbage quickly. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:36, 6 November 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, the keep side didn't have one policy based reason. This is a Secret ^account 18:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PADD

Real-world information is almost entirely original research; one bit that is cited to a third-party source can be incorporated into LCARS (to which this article might more appropriately redirect). There is no assertion of real-world notability for these props, but there is some material based on the more broadly-scene user interface in the LCARS article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with appropriate cleanup tag. OR or not, the fact remains that these gizmos appeared in Star Trek before they did in real life and are quite notable in the Star Trek universe. --Blanchardb 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There need to be sources demonstrating that they are notable out of the Star Trek universe. Otto4711 04:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is linked to by many other articles. Anarchist42 18:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a Treknology article to dump things in? 132.205.99.122 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. FYI, Memory Alpha is the Star Trek wiki. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of reliable secondary sources either about the in-universe ST aspects or the original research claims that the ST design "may have" inspired PDA design. Otto4711 04:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. I can't see how this meets the criteria for an encyclopedic article. Or merge into a ST article. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 04:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'll admit that it does need some more ref's, but seems notable. - Rjd0060 04:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you let us know what the reliable sources are that you're relying on in making your determination? Otto4711 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Patrick80639 05:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - where in the article is that notability asserted and referenced? Lacking that, the article should be deleted? --EEMIV (talk) 12:38, 7 November 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 GRBerry 03:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slates

Article consists of one big quote. No claim of meeting WP:Notability in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 17:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then move Slates (album) to this title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 November 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. This is a Secret ^account 18:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symphonic Winds

Page has been tagged as unreferenced since June of this year. I've just done some googling, and found one item that might just qualify as an independent source, and that was so sketchy as to be meaningless. There are several things that could be construed as claims to notability, but without sources they're worthless. Please also see recent deletion discussion for another group associated with St. Peters Lutheran College, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Peters Orchestra. Finally, even if this article survives AFD, it should be moved to St Peters Symphonic Winds since Symphonic Winds is a synonym for Concert band and so should really re-direct there. David Underdown 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. David Underdown 10:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Here is the link. http://www.stpeters.qld.edu.au/cms/stpeters/cocurricular/music/Ensembles.html I don't know if it is notable however, as I can't find any sources saying who they played with etc. If it is found to be notable, then it needs to be rewritten scope_creep 15:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, that's not an independent source as it is from the school itself. Notability requires independent sources. David Underdown 15:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is not sourced and fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion. TonyBallioni 12:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TonyBallioni. The ensemble's entry in the College's article should be sufficient. Smalljim 15:25, 11 November 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) 04:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing business as

WP:DICT. This appears to be an expanded definition of a phrase. Probably better transwikied to Wiktionary. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is much more than a definition, giving equivalents in other dialects of English and discussing the necessity and legal ramifications of d/b/a. --Dhartung | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a legal term widely used and defined by examples in common law. It can be sourced better. Bearian'sBooties 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both above. As is, the article is already far more than a dicdef, though it requires sources. Although improving it is out of my league, I'm sure someone with expertise in the area could help expand it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to trade name. Bobby1011 01:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this is a legal term. (It is also not the same thing as a "trade name".) Reswobslc 04:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term "trade name" generally refers to products rather than companies, so it is best kept separate. (Example: muriatic acid is a trade name for hydrochloric acid.) –radiojon 05:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I don't know how it works in other nations, but in Australia you would never hear the phase "doing business as". A company is said to be "trading as" or "operating under a trading name". Bobby1011 03:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply In the US, "DBA" is used as a noun. I own a business and I got a DBA for it. Here is an example of a form one might fill out here in the US to get such a thing - which is an alias for a legal entity, not a trademark or product. it most definitely deserves its own article. Reswobslc 08:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we tend to butcher the language in the U.S. anyhow, which is how DBA can be a noun (and "google" a verb). I would be okay with moving it to term more recognized throughout the world, and "trading as" seems fine. However that term risks confusion with "trade name", so I think the current setup is more clear. –radiojon 06:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a significant legal term of art, and much more than a definition (if any article that defined its subject had to be deleted...). — xDanielx ^T/_C 10:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should confess that I suspect bits of this article may be misleading, but it could just be that my own understanding is slightly awry. I'll look into it. — xDanielx ^T/_C 10:14, 8 November 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. W.marsh 19:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curriehill Primary School

AfDs for this article:

A primary school without assertion of notability. The first AfD in 2006 was closed as "keep", but it seems to me that none of the "keep" arguments given there are valid by today's guidelines. The article has not expanded since.

I also nominate the following article about a closely related school:

Currie Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wholly unreferenced without any evidence of notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I normally (in fact, only have, to date) only support secondary or further education school/college articles, which usually either have sufficient information to sustain an article, or are capable of expansion. Primary schools and the like have much less of a chance to progress in such a manner (as evident by lack of expansion in more than a 12 month period), thus unless they hold even mildly referenced or even verifiable information, particularly with an article at this state and size, simply should not, and cannot, be left as stands. This article in my eyes is no exception to this. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per THOR. TJ Spyke 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Thor. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 15:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Currie to where the content has already been merged. Deletion is not an option because of GFDL considerations. TerriersFan 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. Why wouldn't deletion be an option? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once content has been merged, the edit history must be preserved in an auditable form to meet our WP:GFDL licensing requirements. TerriersFan 02:34, 10 November 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. Singu larity 08:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newropeans

I am a sysop on the French version of Wikipedia and I nominate this article for deletion because it has been deleted in German (twice) and in French; see de (1), de (2) and fr if you can read the languages.

The reasons for the deletions were:

No external source on this group has been given and the mere existence of sources is extremely doubtful. I have not seen the texts in German, but the one in French was 100% written by them and it was a pointless policy statement like “On this topic, Newropeans is in favour of this and that”.
This group is quite unknown and unrelevant, it hasn’t ever run in an election yet, it has no influence whatsoever, and the (very little) “fame” they have is a result of their PR service. Keriluamox 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - no sources/references provided, as said the external links shown are in low count and per PR service "fame". Rudget _{Contributions} 16:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here is a giveaway: Newropeans works to gain attention, money and members. They haven't achieved notability. I say put this article back on after the 2009 election. --Blanchardb 18:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:ORG guidelines; the article lacks any reference to reliable, independent sources, and thus is likely merely self-promotion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the founder, Franck Biancheri should probably be added to the AfD as well as his think tank Leap2020. His only other claim to fame is founding AEGEE. Neither he, his think tank nor his party have articles in the French or German wikipedias. Bobby1011 02:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well he had an article but it was deleted immediately after this one. Keriluamox 09:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Only 42 websites link to newropeans.eu, according to Google. No references are provided, either. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Franck Biancheri This guy is notable; he has founded remarkably many organisations (AEGEE has 15 000 members), and was one of the top twenty "heroes of 2003" in this poll by Time Europe for being a "French champion of European unity". I agree that the creation of a dedicated Newropeans article can wait until the 2009 election. - S. Solberg J. 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The article says nothing about him being among the "top twenty heroes". You can save the article from deletion by adding this tidbit, provided that it comes with the source you already gave. I will help you: I will remove the PROD tag immediately. --Blanchardb 22:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not any more notable than Europe United (though apparently better organised). —Nightstallion 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply It would be a notable achievment in itself to (plan to) launch election campaigns in so many countries at the same time. I am convinced that it's a serious organisation considering the founder's history and the big network of local blogs etc., and that we'll see more of Newropeans later. But this party has a very limited history, no reactions from public opinion or (at least english) independent media, and no election results. - S. Solberg J. 00:46, 9 November 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. W.marsh 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a Ratner

Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms indicates that articles on neologisms may not be appropriate. I would feel more comfortable if this article were a redirect to Gerald Ratner where the phrase is already mentioned in sufficent detail to explain it. As it stands this article mainly mirrors the Gerald Ratner article, with the addition of a questionable list of other people who have "done a Ratner". The selection of people for this list is highly subjective and is possibly OR. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - references provided. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does seem to be a fairly well-recognised term, in the UK at least. Well-sourced, especially the strong BBC article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neologisms such as this do exist, so there will be references - as the guideline says: "Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case." "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)" So we need to look at those references to see if they are using the term or are about the term. All of the sources simply use the term, and only one - [14] - could be said to devote a section of the report to be about the term. There is a paragraph in which the history of the term is explained. However, the report is not actually about Doing a Ratner - the report is about Barclay's chief executive Matt Barrett who has "candidly criticised his own product, suggesting that the astute consumer would do well to steer well clear of it."

In the article, once the term is explained, there is little more that can be said about it, and having a list of examples to explain the term is unneeded and excessive. The example is Gerald Ratner himself. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Gerald Ratner#The speech. Article fails to meet the WP:NEO guideline because it doesn't reference any secondary sources about the term. We're really looking for sources on usage of language here. GRBerry 03:15, 11 November 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 --JForget 00:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look Out Your About To Be Hit By A Rabbit (film)

Unsourced article about a supposed future film. Google returns nothing that seems to discuss it. Original author has been recently blocked for creating nonsense pages. Onorem♠Dil 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy deleteIMDB knows nothing either. Nothing on the pages of the alleged stars. Spelled wrong. Almost certainly a hoax. 199.71.183.2 16:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author keeps removing afd tags so looks like he does not want it considered for deletion.--NrDg 19:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - sole reference content, no text. AFD message has been removed 5 times, see history. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This is obviously nonsense. And if David Koepp did indeed write the screenplay, I'm sure he'd give the film a grammatically accurate title. Mr pand 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. Corvus cornix 21:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Google reveals absolutely nothing. It's definitely a hoax. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete faster. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Lee Clark III

Not sure this is a notable subject, despite the NYTIMES reference. It appears the most notable thing he did was get shot, sad to say. 31 Google hits by this name. Not sure coverage of his killing rises to the level of "significant media coverage." 31 Google hits for "Pookie Loc". I find no mention at Allmusic. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More of a local news story, than a topic for an encyclopedia. PCock 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article gives the impression that Clark's passing is more notable than his career. --Blanchardb 17:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad that he died so young, but Wikipedia specifically is not a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:42, 6 November 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. W.marsh 18:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ruhe

There are plenty of reviews of the 2007 film Control (2007 film) that include a sentence or two on Martin Ruhe's good cinematography work on that movie. However, the collective of the references mentioning Ruhe do not provide enough biographical information on Martin Ruhe to create a Wikipedia biographical article. If Ruhe were "notable" as a biographic topic, reliable sources would have covered his life in more detail. A Wikipedia article is not an award to be won through cinematography accomplishments and there seem to be no reason to provide an exception for Martin Ruhe. Until there is more reliable sourced biographical information, the Martin Ruhe article should be deleted. Please review and discuss the reliable source material, including the material on Ruhe contained in the following: (1) The Times May 18, 2007, (2) Irish Times October 5, 2007, (3) The Guardian October 5, 2007; (4) Independent on Sunday October 7, 2007; (5) New York Daily News October 9, 2007; (6) The Village Voice October 10, 2007; (7) Canadian Press October 12, 2007; (8) Toronto Star October 26, 2007; (9) Toronto Star October 26, 2007. -- Jreferee t/c 16:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, east.718 at 15:35, 11/5/2007

Keep, appears notable. This nomination is incomplete and there is no AfgD tag on the article. Bearian 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable cinematographer. For what it's worth, I'd have considered him notable enough just based on the music video work alone, the Control film credit (for which he's up for a BIFA award) just seals the deal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Borderline isn't it? However this article in Variety has appeared since the nom. Smalljim 16:43, 11 November 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. W.marsh 18:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfeñique fair

Unnotable event, fails WP:NOTE. Brewcrewer 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of Merge into Day of the Dead (as nom). --Brewcrewer 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add references and keep - googling shows plenty of sources to establish notability. Artw 20:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, east.718 at 15:47, 11/5/2007

Keep. Notable enough and different enough than Day of the Dead per se to have its own listing. --Blanchardb 15:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Googling for "feria del alfenique" gives plenty of hits. It appears to take place in at least one other city (Guanajuato) as well. Article needs copyediting, so I've added the tag. Smalljim 17:07, 11 November 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. W.marsh 18:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Golden: Guitarist, Radio Personality

Autobiography with little claim to meeting WP:BIO. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability for this Jim Golden. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing notable about achieving National recognition and having a CD in international release. Nothing notable about winning three world wide music contests. -- (comment added by IP user 70.191.240.74)

Delete. Lots of clutter that shows he is constantly surrounded by notable people, but nothing to show notability of his own. The article is also poorly written. --Blanchardb 15:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stated by someone who would not know poorly written if it bit him. -- (comment added by IP user 70.191.240.74)

There are some real garbage articles on this site. This article is not one of them. Opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone body has one. Let the general public judge for itself. Clean up your own site before criticizing an article belonging to someone else.

Delete as written, doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as failing WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:N, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:RS. The page has already been userfied, so no long-term harm will be done by deletion. I'm sure he's a good man, a fine father, and a Christian, but music ministers of this ilk are very common, and his hagiography does not belong on WP. Bearian 19:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No claims are made for anyone being a minister in the article. You may try reading it next time before venturing an opinion. -- (comment added by IP user 70.191.240.74)

Hagiography???? You must have dug deep in the thesaurus for that one. Article shows no mention of individual being a minister at any time. It seems he has accomplished much in his life and deserves a page like this one.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Kholia

Autobiography with no claim of meeting WP:BIO. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact the article has to specify the activities of the organizations he worked for is a strong indication that the author himself has doubts about the subject's notability (and, of course, that of those organizations). Like yeah, you probably never heard of that organization, but my friend was its VP. --Blanchardb 15:51, 5 November 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. W.marsh 18:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wave motion gun

Delete - fails WP:PLOT as having no out-of-universe content or context. 90% of the article is irredeemable original research as no reliable sources identify any of the "examples of similar weapons" as "wave motion guns" so inclusion is based entirely on the subjective POV of the editor who adds it. Space_Battleship_Yamato_(spaceship)#Weaponry_.2F_defences more than adequately covers the concept as it relates to the actual series so there's no need to merge any of this. Otto4711 15:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually describes an important element found in many science fiction anime series. I'm not familiar with the subject so I don't know if there is a more generic term for such a "super weapon" concept. This can be possible expanded to convey the literary significance of this and why it is so common. --Polaron | Talk 17:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ... which would make it original research, quite beyond the fact that "wave motion gun" is specific to Space Battleship Yamato and is by no means (as Polaron speculates) a commonly-applied generic term for SF fictional superweapons. Reliable sources to the contrary are a prerequisite for saving this mishmash of an article, and there isn't a single one. RGTraynor 18:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the title is not necessarily appropriate but the article is currently written as describing the commonly used concept in scifi anime of a superweapon that leaves the user vulnerable in the aftermath of using it. This debate is whether an article on this concept is worthy of inclusion or not. We can have a debate about titles later if the article survives. --Polaron | Talk 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Do you have any reliable sources discussing the phenomenon? Even presuming the title was recognized generically - which it is not - to avoid violating WP:SYN and WP:OR, the article would need those, not merely a haphazard list of every Big Damn Superweapon in an anime series, movie, SF book or video game, whether or not they actually fit the premise. RGTraynor 23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "wave motion gun" is a commonly-applied generic term for SF fictional superweapons in anime and manga. Of course, that only matters if proper sources can be found. Edward321 04:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Just for yucks, I decided to Google the term, specifically excluding sites using the words "Yamato," "Blazers" (to omit Star Blazers) and "lyrics," because most remaining hits refer to a song by that name, to gauge if the term is widely used in SF circles outside of SBY. I get 344 hits. [15]. RGTraynor 08:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Commment Wouldn't the song help establish notability? Edward321 16:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wanted to write a Wave Motion Gun (song) article, no doubt. For establishing anything other than some members of an obscure band are SBY fanboys, probably not. RGTraynor 18:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if we assume good faith, there are no primary or secondary sources to provide evidence that this is not OR.--Gavin Collins 15:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect The wave motion gun is a likely enough search target, given that it's even had its own song (Marcy Playground's Wave Motion Gun), but there's no reason for this element of Space Battleship Yamato to have its own article, and the rest of the content of the article is clearly OR. -Harmil 16:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect per Harmil. Rray 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Harmil. Edward321 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Harmil. Noroton 19:52, 10 November 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. Content available on request for a partial merger. Sandstein 20:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of references to Space Battleship Yamato in other works

