Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 8

< October 7	October 9 >

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 speedy delete (CSD G1: Patent Nonsense). PeaceNT 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compz

I would say this fails WP:NOTDICT, but I can't find a single reference of the word 'Compz' used in this manner. So probably fails WP:NEO. (Also, what's with the random person!?) A^RendedWinter 23:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per WP:Speedy#G1. This is patent nonsense if anything is. Deltopia 01:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per Deltopia KnightLago 02:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per patent nonsense. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Also delete the guy's image--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G1, so tagged. Unsourced, uncontextual and unverified. TheLetterM 12:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Untitled Sean Paul album

The result was a clear consensus to delete. -- Denelson 83 05:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No real content, fails WP:CBALL. Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minimal content available to pass WP:CRYSTAL; sources linked all fail WP:RS (two blogs and a link that now redirects elsewhere). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL. No confirmed tracks, few indications that it even exists. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that it is, as yet, non-notable. --Beloved Freak 17:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent Will ^(talk) 17:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ronnotel 03:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:CBALL case. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 16:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crusties

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC Rackabello 23:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, tagged for A7. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 01:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last Exile - Plot

Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Rackabello 23:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible speedy per WP:CSD#G4, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Last_Exile_Plot. shoy 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under criterion G4 (repost). Thanks for bringing that to our attention Rackabello 23:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a repost. Also, article was prodded and deleted from Last Exile Plot Summary on 2007-09-23. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent article may be more expedient than a speedy. The main problem is that the parent article has forked this to a separate article, resulting in the continual recreations. Of course, by rights this can be speedied on sight, but we are likely to have to deal with this over and over unless we head this off at the pass by merging the content back to the parent article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As it stands, this is way too long to be merged into the parent article. A short summary could be included. --Beloved Freak 17:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per everyone. JuJube 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. This is clearly unsuitable for inclusion. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. A short summary could be included in the main article but nothing like the size of this. --Beloved Freak 17:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I taken the opportunity to be bold and merged the plot article back into the main article. This should never have been split off into a separate article, which violates WP:NOT#PLOT and is not a valid way of dealing with an overly long plot section. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Does not warrent its own article. ff m 23:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- TheFarix's move seems a reasonable way to handle this. It looks as though this issue has been dealt with. How does everyone else feel? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can close this Rackabello 14:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete acknowledging Farix's merge. I agree with Rackabello, this issue appears to be resolved. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the redirect. There is no reason to have a redirection article with that name. -- Magioladitis 13:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — the sources provided (and added the article during the AFD action) do provide satisfaction for the general notability criterion. Template:cleanup-afd will be affixed to the article in accordance with several comments below. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy (book)

Plot summary of a non-notable graphic novel. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:SOURCES Rackabello 23:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I have nothing to add other than to endorse what the nominator has said. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have no doubt the lengthy plot summary is accurate despite the lack of verifiable sources, bt the article needs to assert the notability of this book compared to verify other graphic novel, and it doesn't. No internet sources easily locatable either. Euryalus 06:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs a cleanup and sourcing. This is the first item to appear in an Amazon search for "Fluffy" in the books section, and has received reviews in most major British national daily newspapers. In addition, I'm not sure how good Eurylaus's Google skills are, but a fairly perfunctory search turns up not just Amazon and other bookseller listings, but commentary articles from the Guardian newspaper and the Royal College of Art. In addition, the work included in the book has won international art prizes, and the artist herself is respected enough to have won other prizes, including one awarded by the Victoria and Albert Museum. To argue that this work is non-notable, and certianly less notable than many other books with Wikipedia pages, is just daft and/or blinkered. Pyrop e 12:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The online sources which I turned up have been added to the page, albeit briefly, and tags have been updated to indicate cleanup needed. Pyrop e 23:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The citations found by Pyrope need to go in the article, but they demonstrate notability under WP:NB. Bondegezou 14:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Struck through prior vote. Sources above clearly indicate notability. They should be added to the article, and the article needs cleanup, but this is no longer a delete issue. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User talk:Pyrope; passes WP:N, just needs cleanup and some real-world perspective. --Beloved Freak 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lack of verifiable sources means that this article provides no evidence of notability. Perhaps one of the editors in favour of keeping the article could userfy the article pending clean up before it is deleted? --Gavin Collins 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources that Pyrope found seem verifiable and to indicate notability to me... just because they haven't been added to the article yet doesn't mean you can ignore that they've been shown to exist. A nomination for AfD doesn't mean an article has to be deleted if sources aren't there before the end of the AfD. Pinball22 18:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Add sources, but also cleanup. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn per nom, despite Pyrope's sources. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, just ignore WP:N then? Pyrop e 09:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Book has multiple independent and non-trivial articles about it as per central criteria of WP:BK. Both the Guardian article and the RCA article qualify. Having said that the article needs shortening and cleeaning up to be useful - but that's not a dicussion for here, here we only decide if it's notable. It is. A1octopus 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like notability standard has been met per references to reliable sources but does need cleanup. Ronnotel 03:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obstacles to a democratic world government

This would make a very lovely school essay, but seems to be utterly unsourced WP:OR. Also has some severe POV issues. A^RendedWinter 23:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV Rackabello 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... but good luck on the campaign Mandsford 02:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as screedcruft. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOV. This is obviously opinionated. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#SOAP --Phirazo 19:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ff m 23:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SOAP, OR, NPOV. Also poorly written. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fascinating concept, but the article is written as if it is arguing for it, rather than providing a neutral discussion of the topic. If there are actually sources written on the topic, then perhaps an article could exist, i.e. one that cites these sources, but we really should not have articles arguing for the creation of something as the article does in its conclusion: "In conclusion, the best way to help the underprivileged is to establish a democratic world government." So, I tend to agree with the original research/point of view problems cited above in this instance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThere is already an article on World government. I see nothing to merge here though. --Phirazo 18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MaxSem 12:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in California

A list containing trivial info, violates WP:DIRECTORY Chris! _ct 23:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - see {{USRadio}} for some more. Tim Q. Wells 02:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When they make a radio that tunes in the stations in alphabetical order, this will be handy.... Mandsford 02:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not make it more like this list? Tim Q. Wells 02:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LIST. This could perhaps be organized better, but that is a content issue and such content issues are not really a deletable offense. If organized by, say, city of origin or some such it would be a workable list. This needs cleanup, not deletion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be marked for cleanup Rotovia 07:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be useful. ff m 23:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:USEFUL Jbeach56 00:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or categorise all those list of radio stations articles, seriously wikipedia isn't a directory, and I see no special info that a category isn't good for. Jbeach56 00:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. The "seems useful" (WP:ILIKEIT) argument is far from persuasive; the list is neither interesting, not encyclopedic, nor especially informative, and categories suffice for this sort of thing. Biruitorul 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list can provide a view of how the radio spectrum of a locality is sliced, something that a category cannot. Further, the radio spectrum is finite with respect to broadcast stations and frequency allocation is important from business, governmental and technical points of view (at least), thus lending the content encyclopedic value. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Enterprises

Possible hoax, no obvious mention of this Howard Enterprises among the numerous ones produced by a google search - the bio of the owner seems to be that of a teenager which makes this somewhat less likely to be true. Carlossuarez46 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Now you mention it, it could be just one kid's fantasy. Disconcertingly I find that Stephen Howard Homes are real and have someone on their staff called Jeremy Brown. But it matters little, since, without refs, we can delete this as hoax / spam. -- RHaworth 02:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mere lack of references is no reason to delete as a hoax, if there is some evidence it exists I say keep for now, tag and rework.JJJ999 08:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - mere lack of references is not a reason for deletion, but being unverifiable is. A search for Howard enterprises yeilds a US agricultural machinery company. But that's not this company. -- Whpq 17:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unrefed --RaiderAspect 12:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up with references added. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a hoax. The article even includes specific references to Mister Terrific (Michael Holt), a fictional character from DC comics. -- Whpq 16:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Someone with too much time on their hands? Ronnotel 03:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V, probable hoax. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Verrai 03:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knotj3d

Non-notable knot drawing program. -- RHaworth 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -per nom, is not notable program. --MarsRover 05:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marsrover. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOFT ff m 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Ronnotel 03:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 14:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Anderson