Delete - the first section is an indiscriminate directory of loosely associated pieces of trivia. The listed items have nothing in common beyond a pssing reference to a particular series. "It refers to Space Battleship Yamato" is not a theme. The remainder of the article is original research. Otto4711 15:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some of this trivia could be incorporated into Space Battleship Yamato, but not all of it. --Blanchardb 15:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I split this off from the main article to stop it being bogged down in trivia, especially the comparisons to Star Trek etc. that were blatant OR and can probably go. I have been thinking of summarising the fact that it's often referenced in modern anime in the "Cultural impact" section of the main article, though some kind of citable reference to this by a commentator (e.g. someone at an anime-related website?) would add weight. Dave-ros 17:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This unfortunately happens a lot in far too many articles. This stuff gets split off to clean out the main article, but better here than there is generally not a good reason for doing so. Getting it out of the main article is a good impulse but parking it in its own article as a waste dump isn't. A good sourced paragraph or two in the main article would be a great way to handle it, without the "there was a poster on the wall for three seconds" nonsense. Otto4711 18:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (partially) into Space Battleship Yamato#Cultural impact. •97198 talk 11:41, 6 November 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. W.marsh 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casimir goes to Casimir

AfD part-created by inexperienced user. Reason given: Any element in $U({\mathfrak {g}})$ commutes with $f$ by definition. What makes the Casimir operator special? SL(2,R) 01:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC). Procedural nomination - no opinion being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Casimir invariant provided that the term 'Casimir goes to Casimir' is actualy used. Otherwise delete. Martijn Hoekstra 14:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flag for needing expert attention and provisionally keep, weakly, for now. I suspect that merging this might be the best choice, and all Google found on the phrase[16] seemed to be Wikipedia mirrors. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per ~~Redvers~~ Martijn Hoekstra. JJL 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. Martijn Hoekstra, I think. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 19:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley you're not suggesting that I made an error? JJL 20:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am, and don't call me Shirley. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC) :o)[reply]

delete Google hits give no occurrence of the use of this term outside mirrors, indicating that this might not be a well used term. Casimir invariant is the obvious target. I'm not convinced that it justifies a redirect. --Salix alba (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep per Smerdis; we need more expert eyes. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge as suggested above, if necessary. If the term is as un-used as some suggest (I haven't the time to look into it) redirect may not be needed. --Cheeser1 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Idiosyncratic, nothing to merge since the content is already covered in Casimir invariant. Arcfrk 02:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to later recreation as a redirect page. The lack of references and Google hits (also on Google scholar and Google books) shows that this is not even a plausible search term. If someone, however, later finds citable evidence of use, it is easy enough to add the term to the Casimir invariant article and create a redirect; little is lost by a deletion now. --Lambiam 07:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical Finance Programming in TI-BASIC

AfD part-created by anon. Their reasoning was: This article should be deleted, since it is not encyclopedic content. Rather it is a howto. See WP:NOT. 71.182.215.210 00:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC). Procedural nomination - no opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 12:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already moved to Wikibooks. --Dhartung | Talk 13:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not appropriate for an encyclopedia. JJL 14:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not appropriate for WP, no sources, and not well written, either. Turgidson 01:57, 9 November 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. Lack of evidence for notability. PeaceNT 07:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BeLUG

This was denied speedy deletion by db-empty, but I still believe it's a minimal article offering no content or context. It also appears to fail Wikipedia is not a directory guidelines. Dougie WII 12:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being. The organization itself appears to be notable enough. If no substantial edit is done in the next week or so, then PROD. --Blanchardb 13:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the subject may in fact be notable, but unless the article is dramatically improved, I don't see a reason why it should be on Wikipedia now. Dougie WII 13:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The organization seems to be notable. But more references are needed here for this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as well. My first thought is that it should easily be deep-sixed as it doesn't even attempt to really establish notability, but as stated above it hasn't had a lot of time. Let's give the benefit of the doubt to the creator and assume he or she created it with the intention to improve it (and perhaps should have put it in a talk page to do so). Prod it in a week. Epthorn 15:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were anything other than Linux we wouldn't have even been attempting to keep it. A clear A7. Asserting that a club is a linux users group is not itself an assertion or even indication of any notability at all, unless one thinks all such user groups intrinsically important. DGG (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete club with no claim of notabilty, should have been speedied as a db-group. This is a Secret ^account 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no assertion or notability. Bobby1011 02:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep The group seems to be notable, as Google turns up more than 46,000 results. However, it needs more references and content, in order to pass WP:ORG. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the first page of Google hits refers to the group in this article. Dougie WII 03:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lockplay

Not much more than a dictionary definition, yet a useful one to keep. Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Blanchardb 12:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from WP; Wiktionary may be the right place for it. JJL 14:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (per JJL)- dictionary, maybe; urban-dictionary, definitely. Wikipedia? Nope. Epthorn 15:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not transwiki. Epthorn is right - this belongs in urbandictionary. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:45, 6 November 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. The subject lacks reliable third-party coverage. Early use of Creative Commons licenses does not corroborate its notability, neither do the self-published sources. PeaceNT 07:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furny

speedy declined by admin per creator's comment on talk page, which basically amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. no indication this band is notable, web references are trivial or irrelevant. tomasz. 12:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the sources come from the band itself, there are no secondary sources asserting notability under WP:BAND. Darksun 14:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarily on grounds mentioned in previous vote - all references/sources are primary to the group/band in question, and no secondary sources (which may have indicated mild notability) are used, thus one would be led to assume such notability does not in fact exist, or is incapable of providing strong referenecs to validate the article's existance. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and source it properly. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to allow time for sourcing. Texasfirebrand 04:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are dozens of bands on Wikipedia with less comphrehensive articles, and the fact that that licenses ALL it's materials in a way that is compatible with Wikipedia is noteworthy. SamFlans 10:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability guidelines require objective evidence to support notability claims and this article has none. Darksun 14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Band is notable for early use of alternative licencing. Rob Myers 10:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Band are known for their licensing, their use of PD sources and their humour. They have plenty of sources. Mattl 10:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you know of reliable sources, please add them to the article, because I can't find any. Just saying that there are 'plenty of sources' does not make it so. Darksun 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What would that be for a band? This is a band who is not signed to a major label? Mattl 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any of the criteria here. Something like coverage in a newspaper or magazine would be sufficient, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Darksun 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the use of their licensing may indeed make them notable, but only if there are reliable secondary sources discussing it, which as far as I can see is not the case. If reliable secondary sources are added, I'll widthdraw my delete vote. Darksun 14:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll second that if valid sources mentioned above are indeed found, i'll also withdraw my deletion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep band is a user of the Creative Commons Licence for their music, and a similar licence was in use before the CCL was even invented. See external link Geekroick 23:13, 6 November 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. W.marsh 19:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim 'Ronin' Harrison

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jim 'Ronin' Harrison

Unreferenced, advertorial tone questionable notabitlity Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after a web search I think he's probably notable. Article desperately needs editing and sourcing--it's in bad shape. JJL 14:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bobby1011 02:34, 6 November 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. W.marsh 19:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Hawkins

Delete Not independently notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN Strothra 11:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.Alberon 12:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge into Laura Bush. No notability outside of her child. Megapixie 12:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Laura Bush. The fact that she worked as a bookkeeper of Harold's home building company does not make here notable. She is thus not independently notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Laura Bush. Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory and just being the parent of a notable person does not make you notable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dwain 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: AfD's are for discussion, not voting. Please be aware that your opinion is unlikely to count if given without reasoning. --Strothra 21:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Essentially, the only assertion of notability is that she inspired the First Lady's activism. That is probably not enough for WP. Bearian 19:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notable daughter does not imply notable mother. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:23, 9 November 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. W.marsh 19:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Welch

Delete Not independently notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN. Strothra 11:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.Alberon 12:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Laura Bush. Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries and just being the parent of someone notable does not make you notable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as without even the assertion of notability. Bearian 19:54, 6 November 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 Snowball keep. Topic obviously asserts notability as explained by many participants here (eg: main antagonists of a notable manga). In-universe style is not a reason to delete, it's just a problem that editors frequently encounter when writing about fiction (noted: nominator even misunderstood that in-universe is encouraged in fiction-related articles, as he/she stated A good article really needs both in-universe and real-life references). However, the lack secondary sources is still a matter of concern that needs to be addressed as soon as possible. A minor rewrite that helps reduce the in-universe perspective is also necessary. @pple complain 08:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akatsuki (Naruto)

Article is well-referenced but I don't think it passes WP:FICTION on its own and a lot of it is just WP:PLOT. A good article really needs both in-universe and real-life references, and this one lacks the latter. Merge to List of Naruto villains. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-referenced article and already merged from two separate ones. Merging this with the villains article would be foolish. 16:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someguy0830 (talk • contribs)
Comment, not sure what you mean. Why would it be foolish to merge these villains with the villain article? Try googling the subject[17], nothing really important but fan-related sites and YouTube videos. This was the closest I could come to a real world source but it doesn't say how Akatsuki effects other media. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:They're the main villains, for starters. Next, you'll only find useful reviews in Japanese sites, since they are not a main villain as far as the English version is concerned. Three, it's a conglomeration of several topics whose self-notability would not warrant an article but together do. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I knew this was going to happen.But Akatsuki is a good article because they are the main villains in the series, and make enough apperences, especially after there most recent appearences in the current manga. -Tobi4242 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Should have foreseen this. Anyway, I say keep because it is indeed referenced, and if I am correct the character lists for this page was deleted so it could be moved to where it was supposed to be. Also adding a Comment, if you say the article should be merged, then why tag for deletion?--TheUltimate3 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment because I believe that afds get more community attention, whereas merge tags usually get removed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hmmm, good case, but not good enough. They're the main villains of the series, they can pass WP:FICT (if not already), and if merged the villains article will be too long for WP:SIZE (it would be at least 60 kilos by my count). And he tagged for deletion because of my Itachi thing and I guess seeing how long it took to do he doesn't want to wait that long.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 02:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the former Itachi page actually had out-of-universe references. This one, however, does not. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason why this article should be removed. Akatsuki is currently the main protagonist in the series and is significant enough to have its own article. Enoch08 03:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with the above. They're the MAIN VILLIANS for Naruto 2 for cripe's sake! XD! Seriously, why wipe them out? Zabuza is the main villian in the real mission, and was killed off and never seen again, so I'll let that pass for the merge, but why stamp Akatsuki on there? I mean, they stole Gaara's beast, killed Asuma, about to kill Jirayia (I think), and all you can think about it wiping them out or merging them. And they have SO MANY REFFERNCES AND ALL THAT, THAT IT'S REAL EASY, IN REAL LIFE OR IN-UNIVERSE. HILARIOUS. ZeroGiga 04:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everyone above have said what I wanted to say, so I would be just repeating words if I wanted to express my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.56.70 (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:This anon has done few or no other edits outside of this afd. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The akatsuki are villians therfor there should be a link from the villians page to here. However they are diffenrent from ordinary villians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.46.162 (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This anon has done few or no other edits outside of this afd. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep central antagonist in a very very notable series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The mechanism for a merge proposal is the merge templates, not an AfD. An AfD is the mechanism for deletions -- it even says so in the name. This should not have come here. *thumps cane* — Quasirandom 18:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well I think we've done quite enough deletion of anime-related articles, such as the ones for Bleach. If we keep deleting this articles, it's going to be a pain to recreate them when we realize we screwed up. - Cptmike2 — Preceding comment was added at 19:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Huh, I was wondering why I didnt find this entry on the AfD mainpage... Also, I agree with Quasirandom that this really isn't listed in the right place, if you had wanted to put this forth as a merge, you should have done it through the right channels. Regarding the article, it has quite a lot of sources, and as the primary antagonist group of a notable series, it should be notable enough for its own article. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What Sam ov the Blue Sand said is true. This article follows our accordance with WP:FICT as they are the main antagonists of this series. If we merge like you proposed Sesshomaru, then WP:SIZE would apply and it would not work. Also, it is pretty hard to find reliable third party sources to verify the information. σмgн gσмg 23:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. — Quasirandom 00:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oh good grief. --Gwern (contribs) 01:27 6 November 2007 (GMT)

Remember, Wikipedia is a consensus so you have to provide a reason why otherwise your opinion qualifies as "I like it". σмgн gσмg 08:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That applies equally well to the deletion discussion. Remember that it's innocent until proven guilty; vague wishy-washy concerns about not particularly popular guidelines (which probably mask a real reason of IDONTLIKEIT) don't cut the mustard here. The burden of proof is not on me, but the nominator. --Gwern (contribs) 13:16 6 November 2007 (GMT)

Keep Well written article about main characters in a popular anime. It deserves its own article as its too long to be incorporated anywhere else. There are lots of primary sources, it does need some secondary ones, but AFD isn't supossed to be used to clean up articles. Just like with WP:SAL if a list gets too long in a parent article, it gets its own page. The same logic applies here. Viperix 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this just had something merged to it. They're not individual articles, which mollifies me. I'd like to see it cut down a bit, and some variations in references could be nice. — Soleil (formerly I) 06:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep invoking the snowball clause. This is not the correct venue to initiate a merger discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Itachi had no O.U.R. so don't make stuff up. You still have no answer for WP:SIZE and the fact that indeed it does pass WP:FICT.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Not satisfied with any of the reasons. Satisfies WP:FICT enough to give it enough time for the English version to catch up more so Akatsuki gets more involved at the very least. By then we'll begin to see several English reviews. I'm really annoyed by seeing "all-plot" as a way to merge in-universe articles, so I'll just say it: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALL-PLOT AND IN-UNIVERSE!. All plot would be only listing what each member did plotwise, like Zetsu watching Sasuke and Naruto's fight, Tobi annoying Deidara at this one meeting, and Pein sitting on a statue. We list things about the character and shortly describe how they left the organization if they did (Most died, and that's a definite list right there). As for the final one, I believe Wikipedia's far too strict on primary sources. There are books that are without question notable, yet primary sources would be just about all that can be used. You also have little idea just how popular Akatsuki is in Japan, as do most of the others here. They're on the same level of popularity as Tingle or Vaati from The Legend of Zelda, who themselves make tens of millions of dollars for Nintendo. Unfortunately, Google search will send you links from websites speaking your country's primary language(s), so in America, finding anything on Akatsuki is hard, as most is Japanese. Mabye we can find stuff like how much that character has made in figurine sales, which is kinda out-of-universe. All in all, despite how good your case is, your reasons just aren't satisfiable enough. ...Wow, that was long. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 23:42, 6 November 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/redirect. W.marsh 19:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballydung

Strong keep, I would think this article should be kept as this is the central setting for at least two television shows in Ireland. It could do with a bit of work though and maybe some referencing. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 19:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Podge and Rodge, some merit Fasach Nua 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Podge and Rodge or Delete. The article, in and of itself, does not constitute a significant enough topic to be notable. This isn't "Middle Earth" but instead is a fairly small blurb that could have easily been put on the Podge and Rodge page. Epthorn 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect This article was already discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballydung 666, and merge and redirect was decided for this article. I just merged the content from this article into Podge and Rodge, not realising there was another AfD open.Bláthnaid 11:10, 11 November 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. W.marsh 19:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Obvious

AfDs for this article:

From reading the old nomination, and the current article, there are some things to bring up:

The Google hits for this term are irrelevant
The sources given in the article are not reliable - Wookiepedia and Uncyclopedia are unreliable
The embedded picture makes no sense, is misleading even

The subject of the article isn't notable, and has been transwikied to Wiktionary already (although, to be fair, lots of rubbish gets transwikied there anyway) Montchav 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a widespread neologism. --Blanchardb 13:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above. JJL 14:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slang (wiki not urban-dictionary) and not even particularly deep slang on an etymological basis. There's my word of the day. Epthorn 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already been transwikied, no use for it here. Otto4711 16:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete — Good for a laugh *cough*Dubya*cough* but not much more, unfortunately. — RJH (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The word can be explained briefly in Wikitionary and "in-depth" analysis was already provided by the other encyclopedia--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even remotely encyclopedic --Orange Mike 17:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's a reasonably widespread meme, and a short page is clearly appropriate, although the page could use a cleanup. -lk 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Want to point out that a google search on "Captain Obvious" brings up 424,000 pages, whereas a search on "Captain Subtle" brings up 231 pages. I scanned through the first 50 pages, and it's mostly used in the way described in the article. It's obvious (oww, pun) that it's a widespread meme. Also, fictional characters belong in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. For instance, there is an entry on Peter Rabbit in Wikipedia, but not on Wiktionary -lk 19:54, 9 November 2007

Keep Widespread meme that could use more explanation than definition. How can you delete Captain Obvious and keep O RLY? Yellowking 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX is not persuasive. The xistence of other articles has no bearing on whether this article should exist. Otto4711 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable neologism, trivia, original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing's changed since the last AfD. --Gwern (contribs) 16:56 9 November 2007 (GMT)

One thing that's changed is that all of the "weak keep" !votes that were based in part on the possibility of transwiki-ing to Wiktionary. Otto4711 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Improve, don't delete. JonathanFreed 17:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is not without merit, though the article specifically is short and dense. Maybe a page for parodies of superheros, to include this, Obviousman, the Amazing Helper, etc.? Mindbleach 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs improving, but least it's not Today's Featured Article - LietKynes 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improvement should be welcome, but deletion is a bit extreme. - Grimitar13:38, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Keep. Improve the page, but don't delete it. There are many other pages that should go before this one. - Sniggity 19:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopaedic. —oac old american century ^talk @ 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Widespread Internet meme, and still growing. dryguy 00:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful information to non-native speakers of english, or those from outside northamerica where the meme is most pervasive. Widespread neologism. -Kode 16:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not persuasive. The information is available at Wiktionary. Otto4711 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Specifically to address the point of number of google results being irrelevant... ordinarily I would agree, but at some point quantity becomes a quality of its own. Here the threshold has clearly been crossed. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 17:09, 10 November 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. Sandstein 20:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cenarius

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's an important character, ok.