Article does not assert notability, I think, and most of it is unreferenced. Anderson was rumoured to have been involved in the slaying of Tupac Shakur, but was murdered himself before anything like evidence or an arrest was going to be looked into. Page has only two or three vague references, but I still think it should be deleted per WP:V because almost all of the content is unsourced. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, implying someone is murderer needs good references (and evidence) MarsRover 05:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the alleged murderer of Tupac garners a significant amount of public interest, certainly notable Rotovia 07:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ridiculously easy to source, covered in major music publications as well as top US papers (LAT investigation) and received international attention. --Dhartung | Talk 12:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if it was that simple to add references to the page, don't you think it would have been much better by now? The article has existed since 27 January 2005, and still looks like a "pitiful" stub. BTW, he wasn't even a suspect during both investigations of the Tupac and Biggie murders, Anderson was just a supposed gang member brought in for police questioning. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rotovia. However, editing for NPOV and careful compliance with WP:BLP is important. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he is not alive anymore (not sure if there is a WP:BDP out there). But I agree the same compliance should be used since its not like he can correct it himself. MarsRover 03:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think WP:VERIFY should be mentioned as well: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→Tupac Shakur This appears to be an example of a person notable for a single event/action. There is content of Tupac Shakur related to his death; information about Orlando Anderson that is relevant to Tupac's death should be merged into the article on Tupac. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Passover, with history intact. Whether, what, and where to merge is, as always, an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mazzoth

Appears to be a WP:POVFORK of Passover. Presents a theory on the origin of Passover which could be incorporated in a section of that article and results in a situation in which academic viewpoints are in one article and religious viewpoints in another, which the WP:POVFORK guideline is designed to prevent. --Shirahadasha 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Shirahadasha 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible/Biblical criticism work group#Mazzoth.--Shirahadasha 23:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete The first half of the article is a summary of the Biblical commandments concering Passover; the second, as the nominator wrote, is Biblical criticism. Anything of value here that isn't already in Passover should be merged, and this article deleted. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that after a merge, a redirect is necessary to preserve author data in compliance with the GFDL. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Matzo article. IZAK 08:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matzo if anyone want to merge they can find it in the history. Jon513 09:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Matzo/Passover. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article states that its subject is a holiday, not a food item, so Passover rather than Matzo would appear to be the more logical merge. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean to say merge to passover and redirect to matzo. Jon513 10:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Obvious soapboxing/personal essay - previously deleted and this AFD was previously closed. Mr.Z-man 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Nigeria Going?

I thought I'd nominate this rather than add a speedy tag because it does offer some interesting information but I don't believe it's worthy of an article by itself and should perhaps be merged with Nigeria RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 22:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, OR essay. Corvus cornix 22:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. PMDrive1061 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. This was also an AfD item yesterday -- I'm not sure why it's been relisted here today. Am I missing something? Accounting4Taste 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say...to delete as original research... Smashville 23:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay. ff m 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. T'is a personal essay. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, this is all POV rhetoric. I don't see anything which could be turned into a citeable statement. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications Tower

Second listing for this office tower. The article does not cite any verfiable claim to notability, but I can tell you that it was designed by same firm architects responsible for the Opéra Bastille. My view is that WP is not a real estate listing site, and without secondary sources, this type of article should be discouraged. --Gavin Collins 22:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 22:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not the "second listing" for this article, it's the first. The AfD you cited was for Telecommunications Complex and the result of that AfD (which was closed literally within the last 24 hours) was to redirect to this article. Now you want to delete this one? Spanish Wikipedia has an even larger article on this topic and this was the subject of multiple secondary sources, like from El Espectador [1][2] and La Capital [3]. And being designed by the same person who designed the Opéra Bastille is another good reason to keep this. --Oakshade 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the Spanish WP entry does not cite any sources either. Is there any proof that it is the tallest building or is that just hearsay? --Gavin Collins 18:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I didn't even mention the tallest building in Uraguay claim, but that is 100% verifiable. Even if it isn't the tallest (I think it is), that is not a valid reason to delete this article. --Oakshade 20:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The tallest building in the country must be notable! --Malcolmxl5 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article claims it to be the tallest building in Uruguay, and judging from the pic, it's the tallest thing around. SolidPlaid 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The tallest building in a country is notable.--Cube lurker 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source using above references (and/or others) as they seem to satisfy both WP:N and WP:RS. (This also fits in pretty well with combating bias, especially as it is verifiable and notable.) --Craw-daddy | T | 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if not the tallest, its the HQ of the National Telecoms company and the subject of controversy over the finances of its building. Or is this another case of because you are not interested in the subject it must be non-notable and worthy of deletion.KTo288 01:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 16:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. Brayton

Seemingly fails WP:BIO. It is nicely referenced, but, really, what makes this fellow so special we should have an encyclopedia entry on him? As far as I can tell, nothing. Biruitorul 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with the nominator, this is well-written, nicely referenced, and doesn't meet WP:BIO. And I'm sure if there was any further notability available, the careful author would have included it. This seems like some kind of geneaological project offshoot. Accounting4Taste 23:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Acounting4Taste. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree this looks like genealogy. Has anyone tried to get in touch w/ the author to suggest wikitree or genealogy.wikia --lquilter 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice article, but doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Smirk

This article is trivial OR and the below section on Peter Costello is a WP:POVFORK to avoid WP:BLP by it not appearing in Peter Costello Shot info 22:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom MarsRover 05:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Euryalus 06:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced neologism. The link to Captain Kirk is unconvincing and unreferenced. The link to Secret of Monkey Island is genuine but not important enough for it's own article (and it is noted that this page was originally a redirect to Monkey Island). The principal point is as a fork of Peter Costello, using text that has been repeatedly removed from the Costello article as POV and unnecessary. Euryalus 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Euryalus. Gratuitous POV article with no redeeming encyclopaedic merit at all. A redirect back to Monkey Island may also be an acceptable solution. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads as a POV-influenced attempt to bolster the status of a neologism. Melburnian 07:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete senseless. JJL 13:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft. Twenty Years 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redirect construction isnt what it used to be Satu Suro 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 16:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Mess Wit Tha South

This is a supposed future album with no sources. Most of the article is unsourced guest appearances and is too crystall-bally at the moment. Spellcast 22:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mostly because of notability but also because of CRYSTAL per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree article fails notability and WP:CRYSTAL Brianlucas 22:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable, unsourced and crystall bally. West Coast Ryda 21:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Future album with no sources, definite WP:CBALL case. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 - copyright infringement. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pell Center of International Relations and Public Policy

Perhaps a legitimate article on this subject could be written, but this isn't it. This is, in fact, blatant advertising ripped off the website - perhaps speedy deletion material, even. Biruitorul 22:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I've tagged it under WP:CSD#G12, original text is at [4] Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me by mere seconds, Yngvarr; I had an edit conflict when I went to save. :) I was trying to Speedy it, too. GMTA. Deltopia 22:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Davidson

Local TV reporter, no assertion of notability, no references, reads like a resume. Biruitorul 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Notability (people), to wit: "The person has received significant recognized awards or honours," and a Regional Emmy award meets that threshold. Also, why would she have grown less notable than she was for the last three nominations? I agree this isn't a very encyclopedic article, but it needs editing, not deleting... I'll try to work on improving it some tonight. Deltopia 22:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As a copy and paste job from the tagged website. Spellcast 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just realised there was a non-copyvio version in the article history, which I reverted back to. The copyvio text was added by an anon. Spellcast 23:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Emmys are fully sufficient. perhaps the nom did not notice them. I think this a case for a SNOW keep. DGG (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, I didn't notice that. However, as it's merely a regional Emmy (recipients of which we don't list), I still don't see particular notability. Nevertheless, this nomination (made in good faith) does appear doomed to fail, so let the chips fall where they may. Biruitorul 04:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anchorwoman in a MAJOR market. The Emmy seals the deal.--Sethacus 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per regional emmy as a significant award.--Cube lurker 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NFT --Haemo 23:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Roberts-Rose theorem

Article by a student about his "theorem" that is little more than an application of basic algebra. I prod'ed it since it didn't seem to fit a speedy category--the prod was removed by the author with the explanation "New credible mathematical discovery". Non-notable subject made up in school one day. --Finngall ^talk 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm taking basic Algebra and I could have figured that out... Delete — no sources; original research; non-notable "theorem" made up in school one day. --Ag ü eybaná 22:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow-thank u for this, KEEP, all mathematical discoveries should be preserved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.36.151 (talk • contribs)
- Sure, as long as they have sources. --Ag ü eybaná 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NO I agree it should be kept, and Agüeybaná maybe you could have done it yourself but the point is that you didn't and it sounds like you're a little jealous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.36.151 (talk • contribs)
Delete Hooray for Mark and Adam. Mandsford 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Timothy Clemans
Delete account of non-notable rediscovery of simple algebraic identity. Gandalf61 22:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry I havn't meant to cause this controversy, just felt that this should have been made known. After all we are always striving to delve deeper into mathematics are we not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkRoberts127 (talk • contribs)
I love that not only was this made up in school one day, the article actually lists which school and which day. Question: Does this work for a=i (the sq rt of -1)? If not, I have to say delete. :) Deltopia 23:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although the articles desperatedly need sources, the subject of the article is sufficiently notable to meet WP:MUSIC, and, therefore, his albums are also notable enough to have their own articles. Non-admin closure. --Agüeybaná 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indo G

The only asser of notability is that the artists worked with Three 6 Mafia. The article also does not cite any sources. Tasc0 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: also nominating the related articles.

Keep Besides the Three 6 connection, he meets a WP:MUSIC criterion by having two albums released by Luke Records. --Groggy Dice T | C 12:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Groggy Dice said, two albums on Luke Records, plus another on Relativity Records, would seem to qualify him under WP:BAND. Bondegezou 14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Groggy Dice and Bondegezou, the Three 6 Mafia connection, the two albums on Luke Records, and the one on Relativity Records constitute notability. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meep WP:MUSIC so has to kept, but definitely needs a good cleanup. --Kudret abi^Talk 07:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Henley

AfDs for this article:

Minor local meteorologist, no references, no assertion of notability. Biruitorul 22:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above reckoning, and ALSO should be deleted for the exact same reasons it was deleted before. Nothing has changed about this article since the last time it was deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local weathermen not generally considered notable. --Groggy Dice T | C 12:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is orphan, unreferenced. Some information written, like "the Miami Beach" is really non-notable. -- Magioladitis 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, no references showing coverage in secondary sources, fails WP:BIO. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that this is inherently a WP:BLP violation or WP:COATRACK or whathaveyou. However, there seems to be some considerable duplication over various articles covering this topic, and a broader look at how we cover it might be worthwhile and help solve the concerns of people wanting to delete this article. W.marsh 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country

Violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E. This afd is a followup to those at Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa) and three other American states. Corvus cornix 22:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh, sure, let's pretend it didn't happen. The worldwide investigation and lawsuits over clerical sex abuse are probably the biggest crisis in the church's history since the Reformation. Some people live through history without realizing it. Mandsford 22:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just was using this page for some research, quite handy. Speciate 00:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aspects of this article are encyclopedic, it covers notable public advocacy and Church responses to the crisis in each country, but it's also used as a WP:COATRACK and there are some serious WP:BLP issues with naming of otherwise non-notable individuals, some of whom haven't even been convicted of a crime. If these issues can't be dealt with the article needs to go. -- SiobhanHansa 01:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTNEWS is about current events which, whilst they may be verifiable, are not of historic or encyclopedic importance. This is quite clearly not the case here. WP:BLP1E is even less relevent: it is saying that "living people notable only for one event" are "Unlike to warrant ... a separate biography". This is completely irrelevent to this article (see WP:NNC). I can see no good argument for deletion here. -- simxp (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC) (Clarification: the article should, of course, be restricted to cases where guilt has been actually established in a court of law; but that's an editing issue. -- simxp (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Per the many wikipolicies in WP:NOT that this article violates. Specifically, you can't use Wikipedia as a directory. Another reason to delete it is that it is a source of misinformation. The article is a very incomplete list of sex abuse cases. Also, there should be no naming of anyone who has not been convicted of a crime for ethical reasons.NancyHeise 04:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete The items can't be dealt with in an article of this nature, devoted to cases.--Start a new one under as Sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, or something of the sort, discussing the general subject and the public reactions. for those cases which have articles in WP, links can be made or see alsos, rather than try to summarize such matters here. And there could and should, for example, be an article for the situation in Boston, which was particularly noteworthy.Otherwise, probably under the articles forthe dioceses. there are many better ways. DGG (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentences says ntable. -- Alan Liefting talk 20:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On close inspection it's more listings and scandal rag than encyclopedic treatment and the really encyclopedic treatment of the issue is already covered at Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases. WP:BLP issues are bad and unlikely to be avoided if the article remains. -- SiobhanHansa 10:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are right-- and details are already included under dioceses. They should be checked, to make sure we do not inappropriately specific the victims. DGG (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The title is a POV giveaway as if R-C owned sex abuse. The article seems to be intended to embarrass the listees rather than to inform the readers. Informing the readers is important but needs to be done in a NPOV way. Editors on a vendetta appear to have contributed heavily to this article. As a result, the feel of the article is more tabloid than encylopedic.Student7 12:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if kept it should be renamed to "List of ... in modern era" not to suggest an overview article about the topic. I suggest to delete it otherwise. Pavel Vozenilek 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge merge with article this article, and I added main article tag on it for the meantime. Carter | Talk to me 08:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the info from that page to make two meaningful shorter pages. -- Alan Liefting talk 20:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is notable. -- Alan Liefting talk 20:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a bit concerned that this article will start a whole new series of entries with every religion or sect. It would be a denial to say that this is not notable, but wikipedia is already a battle ground. May be we should have a new norm in wikipedia on being responsible within reason. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 13:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 23:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fifa 08 Player Ratings

List of default "player ratings" in FIFA 08. Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this is mostly (if not completely) original research, and there are about 500-600 teams in the game (making this list almost impossible to even finish, let alone maintain), I think this article should be deleted. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a games guide. Corvus cornix 22:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke per WP:NOT#INSTRUCTION. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 22:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear... Delete, a bad idea through and through. WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE, probably some others too... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 But article does seem to need a major rewrite... still, there's a consensus for an article on this topic, and the current one can be scraped down to the stub suggested below by "ZZ" if nothing else. W.marsh 14:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis management

Delete ~~and Salt~~ contested prod. Article doesn't establish any particular notability for concept, and was tagged unreferenced for the last 6 months. PROD removed without comment, complete rewrite in <12 hours. Article went from badly written how-to guide to press release. History of article is overwhelmingly link-spam and unencyclopedic writing. Since this is a vaguely defined, promotional buzzword, it's unlikely an article can be written that isn't promoting someone. Violates: WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:NOT. Horrorshowj 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Business buzzword whose article probably can't be rewritten in a neutral, non-spammy, form. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Crisis management depicts what organisations (governments/companies) do when there is some kind of catastrophe, tidal waves and fires come to mind. It's a common term to the UK, just because Americans don't use or understand this term doesn't mean the article should be deleted. It is a badly written article but the prod and Afd were a mistake. Operating 12:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming the only reason for nomination is due to my being American is ridiculous. I admitted the term exists but if it's a notable and definitive concept, where are the references? This article has been around since 2003 and still doesn't have any. The edit history of the article is largely having SPA's completely rewrite it in the image of their other advertisements and linkspam. Give me an article that proves the concept is notable and can be handled in an encyclopedic fashion and I'll withdraw the Afd. Horrorshowj 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a frivolous Afd when i saw it and nothing in this discussion so far has changed my mind. Very few articles on wikipedia are well cited. That doesn't mean they should all be deleted. Operating 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not just a buzzword, it's spawned a whole industry of authors, consultants and other experts even before terrorism became a big concern in 2001. The term incorporates the entirety of protecting personnel, inventory, business data, and other "business continuity" concerns, as well as publicity management and victim or plaintiff interaction. --Dhartung | Talk 12:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When "buzzwords" become widespread, they are notable. I'm not a fan of the article's current state, but the topic is notable, in government and business, and is certainly not a UK-only term. Salting is over the top for an article that hasn't even been deleted once yet. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You're right no preemptive strikes.Horrorshowj 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - still activly under development. May I suggest the Editor get some Citations to support the article better. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no Verifiability. I concede that this is a notable topic, and sources likely exist. However, we already have an article that deals with this topic - Emergency management, of which (in the EU) Crisis Management is a component. From Emergency Management: "Within EU countries the term Crisis Management emphasises the political and security dimension rather than measures to satisfy the immediate needs of the civilian population." The Emergency Management article deals with many of the issues raised in this article, except in a clear manner with multiple sources. Unless there are elements of Crisis Management which do not touch on Emergency Management (the business aspect, for example), then there is nothing in this article worth keeping as a merge to Emergency Management. I have no objection to a new article on Crisis Management, provided that it focuses on the business aspect of the concept (we don't need to duplicate effort), and so long as adequate sources are provided. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. Crisis Management is an important feature to be found in any organisations that recognises the risks it faces and most likely has also built up its business continuity plans. It should not be confused with Emergency Management which has more to do with fire fighting insofar that emergency management it is about tackling an emergency - only. Crisis Management on the other hand, is much more about confirming, controlling and communicating throughout the entire acute period of any catastrophe which could easily last for days or even weeks. Very many organisations have already set up Crisis Management Teams specifically for this purpose to ensure staff are accounted for, stakeholders reassured, someone gives the right message to the media, the correct levers are pulled to trigger an accurate business continuity response and so on. The CM Team would probably liaise with the emergency services when or if, they arrive. Of course some corporate dramas do not require the blue lights to turn up. For example, wide spread public warnings, pandemics, urgent product recalls, financial collapse and so on. However, these scenarios certainly do require crisis management skills. I suggest anyone who doubts what I am saying goes, for example, onto the UK Govt. Dept. for business enterprise and regulatory reform (was the DTI...) http://www.dti.gov.uk/sectors/infosec/infosecadvice/incidentmanagement/crisismanagement --Patrick56 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this. Ref above - as the author of the latest and more comprehensive version (as at 8 October 2007 and subsequently expanded) I have noted what others have said here and an hour ago submitted an amended and more explanatory version.--Patrick56 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)--Patrick56 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge - this article is largely meaningless unsourced speculation and reads like the script for an informercial. The few salient points in the article should be stripped out and moved into Crisis and/or Risk Management. Torc2 23:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Type in "crisis management" on Google and you will see there are already 2,010,000 entries. It's naive to suggest this is a meaningless or speculative subject. It is likewise inaccurate to assume crisis management is just emergency or risk management. Surely the purpose of Wikipedia is to explain terms such as this? Many people, organisations, symposia, conferences and books have crisis management as a core value. Take for example:

--Patrick56 09:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The majority of the google hits I saw, and the majority of the links posted above, are to commercial organizations who appear to be selling goods or services related to Crisis Management. Unfortunately, these aren't good sources. The DTI link is dead, as well - though I found this link that appears to be a successor organization within the British government. That would probably be a good resource to start off with - but only if it's properly incorporated into the article. The goal is to have every statement or fact supported by a reliable source. Currently, none of the statements are supported, and many are claims or advice which may border on Original Research, which is not permissable. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several more external links have just been added to the article following comments on this page.--Patrick56 14:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't you mean to say "I added several external links to the article...?" I agree with ZZ, the links are pretty bad. Also, why did you mark all your edits as minor? They're really not. And why have you voted ~~three times~~ five times on this? Torc2 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course I made changes to my first draft and have not pretended otherwise. These follow various constructive reactions on this page. However, I really do not plan make any more changes as some contributors are, in my opinion, missing the entire point about crisis management. Fortunately the British Standards Institute are not amongst them. I am informed that early next month they are having a meeting specifically to discuss crisis management gaining further recognition by now being considered for a precise British Standard. This plus other external crisis management links (UK Government and others) seem to me to contradict those few people on this page who believe the subject to be a 'gimmick' or 'meaningless unsourced speculation' or a 'promotional buzzword'. I had thought the raison d’être of Wikipedia was to help explain issues like this? --Patrick56 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With all respect, this is a good topic for Wikipedia, no question. The issue is not with the topic, but with the article. The article as it stands is an essay, unsupported by sources. Here's how it should read: "Crisis management is a discipline within Management taht deals primarily with preparations for and reactions to unexpected or serious situations which may threaten to hinder or halt the operations of a business or other organization. The related term Emergency management focuses on the protection of lives and property during an emergency or disaster situation. " There's the lede. Now, each statement thereafter gets a reference. "According to X, Crisis Management is composed of several phases, including Preparedness, Evaluation, Reaction, and Recovery." Then you tag it as a ref and move on. At the end, you add a reflist and it creates a list of all your sources. When people here cite Verifiability and No Original Research, they're saying that the article reads as if it's what you, the author, are saying. It needs to read as if it's a list of stateemnts about the topic, each neutral and backed by an independent, verifiable source that says so. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 00:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of selected cities by population density

AfDs for this article:

This underwent an AFD in July, with the following nomination rationale: The article has no defined criteria for inclusion, and as such, is useless as a list. From WP:LIST - “Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria”. The article's ambiguous title means it can't provide this. Further, the article is predominantly unsourced, and I believe the calculation of the population densities by users (as stated at the top of the article) can be considered original research. This is true, but the AFD was closed as no consensus since some people said things like "keep but define criteria". This has not happened, and as such it is still a collection of random facts as described above. Punkmorten 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No definition of criteria here. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Comment "Perhaps it needs some work; the "selected cities" title is unfortunate, since the locations are worldwide and are chosen for their density, or, in the case of some notable locations, their lack of density. Moreover, there probably needs to be more of an explanation as to the criteria, although one can infer that it's based on the "city limits" of a municipality with its own government. I'd never heard of Levallois-Perret but it apparently is such a municipality, and similar in origins and in name to Levittown; this is a good companion piece to Population denisities; the stats on Manila and Cairo are revealing. Mandsford 03:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)" I'm sorry to report that three months later, nothing seems to have changed. Mandsford 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three months is long enough to conclude nothing is going to happen. --RaiderAspect 12:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note that List of the most densely populated country subdivisions has similar info with clearer objective. Brianlucas 23:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear criteria, semi-random collection of numbers w/o much of context. Comparing apples to oranges, small densely populated districts with whole cities. Pavel Vozenilek 23:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list with no criteria as to how cities are "selected". Seems to be a random collection and not very useful. --Kudret abi^Talk 07:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Contested or not, a speedy is a speedy. Punkmorten 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Turner

First a contested speedy... then a contested prod... so now it washes up here. Patent vanity page with no legitimate assertion of notability whatsoever (although full marks for the attempt to puff it up into something that looks like more than the sum of its parts). — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete still a db-bio regardless of how much purple prose the author writes. JuJube 21:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability seems addressed pretty definitively, but the article needs a lot of work to remove conflict of interest (COI), and then needs to be tucked under the wing of the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) crew. Right now the talk page has no tagging at all, so there's work to be done. If need be the article should be stubbed out and rewritten from scratch to get the COI under control. If need be, User:Mignucci may need counseling on best practices --++Lar: t/c 04:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Mignucci

This article is about an architect. I nominated it for speedy deletion a while back, which was declined. After consideration and the limited research I'm able to do, I don't think this architect is notable. I can find references such as "created by Mignucci..." but no real reviews of his work, and I'm unable to examine the works listed at the bottom as references. Unless I've missed something, which is certainly possible, this article should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 02:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can't find enough references. It is a tough call. If I would see more, verifiable references, press, etc. I would consider changing my mind to a keep. Iamchrisryan 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's an AIA fellow [15], his Children's Park Project won the National Puerto Rico Architecture Award in 2001 [16] (recognized award, per WP:BIO), he is not just a private architect, but also advises (or has advised) the Governor of Puerto Rico on overall city planning [17], and he was the editor of Arquitectura Contemporánea en Puerto Rico from 1976-1992 [18], among many other things. The other thing we ought to consider is that since he's Puerto Rican, those are only the references I could find in English. If you do a search for "Andres Mignucci" and "arquitecto", you get many hits, but my Spanish is unfortunately too elementary to read them quickly. Perhaps someone else can help with that? We have to be careful to consider WP:CSB, as I believe this person has more than demonstrated notability vis a vis Puerto Rican (and even broader - Latin American) architects. SkerHawx 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 06:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a google search turns up little more than that he's active as an architect. Nothing that asserts any particular notability, including Spanish language. Eusebeus 14:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Andres Mignucci has demonstrated notability following the criteria outlined in Wikipedia Guidelines regarding Notability for Academics and Educators WP:PROF.Maribel ortiz 21:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CRITERIA 1 The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

Mignucci, is one of seven members of the Governor’s Council on Planning and Urbanism, is also one of the authors of the Economic Development and Government Transformation Plan for Puerto Rico. See below.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNMENT TRANSFORMATION PLAN FOR PUERTO RICO (PDF) Economic Development and Government Transformation Plan for Puerto Rico: Architect Andrés Mignucci, FAIA, Architect Thomas Marvel FAIA, Dr. Gabriel Moreno, Atty. Omar Jiménez, Architect Liz Melendez www.gobierno.pr/NR/rdonlyres/1A90948D-8AF2-4827-B92F-C938378C1620/0/PDETGEnglishVersion_Nov906_FINAL.pdf]

CRITERIA 2 The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.

In two recent books on Iberoamerican Architecture one in Madrid and one in Mexico, Andrés Mignucci’s work has been highlighted as exemplary in the current architectural discourse in Latin America, Spain and Portugal.

see Gras de Mereles,Louise Noëlle (see bio in Wikipedia German), Arquitectos Iberoamericanos Siglo 21, Fomento Cultural Banamex, Mexico DF, 2006.

Rispa, Raul, Arquitectura Iberoamericana, Madrid, Tanais Editores, October 2004.

Also see

Segre, Roberto, “Arquitetura hispano-americana na mudança de Milênio. A globalização fragmentada: idioma comum, caminhos divergentes” in Arquitextos, Sao Paolo, June 2003.

Montaner, Josep Ma. & Muxi, Zaida, “San Juan: Laboratorio Metropolitano” en Cultura(s) 153, La Vanguardia, pp. 22-23, 26 Mayo 2005, Barcelona.

CRITERIA 3 The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1].

Mignucci is the author/editor of Arquitectura Contemporanea en Puerto Rico 1976-1992, one of the few books on contemporary Puerto Rican architectural history. He is also the co-author of Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930, on traditional architecture in the Dominican Republic. (Mignucci, A., Rigau, J., and Martinez, E., Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930, AIA Puerto Rico, San Juan, 1990).