DarthSidious 07:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICT and propably WP:PLOT as well. Bobby1011 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas article has no primary or secondary sources to justify this plot summary. --Gavin Collins 09:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:12, 8 November 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. Note that AfD is not a venue to mandate a merge. If that's what you want, if that is seriously under consideration, then use editorial methods not the deletion processes. I'll remove the tags. I will not execute the merges, as those who would have them merged should do that. Splash - tk 21:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Eloise Taylor

AfDs for this article:

This person is only "notable" because of her non-unique circumstance of having a possibly notable mother and a position in line of succession to the British throne. Those being the only possibly notable attributes about her (she is four years old), they are properly relegated to the Line of succession to the British Throne article and possibly on the article of her mother. Other than that, the article fails the criteria for notability. Please also note there is somewhat of a discussion on the page for the line of succession. Being on a notable list does not necessarily make one notable and in this case the person is not notable. Delete or merge to mother Charles 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

What all of these people have in common is that they appear on a list and possible have notable parents. If their parents are notable, put the information there until these people become notable in their own right, not by association. If one is prejudiced by the 2nd nomination (you ought to not be), please note so and vote individually. Otherwise, these are bundled for ease of discussion and voting. Please also note WP:NOT, specifically about purely genealogical material. It is an official Wikipedia policy and these articles do not pass that simply by adding in more non-unique incidental material. Charles 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to notable parents if possible, delete others, per my nomination. Charles 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom D B D 19:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think that it's appropriate to treat these seven pages in one single AfD. While it is true that each of these seven is the child of a princess, there may be different circumstances with each one (although I readily admit that it would be appropriate to treat the three Taylor children together). Noel S McFerran 18:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, however I see essentially no differing circumstances between each of the individuals listed above. Charles 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as above. john k 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What about Cassius Taylor? john k 14:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... I'm sure if this batch is deleted then he can be deleted as well. Charles 16:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them. People out there still care about "royal famlies" ? --Brewcrewer 13:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to nearest notable relative, as the answer to the above question is plainly 'Yes'. JJL 14:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, but Keep Princess Astrid of Norway because she certainly meets WP:NOTE at least inside Norway where she was the First Lady, is well-known for her patronage and active involvement in many prominent charities, and has appeared in many Norwegian television news broadcasts and Norwegian newspaper articles. It would be against WP:NOTE to merge or delete her article. - Neparis 16:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Princess Astrid was not nominated for deletion... Charles 16:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, the perils of skimming while using a browser in a very small window... Her name had been line-wrapped onto a new line all by itself and in the same column as the real nominees' names... - Neparis 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to notable parents where appropriate, else delete. I agree with the nominator's reasoning, although I should point out that merges could have been done without coming to AfD at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How come Cassius Taylor is not included, while Columbus, Estella and Eloise are? ~~And Karina Medforth-Mills, for that matter? You should probably throw in Elisabeta-Maria de Laufenborg and the Thune-Larsen girls too~~ Nevermind, the articles still exist, but they're now redirects. While you're at it, you should remove all those red lines that your deletion spree caused over at the Line of succession to the British Throne article. At any rate, Merge all the others, but Keep Nicholas Medforth-Mills, as he is the probable future Head of the Romanian Royal Family. Not sure how that works, but if I remember correctly, Frederick William, Prince of Hohenzollern inherits the claims to the actual throne, but Nicholas will eventually inherit as Head of House, right? Morhange 00:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I called them as I saw them. Cassius can justifiably be deleted as a result of this as well. Remember, Wikipedia does not predict the future and what is "probable" and Nicholas is not in line to the Romanian throne. The Romanian Royal Family is a branch of the House of Hohenzollern, so the head of that house will be Frederick William, who, as pretender to the Romanian throne, will also be head of the Romanian Royal Family. Nicholas will at best be head of the Medforth-Mills family, but I do not know their genealogy. Charles 02:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alexander Ferner per WP:NOTE; merge the other articles. Merge Nicholas Medforth-Mills not only to Princess Elena of Romania but also to Robin Medforth-Mills. Timeineurope 15:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. What part of NOTE supports having an article on Alexander? Charles 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Timeineurope 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources" or claim to notability in the article. Phil Bridger 11:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [18] (showing a Scanpix photo from his 1996 wedding, this 2000 article from the on-line edition of Norway's largest newspaper VG quotes Alexander Ferner as saying that he and his wife lived together for one year before their wedding; the article notes that he married no:Margrét Gudmundsdóttir in Holmenkollen Chapel in 1996 and that they now (2000) live at Gol) and [19] (this 2007 article tells readers of the Norwegian on-line newspaper Nettavisen how much Alexander Ferner earned and paid in taxes in 2006 and that he has zero capital). Timeineurope 15:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge where appropriate unless notability can be demonstrated. Phil Bridger 11:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge on condition that on parent's pages details like date & place of birth is not lost. Could I also urge Charles not to start putting daughters of a Kings up for deletion. I think he's now going too far.--UpDown 08:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've said it once already. This is not a discussion of Frederica or Marie of Hanover, nor is it one about me. Please keep comments about me out of nominations and put them on my talk page if you take issue with what I am doing. Charles 08:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but I think its useful for people on this discussion to see the other discussion.--UpDown 08:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would think I would know that, since I nominated that as well. It is not particularly pertinent to this discussion though given the manner in which you delivered your comments. Charles 08:34, 9 November 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. This is a Secret ^account 01:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fandral Staghelm

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 00:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:PLOT and also WP:FICT. There is no reason for all of these characters to have Articles since they cannot inherit their game's notability. Bobby1011 02:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this stub has no real-world content, context, primary or secondary sources, just plot summary. --Gavin Collins 09:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 17:51, 7 November 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. Neil ☎ 11:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korialstrasz

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 00:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Doctorfluffy has been blocked indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet. [20] Edward321 03:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator appears to have a serious agenda since they talk of nominating over 100 articles for deletion, which will overwhelm the system. Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 03:57, 10 November 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 USERFY. I'm sorry, but this is just not permissible in article space as it stands. It's just a washing line to hang possible ideas on. However, it is useful as a place for people to track what's being done about these journals (many of which I expect to fail notability tests). I'm therefore going to take the rather unusual route of userfying this to User:Nikola Smolenski/List of scientific journals in Serbia. If there is a better non-articlespace home for it, then by all means move it there (is there a WikiProject, for example?). -Splash - tk 21:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientific journals in Serbia

Previously AFD'd, because it contained 100% red links. None of these seem to have been blueified, and this may go AFD'd under the "Wikipedia is not an unlimited resource of informaiton". Montchav 17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list is just a sea of red, and lacking in any meaningful sources or useful information about these journals. Wikipedia is not a library catalog. Category:Serbian magazines already exists for the few bluelinks. —David Eppstein 03:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless (simultaneously too broad, by discipline, and too specific, by country), but userfy so the info. isn't lost for someone who wants to do something else with it. JJL 14:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many of these Serbian journals certainly meet WP:NOTE inside Serbia, e.g. Journal for Technology of Plasticity and Ekonomist. If Wikipedia can include lists of highly obscure or even defunct railroad stations, it should include this list of journals. If you are unhappy the list has so many red links, {{sofixit}} applies. - Neparis 16:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a valid, well-defined list topic. It obviously points to the lack of other content in this area, but red links are not grounds for deletion. It could be made more useful, and hopefully some day that will happen, but there's no reason to delete it.--ragesoss 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Presumably most of the links will be filled in eventually. Such a list is useful as a starting point. DGG (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per JJL and David Eppstein. Bobby1011 02:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as totally useless. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ragesoss. When some articles are written, we can then see whether these journals are notable enough for WP and hence whether this list is OK. --Bduke 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The journals may be notable, so let them write articles about the journals. The list is useless though. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mass red-links suggest to me that the very concept of "Serbian scientific journalism" is non-notable, and thus this is listcruft. Someguy1221 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you realize how insultive is what you just said? Nikola 10:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, keep. I expected that the list would be slowly filled, but, sadly, it did not happen. Plan B is to make a few articles about journals under letter A (I'll ask for permission for their webpage contents) and see if that will stimulate people to write more. In response to the comment on my talk page: reliable source about the journals is Serbian Citation Index, a service similar to Google Scholar maintained by the National Library of Serbia. The fact that a category exists about magazines in Serbia doesn't mean too much, it is well known what are differences between lists and categories. The list is, as someone previously said, well-defined, and no different than, say, List of Serbs. Nikola 10:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A great resource and start to the mighty task of writing journal articles. Breaking the lists of journal titles down into fields is make sit easier for people to find information that they care about enough to contribute to. Consider merging somehow with Category:Journals_by_language. This currently lacks a Serbian language entry.Neilarmius 05:03, 9 November 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. Neil ☎ 11:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magtheridon

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Doctorfluffy has been blocked indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet. [21] Edward321 03:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no need 2 delete

DarthSidious 07:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator appears to have a serious agenda since they talk of nominating over 100 articles for deletion, which will overwhelm the system. Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 03:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—no assertion of notability. Pagra shtak 23:26, 11 November 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. Neil ☎ 11:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malygos

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 00:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Doctorfluffy has been blocked indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet. [22] Edward321 04:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator appears to have a serious agenda since they talk of nominating over 100 articles for deletion, which will overwhelm the system. Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 04:01, 10 November 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. Neil ☎ 11:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mekgineer Thermaplugg

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 00:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is mainly WP:NOT#PLOT] and probably cannot be brought up to the notability standards per WP:FICT since reliable secondary sources have not devoted substantial coverage to the subject. Doctorfluffy 04:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Doctorfluffy has been blocked indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet. [23] Edward321 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator appears to have a serious agenda since they talk of nominating over 100 articles for deletion, which will overwhelm the system. Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 04:02, 10 November 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, but merge editorially. xDanielx raises relevant points that are sound in policy. Notability NOT inherited is a guideline usually intended for people, and its application to other broader topics is tenuous. Within the guidelines of WP:FICT, it is possible to consider this article a valid supplement to Naruto, with WP:N proved primarily by the parent article. Yet, while some encyclopedic information is provided by this text, it also is lacking in style and coherence. The article is not fully compliant with WP:PLOT, but is it clear that this is a defect of the current version, and not fundamental to the topic. For this reason, I have editorially redirected to Naruto, and invite all interested editors to merge encyclopedic information thereto. The close is left as a "no consensus" to emphasize that the merge is editorial, and that a strong rewrite might make this article viable on its own. Xoloz 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto geography

AfDs for this article:

Notability not established using reliable secondary sources per WP:N. Article only uses primary sources, which is not sufficient for notability criteria. See also WP:PLOT. Subdolous 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Will ^(talk) 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability per WP:FICT. Also largely a plot summary. Doctorfluffy 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deletion of this article under WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT was largely inevitable. A "Naruto universe" article along the lines of Ivalice or Universe of Kingdom Hearts would be a more appropriate for these lists of fictional topics. I've moved relevant material to my userspace in any case should any information need to be used in such an article or merged into relevant articles. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe we should change it from an article, to a list.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - whether it is an article or a list it is irrelevant. The subject still needs to pass WP:FICT and it doesn't. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Oh, now I see what you mean by Notable, it hasn't received any attention from sources outside of Naruto itself.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sources to provide real world context and notability. Jay32183 00:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculously filled with original content, the page has no secondary information either and fails WP:NOTE. The sources section lists the databooks as references but there is no indication that they're reliable. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete riddled with original research and seriously lacks the sourcing necessary to provide real-world context as outlined by WP:FICT, WP:N, and WP:PLOT. This article is just not notable and there is no realistic way to make it notable. Sure you could say that you could look for stuff on Google, but there are just too many fancruft sites to sort through. Sasuke9031 00:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable on its own. Axem Titanium 20:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Naruto Wiki might want this, I'll drop them a note about it. -- Ned Scott 02:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The full article is now on wikia:naruto:Naruto geography, including page history. If anyone is interested, User:Dantman is a good person to contact if you ever want to give an anime/manga/cartoon/comic article a new home. He is helping organize all those related wikis and is doing some really great work. See also Wikia ACG. -- Ned Scott 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like only the first 100 edits were copied. We shouldn't consider the transwiki complete at this point. Jay32183 00:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I'll let them know about it. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything that might be needed. I haven't seen the other Naruto articles much, but having some settings information somewhere wouldn't be too bad if cleaned up. -- Ned Scott 02:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ned Scott.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ned Scott. While the majority of that is worthless, there are a few which are worth noting. The big three already have mention in articles, so they're fine. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 02:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It describes the plot of a highly popular and notable anime and manga series, currently airing in America. A major rewrite is in order, but deleting it is overkill. dposse 18:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notability is not inherited, unfortunately. The notability of the article subject itself needs to be established using reliable secondary sources. Which it isn't. Subdolous 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with what Dposse has said for this article.SuperN 19:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, it is useful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.63.51 (talk)
Comment - Usefulness is not an indicator of notability, which is a key criteria for the inclusion of articles on Wikipedia. See WP:USEFUL. Subdolous 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable outside the game, the game itself might be, but not a description of a part of it. Mbisanz 05:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SS. This isn't really a notability issue; essentially just a style issue. None of the pages in, say, Template:Pokemon directory for example, conform to the generic test of WP:N. Demanding substantial and credible coverage specifically on the subject of Naruto geography is nearly as ludicrous as demanding to see a NYT-like article devoted specifically to the subject of lists of Pokemon #461-480. Credible sources don't write about Naruto geography, lists of Pokemon having numbers between 461 and 480, or lists of bridges in China in particular -- they write about Naruto, Pokemon, and Bridges, and an exorbitant number of credible texts could be found which attend to those narrower topics but don't go into detail. WP:FICT agrees: "To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons).[3] In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article." Most topics -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game for example -- don't have the significance to merit WP:SPINOUTS of this kind; Naruto, being very highly significant, does. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Pokemon argument is basically WP:WAX, which is not a valid argument. Summary style does not apply here, because subarticles still need to pass criteria for notability. Causes of WWI is notable and can stand on its own, fictional geography is unfortunately not. The WP:FICT passage you quoted says "Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability," and WP:PLOT(which is policy, which trumps the guidelines that are cited here) is clear on this issue: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context." Which is not the case here. Subdolous 16:40, 7 November 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 Fix You, as suggested by Dissolve. However, the article title here is useless, so I'll delete it (only one edit in the history) and create a fresh redirect. -Splash - tk 20:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pour Me, AKA Poor Me

Just a non-notable B-side, as is The World Turned Upside Down (Coldplay song) Montchav 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not assert notability per WP:Music#Songs. No independent reliable sourcing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to "Fix You". It's the B-side to a notable Top 40 single. dissolve ^talk 21:34, 6 November 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; given the different before and after, a re-start would be needed if someone still wants to delete this. -Splash - tk 20:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TTI Telecom

Speedy deleted as blatant advertising, just restored when deletion contested. There may be an article to be written on this company which satisfies notability guidelines, but this peacock term-ridden advert isn't it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, because the article has been completely rewritten, in neutral terms and with refs which demonstrate notability per WP:CORP's requirement of substantial coverage in secondary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 15:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 15:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 15:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just started a rewrite although more work needs to be done and I may not have time to finish during this AfD. This was one of a series of spammy TTI Telecom-related articles added by an editor with a conflict of interest; see Talk:List of network management systems for details. I have proposed all the other TTI Telecom-related articles for deletion. This company is definitely notable: NASDAQ-listed, $461 million in revenues. Google News Archive search produces 567 hits; although 80% to 90% are press releases, there are still several dozen to establish notability from major publications such as Forbes and the Jerusalem Post. 100s of authoritative EDGAR reports available from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission provide a rich source of reliable company data (110-page sample); they are self-published by the company but closely reviewed by SEC staff and, in the case of the financial statements in their Form 20-F filings, Ernst & Young (independent external auditors). --A. B. ^(talk) 15:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per A. B. and evaluate new article on its own merits. A. B. promises it will overcome prior reason for deletion, and won't be the same article, so let's give it a chance! Wikidemo 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC) note - this afd nomination has been around so long I voted twice without realizing it - see below - Wikidemo 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly with the list of products and being a link farm it is spam. However, an article with a more encyclopedic tone that meets #WP:POV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CORP would clearly be OK. One option is to move it to user space for the cleanup. Vegaswikian 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See what you think of the rewriting done to date (there's more to do). --A. B. ^(talk) 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well there are some improvements. I did more tone editing and formatting. However, needs to show how it meets WP:CORP and I did not look at the sources. Vegaswikian 06:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we; I've done more to the article. Light Reading, a United Business Media property, is an industry web-only publication and one of the best and widest read; its articles are editorial supervised^[24] and it has a staff of about 20^[25] editors.^[26][27] In addition to citing several Light Reading articles, I also included citations to Light Reading's "who makes what" lists; this is because they also have capsule descriptions of what these industry-jargon terms mean. I included Jerusalem Post and Wall Street Journal citations; unfortunately, the Jerusalem Post articles are abstracts. The WSJ profile may be behind a paywall but I have a subscription and have looked at it. There's more out there; this is what I've been able to do so far.--A. B. ^(talk) 16:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see where it meets WP:CORP. Size is not everything, but 350 employees and $40 million is generally not notable. There may be a ton of references, but nothing in the text with correct citations that supports notability. In summing up, there appears to be two side. It does not meet WP:CORP or WP:ILIKEIT. I guess that at this point the closing admin will decide which is the stronger position. Vegaswikian 23:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I still cannot see any evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (press releases not included). The Google News hits are all press releases as far as I can tell. The "Press coverage summary on TTI's web site" is no use: One of the article it lists is written by a employee at TTI Telecom, which wouldn't be independent enough, and doesn't otherwise mention the company in any case. Several of them ask the TTI Telecom vice president for a 3 line comment, but otherwise say nothing on the company. The rest are simply articles about the technology and don't mention TTI Telecom at all. The "Authoritative company reports" are primary sources, and are all-inclusive (many companies will have one, so it proves nothing). —gorgan_almighty 12:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Whatever the article was when nominated, it's neutral now. As a 350+ employee, $40 million public company it's clearly notable and there are multiple significant sources.Wikidemo 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral is nice, but it is not notability. Vegaswikian 23:51, 7 November 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. -Splash - tk 20:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Amedume

Delete -non-notable (fails WP:N), google search reveals minimal information, most of which apparently self-posted, appears to be self-advertising Smerus 12:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep At least one of his movies is notable enough to have had a Variety review, and he seems to work with Danny John-Jules a lot. Not spectacularly notable, but I don't get the impression he's some guy making home movies with a camcorder in his garage, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete No third party courses. (Nor any for that matter.) jonathon 03:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Neil ☎ 11:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the article can be expanded to show what, if any, notable films he directed. --Blanchardb 11:56, 5 November 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, despite having been relisted. Evidently not deletable on the back of this debate, and perhaps some editorial consideration is needed. If deletion after such consideration is still wanted, then a re-AfD might be warranted. -Splash - tk 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual relativism

Delete as non-notable, POV, and overlapping with a notable term, 'Cognitive relativism', that refers to the same concept. I found 4 referenced articles by different writers using this term. The article has been RfCed for violating NPOV. The non-notable nonPOV section of the article could be merged with cognitive relativism if people think there is something worth saving, then a redirect could be created on the existing page. Anarchia 06:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cognitive relativism. I disagree that the subject is non-notable or intrinsically POV, but it does seem to be the same as "cognitive relativism." Actually, "factual relativism" would seem to be the better term, at least more comprehensible to the casual reader, but "cognitive relativism" seems to be the term of art, as covered in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Cognitive relativism is by far the better and more encyclopedic of the two articles, in any case. Llajwa 22:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 03:46, 4 November 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. W.marsh 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taneraic

This is a constructed language, and from reading the article there is no claim of notability - it was made up by a 13yr old who apparently made up lots of languages when he was that age, and only 1 person (maybe 2) has ever communicated in it. Having Charles Bernstein comment once on this so-called language doesn't seem like a reason to include it, IMHO Moglex 03:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication that there is any importance related to the development of this language. It is non notable. --Stormbay 18:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be any solid claims to notability.Alberon 12:31, 5 November 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. W.marsh 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thrall (Warcraft)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 00:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Doctorfluffy has been blocked indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet. [28] Edward321 04:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - he's the main character!

DarthSidious 07:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

Keep - This article surely needs to be rewritten...but not deleted. It is dedicated to a fictional character that appeared in a number of games and books (set in the Warcraft Universe). I would also like to add that complete strangers to Milton's works will not read an article about Paradise Lost. Dimts 19:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you actually read the Paradise Lost article since it demonstrates very clearly why certain articles are encyclopedic and articles like this are in-universe fan cruft. Notice how the article is about the book in a real world context, not just a long plot summary which links to longer plot summaries about every character and ___location in the book. Ridernyc 20:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:Plot and WP:WAF. Ridernyc 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Thrall as a charcter is the central device in Blizzard's decision to change the Horde(and the Orcs in particular) from the main antagonists and turn them into a sympathetic faction. Neither of your points are criteria for Deletion, but rather a rewrite. SAMAS 14:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator appears to have a serious agenda since they talk of nominating over 100 articles for deletion, which will overwhelm the system. Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 04:03, 10 November 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. Non-notbale means no relaible sources have been provided to indicate notability. See WP:N. Mr.Z-man 20:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Velen (World of Warcraft)

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Doctorfluffy has been blocked indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet. [29] Edward321 04:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has no primary or secondary sources.--Gavin Collins 11:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator appears to have a serious agenda since they talk of nominating over 100 articles for deletion, which will overwhelm the system. Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 04:05, 10 November 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. Sole reason for keeping is an accusation of bad faith (itself bad faith by definition). Neil ☎ 11:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ysera

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Doctorfluffy has been blocked indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet. [30] Edward321 04:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable secondary sources demonstrating notability. --Gavin Collins 13:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator appears to have a serious agenda since they talk of nominating over 100 articles for deletion, which will overwhelm the system. Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 04:06, 10 November 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 as having no real content. Neil ☎ 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ㄱ

Article is not likely expandable beyond a dictionary entry. A more complete version is already at wikt:ㄱ Rod (A. Smith) 05:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:46, 5 November 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 The World is Not Enough, and REDIRECT to Q-ship. -Splash - tk 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q Boat

Not notable at all. Vikrant Phadkay 15:53, 29 October 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 10:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The World Is Not Enough, since it is the only occurrence of this boat. --Blanchardb 10:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article does not have to be deleted. It can be merged with The World Is Not Enough. I agree that it should not have its own article though.--SJP 11:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, then redirect The existing content should go to TWINE, and the redirect should go to Q-ship, which mentions Q-boat as an alternate term, and is certainly the more widespread meaning. While I suppose a disambig page could be done, I don't really think the current topic is sufficiently notable. Acroterion _(talk) 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, certainly fails WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Q-ship, as that is the most likely thing people are looking for. 132.205.99.122 20:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete fancruft, then redirect to Q-ship per 132.205.99.122. Anyone searching an encyclopedia for "Q boat" will be looking for the Q-ship article, not some Bond-movie prop. Pete.Hurd 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Q-ship. Jack1956 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move anything worth keeping to List of James Bond vehicles and then redirect the article to Q-ship. Opera hat 17:10, 10 November 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 as having no real content. Neil ☎ 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrow Commander (file manager)

Very short article that does not assert the notability of the program. Prod removed without comment or improvement. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. --Blanchardb 10:31, 5 November 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 as having no real content. Neil ☎ 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HDDlife

Very short article that does not assert the notability of the program. Prod removed without comment or improvement. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I was about to put a db tag on this article, but was unable to because of an edit conflict with the nom. --Blanchardb 10:30, 5 November 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. -Splash - tk 20:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas A. Zembiec

My issue with this article is that of notability. Major Zembiec is not a wide-spread easily recognized person within his particular field, ie not looked upon as a widely recognized figure within or outside the military, in accordance with the barometer note of Wikipedia:Notability. Not many, if any, out side of a small, focused group will recognize the Major. Contrast with Pvt Jessie Lynch whom very large numbers of (American) people more or less recognize and also with Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler who is less recognizible than the Maj but who revealed a credible and real plot to overthrow the United States Government, which is notable by any account because of its far-reaching implications.

Although he has been featured in some articles or TV, they are not widespread or largely known stories. He is not the subject of a book, well-known movie or any other endeavour. Resker mentioned there is a movie but nomention of what studio, if any, will produce it, etc. OneNineTwo 03:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the USMC community, Doug Zembiec is a name we had all heard...long before his untimely death. There is a move in Navy wrestling called "the zembiec." The Lion of Fallujah story is known to most Marines. His memory has become one of the most prevalent for the USMC in the Iraq era. As someone who works in the community and on the Iraq issue, I can assure you that lack of noteability should NOT be a concern when talking about Doug. Just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.202.26 (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So he is widely recognized within the Corp? That does change things. So far it has been more or less "He was in a few articles and small parts of a book" but if what you say is accurate then he does meet notability guidelines.--OneNineTwo 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.

Doug Zembiec was known not only throughout the USMC, but throughout the Special Operations community as well. I never had the pleasure of meeting him personally, but many of my brothers knew him. He was one of the most respected junior leaders in our modern military and the fact that he may not be considered "notable" by by YOU, or wikipedia, or most of the American public should be looked at as yet another failing of our societal values, rather than any failing of Major Zembiec to achieve your "notable" status. Unlike the sham hero status we heap on NFL and NBA players, this man is a true hero, and should be recognized as such. I think it's a shame that this was even brought up as an issue considering all of the absolutely useless topics in Wikipedia that don't even get questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.148.33 (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that winners of significant awards such as the Silver Star are almost automatically considered notable, especially if they recieve extensive coverage in notable media. The article could do with a lot of work though. --Nick Dowling 07:59, 5 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, Tikiwont 09:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Winner of the Silver Star which is 'the fourth highest military decoration that can be awarded to a member of any branch of the United States Armed Forces. It is also the third highest award given for valor (in the face of the enemy).' I entirely agree with the IP contributer who points out the sad inversion of values which means that any footballer who played ten minutes for Hartlepool in 1926 is automatically notable but decorated servicemen are not. I also don't understand the nominator's rationale at all. He says the man isn't notable but concedes that 'he has been featured in some articles or TV' then says, based on no evidence whatsoever 'they are not widespread or largely known stories.' He's covered by third party sources, he was highly decorated, he's notable. Nick mallory 12:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but more for general notability per secondary source coverage than the award, which as noted is only the fourth highest given out in the US military. According to one source there may be as many as 20,000 medals given out in all wars. Part of the issue I see with these is the POV issue if we have only an award and no secondary sources. In this case the secondary sources are obvious and this is borderline an ill-mannered and bad faith nomination, given the acknowledgement of sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 13:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Dhartung in particular. Pete.Hurd 22:52, 5 November 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 as nonsense. Neil ☎ 14:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Uantir

Hoax article. A recently founded kingdom, with no indication of its ___location. Blanchardb 09:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 09:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete It's a political model. King Ari 5:25, November 5 2007 (GMT) I believe I make it quite clear that it's a micronation. Micronations by definition require no ___location. There is a link to a web board which is the closest thing to ___location we have for now. It exists, I'm currently designing a crest, and by the definition of a micronation we're actually doing better than most.
- Comment Then the deletion rationale is one of notability, something that will take a lot more than an active population of 6 to achieve. And I have a good reason to doubt the notability of the concept itself. --Blanchardb 14:14, 5 November 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 Star Fleet Universe. --Haemo 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kzinti Hegemony

This in universe plot summary has no primary or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability outside the role playing game from which this fictional race/empire is derived. Gavin Collins 08:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AndalusianNaugahyde 17:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note AndalusianNaugahyde has been blocked indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet. [31] Edward321 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge an appropriately reduced amount to Star Fleet Universe -- there really should be a powers of the Star Fleet Universe type article, but at the moment I don't think there is. Pinball22 19:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too likely to be confused with the actually notable Kzinti Patriarchy (Empire) 132.205.99.122 20:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Then what prevents us from putting a line that reads "for the Kzinti Patriarchy, see..." at the top? --130.232.106.73 20:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response That was already on the page and unrelated to the reason this article is up for deletion. Iarann 18:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - hard to see how a fictional race not represented in the TV series can be demonstrated to be notable. I'm happy to be proved wrong, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-canon. Possibly copy over to an ST-dedicated wiki (whichever of the many is the right one) -- Simon Cursitor 08:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To those voting based on their lack of appearance in the show/non-canonness in Star Trek, please note that this is about the Star Fleet Universe, not the regular Star Trek universe. Pinball22 13:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per Pinball22. I also think that the Star Fleet Universe pages should be treated as a group since they're presented as part of a series. The universe is shared by more than one game publisher, there ought to be some reliable sources out there. Kmusser 19:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The information, while appropriate to the notable topics related to Star Fleet Universe, would be better served as a merged article along with the other in universe government pages. It would have been more appropriate to apply a Merge Multiple articles template to the various pages (see WP:MERGE) rather then suggest deletion, which gives little time to create such a page. Please note that Gavin Collins has applied this template to the other articles that would be good candidates for merging with this article and those making their opinion noted here should check out those pages as well. Iarann 17:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Gavin Collins has made a comment on another related page up for deletion that merging is not a good option. [32] I am posting this response because all of these articles are up for deletion for the same reason and are related. Typically when an article is merged, extraneous information is removed and the article is slimmed down and properly cited. When sources are cited, and an article is not considered notable enough by itself, I don't understand why you would oppose merging. Especially when most of these articles you have already tried to delete for the exact same reasons survived (see [33] for the Klingon Empire AfD and [34] for the Romulan Star Empire AfD). I also strongly recommend you take a look at the Nomination section of the Guide to deletion which mentions you should both give thought to merging and "You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." The article does have references at the bottom of the page, and therefore with cleaning could easily be merged. At the least, if we merged all of these race/government articles into two articles based on the Alliance and Coalition headings they seem to fall under, it would help keep things relevant and notable both to the appropriate subject and Wikipedia guidelines. A lack of inline sources is not enough for deletion, as you well know or you would have used that argument in your original nomination. To go back to your original argument for deletion, if there is no notability outside of the game guide, I do not understand why an article for the game guide itself, which is quite notable, cannot include information related to the governments involved in the game. I noticed there is a history of this (see [35] for an RFC for Gavin Collins) which leads me to some concern to your motives. While I understand a desire to clean up Wikipedia, AfD is not the only solution, nor should it be rushed to. Instead, things like merging and working to clean up articles and cite sources should be emphasized first. Iarann 17:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Pinball22, Iarann. Edward321 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:51, 12 November 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 Drizzt Do'Urden. -Splash - tk 20:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Drizzt

Contested prod. This article has insufficient content, primary or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this book. Gavin Collins 08:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Drizzt Do'Urden and cover this in the Literature section, as it's just a reordering/republishing of the existing books about Drizzt. Gavin, did you even read the article or any of the things it links to before writing this nomination? The first line says "is a series of fantasy novels", and yet you say "... to demonstrate notability of this book", as if it were a single book of questionable notability, when really it's a new collective name given to some of the most notable fantasy series of the last twenty years. Nominations like this are what make it seem like you just wander through D&D-related categories, look at the bottom of an article, and go "hey, no links here, I should take this to AfD". Pinball22 20:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did indeed read the "article", which comprises of only 3 sentences and imparts less information than the AfD template. I quote: "The book combines the internal conflict of Drizzt's continence ...." I assume the 3 novels have been published compendium, but the source of this statement is not cited. If I am mistaken, it is because I assumed the author of this article know what he was taking about. --Gavin Collins 17:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not saying it's a great article... like I said, it just needs to be a redirect. Yes, that last line says "book", but the other two clearly state that it incorporates multiple series. You've agreed in the past to do some research before nominating things for AfD, yet in this case you obviously didn't even bother to click the links within the article, Google the title, or make any other minimal effort to figure out what the article was about. Pinball22 14:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Drizzt Do'Urden#Literature, what little content this article contains is already there. --Stormie 05:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pinball22. Rray 02:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pinball22. Edward321 04:18, 10 November 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. -Splash - tk 20:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LLQDVN