Other publications and articles by or about Andrés Mignucci include the following:

Acosta, Candida, “Santiago tendrá un Gran Parque Central” in Listín Diario, 18 August 2002, pp.1/18.

Alonso, María Elena, “La Propuesta Ganadora Integra Paisaje, Urbanismo y Arquitectura” in Habitat, Nº1, October 2002, p.26.

Alonso, María Elena, “Premian Diseño Ambiental y Urbano Para Santiago” in Diario Libre, 25 September 2002, p.36.

Campodrón, Teresa, “Andrés Mignucci: The Symbolic Garden / El Jardín Simbólico” in Santa & Cole, Santa & Cole Editores, Barcelona, October 2003.

De Carlo, Giancarlo (ed.), “Andrés Mignucci: Construire Nei Tropici” in Spazio e Societá, No. 84, Milano, October-December 1998, pp. 94-97.

Del Cueto, Beatriz “Formando Ambiente/Making Places” in American Architectural Foundation Newsletter, Fall 1991.

Driscoll, John & Melendez, Liz, “The Revitalization of Traditional Urban Centers in Puerto Rico”, Center for Urban Development Studies, Harvard Design School, May 2004.

Fiedler, M.L. (ed), “Parque de los Niños” in Entorno, Colegio de Arquitectos de PR, Vol. 7, July 2001, pp. 8-12.

Fiedler, M.L. (ed), “Escuela de Bellas Artes de Mayaguez” in Entorno, Colegio de Arquitectos de PR, Vol. 13, 2003, pp. 12-13.

Gonzalez, Santiago, “Parque de Santiago será mayor pulmón ecológico de la ciudad” in Listín Diario, 26 March 2002, p.8.

David Gosling, “The Evolution of American Urban Design : A Chronological Anthology”, Academy Editions, London, 2002, p.155.

Habraken, N.J. with Aldrete-Hass,J.A., Chow, R., Hille, T., Krugmeier,P., Lampkin, M., Mallows, A., Mignucci, A., Takase, Y., Weller, K., and Yokouchi, T., The Grunfeld Variations, A Methodological Approach to the Design of Urban Tissues, Laboratory of Architecture & Planning, MIT, Whalen Press, 1980.

Habraken, N.J., “Architecture and Agreements- A report on research for new design methods” in Kenchiku Bunka”, vol. 42, no. 486, April 1987, pp.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Notes on the Associative Form of (Some) Spanish Towns” in Black Rose Review, no.10, Winter 1983, pp.

Mignucci, A. and Hille, T., Ranges of Continuity: Eleven Towns in Spain and Portugal, Grusfeld Foundation / Laboratory of Architecture & Planning, Cambridge, MA. 1983.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Reclaiming Ballajá” in Places, vol.5, no. 2, 1988, pp. 3-17.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Recuperando Ballajá” in Plerus, vol. XXI, 1988-89, pp.123-139.

Mignucci, A., Rigau, J., and Martinez, E., Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930, AIA Puerto Rico, San Juan, 1990.

Mignucci, Andrés, Arquitectura Contemporanea en Puerto Rico 1976-1992, AIA Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1992.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Inhabiting Shadows: Notes on the Tropics as Place” in Places, Vol. 12 / No. 3, Spring 1999, pp.38-42.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Urbanismo Estratégico” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.76-78.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Puerto Rico Urbano” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.53-55.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Codex Urbans” in Escofet SA, Enric Pericas (ed.) Junio 2005, pp.140-141, Barcelona.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Lamar 557 / Casa Vivas” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 2, No.5, September 1997, pp.70-75.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Parque de los Niños” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.112-116.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Parque Antonia Quiñones” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.117-119.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Parque del Indio” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.120-121.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Santo Cristo de los Milagros” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.122-124.

Mignucci, Andrés y Moré Gustavo, “Parque Metropolitano de Santiago” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 8, No.15, January 2003, pp.85-94.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Isabela: Plan Estrategico de Revitalización” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Moré, Gustavo (ed.), Septiembre 2005, pp.103-104.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Isabela: Plaza Pública” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Moré, Gustavo (ed.), Septiembre 2005, pp.105-106.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Isabela: Plaza del Mercado” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Moré, Gustavo (ed.), Septiembre 2005, pp.107-108.

Mignucci, Andrés, “La Ventana al Mar” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.109-114.

Mignucci, Andrés; Sánchez, Ilia; Bonnin Javier, “Riberas del Bucaná II & III” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.115-119.

Montaner, Josep Ma. & Muxi, Zaida, “San Juan: Laboratorio Metropolitano” en Cultura(s) 153, La Vanguardia, pp. 22-23, 26 Mayo 2005, Barcelona.

Moya, Rómulo (ed.), “Casa Vivas” in Casas Latinoamericanas, Ediciones Trama, Quito, 2003, pp.126-127.

Noëlle Gras de Mereles, Louise, Arquitectos Iberoamericanos Siglo 21, Fomento Cultural Banamex, Mexico DF, 2006.

Peguero, Reynaldo, “Parque de Santiago: Icono de una Metropolis” in Listín Diario, 2 September 2002, p.19.

Peralta, Leoncio, “Santiago se convertirá en gran ciudad jardín” in Listín Diario, 18 August 2002, p.18.

Rispa, Raul, “La Ventana al Mar” in IV Arquitectura Iberoamericana, Tanais Editores, Madrid, October 2004.

Ronzino, Maickel, “El Parque del Futuro” in El Caribe, 14 September 2002, p.6-7.

Russell, James S., AIA, “Will A New Wave Of Tropical Modernism Restore San Juan's Luster?” in Architectural Record, July, 2002.

Santa & Cole (ed),“Andrés Mignucci Giannoni” in Enciclopedia de Diseño, Santa & Cole Editores, Barcelona, 2003.

Schneider-Wessling, Erich, “Going to Ground” in The Architectural Review, No. 1145, July, 1992, pp.64-67.

Schneider-Wessling, Erich, “Bayer Informationszentrum” in Bauwelt, Heft 24 / Stadtbauwelt 114, Berlin,1992.

Schneider-Wessling, Erich, “Bayer Informationszentrum” in Form & Light, Ernest Sonn Verlag, Berlin, 1993.

Segre, Roberto, “Arquitetura hispano-americana na mudança de Milênio. A globalização fragmentada: idioma comum, caminhos divergentes” in Arquitextos, Sao Paolo, June 2003.

Serna, David (ed),“Casa Vivas” in Escala, No. 175, Bogotá, Colombia, July, 1996, pp.26-27.

CRITERIA 6 The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Andres Mignucci was elected as a FELLOW of the AIA in 2005. There are currently 74,000 architect members of the AIA of which, in the history of the AIA, only 2,500 have been elected as Fellows of the Institute. In he year 2005, alongside Mignucci, Santiago Calatrava - AIA Gold Medalist; Thom Mayne - Pritzker Award Winner; and Toshiko Mori - Head of Harvard’s Graduate School of Design were also elected. You cannot be in such company without being notable. The American Institute of Architects said the following in its induction press release.

Washington, D.C., February 25, 2005 --The American Institute of Architects (AIA) elevated 66 architects to its prestigious College of Fellows, an honor awarded to members who have made contributions of national significance to the profession. Andrés Mignucci, FAIA, of San Juan, Puerto Rico, was elected to receive this honor because of his contributions to the field of design. Mr. Mignucci has enriched the profession by integrating the disciplines of architecture, urban design and landscape architecture in the creation of urban environments with a sense of place, human scale, and environmental responsibility. His work reflects a commitment to the role of public space as an integral part of people’s lives, as a setting for social and cultural exchange, and as a vital component in the structure of our cities and towns. In addition, his leadership through public service and teaching has made significant contributions in extending knowledge of the profession to a larger public.

Out of a membership of more than 74,000, there are fewer than 2,500 AIA members distinguished with the honor of fellowship. It is conferred on architects who have made significant contributions in the following areas: the aesthetic, scientific, and practical efficiency of the profession; the standards of architectural education, training, and practice; and other related professional organizations; advancement of living standards of people through an improved environment; and to society through significant public service. [19]

Andres Mignucci's honors and awards include the following:

HONORS

FELLOW of the AIA Washington DC, USA, 2005

FELLOW of Institute for Urban Design New York City, NY, USA, 2005

Chandler Prize for Excellence in Architectural Design Boston Society of Architects, 1982

President’s Fellowship University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras, Puerto Rico, 1979-81

AWARDS

2006 First Prize-Urban Design: Parque Metropolitano de Santiago (with Gustavo Moré) Bienal de Arquitectura de Santo Domingo.