Non-notable charitable organization. The 27 unique ghits for the abbreviation and 12 unique ghits for the expanded version do not verify this article. MER-C 08:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, until that organization actually achieves something. --Blanchardb 08:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks outside coverage, fails to satisfy WP:ORG. shoeofdeath 08:17, 9 November 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. -Splash - tk 20:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menachem Nissel

Serious problem with WP:NN, WP:BIO and WP:NOT#MYSPACE. While this rabbi is a nice young man, he is not at the point of such notability as to merit a Wikipedia biography. He has written one minor book for girl's Beis Yaakov seminaries in Israel, but that does not make him a notable author. It's hard to see how this article is better than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zvi Block and a few others like that. IZAK 08:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons, IZAK 08:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know him to be a nice man or not, all i see is google results[36] of multiple respected independent Jewish web sites like the ou, and others reviewing his work extensively, this man has written 2 books and is a notable figure active in the Jewish education outreach phenomena.--יודל 13:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Izak is correct. We have discussed this several times, most notably regarding Zvi Block, almost every outreach rabbi by definition is all over the web.--Jayrav 20:37, 7 November 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 as nonsense. Neil ☎ 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Law

Quacks like a hoax and/or a joke. Unsourced. MER-C 07:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, unverifiable. --Oxymoron⁸³ 08:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G1. The article makes up its own numbering system. --Blanchardb 08:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Blanchardb. This article is neither helpful nor funny. JuJube 10:00, 5 November 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. -Splash - tk 20:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Mansour

Serious problem with WP:NN, WP:BIO and WP:NOT#MYSPACE. While this rabbi is a nice young man, he is not at the point of such notability as to merit a Wikipedia biography. (Incidentally, the creator of this article User:Mostly Rainy was subsequently blocked indefinitely [37] for vandalism and being a sockpuppet of banned user User:EddieSegoura.) Anyhow, it's hard to see how this article is better than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zvi Block and a few others like that. IZAK 07:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reason, IZAK 07:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —IZAK 07:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this man is active in one of the biggest and most influential Jewish communities. he has also acquired a rich online prominence of Torah teaching[38]. so he is notable indeed by all standers. we cannot delete articles because the writer is blocked nor is it a valid argument that the article isn't better than an other, we have to write every subject by its own merit, and this subject is merit-full to be noted in the worlds biggest encyclopedia.--יודל 14:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete NN and no sources. Yossiea ^(talk) 17:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. No sources, no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind and Yossiea as lacking any WP:RS, thus being in violation of WP:BLP. Where's the sources? I can't rescue every article at AfD by myself. Anyone? Bearian 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd urge the article's authors to supply sources showing notability from Jewish religious scholars, the Jewish religious press, mainstream media, or secular academic scholars. Has anyone reviewed or talked about his Haggadah, for example? --Shirahadasha 03:32, 7 November 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 as copyvio. → AA ^(talk) — 10:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TaajuSh Shariah Hadrat Allama Mufti Mohammed Akhtar Raza Khan Azhari Al-Qaadiri

I've been watching this article since it was created a couple of weeks ago, and despite a relatively high amount of editing from some dedicated contributors, I am not convinced that it fulfills the requirements set out by WP:N and WP:BLP. The article suffers heavily from a lack of neutral perspective and also fails WP:V and WP:RS. I originally prod'd it, explaining to the main author the reasons behind my doing so (found in this talk page message) and informing them that it would be nominated for AfD if there was not substantial improvement. jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is little more than flowery praise. And oh my crap what a long name. JuJube 06:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete as WP:COPYVIO as per Dhartung. This is the Grand Mufti of India. Holding that position alone makes the subject notable. I agree that the article is in need of a clean up, and it certainly needs to be better sourced. It's hard for me as someone who speaks no arabic or hindi and who knows nothing of islam to qualify sources as the article only uses his full name and sources seem to refer to him by shortened names. Bobby1011 06:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article reads strangely to me, but I realize that is simply because of differences in how two different cultures approach speaking about a public figure. Cultural differences in writing is no reason for deletion. Much work needs to be done to bring the article around to what we would consider an encyclopedic tone, but the article is, AFAIK, accurate and sourced. There is a lot of information included that we would not consider encyclopedic (personal details of his likes and dislikes, etc.) but that can be excised on a per-case basis rather than throwing out the entire article. It can be cleaned up to satisfy WP:BLP, and will need a heavy WP:NPOV rework, but I believe the article satisfies WP:N. Appears to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. I see no reason to delete, but many reasons for cleanup. 152.16.59.190 07:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:COPYVIO of [39]. Slightly edited but would need wholesale rewrite to comply with our standards. Also, need external source confirming that his title of Grand Mufti is widely recognized (although Islam has no formal hierarchy as such). --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Methodist Church (Berlin, WI)

Small local church with less than 100 members, no notability assertion beyond that of any church. Listed at AFD after recreation after prod to encourage discussion. Royalbroil 04:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or at least redirect to its parent organization. --Blanchardb 09:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like small local churches but, most often, they are not notable. A search indicates that this church is non notable. --Stormbay 22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Methodist Church (Neshkoro, WI)

Small local church, no notability assertion beyond that of any church. Listed at AFD after recreation after prod to encourage discussion. Royalbroil 04:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. --Blanchardb 08:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be a non notable church which lacks any assertion of importance. --Stormbay 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:53, 6 November 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). Qst (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Eisteddfod Challenge results

Article which lists the results of a school-music competition. The event itself is notable, the list of winners isnt. Reminds me alot of the list of school sporting competition winners which have been debated here before. Twenty Years 03:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 03:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate information and WP:NOT#STATISTICS. Crazysuit 05:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not an indiscriminate list. It is a list of results of a notable competition which is within the scope of WP:LISTS. What is needed is some editing to divide the results into separate pages for each year with a short description of the event for that year to improve readability. The fact that something was deleted previously on AfD does not mean that other things should be. Only WP policies should be applied. Assize 11:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, the competition is notable. Couldn't there simply just be a list of champions on the actual competition page, instead of a list of results from every round, this would help the readability of it. This information is generally covered in school articles, which mention that they participate in the competition. Twenty Years 12:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that readability is poor on the page. I suspect that the main article would be too long and would need to be split under wiki policies anyway. Somebody just needs to be bold and make the list more user friendly. Assize 09:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim drastically to only include each year's overall winner in a simple list. Merging the list of winners into the main article would make it unwieldy. Including every zone winner in every category goes beyond the level of notability established. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not the rock eisteddfod almanac. Once kept, this can be further discussed on the article talk page, which is where this should have been taken in the first place. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following User: Assize, the article needs to edited for clarity and readability. Given the notability of the competition, winning is also notable (and in some cases may provide the notability claim for a participating school). A brief outline of the winning performances would clarify what the criteria are for success in this competition as well as what the event is about. Eyedubya 10:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reduce scope to be only state and national winners... I don't think the "Bathurst divsion" winners are that significant and are difficult to compare to the "Sydney winners" or even 5th place getters.... Ga rr ie 02:17, 8 November 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. -Splash - tk 20:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MechScape

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You can't write an article on rumors. There has been no official announcement at all and no solid proof. Coasttocoast 03:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Additionally, it's entirely WP:OR. --Sesameball^Talk 05:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete H e mh e m20X6 06:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. L337 kybldmstr 07:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable speculation. --Blanchardb 09:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~. Claims are sourced and verifiable. --RS Ren 10:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep or redirect. As per CaptainVindaloo. --RS Ren 16:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yeah, here is one of your contributions to the article: MechScape is believed to the name of an upcoming 'undisclosed game' . --Blanchardb 11:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The fact that they are working on an 'undisclosed game' is a quote from Jagex recruitment material. There is verifiable evidence that MechScape is a name used by Jagex (including the published Trade Marks Journal) and evidence that they are developing a space MMORPG (CV's, concept art, supported LinkedIn accounts cooberated by Jagex job vacancies and public statements). There are claims from people who know say they know current/former Jagex employees and that those employees tell them that this is the case, with logical supporting evidence such as ___domain name registration, the categories of the patent (specifically the US patent) and the nature of the name itself. If you feel there is insufficient evidence to put 1 and 1 together then just propose that the two separate streams of verifiable facts be merged into the Jagex article with a redirect from MechScape as they both related to Jagex, possibly with a message that some sources say that X is Y for reasons Z. Don't propose that they are deleted. --RS Ren 13:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a synthesis of a few facts to create a piece of speculation. Neil ☎ 14:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is only evidence that Jagex are doing someting related to the word or name "MechScape" from the registered ___domain names; all other information is based on speculation and assumptions. So there's really isn't enough reliable information to make the article except "jagex are using the name mechscape for something because they registered the trademark and websites with it".--Snakese 15:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - Snakese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of The Negotiator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, then recreate it when they actually announce it. Currently, it's nothing but speculation and original research. Despite the fact that Jagex says they're working on an "undisclosed game", there is no way to reliably and conclusively prove that Mechscape is that game. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to redirect to Jagex: I agree with CaptainVindaloo's comment below. Plus, this preserves the history for when they do release it and we need an article on it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pyro. To be frank, this is one of the first times I've heard this. It seems mostly spectulation, and it's non-notable as of yet. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario Sonic BOOM! 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pyrospirit, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL, possibly WP:SNOW, nn speculation. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (possibly redirect OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 21:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Jagex, per everyone, without prejudice to retargeting to a subsection in that article or recreation when this is actually announced and hits the media. Assuming the project doesn't go belly-up before it gets off the ground, there will certainly be an article on this sometime. I can see a possibility for merging here, too. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like someone said before, there is enough evidence that this game will be released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arain321 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On a cursory inspection, this does seem to be probable... but until a reliable source confirms it, this article is original research. -Amarkov moo! 01:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's pretty obvious that Jagex is working on "MechScape" based on the list of domains now registered to Jagex such as MechScape.com, MechScape.net, MechScape.tk, MechScape.org, MechHQ.com, MechScapeCommunity.com, etc. There are a few dozen registered domains. There have also been a few pictures floating around the internet showing concept art and such. To say MechScape is not real in any way doesn't make sense. MooMix1 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment. Show me 1 play where it says "Jagex is making a game called MechScape". Show me 1 play where it says "This is concept art of a game called MechScape"...THERE ISNT ANYTHING. Everyone is just using their imagination. ---- Coasttocoast 03:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point isn't deciding if this thing is real or not. I'm pretty sure it is. But until a reliable source says that it is real, we can't have an article on it. -04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect - Currently only consists of speculation or original research, and consists of no reliable sources at the moment. When it is released, then it should have its own article. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 03:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe it's not 100% proven, but this article has helped a few of my friends understand what's going on with this "MechScape" deal. I think this article is more about the posibility that JaGex will be comming out with a new MMORPG. Besides, why would we delete it and bring it back later? If we just post that it's not completely proven that JaGex will come out with this MechScape and wait until they do, we should be fine. Burn N Flare 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It doesn't matter whether the article is correct or not, or whether it has information that's useful to a few people. There is no way to avoid the fact that it is still unverifiable and almost entirely original research. This article would be just fine on a Jagex/RuneScape fansite or on somewhere other than an encyclopedia, but it does not belong in Wikipedia until Jagex makes a definite announcement about it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I agree that this isn't proven, but we can make this article into a "speculation" instead. The information here, even though there's not alot, is helpful, and although it's not 100% proven that there will be a game titled "MechScape" made by JaGex in the future, we can put information that will show that it's possible that there will one. It's sort of like the Chaos Theory, this idea isn't as big, but neither ideas are proven either. Burn N Flare 22:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say "Delete". Just speculation about a possible game. I have so far never seen a site that unspeculatively said that this "MechScape" will come out. Importantly, Jagex has, to my knowledge, never said anything about MechScape going to be released. Though, Jagex has supposedly said the word(s) "MechScape", and "undisclosed upcoming game [(or something)]". It's like saying, "Oh, I'm going to eat cereal.", and then start talking about a specific brand, but not necessarily about eating it. That may not exactly be a good comparison, but I hope it can be understood. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 07:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Coasttocoast. The article has no primary source to verify the launch date, and so fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Gavin Collins 11:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I don't doubt that they're working on this game, but for now there isn't anything to write an article on. It is simply a number of facts synthesized into speculation about a future release. Once there is an official release, there would presumably be secondary sources upon which an article could be based. C omrade T ux 06:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Or redirect to the jages page, but put more information about it on the jagex page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arain321 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment: Didn't you already say "Keep" before? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Sorry, i didn't see it for some reason, i thought it might have been deleted.
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The point is not to "save electrons." The reason articles are deleted is because they don't belong in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Wikipedia has guidelines for what can and cannot be included, and articles that are entirely based on original research are one of the things that cannot. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry about the servers. The Devs do that so we don't have to. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of phrases with an important social influence in Spain

Unmaintainable. Not encyclopedic. Contains original research. Arbitrary list. --Ichabod 03:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information Ohconfucius 03:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely original research. Crazysuit 05:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adios muchacho. What kind of objective criterion could you possibly use? Clarityfiend 07:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Give each individual sentence an entry of its own in Spanish Wikiquote. That's where these all belong. --Blanchardb 08:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one has all sorts of problems in the execution.. the pretentious "important social influence" title, and the utter lack of sources, being the main ones. An encylcopedic article could be written, however, about "catchphrases" that have been popular in Spain, or any other nation where data is available. Catchphrases (like "23 skidoo", which really wouldn't be a quote) are a glimpse of the culture of a particular place and time. This article won't make it, but the concept would work with better management. Mandsford 01:30, 6 November 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 — Wikipedia may not be paper, but that isn't a free pass for articles. Arguments for keeping do not address the notability concerns raised. If you want a copy for merging, just request one. --Haemo 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alynna Nechayev

Non-notable fictional character. Article is a plot summary of the character's in-universe role with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Alynna Nechayev' -wikipedia" on Google returns non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters: N-S. --Goobergunch|? 05:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." Masterzora 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 18:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has been on meta basically unchanged for 5 years because it has been considered applicable and justifiable for all 5 years. There has been discussion from time to time on the talk page, as recently as 07. It's still active, its still the basis of WP. We're an encyclopedia, first, and we're not a paper encyclopedia. The rest follows. Our principles have not changed, and a knowledge of them remains important. DGG (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to you here. I'd rather not copypaste every rationale through every AfD I've made recently, so perhaps we could restrict the discussion for this topic to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lans Tartare? Doctorfluffy —Preceding comment was added at 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to support the claim to [WP:FICT|notability]] made in the article.--Gavin Collins 10:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character has appeared in multiple TV series, novels, computer games. Lack of sources is reason for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 04:23, 10 November 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 good reasons given for keeping, such as reliable sources. Mr.Z-man 20:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lans Tartare

Non-notable fictional character. Article is a plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and a trivia section, which is advised against in WP:TRIVIA. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Lans Tartare' -wikipedia" on Google returns non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions in game guides. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 02:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." -- Masterzora 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has been on meta basically unchanged for 5 years because it has been considered applicable and justifiable for all 5 years. There has been discussion from time to time on the talk page, as recently as 07. It's still active, its still the basis of WP. We're an encyclopedia, first, and we're not a paper encyclopedia. The rest follows. DGG (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PAPER is the direct evolution of the article on Meta. It even links to it, but then adds more clauses as to its applicability, including the one I quoted. I think it's clear that WP:PAPER is the more modern version of the ultra-inclusive Meta guideline, which has become somewhat obsolete. Doctorfluffy 22:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has no primary or secondary sources to support this in universe plot summary. --Gavin Collins 10:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop culture catchphrases

Unmaintainable. Not encyclopedic. It would appear that this article was tagged with AFD on October 31, 2007. However the process was never completed. Just finishing the process. --Ichabod 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The bulk of the article deals with the simpsons, which is already well-covered in other articles. The remainder is almost indiscriminate in its criteria for inclusion, as who decides if it's significant or not? ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The unnecessary page of being ordinary work list --Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions/mail) 02:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, indiscriminate, and the notable ones are already covered in other articles. Crazysuit 02:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Half of the article is copied from List of phrases with an important social influence in Spain, also AfD'd. I can't help wondering how stuff revolving around the Spanish language is relevant here. JuJube 06:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... and the other half is from The Simpsons. Not that there's anything wrong with catchphrases, and a good article could be written, but making a list of them is like making a list of popular names. Mandsford 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A truly undiscriminating list without any organizing principle. There are a few still in WP, and time to get them out. DGG (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy hop

Appears to violate WP:NEO - little known Neologism coined by a non-notable band. The article is completely unsourced, and the ability to attribute may be in doubt Ohconfucius 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy 02:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of any other band doing that type of music. --Blanchardb 09:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. If the band's not notable, then their neologism certainly isn't.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insect rights