2005 Bronze Medal: La Ventana al Mar Bienal de Miami + Beach, Miami.

2004 Finalist: La Ventana al Mar IV Ibero-American Architecture Biennale, Madrid, Spain.

2004 Mention of Honor: La Ventana al Mar AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

2002 First Prize: Parque Metropolitano de Santiago (with Gustavo Moré) International Design Competition, Santiago, Dominican Republic.

2002 Landscape Design Award / Paysage: Parque de los Niños Martinique Architecture Biennale, Fort de France, Martinique

2002 Grand Prize / Premio Nacional de Arquitectura: Escuela de Bellas Artes de Mayaguez. VII Puerto Rico Architecture Biennale, San Juan, PR

2001 Grand Prize / Premio Nacional de Arquitectura: Parque de los Niños VI Puerto Rico Architecture Biennale, San Juan, PR

2001 Honor Award: Parque de los Niños AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

2001 URBE Award for Excellence in Architecture: Parque de los Niños Urbe Design Awards, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1999 Mention of Honor: Santo Cristo de los Milagros AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1998 Mention of Honor: Cooperativa Gasolinera Cayeyana AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1997 Honor Award: Casa Vivas AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1997 Mention of Honor: Casa Vivas IV Puerto Rico Architecture Biennale, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1997 Mention of Honor: Lamar 557 AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1996 Honor Award: Casa Hopgood AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1992 Mention of Honor: Conjunto de Viviendas Bayamón 831 AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1990 Special Award: Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930 (with J. Rigau and E. Martinez) Special Research Award, III Bienal de Arquitectura de Santo Domingo, RD

1990 Honor Award: Casa sobre una Hondonada AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1986 First Prize: Informationszentrum, Bayer AG (with Erich Schneider-Wessling and Ilse Walter), Köln, Germany

Maribel ortiz 21:28, 6 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, Espresso Addict 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So this guy is an architect. I don't really see any notability here, as the Google test turns up less than 1000 hits and most of them are list of people who worked on various construction projects. Mr. Mignucci did not win any notable awards and did not get (non-trivially) mentioned in any reliable sources. To the above user: Why did you use the notability guidelines for professors? I don't see any mention of professorship in the article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I missed a rather obvious COI; the only significant contributor to the article is User:Mignucci. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite for NPOV. Massive COI but Mignucci is verifiably notable by peer recognition and possibly WP:PROF too. His FAIA status (now confirmed & cited online) says that he is regarded as one of the best architects in the U.S. A Google Scholar search shows that his publications are widely cited. A Google search his Parque de los Niños and Parque Metropolitano de Santiago brings up non-trivial coverage and credit. Still looking to verify international award wins. Mignucci apparently really is an internationally respected urban planner. • Gene93k 06:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -per above reasoning.JJJ999 08:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously rewrite. FAIA citation is strong indicator of notability as is the park project award. Limited sources is at least in part a WP:CSB issue. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Widely cited; google test often has an english-language bias. Academic work shows up elsewhere. --lquilter 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent independent third party source coverage, certainly meets WP:BIO as argued with sources above. Needs a cleanup and perhaps a rewrite to address COI issues though... --Kudret abi^Talk 07:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Contested or not, a speedy is a speedy. Punkmorten 21:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keri Sachtleben

Bio-page that doesn't assert notability and doesn't sound notable at all either. Anon-contested {{db-bio}} (nom by me), so here we are in AfD-land. DMacks 20:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private (album)

Crystal ballery. Album was scheduled for release almost a year ago and still hasn't come out. The vast majority of the article is speculation (see "Speculation and leaked tracks" section). Album still doesn't have a release date on their record label's website. Of course, I am all for re-creation of the article once the album is released. Precious Roy 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's all in violation of the crystal ball clause. The only sources are there to back up the fact that the album as a whole was not released. Perhaps it can be worth recreating if and when the album comes out. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 patently non-notable per WP:CSD A7 and per WP:SNOW. Qwghlm 09:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emberton Athletic FC

This page seems to just be a list of players, and a possible list of scores. This page lacks significance in accordance to wikipedia's policies. This page has no history of sigificant information as well. Anyone can agree/disagree here, or change the tag to speedy deletion if necessary. The tag should not be removed, instead, read the deletion tag and place the appropriate tag on the article. BeanoJosh 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Village youth team playing in a very lowly league, no claim of notability. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, plus the page is in serious need of wikification Triple3D 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally non-notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable youth team. - fchd 07:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger Elementary School

Two unrelated non-notable schools that happen to have the same name. Unable to find multiple reliable sources to show any notability. Basil Richards 20:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Punkmorten 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I challenge this school to prove an even elementary claim to notability.--Victor falk 21:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation page and link directly to the Issaquah School District and Huntsville, Alabama articles. Simple solution, does not warrant an AFD honestly. Silensor 05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a simple disambiguation. Education within the context of a school district or locality is certainly notable, and I see no reason not to guide our readers to the appropriate ___location. RFerreira 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete-elementary schools are not inherently notable, and a single page google search also brings up Tamarack Florida, Pearland Texas, Thief River Falls Minn, Nogales Ariz, and Everett, Washington. Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable entities. Chris 00:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 19:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in the United States

This is an incomplete list, and likely never will be complete (despite Wikipedia being a perpetual work-in-progress). The first nomination resulted in a no consensus, so I'd like to see if one can be achieved the second time around. No real !vote from me either way, this is somewhat procedural to determine if WP:NOT#DIR is applicable. Burntsauce 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Delete Isn't this why we have [[Category:Shopping malls in the United States]] for?--Victor falk 21:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Victor. Categories works fine. Burntsauce, can you post a link to the record of the first debate? Mandsford 22:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nature of wikipedia and the commercial means that many lists will never be fully complete, but it does not mean that all incomplete lists should be deleted — Rotovia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Categories should do this. We shouldn't waste time updating an actual directory. It looks like it's recently been turned into a list of "notable malls" so that it isn't pointlessly redundant and sprawling. What makes a mall "notable" is beyond me, but the user is quite right that including every mall we have articles for is ungainfully redundant. Cool Hand Luke 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More suitable for a category. --RaiderAspect 12:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears we do not have a consistent policy or guideline to deal with these kinds of lists. List of Westfield Group shopping malls is a similar list that references other sub-lists and the community has rejected attempts to merge and/or delete those. As for the general comment that categories do essentially the same thing, Wikipedia has several lists that are more or less duplicates of categories. I'm not sure how we justify to keep this article OR to delete it. Truthanado 19:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and request Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers adopt & improve (done). Lists and Categories can coexist. Just because you might be more comfortable surfing via Categories, does not mean everyone else finds it easy. WP is not paper, so we can afford more than one route to the destination. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it just passed an AfD less than six months ago (July). Also, organized list of verifiable information are good reference tools. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong, it did not "pass" an AfD less than six months ago. The result of the last discussion was a no consensus outcome. Burntsauce 20:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a "no consensus" result unacceptable? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. "No consensus" is a common result of an AfD discussion. I was involved in one just last week. It results in keeping the article. For those familiar with American football and instant replay, "no consensus" is the same as "no conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field". Truthanado 08:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another list that should be categorized, also what indicates "shopping malls" every place with xxx stores on it. Jbeach56 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is different from a straight category listing. Many entries have a quick sentence establishing the mall's notability. This is worth keeping. Yes, the article is always in danger of just becoming a list of whatever malls someone wants to mention, but the article also receives a lot of attention from editors who are concerned about maintaining and improving the list's quality. So let's not be in a rush to delete it.--Ken Gallager 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this is purely a directory, so I'd be reluctant to apply WP:NOT#DIR. Along those lines, Ken Gallager makes a good argument that information on the list establishes notability and I believe reading the list will give you some information on important malls regionally and historically, which is certainly encyclopedic. However, the arguments that this is a perpetually incomplete list, and a category is better suited to organizing these articles, are much stronger. Information about especially notable malls that have played a role in the history of US mall shopping on a regional or national level is useful, though, and should be documented in Shopping mall or preferable subarticles on the history of the shopping mall in the United States. I just don't feel like a list is the best way to document this, and since this list is never going to be complete, we don't need it. --W.marsh 14:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 15:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petronix

Violates WP:BIO, article is overwhelmingly the product of edits by the subject (see User talk:DrPetronix). See also WP:AUTO & WP:COI. References are from the subject's own website. Is a redirect (inappropriately, I might add) of Sociopathic, which is how I found it in the first place. AlexeiSeptimus 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the redirect vandalism.
- ohps. DELETE. oh so nn. Mystache 20:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can anyone verify the claims of faculty positions at Indiana and Harvard? They're not enough to pass WP:PROF, but from how little I can find on them through Google I'm wondering whether they're even true. —David Eppstein 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My own attempts have come up empty. Also, I have been unable to find any peer-reviewed publications by "Jarod Petronix." AlexeiSeptimus 02:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Crusio 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 14:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kohler