Found this when browsing Category:Animal rights, and to some extent it just reads like a joke. Does not appear to have substantial reliable sources. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources are also of a comedic nature. digitalemotion 02:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but this deserves a serious article. This is a genuine and encyclopedic topic, many people don't buy honey, or silk clothes, for this reason. The TV series I'm A Celebrity was criticized for its treatment of insects. Some people may find it funny, but it's a topic worth covering. Crazysuit 03:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:A. I'm allmost tempted to delete per WP:CSD#G1 (nonsense); All references appear to be self-published Ohconfucius 03:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a comic site (it advocates at one point "not purchasing, or consuming any meat, fruits, vegetables, grain, or dairy products"). But as Crazysuit says, it ought to be covered somehow: another example is the production of cochineal. Gordonofcartoon 04:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-sense, and any further information about insect rights can be added to animal rights. Bobby1011 04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. L337 kybldmstr 07:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe a short mention in Animal rights, but no more. --Blanchardb 09:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even though the content is questionable in that the topic in question is valid, its content could be merged (if not already contained within) into the Animal rights article. An article of this nature standing alone simply can't be sustained. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Animal rights and make some mention of this in that article Think outside the box 13:54, 6 November 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. Kurykh 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brodi Ford

Non-notable fictional character. Article contains a character history, statistics, and in-game unlocks without real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOT#GUIDE. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Brodi Ford' -wikipedia" on Google returns under 100 hits, from non-reliable fansites and forums and game strategy sites. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 02:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ditto for all other related nominations. --Blanchardb 11:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." -- Masterzora 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as without primary or secondary sources, this game guide cannot be relied upon. --Gavin Collins 10:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 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. Kurykh 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Bronson

Non-notable fictional character. Article is a plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Ray Bronson' -wikipedia" on Google returns trivial mentions and unrelated hit about a boxer. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 01:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Blanchardb 11:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." -- Masterzora 20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has no real-world content, primary or secondary sources.--Gavin Collins 10:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adds nothing that isn't already in the film article.Red Fiona 18:34, 9 November 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. Kurykh 00:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rukarumel

Non-notable fictional character. Article is a summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Rukarumel' -wikipedia" on Google returns non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite, or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 01:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Blanchardb 11:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." -- Masterzora 20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article does not have any primary or secondary sources, real world context or evidence of notability of this fictional character outside the card game from which he is derived. --Gavin Collins 08:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell, this character appears only in flavor text for a few cards - I don't think there's anything worth merging anywhere. JavaTenor 10:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doris (Shrek)

Non-notable side character from Shrek. thegreen J Are you green? 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 02:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Doctorfluffy has been blocked indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet. [40] Edward321 04:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly non-notable. Mabel(Shrek) by same author should also be deleted. JuJube 04:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable character, fails FICT. SkierRMH 15:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already has a page in List_of_fairy_tale_characters_in_Shrek#Doris_the_Ugly_Stepsister_.28Cinderella.29. This is just a duplicate and is not needed. EoL talk 02:53, 6 November 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. Kurykh 00:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Samuels

Non-notable fictional character. Article is a plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Aaron Samuels' 'Mean Girls' -wikipedia" on Google returns non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite, or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 01:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." -- Masterzora 20:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this stub has no real-world content, context, primary or secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional character from a film. --Gavin Collins 08:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 20:03, 8 November 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. Advert, with the whiff of copyvio to boot. -Splash - tk 20:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yale CMI2

No assertion of notability, lack of sources, unencyclopedic. ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ORG. Also seems mostly to be an advert. Doctorfluffy 02:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:54, 9 November 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. -Splash - tk 20:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavers Farm Primary School

Nothing notable about this school for 3 to 11 year olds, sorry to trouble AfD with it. FYI, there are 95 primary Schools in Croydon alone. Doing a bit of arithmetic, there should be circa 14,000 primary schools in England. SolidPlaid 01:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable school, fails WP:N. TJ Spyke 02:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the list is useful, but individual articles on most schools fail notability. digitalemotion 02:38, 5 November 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. -Splash - tk 19:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Andrew Kelly

Alex Kelly skipped a very large bail (something like $1 million) and was on the lam in Europe for some time before he was eventually found quite a few years later. He was then tried and convicted for two rapes. His case made headlines nationwide, and his trial was covered by nationwide media. In a few weeks, his sentence is up. Although the case was unusual and got a lot of coverage at the time, I see nothing encyclopedic about it and its notability is in the nature of a passing news story (albeit one that took a long time to pass). Now it's passed. There's nothing encyclopedic here. I am from the same area, by the way and have nothing but sympathy for his victims, but I'm not a friend of anyone involved and I have no personal interest in seeing this article deleted. Added comment: I think this falls under WP:BLP1E since the drawn out case should be considered essentially one event.Noroton 01:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (addition Noroton 01:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - I agree that someone is who is notable for one event does not have a wikipedia article, particularly if all the sources are news. Given through that a Telemovie (Crime in Connecticut: The Story of Alex Kelly) was made on the subject, a book (Saint Of Circumstance: The Untold Story Behind the Alex Kelly Rape Case ISBN 0671014374), some coverage in another book (How Can You Defend Those People? By Mickey Sherman) and there are considerable reviews of the Telemovie I think that the notoriety of the case has made it permanently notable. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even with 500 channels there still are not that many crimes that get TV movies made about them. --Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason for deletion here. This man was the subject of a book and a film. Nick mallory 07:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom is misreading WP:BLP1E, I believe. "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves ... If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event ..." plainly refer to a (notable) event in which the person has no notability beyond being a participant; X random 9-11 passenger, for instance. Here we do not have an "event" in which Kelly was a casual, non-notable participant; he was the convicted perpetrator and fugitive from justice in several felonies, and received considerably publicity for them. The article itself is poorly written, but that's not an AfD matter. Ravenswing 08:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think all of the editors above make good points. Here's what I think are wrong with those points:
- I interpret "one event" in WP:BLP1E to be a series of strongly related events. Any crime that becomes newsworthy will often have an arrest and trial associated with it, and that should not generally be considered multiple "events" in this sense. "Event" in WP:BLP really seems to mean "continuing news story", doesn't it?
- Ravenswing quotes WP:BLP1E, which applies to Kelly in that he "has no notability beyond being a participant" (perpetrator) in two rapes and every single other newsworthy thing about him revolves around his arrest on those rapes (I'm pretty sure he was [first] arrested at the same time for both). His flight stemmed from that arrest, as did his trials, as did every single thing written, broadcast or turned into a movie or books about him. He has done nothing before or since that is in any way noteworthy. Do we want every multiple felon to have an article in Wikipedia? I don't interpret WP:BLP1E as affecting only people with a minor involvement in one event, and I think this interpretation fits in well with WP:NOT#NEWS (see below).
- Of course, not every mulitple felon has had books and TV movies made about his exploits. But the closer you look at this stuff, the weaker it is as a justification for an article. Mickey Sherman, a prominent legal commentator on TV, initially became famous because of this case, and so Kelly is mentioned in Sherman's book, but that's information for the Sherman article. There are something like 80,000 books published every year, and the book Saint of Circumstance is barely more than a recounting of what was in the news (it also contains some opinionating -- I don't think you could call it analysis). Neither the book nor the TV movie would meet Wikipedia notability standards. I guess it's just my opinion, but I find it impossible to believe that the book will be read or the movie watched or broadcast even a year from now because the interest (in fact, the sole value) in either of them derives from the event. If a Truman Capote made an In Cold Blood out of this case, it would be a different story. The stuff that came out of this case, however, is dreck.
- This is essentially an article about an event, not a person, and it should be judged that way as essentially unencyclopedic. This is a subject that no one but the participants is going to care about at all in the near future. If the Kelly case illustrated something about a larger subject, then it would have encyclopedic value as an example. But what made it so newsworthy at the time was precisely that it did NOT represent anything more than a lurid tabloid tale: It tells us nothing new about rape, wealthy people, law enforcement or any other aspect of society. It was interesting because it was unusual: the perp's family had the money to let him skip bail. From WP:NOT#NEWS:

Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as [...] tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for Wikinews.

- What's the point of an encyclopedia article on this subject? Where is its value as something other than a passing news event? We can certainly have an encyclopedia with loads of articles on multiple felons with bizarre exploits. There are lots of them. Or do we want articles on all felons that have been the subject of TV movies or true-crime books? There are tons of those, too. Some notable crimes certainly should have articles here, but do you want to set the bar this low? Its essentially a judgment call.Noroton 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: It goes against my case, but Google Scholar has a few citations and Google Books a few more. These don't convince me that this case is noteworthy for Wikipedia, but editors might want to consider it as we do our part to advance human knowledge. Noroton 20:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The only criterion upon which we can, and should, pass judgment is whether Kelly passes the WP:BIO bar. Much of your argument, by contrast, rests upon subjective irrelevancies. Whether convicted felons deserve articles or to be the subject of widespread media coverage, TV movies and books, the degree to which books about subjects repeat the media coverage or whether people other than the participants care about the subject are outside the scope of this AFD. There are more appropriate venues to discuss whether WP:BIO is too loose. Ravenswing 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Rather than disparage, you might want to address my arguments. More subjective irrelevancies: WP:BIO, third paragraph: "For articles on living people, the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies, and must be consulted." See also WP:BIO "Basic Criteria" section, point #2, which repeats the point, saying WP:BLP "must be followed". Go to WP:BLP. Wait a minute -- I already did that. I already discussed how my interpretation of WP:BLP#1E differs from yours. I already said this article is really not about a person's life but about an arrest and all that went into it and all that followed -- and nothing else. Since your arguments are based on technicalities and your incorrect interpretation of policy, I turned to the obvious spirit of the policy to show you where your interpretation is flat wrong. Doing so is neither subjective nor irrelevant. Other editors seem to think that a TV movie and book are evidence of notability. While the book is an independent, reliable source, neither it nor the movie addresses the fact that the subject of the article is known for one tabloid event, and Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Is WP:NOT#NEWS a subjective irrelevancy?Noroton 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't, but when all is said and done, your position turns on your private interpretation of WP:BLP, and your circular argument concerning "tabloid journalism." Obviously, you believe you're right, but so far, unanimous consensus is against you, and once again, this isn't the proper forum to push your POV on these policies. It isn't that we don't understand your position. It's that we don't agree with your position. Ravenswing 08:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They call them deletion discussions for a reason. See the first sentence (that's not in the box) of WP:AFD. Objecting to someone stating their reasons in a forum for discussion as "push[ing] your POV" is ... interesting. Other people can explain why they disagree. That you can't or won't is contrary to the whole point of this forum. Noroton 20:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Central figures in notable events are notable.This was covered internationally, and numerous different aspects were involved. It's not a passing news event, this is a number of years since, and its still important. I thank Noroton for his refs -- one of them is a book entirely about the case, which is certainly enough to show notability. If criminals have been subjects of movies or books, yes, there should be a WP article. DGG (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable crime case that was covered no less than 135 times in articles in The New York Times. A film based on the case cements notability. Alansohn 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

none of which is in dispute, none of which meets any of my objections. Noroton 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan, we're going to have biographies of people who are famous for only one event that no one in their right mind would push for deletion. There are articles about news subjects ("guy stuck in tree for three days") that may receive wide coverage, but that are not wikiworthy. WP:NOT#NEWS draws a line that states that "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.", which is defined in a footnote as "The briefer the appearance of a subject in the news, the lower the likelihood of creating an acceptably comprehensive encyclopedic biography.". Kelly has not only appeared in numerous articles, he has been news since 1987, with heavy coverage in 1995, 1996 and 1997, a decline in 1998 and regular updates (appeals, parole hearings, etc.) every few months since then. This not a flash-in-the-pan, here-today-gone-tomorrow story, but an enduring newsworthy subject. This is not someone who has made "a brief appearance in the news". Alansohn 03:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. You make a good case. Despite the language you quote, I think the greater point behind that policy is to keep out of Wikipedia subjects of little or no value. Is there another reason to have such a policy? I see a subject of little or no value because all that coverage was basically because this was someone whose family had a lot of money and was apparently able to take the economic hit when he fled. Once he returned and was tried, convicted and sentenced and now, within weeks apparently, is let loose, where's the continuing interest? More important, where's the continuing value? We could gin up a lot of articles about a lot of criminals who have received some coverage over more than just a brief time. But to what end? Noroton 19:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Note that one of your quotes mentions "lower the likelihood", meaning it's basically a rule of thumb. Also note that the same paragraph you quote from talks about "matters lacking encyclopedic substance" and then gives examples, which are not necessarily comprehensive. My whole point is that this subject lacks "encyclopedic substance". Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan changed history. If they didn't, what would be the point of an article on them? What's the point here? Noroton 20:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Oswald and Sirhan fail WP:BLP1E and belong in John F. Kennedy assassination and Robert F. Kennedy assassination respectively by the letter of the policy. That there is a "changed history" exception is probably true, but it isn't addressed in WP:BLP1E as they are both "biographies on people with no independent notability". I understand your concerns, but there needs to be a broader description of the many cases (including this one) where these is clear consensus that articles should exist, despite what seem to be violations of the letter of WP:BLP1E. Alansohn 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe we should keep all Wikipedia tabloid-type articles and change WP:NOT#NEWS instead, because we obviously have no intention of following this passage of it: matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article Clearly this isn't anything but tabloid journalism and editors so far have no intention of deleting it despite that fact. If there's no consensus for enforcing it, the policy should be changed to reflect the actual consensus.Noroton 00:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NOT NEWS may need clarifying, to make more evident the distinction between the sort of news which is (1) routine daily occurrences (2) human interest stories, and (3) the sort of news which is of long-term general interest, We all agree that the first class of material does not belong. (2) is is a grey area, because if the reason for the human interest is significant, we are not really agreed on whether the people can become noteworthy. But really major criminal trials with widespread coverage, just like political scandals and natural disasters is clearly in the third category. The NYT may not be as strict as it ought to be, but it does not write over 100 stories for an item properly relegated "tabloid journalism". DGG (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times does cover most trials that have already gotten a lot of buzz in the New York City metropolitan area, but New York metro buzz doesn't mean that the story is not tabloid journalism. To get beyond tabloid journalism, the story needs to be about (1) an event or situation that affects the lives of readers (or other large numbers of people) or at least (2) illuminates something about society or the world to advance the understanding of readers. Otherwise it's a human interest story or tabloid journalism, also known as lurid, sensationalism, a type of junk food news. It seems to me (maybe I'm wrong) that this is precisely why Wikipedia policy (WP:NOT#NEWS, referred to in WP:BLP1E) mentions tabloid stories as something we don't want here -- we're not in the business of providing readers with the pleasure of the shocking but with information that will illuminate the world around them (political scandals, natural disasters and quite a few major trials do just that). I read the book, saw the movie, read the vast majority of the Times articles and coverage elsewhere. I never found anything that illuminated anything about rape, wealth, society, bail -- not one thing. So what's the reason for the article other than prurience? There are plenty of events about which 1,000 stories are written, including plenty in the Times, that don't belong in Wikipedia because they are valueless in terms of encyclopedic content. This was one. Noroton 03:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You read this article, and you didn't find anything of value? You didn't learn anything? Well, I read the article, and I did learn something new. I am interested in extraordinary rendition and extradition. I learned that Alex Andrew Kelly couldn't be tried for lesser charges that weren't listed on his extradition order. That is valuable information, thank you very much. And, if you have your way, it would not have been available to me.
I think you really have to re-assess the extent to which your judgment of the value of this article is based on your POV, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep While I agree with Noroton that far too many minor incidents get coverage. THis individual did have a movie made of his crime. Which creates notability for me. Mbisanz 02:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following above. Jakerforever 14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- No offense, but I find this interpretation of WP:BLP1E odd. Surely this portion of the policy is aimed at individuals who no one is going to write about, or want to read about, once they have been rescued? If an individual has ongoing press coverage, if there are ongoing updates, after the first week or so of sensational coverage of a singular event, then surely they no longer meet the criteria of "one event". Further updates show there is likely to be an ongoing need for the wikipedia to cover the topic. Even if, for the sake of argument, that ongoing press coverage is largely sensational, there is likely to be some central core to the story that can be covered from a neutral point of view and cite reliable sources. Readers who read a sensational story might want to look to the wikipedia to see whether there is any central non-sensational aspect behind sensational headlines. Suppressing coverage of material based on this interpretation of WP:BLP1E seems to me to be a serious disservice to our readership. Geo Swan 15:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. Why do you believe there's some kind of "need" to know about this individual or this case? We have biographical notability standards for a reason -- because there is no need to know about individuals in all cases. Any person who's arrested twice and is the subject of a newspaper article could have a Wikipedia article -- or perhaps once if the court appearance is covered in a second article. I don't think neutrality and reliability of sources are the only issues with sensationalism. Really, we ought to have a reason for a Wikipedia article on a criminal other than prurience. Although, you know, maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe prurience is just fine with Wikipedia. I see nothing in WP:BLP1E that indicates it doesn't cover criminals or even major actors in events. Would you really feel comfortable with an article that's just about a rape, arrest for rape and trial for rape? Because that's all we have here, and for all that's been written, that's all we're ever going to have here. And I'm not so much complaining that all or even most of the coverage was sensational -- it was an inherently sensational story -- but that its simply not important enough for us to cover, whether or not various responsible news organizatons decided to cover it. Not every snowstorm that gets a lot of coverage, even with banner headlines on all the front pages, is worth a Wikipedia article either. Maybe one day we'll have a clearer standard on this when, some years from now, someone will point to a slew of useless articles about criminals or or subjects of human-interest articles that no one cares about. Noroton 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've agreed that WP:NOT#NEWS does NOT apply here. All we have left is WP:BLP1E, which in turn is a summary of WP:NOT#NEWS. I think that there is agreement that there are many cases where an article is not justified. But cases where there is widespread public interest (as evidenced by media coverage) combined with broad, non-trivial coverage beyond the initial event (in this case, heavy coverage for years and sporadic coverage 18 years later), a biography would be justified. I think it's clear that this article passes WP:BIO and uses reliable and verifiable sources to establish that fact. The issues of "prurience" and "sensationalism" about "a lurid tabloid tale" are so utterly subjective as to be impossible to differentiate in any meaningful fashion. There is a dividing line, but I think that the overwhelming consensus here is that this article does not violate WP:BLP1E, which needs to be clarified, and almost certainly broadened to include articles such as this one. Alansohn 19:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "heavy coverage for years" was certainly heavy, but the coverage over time is a standard meant to keep us from having articles on subjects that are not trivial themselves, so that we don't have a lot of articles on subjects that have no encyclopedic value. We can all think of subjects that have generated numerous news stories over time but that just aren't worth an encyclopedia article. The issues of "prurience" and "sensationalism" about "a lurid tabloid tale" are so utterly subjective as to be impossible to differentiate in any meaningful fashion. With respect, that's just not true. We can distinguish between subjects that are simply in newspapers for their human-interest value and stories that are worth reading because they are more than just interesting. And that's not at all utterly subjective, although it does call for judgment, which is something we're capable of having. After all, it's partly what deletion discussions are all about. Noroton 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The wikipedia is experiencing a creep of policy interpretation. This creep of interpretation over {{blp}} is the one that represents the most serious danger to the wikipedia's future.
- So, the judgment as to whether something has "encyclopedic value" -- how do we guard against succumbing to WP:IDONTLIKEIT?
- If you think a tabloid is offering coverage of material for "purely human-interest value", that you don't think has "encyclopedic value" isn't that sensational tabloid coverage built around some core true material that has encyclopedic value? If so, is it that difficult to restrict what we cover to material that has does encyclopedic value? In the unlikely event that tabloids keep inventing sensational material, from whole cloth, that have zero encyclopedic value, then doesn't the repeated sensational tabloid coverage, with no substantive material, merit coverage in the wikipedia?
- Thought experiment: Suppose some nitwit finds a piece of burnt toast that they say has an image of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, the virgin Mary, of the Dalia Llama, and they get tabloic coverage because they convince a bunch of other nitwits this is some kind of miracle -- does this merit coverage on the wikipedia? No. I think this is the kind of phenom your WP:BLP1E is meant to address. But, if the story has legs, if the tabloids don't drop it after a week, if the first nitwit causes riots, or sells the toast on eBay for a million bucks, or runs for office -- then isn't there some core of real material that does merit coverage?
- Tabloids, like the National Enquirer, aren't a total waste of paper. They do occasionally cover stories of real value. Sometimes they do cover stories of real value that are not also covered in the MSM. In those cases, IMO, the portions of the stories that can be backed up by reliable sources and written from a neutral, non-sensational point of view, do merit coverage in the wikipedia.
- Newsflash. People with bad judgment are not restricted to outside the wikipedia. Sometimes the judgment of our fellow wikipedia contributors, and your judgment and my judgment, proves unreliable. Wikipedia contributors bring their unexamined preconceptions to their judgments of what has value. Geo Swan 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Noroton's first reply to my note here. Why do I assume there is a need to know? Because I believe people who read, or hear about this guy might look to the wikipedia for reliable, non-sensational coverage. Maybe Noroton can tell, from a tabloid headline, whether there is anything worth knowing about a story? I can't. I'd like to be able to look up the characters behind the headline, and learn if there was a real story there.
Note: Although you keep repeating we should keep sensational tabloid material from the wikipedia this particular article you nominated for deletion is not sensational. No serious person could claim this article, in its current state, is sensational. Doesn't it cite sources, and address the material from a non-sensational, neutral point of view?
Let me suggest that, even if someone were to expand this article, using non-neutral language, so that that it could then be described as a prurient, sensational article, that this would not be grounds for deletion.
This existence of this version of the article -- which is non-prurient, non-sensational -- shows that those with a concern over other potential versions that are prurient or sensational should rein in their impulse to nominate for deletion, and should instead trim or tone down the prurient additions, or raise their concern on the talk page.
Similarly, let me suggest that this version of this article should cause you and those who share your interpretation of WP:BLP1E to be less willing to jump to a nomination to deletion when you come across similar articles that are prurient and sensational. That this article is non-prurient and non-sensational proves that other articles that weren't written as carefully could and should be trimmed back to a neutral, non-sensational core -- not deleted.
Nominator asks: "Would you really feel comfortable with an article that's just about a rape, arrest for rape and trial for rape?" I wouldn't defend an article was solely about a rape, or a rapist, where there was nothing else to cover. Why, because rape is a topic that is sufficiently well understood that it can be covered in a single article about rape. Nominator seems to be claiming that this article is solely about a rapist, with nothing of any interest beyond that -- ignoring the interesting extradition aspect, ignoring the years of exile aspect, ignoring that the event triggered the writing of a movie. Nominator is free to find these aspects uninteresting. No one would dream of forcing the nominator to read material they find uninteresting or otherwise valueless. But we have to protect the wikipedia from contributors who try to suppress material that in their subjective judgment is not of value from the rest of us who do find that material of value.
Some people argue that rape can be a political act. That was Eldridge Cleaver's argument in Soul on Ice. Some might argue that there should be room for a separate article addressing what reliable sources have to say about the theory that rape can be a political act. They might argue that this would include hundreds of thousands of rapes in Darfur, Kosovo, and other war zones, where the men were killed and the women raped, as part of a campaign of genocide. IMO, in addition to covering rape as a political act in the article about rape, or an article specifically about rape as a political act, the wikipedia would be best served if specific instances of rape survivors, who survived rapes as political acts, for whom there is a wealth of reliable sources, had articles of their own.
There was a young woman in South Asia a few years ago, who was brutally gang-raped in retaliation for something her brother did. IIRC, the brother was involved in a "Romeo and Juliet" story. He was a "Romeo" who earned the love of a "Juliet" who was a member some other faction. And a tribal or village council had ruled that the way to wash away the dishonor her brother had triggered was to gang-rape his sister. Everyone expected the young woman in question to commit suicide, because she would not be able to endure her own feeling of dishonor. Instead she laid charges, even though the local police were uncooperative. Her courage and efforts attracted international scrutiny. Money was donated, and she, in turn, used the money donated to her to start a school to educate local girls. The young woman in question was herself illiterate, and her illiteracy, and the reduced choices it brought, were part of the reason why her abusers thought she would commit suicide.
By nominator's reasoning this young woman would not merit an article of her own, because everything I wrote about above was triggered by an act of rape.
I think nominator may be failing to understand how humans learn new things. We hear something, we seize on one aspect, like a name, and we make a mental note to look up the story later. IMO nominator is doing us a vast disservice through his or her overenthusiastic attempt to suppress material they don't like. As I wrote above I might hear about this story, make a mental note to look up the details, because I wanted to read more about the extradition aspect of the story -- and be unable to do so because the nominator succeeded in suppressing the whole story based on their subjective judgment that the whole story was based on prurience. Geo Swan 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the technical name for your stance is "sore winner". You're not content to discuss my arguments, you have to discuss my motivations. You might want to think about that and about the possibility that not everyone thinks that the truth as you see it is so obvious.Noroton 01:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sound advice to which I commend you. Ravenswing 06:50, 10 November 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. -Splash - tk 19:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from The Bronx

This started out as a section of The Bronx and got broken out into a distinct list article. After some poking at it, I've come to the conclusion that it would do better if it was deleted and replaced by Category:People from the Bronx -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize per nom. --Blanchardb 01:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify, but please make it "...the Bronx", not "...The Bronx", thanks. SolidPlaid 01:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category already exists. The nom misspelled the word "category," which I've corrected to make the link. Otto4711 03:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do-oh. Thanks for pointing that out :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is exactly what lists are for, as described at WP:LIST, the official guideline on the subject. Categories and lists are not intended as an either/or alternative, but are meant to be used to complement each other. If there is truly an issue with this as a standalone list, then let's put it back into The Bronx article from whence it came. Alansohn 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the way to handle the category vs list debate is to have both, as long as someone is willing to maintain themDGG (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the added value of having both vs. just having the cat? The fact that the cat has 200 entries and the list only 120 or so says to me that nobody is willing to maintain them both. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS -- see Don't repeat yourself for why having this information in two places is a bad idea. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating oneself when the question has already been answered is, indeed, a waste of time. It might help to read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, the official Wikipedia guideline on the list "vs." category issue, which states "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the other. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. One should not be deleted in favor of the other. Instead, each should be used to update the other." After some poking at Wikipedia policy, I've come to the conclusion that this AfD doesn't have a leg to stand on. Alansohn 23:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. None of the items (with the possible exception of including red links) under Advantages of lists really apply here. If this list included some added value, it would make sense. There's no additional information. There's no images. There's no different ways of sorting the items. There's no links to specific sections of articles. This is just a list of names presented in alphabetical order, whcih is exactly the same information which is presented by the cat. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily disagree with your interpretation, which is unsupported by Wikipedia policy, but you may want to re-read the article, which addresses your issues. Alansohn 05:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's an article worth keeping. You've given it the added value which it was missing before. Thank you. -- RoySmith (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the cat does nicely, thanks. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and also categorize per DGG. "Imposing standards aimed at strict adherence to DRY could stifle community involvement in contexts where it is highly valued, such as a wiki." -- Don't repeat yourself. I'm from the Bronx, myself, and I'll maintain this one, if it is kept. :-) 20:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daver campbell

Has been speedied & recreated three times so far; however this version does make an assertion of notability so bringing it here. — iridescent 00:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough assertion of notability to keep this article with an {{unsourced}} tag. --Blanchardb 01:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What assertion? There are thousands and thousand of models. Just open up any catelog from Sears or any other clothing type store and it will be filled with models. TJ Spyke 05:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything suggesting this guy isn't just another model. JuJube 01:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Google turned up no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 02:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - nothing but myspace links. digitalemotion 02:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, per WP:COI, per WP:SOAP, WP:RS. Liberally add salt to this namespace as well as the correctly capitalised namespace. Ohconfucius 03:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate what makes him more notable than any other model (I could randomly pick a person from a store advertisement catelog and they would be just as notable). TJ Spyke 05:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Article about a non notable model called Coleto Cargill, which was created by User:Ccargill. Crazysuit 06:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT as above. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability. Edward321 —Preceding comment was added at 04:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islands Phonecards Database

Contested prod following an earlier speedy deletion & recreation. The creator is arguing — probably rightly — that this is the leading phonecard collecting website. However, there are no sources of any kind to indicate this. (While I wouldn't necessarily expect a feature in the Washington Post, I'd at least expect mentions in Phonecard News or similar.) Besides, as far as I'm aware phonecard collection is a relatively minor hobby (flames from irate phonecard collectors to the usual place, please), and I'm not sure it's a significant enough pastime that websites covering it warrant inclusion. I'm happy to be proven wrong... — iridescent 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe the author should redirect his energy on writing an article about the hobby itself, since there is none as of today. If it is notable enough, that is. --Blanchardb 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Doctorfluffy 02:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Is a website, not a phenomenon. digitalemotion 02:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, unproven allegations concerning a site that fails WP:WEB and created by an SPA whose contribution history to date involves pushing this site. RGTraynor 08:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phone card collection is a hobby that in its peak reached over 2 million collectors worldwide. It has declined but has not disappeared. Regarding your comments: - I have contributed before but mostly changes and I've submitted this topic since it's close to me. - I have asked for something simple: tell me of one phone card collector who will tell you this site is insignificant. I feel you're passing judgement over something you have no knowledge about. - Regarding more in-depth entries of the hobby, these are the next articles planned. See, for example, an article of the sort ON WikiPedia (Dutch): http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telefoonkaarten_verzamelen That's enough for me. If you feel so strongly about it, I won't add this article again though I expect others would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiawe (talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to Alexa's rating for most popular in 'Phonecards' http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=8565 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiawe (talk • contribs) 10:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also another collectible phonecards site ranking that states the site on the top: http://www.acttonline.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=DanTopSite&file=index —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiawe (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS etc. Hint to Wikiawe: when trying to convince us to keep an article on a website, it's probably best not to point out the Alexa rank if the rank in question is worse than 600,000(!!!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phone card collection is a niche hobby and I never claimed differently. The site is rated first in its category and provides a unique service of collection matching. I've had enough of this patronizing attitude about a hobby none of the commentators obviously know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiawe (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The criteria used in judging whether an article should be kept are Wikipedia policies and guidelines; in this specific case, WP:WEB, WP:RS and WP:SPA. If, after reviewing those criteria, you can tell us which ones this website fulfills, we can readily reconsider. Whether editors are knowledgeable about this hobby or whether or not hobbyists think this is a swell site are irrelevant. RGTraynor 08:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the hobby itself is worthy of an article, this website appears not to be. - fchd 06:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having speedy deleted it once, the article still fails to assert any kind of notability through 3rd party external references etc. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:34, 6 November 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 Schools in Croydon. Rarely must an article be deleted just because someone reverted an edit to it. -Splash - tk 19:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Park Hill Junior School

Following the herd, I originally only redirected this non-notable school for 7 and 11 year olds to its local government. Somebody reverted my redirection, so I have no choice but to request your indulgence for the deletion of this page. SolidPlaid 00:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems perfectly valid to me; I can't see what the issue is. — iridescent 00:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that there is nothing notable about this school. The two sources on the page are listings for reviews of conditions of all the schools in England. SolidPlaid 01:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per nom. A Non-notable school, fails WP:N. TJ Spyke 02:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, schools nearly always fail notability. digitalemotion 02:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an ofsted report does not a notable school make Ohconfucius 03:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a reason that you can't just re-revert the page back to a redirect, rather than deleting it? --Goobergunch|? 05:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per DGG, as nobody's provided a reason. Deletion should be a last resort, and a redirect is fine here. --Goobergunch|? 23:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, no evidence of notability. RGTraynor 08:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These school entries annoy me. Why shouldn't we have entries on every starbucks or wal mart? Anyway, non notable, original research, etc etc... all the usual suspects. Epthorn 15:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The original decision to redirect was the right treatment, and this afd should formalize it. There is not enough specific information for a separate article on this primary school. DGG (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, but what if there was a redirect for every school in the world? Then there would have to be a bunch of disambiguation pages to sort them out. Wikipedia's internal search engine will find these schools on their list pages anyway, so I would like the page just plain deleted. SolidPlaid 06:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 15:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Schools in Croydon - School does not seem notable for its own entry, so a re-direct is perfectly reasonable. Again they are no big deal, and very few re-directs need to turn into disambiguation pages so I do not see that as a problem. Camaron1 | Chris 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Schools in Croydon - For all the reasons above. Pafcool2 17:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Schools in Croydon - gee, just do it! I have added the photo to that article. TerriersFan 22:04, 9 November 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 some and merge/redirect some per Zagalejo. --Polaron | Talk 04:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pigeon Loves Things That Go!

No assertion of notability. May be spam. Llajwa 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are pages for each of this author's books, likewise without assertion of notability. All are listed in and linked from the author's article, Mo Willems.