Does not seem to pass notability requirements (honors in field, etc. ) Avi 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quick search does support the statement that he has written for Wired, and the 2 books mentioned do appear on Amazon. This seems to pass notability regarding appearances in mainstream media. The article does a horrible job of supporting notability, so should be tagged for cleanup, but not deleted. Arakunem 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, possibly a WP:COI--NightRider63 19:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable enough per Arakunem, no evidence to contrary, AGF.JJJ999 01:03, 4 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, Satori Son 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some citations to the Wired Blog, and his 2 published works. This should help to establish notability as a published author and regular columnist in a mainstream media publication. Arakunem 13:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a published author is not in and of itself an indication of notability (referring to WP:BIO). The references provided to date establish that Chris Kohler is an author. However, book sales portal descriptions of a book written by him do not constitute independent 3rd party sources that discuss the book(s) or author as the primary topic; in the first book site link, the site is published by the publisher of the book - a conflict of interest. I've done some brief follow-up online searching and not found evidence of 3rd party reliable sources that would fulfill the notability criterion. Perhaps at some future time, Chris Kohler will "breakthrough" to notability, but that time has not yet come. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KZQZ

Procedural nom; I've just declined a speedy on this - reason given was "All pertinent information is on the KBWF article. This page should not exist, its incarnation as "Z95.7" is not notable enough to stand on its own, and there is little content here. What content is here is already repeated in other articles." I agree entirely with this & think it's a pointless content fork, but can't find a way to shoehorn it into any speedy criteria. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per initial nom by myself.--Fightingirish 20:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge information not already there into KBWF. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KBWF, do not delete. Corvus cornix 22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IT'S THE NEW Redirect!!!, Redirect 95-7!! Although someone may point out that Wikipedia does allow an article for any licensed radio station, this is one that changed its call letters in 2002 and again in 2007. KSWF is just the latest name for what's broadcast on 95.7 FM. It's not "entitled" to an article, although KSWF is. If anyone still wants to argue the point, note that technically, KZQZ has not been "licensed to broadcast" as of the time its pre-2002 FCC license expired. The license holder has been, and chosen to use new call sign and new format. Mandsford 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article has been changed into a redirect. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reverted the conversion to redirect pending the outcome of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete - Merge content into the existing article and turn this one into a redirect. --Nehwyn 17:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 17:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of hectomillionaires

Probable neologism. I can't find any indication that this is a commonly used term. The two references in this article do NOT use the term. A Google search only brings up various blogs and discussion pages where people speculate that such a term should exist 23skidoo 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Additional: It should also be noted that a "Hectomillionaires" category also exists at present, which I recommend be nominated for deletion under both my rationale above and that given by some of the voters below; however that is a discussion for CFD, not here. 23skidoo 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Category is currently listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 10#Category:Hectomillionaires. --Allen3 ^talk 15:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hectmillionaire is so NN that the article links back to this list. Mystache 20:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not for neologism, it is not (hectomillionaire is a compoundword), but because a hundred millions bucks is small change.--Victor falk 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's possible I misunderstand the meaning of the word neologism. I assumed it to mean a coined term that has little-to-no cachet outside a very small demographic. In that context I'm alleging that the term simply isn't one that is used in any wide sense, enough for it to be worthy of an article, much less a list (and I could have also nominated it based upon its failings as a list, too, as already flagged by some of the other comments in this AFD). 23skidoo 14:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People pretty much don't say "hecto-" anything, or "deka-" anything. We skip straight from grams to kilograms, meters to kilometers, watts to kilowatts. We talk about a 10K instead of a 100 H. Call it a list of "multimillionaires" and if someone who has only $98,000,000 objects about not being on the list, do a Jim Backus impersonation. Mandsford 23:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that lists of millionaires (and equivalent categories) are normally deleted on WP for several reasons - 1) verifiability of wealth claims; 2) fluctuating exchange rates make it difficult to assess individual wealth; 3) - most importantly - a millionaire in one currency isn't necessarily a millionaire in another currency. Hell, if we were using the black-market rate for current Zimbabwean dollars, I'd be a hectomillionaire, and I'd also be a millionaire in Japanese yen. In old Turkish currency (pre 2004) I'd have been a multi-billionaire (and so would many other Wikipedians!). Grutness...wha? 01:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to expansive and unmaintainable nature of the list. Even if restricted to a single major currency such as US$ or EUR, qualifying levels for this list are well below the level of personal wealth needed to insure verifiability and constant fluctuations in various financial markets makes meaningful estimates transient at best. Differences in exchange rates highlighted by Grutness also expands the list of qualifying individuals to the point where Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information applies. --Allen3 ^talk 02:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, unneeded (people in a restricted range of net worth?). JJL 13:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grutness -- Magioladitis 13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unite*

Non-notable organization SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to prove notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - reposted content. Tagging. Otto4711 19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a speedy candidate because it never went through AfD (expired proposed deletion tag). Nevertheless, no sign of significant third party-coverage. Pascal.Tesson 19:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems non-notable claim lacks any backing other than opinion and the first few deletes seem to be calls for improvement, since the article was never marked for improvement before it was sent for deletion, nor does it seem like any editors of the article know about this for whatever reason, perhaps it should just be marked for improve for a few months to see if the sources can be found. --Buridan 04:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, no sourcing. --RaiderAspect 12:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment isn't that a call for improvement? needs sourcing, improve notability.--Buridan 12:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Notability cannot be 'improved', it's a characteristic of a topic. If multiple reputatable non-trial third party sources exists, by all means add them and I'll change my vote. --RaiderAspect 14:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment you might want to reconsider that position, notability changes and is improved all the time, most things gain and lose notability, at least that's what jimbo said a while back and i tend to agree. --Buridan 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment yes, but if a topic is not notable at this moment, it should be deleted. --RaiderAspect 06:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G3. I consider adding deliberate nonsense hoaxes to be vandalism. This was part of a walled garden. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Francis Llonsdale

Yet another lame hoax from regular "alleged troll" (must AGF) Llonsdale (talk · contribs). Since "hoax" isn't a speedy criteria, wasting everyone's time bringing it here. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as hoax. There should really be a hoax listing in WP:CSD, it would get a lot of hoaxes deleted faster. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion's been had many times; consensus has always been that one or two admins aren't enough to be sure it's a hoax & not just something they've never heard of, and taking it to AfD gives people a chance to prove it exists — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Category already exists. A Train^talk 14:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of dance video games

Suggesting deletion for a number of reasons, primary that WP:NOT a directory, and given the strong lack of encyclopedic context here, Mediawiki categories are much better suited for the job. Second is that this list is being used to circumvent a number of previous AFDs to advertise for dance games that have been deleted (and re-deleted), but this is only a supplemental reason. Categories fix both problems with one stone. Burntsauce 18:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not a directory. The list is unencyclopedic and half of the games mentioned are redlinks. It would be hard to keep this article up to date. A category could easily take the place of this article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge list of notable games with Music video game. Many of these are not notable, and the notable games don't need to be listed on a separate page. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or have as a category. Encyclopedias do help to organize human knowledge and list are an effective means of doing so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better as a category. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject, useful list. Additional comments and header info make it better as a list than a category. Wikidemo 15:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The same additional comments you refer to can be placed directly in the category. In fact, the current comments at Category:Dance video games do a better and more succinct job than the article does, completely obviating any need for this list. Burntsauce 20:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete---Wikidemo, Grand Roi, "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous *because* they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." according to policy. This article is then clearly what wikipedia is not, it imparts no significant contribution to the topic. Also consider that there are no sources for the two sentences defining what is or is not a dance game. Lotusduck 19:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and convert to category. A category called Category:Dance video games i think is much better. -- Magioladitis 13:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of licensed manga in English. —Verrai 20:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of manga

This list is redundant with Category:manga series and it's subcategories. A list of all manga is impossible to ever complete. Already created more manageable alternative: List of licensed manga in English (after discussion on talk page).