These ones received a prize or honorable mention, and are not included in this AfD:

Llajwa 17:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all nominated books, keeping the three award winners not included in this AFD. --Richard 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richard. STORMTRACKER 94 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Doctorfluffy 22:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. all. A book with an ISBN number? Not just anyone can do that. Wiwaxia 00:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An ISBN combined with availability at several libraries and catalogued status a national library is the bare minimum layed out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Perhaps some or all of these books meet these, but merely having an ISBN is not proof of notability. Bobby1011 05:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- Books are clearly notable enough to be published. The author is an award winner. Just merge the the questionable books into the authors page with elaboration on the more successful and notable ones.Hagan jared 02:50, 1 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, Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles definitely aren't spam; they were created by badlydrawnjeff, an established editor. I know that at least some of these would pass WP:BK, so give me time to research each of them. I'll tell you what I've found shortly. Zagalejo^^^ 02:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Don't Let the Pigeon Stay Up Late is a definite keeper. It's been reviewed in several newspapers, it was voted as one of the top three books for its age group by a Scholastic Books poll, it has appeared on several best-seller lists, and it won a NAPPA award. (I gleaned all this from a Newsbank search; I'll add refs to the article in a little while). Zagalejo^^^ 02:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Knuffle Bunny Too seems to pass WP:BK. It was listed on several best-seller lists and was the subject of multiple newspaper reviews. (Again, I'll add refs in a little bit.) Zagalejo^^^ 02:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edwina, The Dinosaur Who Didn't Know She Was Extinct is also worth keeping. It's a NAPPA award winner and it was reviewed in newspapers. Zagalejo^^^ 02:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time to Pee! was reviewed by several newspapers and magazines, so that one is salvageable. Zagalejo^^^ 02:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Today I Will Fly, My Friend Is Sad, There is a Bird on Your Head, and I am Invited to a Party were all part of the Elephant and Piggie series. The series as a whole was fairly well-reviewed in newspapers, including the New York Times. We could probably merge these into one article. Zagalejo^^^ 03:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the others, we can just make them redirects to the author's page. They may also pass WP:BK, though I don't have any clear evidence at the moment. Zagalejo^^^ 03:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all nominated. The only links I found were trade. digitalemotion 02:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you look? Zagalejo^^^ 02:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added refs to Don't Let the Pigeon Stay Up Late! I have to leave for a little while, but I'll get to the others as soon as I can. Zagalejo^^^ 03:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've added refs to Knuffle Bunny Too: A Case of Mistaken Identity, Edwina, the Dinosaur Who Didn't Know She Was Extinct, and Time to Pee. I'm not sure how much I'd be able to do with the rest, but we should at least redirect them to the author's page for the time being. I might be able to expand those later. Zagalejo^^^ 06:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as researched by Zagalejo; redirect the remainder. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. If someone would like to transwiki it, please request temp undeletion at WP:DRV.-Splash - tk 19:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yale University Open Educational Resources Video Lecture Project

Reads like a press release; crystal ball issues; no assertion of noteworthiness by reliable sources. ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur about press release; also WP:CRYSTAL. JJL 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedia article. Not even an attempt at an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, not something that could even be turned into an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible transwiki probably not simple delete - This may be appropriate for Wikiversity. --Emesee 19:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McMaster University Bus Terminal

Article is non-notable in an encyclopedia. This information can easily be found on the website gotransit.com YCCHAN 07:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom; unsourced and with zero notability beyond the university. Zero Google hits beyond this article and five other Wiki mirrors. What are we talking about here, the loop and attendant wind shelter that services the university? RGTraynor 08:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete this bus terminal does not appear to be significant and looks like a regular stop. Delete if no secondary sources are cited over the course of the AFD. --Polaron | Talk 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the whole article waiting for the notability part to come in, and it never did. Apparently somebody just wrote an article on a bus terminal. Why someone might do such a thing is a mystery for the ages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as totally nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwen

Non-notable and vanity page. No citations included or exist. YCCHAN 07:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The article mentions he's a politician but says nothing about the position he holds or has held in the past. Nothing specific. --70.81.23.96 08:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable, contradictorily, only 8 GHits incl. Wikipedia. Page creator 132.206.67.45 stated that Kanwen was mayor of Shanghai at the age of 22, some hours later an ip from the same range changed the content to this, and - you've assumed it - both ips are registered to McGill University, Department of Electrical Engineering. And he is also a nice guy. --Oxymoron⁸³ 08:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I'm stating the obvious here, but nobody by this name (or anything similar) was ever mayor of Shanghai. There's a list of the real mayors at Politics of Shanghai. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete article is more about the subject's grandfather than the subject, and in any case asserts no notability for either of them. A trout slap to us all for allowing this crap to sit around for over two years!! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:43, 5 November 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. -Splash - tk 19:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Judaism (Germany)

Note: this article was originally part of another article proposed for deletion - see View AfD) - I believe it is the wish of HG to have all articles involved in the refactoring of Reform Judaism and Progressive Judaism proposed for deletion so I'm am voluntarily adding the AfD Egfrank 14:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: refactoring of this article is necessary: please see the following AfD's for additional pro/con comments:
Egfrank 14:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HG. I have not requested this AfD. (I've also deleted a comment of mine moved by the nom from another page.) Perhaps this was an attempt at humor, at doing me a favor, or at making me look foolish, but I don't think it's helpful to nominate articles for AfD in order to oppose deletion. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HG - No intent to make you look foolish was intended. When User:IZAK moved German Reform movement (Judaism) to Reform Judaism (Germany) he unwittingly turned what was supposed to be a historical article into an article on the present day German progressive movement. Because the historical period needs to be linked to separately from the modern movement (the historical period reflects intellectual history shared between several streams of Judaism + German philosophical and intellectual history), I split the article into a historical and current portion.

Since the original combined article had an AfD, I was worried that if I did not duplicate the AfD on both halves of the split article, the split up of the article might have been viewed as an "attempt to escape an AfD" for at least part of the article. Rather than risk the accusation, I added the AfD to both halves of the article. Egfrank 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll agf your afd. Anyway, this AfD can be closed as Keep or withdrawn.HG | Talk 05:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 Classic Players

No references, not edited by many established users, pointless, incomplete, (????? replace names) F 9 T 21:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information No more bongos 05:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is equivalent to the tracklisting of an album? Both list part of the contents of an entity. Take this for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_%28album%29 - Can you list the game itself or the game's website as sources? There is no where else that I can find on the internet to provide a hard link to to source it. The ???? will removed and the information completed before the end of the week. Are you not allowed placeholders for other contributors to fill in unknown information on wikipedia? Gazzinho 23:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article is not complete that is no reason for it to be deleted. It is not pointless as it gives people who wish to edit their teams the correct names for the players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.123.133 (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated it, plus the fact there are no sources etc. etc. the lists can probably be found else where. Poor layout too. F 9 T 18:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. Noor Aalam 22:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-encyclopedic game guide material. --Stormie 05:23, 8 November 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. Kurykh 00:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taotroyism

Non-notable religion, zero google hits, appears to be made up. Contested PROD. -- Gogo Dodo 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detroylete, possible even speedy under WP:CSD#G3. The editor has apparently just stuck his own name in the middle of an existing religion's name. Pure WP:NFT/WP:HOAX material. ~Matticus ^T_C 21:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice (sadly, hoax isn't a speedy criteria) and indef hardblock the creator. I've already blocked him once for his uploading of hoax pages and whatever AGF I had to him is now exhausted. — iridescent 23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again iride for blocking my 1st listing while I was in the process of editing it. It wasn't reposted because you deleted it, it was reposed because i was in the process of editing it and continued to hit save as I progressed my writing.

My second posting is now questionable as well, when we living in a world where things are created every second, my post gets deleted because it does not produce a Google search.

Try Googlin' some of the fundamental principals of Taotroyism as mentioned in the article and see how many results they produce.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddcreativity (talk • contribs)

- Comment to closing admin - you may want to have a look at this before taking anything Caddcreativity says too seriously. Incidentally, it was Gogo Dodo who deleted the previous version of this article. I have, however, deleted your attempts to post your resume in various places four times so far. — iridescent 23:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction iride, although it was only 2 places - my name and my userpage, which according to wiki's guidelines can be pretty much about anything - that was my "todo list" - finish it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddcreativity (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, this represents historical relevant religion been stagnant for many milleniums —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.202.30 (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No WP:RS. Probable WP:HOAX or simply WP:BOLLOCKS. --Evb-wiki 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Troy Vincent Lewald 19:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddcreativity (talk • contribs)

Delete No WP:RS, no WP:V, which makes it WP:OR and WP:N. Wikipedia is not for things made up. WP:HOAX likely, I find it a bit... suspect that the creator of the article's name is "Troy", and this is "TaoTROYism"... There is no proof this "religion" exists, and even if it exists to a very few people, it is certainly not covered by any reliable, third-party sources that can verify it. Ariel♥Gold 23:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this should have been speedied. Note that troy is the first name of the user that created it. Proof is just above in this afd, he also emailed me about the SSP case on himself (Caddcreativity) and said so there. This is an obvious hoax. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Me emailing you about another issue has nothing whatsoever to do with this case, try putting 1+1 together again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddcreativity (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it did. But it did show your name is in the article title. Try not mixing apples and oranges. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sure did - this post has nothing to do with the stockpuppet I originally wrote you about. Fruit salad is the secret to life. Troy Vincent Lewald 23:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddcreativity (talk • contribs)

First of all, Caddcreativity, please sign your talk page comments, by typing four tildes after you are finished commenting (Not by typing your name, as that does not sign the post). Second, I think that you have the wrong impression, I don't know what your emails are about, but you said right here in the article what your name is, and it is there for all to see, thus it is not difficult to put it together with the title of the article. Finally, regarding Rlevse's participation here, if he's dealing with you on another issue, most likely went through your contributions, and your participation here is there as well, so I'd appreciate it if you'd have a little good faith and not accuse respected editors of having an agenda when discussing articles for deletion. Thank you, Ariel♥Gold 23:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ArielGold - I did add my signature by placing Troy Vincent Lewald 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC) and that's how it came up as my signature, with my name. Might it have something to do with the RAW formatted signature set in my preferences? The signbot should check for that. I wrote and email toUser:Rlevse in regards to the "stock puppet" i am being accused of having - NOTHING to do with this article whatsoever, and the discussion of puppets can therefore be shifted back to my userpage instead of here. I have plenty of good faith, although people like to dispute things because of their personal beliefs - everyone has their own agenda. Troy Vincent Lewald 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddcreativity (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hi Ariel - thanks for the input, but give me 60,000 years like christianity had to verify itself and I will do so. I promised the same to user Gogo Dodo && scentTroy Vincent Lewald 23:54, 10 November 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. W.marsh 00:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L-Block

Tetris "character" notable only for winning one user poll contest. Will ^(talk) 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably created by my chums on Board 8. Enok^talk 23:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Something about the poll could be added to Tetris. --Matteh (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tetris like it was before. SNS 23:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tetris, perhaps elaborate a bit more on the different types of Tetriminos in the Tetris article? Knowitall 03:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything relevant into Tetris. 96T 16:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per 96T. -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 15:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tetromino. Kesac 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tetris, like it was before. The GameFAQs Contest stuff (which is the only reason this was even created) is already included in that article. WarpstarRider 18:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking any notability whatsoever. It could be a redirect, but I don't see anyone typing L-Block into the search bar. Man It's So Loud In Here 19:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI type it into the search bar all the time MK141 22:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Renaud

Non-notable junior player who has yet to play professionally. Has not won any major awards and is not considered a Top Prospect (only drafted in 5th round). So has nothing to show notability yet. When/If he plays professionally he can be readded. Djsasso 22:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and Nobability Standards as agreed to on WP:HOCKEY. -Pparazorback 04:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kaiser matias 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Article also reads like a fan site. Flibirigit 20:25, 6 November 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 the sources currently presented in the article are not ideal, and do not present the concept in any great depth, they do establish sufficient ground to satisfy WP:V. WP:N may be satisfied by either the content now present, or the (largely unanalysized) below-mentioned Google News results. While the article needs work, it meets the minimal requirements such that policy does not demand its deletion, and consensus below to do so does not exist. Xoloz 14:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rational mysticism

No stance on the article, it was deleted prod that I restored per request (RDates was contesting it). Prodego ^talk 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Addhoc. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. Rational Mysticism is the title of a book. If you use the google test, you will find hits on the book by John Horgan. It is not a movement, philosophy, stance, position, or anything as insinuated in this article, and is not mentioned as so in the book, it is simply the title.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 04:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments. Upon inspection of what has changed since the page has reappeared from oblivion, I see two "references" have been added (which is really the only thing that has changed besides some re-wording). The first reference is simply an exercises in someone typing in "rational mysticism" in google book search, the second is a review of the book entitled Rational Mysticism (why not the book itself then?). Again, there IS NO "Rational Mysticism" movement...its called science. Horgan never claimed to be some part of a "movement" or new philosophy. Anyone doubting can go to google book search and see for yourself.

Delete it's just a book title, and nobody much as used it. DGG (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a genuine philosophical theory. Dr E. Jane Cooper wrote part of her thesis on this aspect of Plotinus's work, and had an article published in which she discusses it. (I know her and could get her to add something here if anyone thinks it relevant.) Anarchia 07:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepRational mysticism is not a movement but an important concept in building intellectual bridges between science, religion and metaphysics. The author Sam Harris discusses the concept in an on-line article. When you google the term, you find a number of references to the concept which have nothing to do with Horgan or Horgan's book.Richard Dates —Preceding comment was added at 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you refering to this page? This is simply a defense of his book "End of Faith". Does he even mention the phrase "Rational Mysticism" ever again in the article? Where does he lay down the evidence that there is a concept of "Rational Mysticism" that is notable within the scientific community? The burden of proof is on you, not us, to prove there is a "Rational Mysticism" NOTABLE concept and to find some basic principles being layed down by one or more notable scientists. It doesn't matter if you think it is important. Anything else is just classic original research. Plus, most of the concepts in this page have already been covered in the Neurotheology article. Also see WP:WING--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 21:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we don't have to prove anything of the sort. The only hurdle is demonstrating the article complies with general notability guideline.--Addhoc 22:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This article fails every one of those critera except that the cites you are adding are verifiable. Speaking of which, please stop adding bad faith cites to the article. It is not substantially notable, if at all, which is why you have resorted to searching every single book in google database and only coming up with a couple of "cites" that do not reference each other and make no case for being part of any movement.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't accuse other editors of acting in bad faith in this manner. I don't remember saying there was a movement, and you continue to invent criteria. Your latest is apparently the citations must reference each other. Again the single criterion is the general notability guideline.--Addhoc 22:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that this article passes each of those criteria; it doesn't so you can't. I challenge you to attempt though. You are the one inventing....notability that is. Have you even read the books you are "citing" through google book search? Do you know what you are citing? Please, I challenge you to defend these cites. The cites must be more than just verifiable, in case you haven't read the notablity guideline in whole. --Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A genuine avenue of investigation. Xxanthippe 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral. It has four solid references now which give good support for the hypothesis that it does not violate no original research policy; it may accumulate more. — Athaenara ✉ 06:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC) (Changed my ‘Keep’ to ‘Neutral’ at 02:10, 10 November 2007 UTC. — Athaenara ✉ )[reply]

How are these solid references? Yes, they exist, but are they relevant? Notable? Are they even related to one another? He used google book search and pulled up random mentionings of the phrase "rational mysticism", most of which are mentioned only once or twice in their respective books. These references have no relation to one another, and are talking about different things in their own respective contexts (read more of the books he cites). What else can the phrase "rational mysticism" mean but that? It will always say something about the unity of mysticism and science whenever it happens to come up on google book search...the question at hand is whether there is actually a notable area of thought that is called "rational mysticism". Finally, if there actually was a "rational mysticism" area of thought, surely John Horgan would make reference to it in his book entitled RATIONAL MYSTICISM...but he DOESNT. Not a single time. He mentions nothing of the sort. This is proof positive in my view that this entire article is being made up as its written.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 09:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: it was I who deleted it as an expired prod five days after Hypergeometric tagged it. — Athaenara ✉ 18:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1: This goes back as far as Robert Jastrow's God and the Astronomers (1978) and farther. Diligent referencing will help. — Athaenara ✉ 06:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: The term "rational mysticism" was used by 20th century South African philosopher J.N. Findlay and has also been attributed to 3rd century Greek philosopher Plotinus, among others. It is the title of a 1924 book by William Kingsland and an article for Free Inquiry by Sam Harris. Please note that I am not defending the concept in and of itself but pointing out that a substantive basis for an encyclopedia article about it exists. — Athaenara ✉ 18:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article by Sam Harris? It is a defense of his book "End of Faith"; it is not about a supposed "rational mysticism" movement. Yes, it was a title of two books, one of which (by Horgan), never mentions the phrase again. Do you know what these book are about? Do you know what scientific idealism is? Does it have anything to do with an actual movement that is notable and related to the other cites? Be sure to follow through on all of these cites.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recration. The current sources only mention the phrase in passing, or reference the book by this title. They are not about any "movement." The article as written appears to be unique synthesis of the material towards a specific viewpoint. -- Kesh 13:53, 8 November 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.