Divisions of the Galactic Empire (Star Wars)

Non-notable and plot summary. In-universe prose makes it inappropriate to merge into Galactic Empire (Star Wars). EEMeltonIV 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for similar reason

Imperial Forces (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The content on this page is already covered in other articles linked from the main Galactic Empire article. --EEMeltonIV 17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe userfy. JJL 18:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userify both. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article does contain a reference and external links sections and as it concerns Star Wars, which with its expanded universe, applies to something that has notability beyond just the films. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability is not inherited; Star Wars, and even the notion of the Expanded Universe, are notable; components of it do not automatically "receive" that same notability. --EEMeltonIV 17:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 16:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Dice

Promotional article with no reliable sources or evidence of notability (his reputation as a "ladies man" [sic] notwithstanding). -- Merope 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I put a prod at the same with the same reasons (removed it now though, pointless being there). This reads more promotional than encyclopaedic (references only mention artist by name with no substantial information). Unsourced and no assertion of notability. Also, pretty sure this has been deleted a few times already. A^RendedWinter 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - the article was deleted several times as CSD A7 and once as an expired prod. -- Merope 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BAND. Only album is on a label whose first artist signed is ... this one. --Dhartung | Talk 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, no non-trivial mention in sources provided. It's been deleted thrice - on 5 July 2007 for an expired prod; on 25 July it was speedied per CSD A7; and yesterday the article was speedied again per A7. I think a good salting is in order. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other fine comments above. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, reads like an ad too. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 16:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Capital Integrated

Blatant self-promotion, article's creator is named in article as founder of business SteveBaker 17:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just barely misses CSD#A7. No attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 17:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof of mention in reliable sources, so no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP. -- Satori Son 19:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion Delete. I suspect a Conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushal one (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP, looks like an ad, possible WP:COI. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MaxSem 12:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunted (Visual Outbreak)

This film fails to be notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A Google search with the title and the writers' names for the keywords show only two other links besides Wikipedia links. As a result, there is no indication that this film has received multiple and significant coverage by reliable sources. The film also does not have a listing at the Internet Movie Database, which would be a step toward notability. Basically, it has nonexistent presence outside its official site and Myspace blog. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability as shown by a lack of an IMDb page and only two other Google hits. Alientraveller 17:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete If there's a Myspace page as an "official website", the "official trailer" is a video on Youtube, and no mention on IMDB or Google, then this one is definitely NN. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or change Content to 2003 film with the same title. The IMDB page (http://imdb.com/title/tt0269347) is for a 2003 film. This is a 2008 film with the same name. The 2008 film is not on IMDB; therefore not notable. --Anthony5429 19:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2003 film exists here: The Hunted (2003 film). This AfD'd article doesn't comply with naming conventions for films, anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Non-notable vanity amateur film. Keb25 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This film is in the process of being made and is a large project by a locally notable short film director. As it is still in development, IMDB articles / official sites are still pending. --CumQuaT 14:04, 12 October 2007 (EST) — CumQuaT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Locally notable" doesn't cut it, especially when you're not referring to the film. I'm locally notable where I live, but I don't pursue an article for myself. You need to make a case for existing notability -- if it doesn't exist yet, the article shouldn't exist yet. No significant coverage by reliable sources, not even an IMDb listing (generally a step toward notability, but having a page on IMDb is not automatic notability). You can request for the article to be userfied so you can recreate the article at a time where its notability is heightened. I suggest reading Wikipedia's guideline on notability for more detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English names

Deletion nomination:The list is arbitrary and shows no real discrimination in deciding what to be included. Plus, what makes a name English? Insanely broad, entirely unverifiable. As Bob Marley said, you've got to kill it before it grows... Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a baby names web page. JJL 18:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, and I always thought names like Caleb and Benjamin and Sarah dated from Biblical times. Of course, there are some who believe that the Bible proves that Jesus spoke in English. Mandsford 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, how depressing. D: Anyway, first off, there are "English names." For example, you wouldn't consider "Mitsuki" an English name, would you? But a name like "Julia" could be called an English name. Come on, people, this isn't hard. Also, there's a list of Japanese names that I modeled this after. If this one is to be deleted, shouldn't that one be, too? An also, an encyclopedia is open to so many things. There's no reason why names wouldn't also belong here, is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlene Sinclair (talk • contribs) 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 00:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much a random list of names. Why do people feel the need to make a list for everything. Ridernyc 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, c'mon! Why are you people so boring? The list can be useful! It can be used to find meanings of names, or names of certain meaning! :] I don't understand why you have to pick at it so. What if it was changed to 'list of common English names'? Would that be better for you?
Probably not. We're so boring, even dull folks like us find the article "List of English names" to be boring. Reading it is like going to a party and hearing people talk about what to name the baby. "I like Phillip because it's English for 'lover of horses'". I read that this year, there will FINALLY be a book that lists boys and girls names and gives a meaning for each one. Imagine that. All this time, we've been waiting for it My opinion is that truly "English" names are like Nigel or Winston or Neville or Beatrice... Mandsford 02:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:DIRECTORYRidernyc 02:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
transfer to category-for those that are not redlinked, that does represent an outlay of time, and that would be a useful categorization. Chris 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I doubt that article could ever work... I mean, it has Xanthe on it, that's a Greek name. It doesn't have anything under D at all. It has Rob, Robbie and Robert listed separately- imagine how long it'd get if you listed every single variation of every name that somebody considers to be an English name! There are dozens, if not hundreds of websites that do this better, not to mention the baby name books you can get at your friendly local bookshop. It might work as a category though. MorganaFiolett 08:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Aren't Rob, Robbie and Robert all Scottish names? It seems to me as if the inclusion criteria are too vague. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Category- Already an English name category. No need that it also be a list page. Remember 13:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, makes absolutely no sense as an article. Only marginally better as a category. --Nehwyn 17:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Performance

No reliable sources can be found for "Bell Performance", "Bell Additives", or "R.J. Bell". Non-notable company. Sasha Callahan 06:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator, this could be the longest I've seen an article on AFD. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 22:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of reliable sources that prove notabitiy. --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using Newsbank, I found a 1,210-word article about Bell from The Orlando Sentinel. (Robin Foster. "STEERING TOWARD A NEW MARKET - BELL LABORATORY HOPES TO ADD CUSTOMERS WITH RETAIL VERSION OF - GAS ADDITIVE". 30 June 1986. page 25). The company is also mentioned in several newspaper car advice columns. I'd be surprised if there isn't more info available somewhere, especially considering that Mix-I-Go has been around since the 1920s. Zagalejo^^^ 07:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's this. Seems like Mix-I-Go was connected to a pyramid scheme. Zagalejo^^^ 08:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to prove why the company/product is notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It irks me that reliable sources can't be found because this company was the first to use fuel additives. But then again...who writes about fuel additives? Smashville 19:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources --RaiderAspect 12:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pending discovery of sources establishing notability. If the only independent sources are local media, that doesn't look likely. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 22:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable corp. Being mentioned in passing does not represent grounds for notability. --Nehwyn 17:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Jack Wilson (jazz pianist)

The result was Speedy Keep/Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has no sources, and I'm having difficulty finding any online. Notability seems somewhat shaky, particularly due to the lack of references. If sources could be found for those claims, then this may be OK. Also written from a very non-neutral point of view, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Web site which could be used as source for notability imo --Anthony5429 16:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that site, but it appears to be a blog, which is generally considered unreliable. That's why I disregarded it originally. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should've checked that link before I did the searching below :) That's actually the website of Verve Records, one of the most influential labels in jazz, enabled for comments but not a blog, and the text is taken from a bio at allmusicguide, which can be used to back up the article. Unfortunately, there's another jazz pianist called Jack Wilson, British, and his bio is the one you'll get if you search directly at AMG. Presumably a technical problem — you get the photos of this Jack Wilson but the bio of the British one. I've reported it on the feedback form there. Thomjakobsen 20:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article probably needs cleanup and sourcing, but I'm convinced of his notability: this confirms that he was Dinah Washington's pianist, this gives support to the claim that Jimmy Cobb was his drummer, and this has an album sleeve confirming that Roy Ayers played with his quartet. I haven't heard of him, but those were the three names that really stood out, and if he's recorded with them (especially as band leader), he's definitely a notable jazz musician. Thomjakobsen 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs to be rewritten and cleaned up but this person is notable.Ridernyc 00:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn After reviewing the comments above, and discussing the matter with Thomjakobsen, I am withdrawing this AfD as a sign of good faith to the author and those who have shown an interest in working with the article. The British guy was rather messing up my search results, and I hadn't realized that the blog post was a mirror of a more reliable source. I did note that the version I found was on Verve Records, however the format of the page was somewhat confusing and I was therefore still uncertain as to the reliability. As for the other portion of the nomination (the NPOV issues), there does appear to be some interest in working with this article, and I am more than willing to give said work a fair chance to take place. I have tagged the page with cleanup tags, and so hopefully those issues will be worked on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turn You On

Non-notable song. Appears to be nothing more than crystal-ballism. Acalamari 16:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it hasn't been released yet, it can't possibly be notable. The article needs more information and references in order to justify inclusion under a separate title anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an article on an unreleased single that does not assert any current notability except what might happen one day (see WP:CRYSTAL). No third party sources or mentions that I can find. If this becomes a hit anywhere and/or is generally released, this article may deserve recreation. Until then it should be removed. Euryalus 06:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All That I Got (Fergie song)

A non-notable song from The Dutchess. It is not a single, and the article even says this. Seems to be crystal-ballism, and POV as well. Article was initially prodded but it was removed. Acalamari 16:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album: There seems a pretty clear precedent (see WP:OUTCOMES under music, also recent AFDs) that non-single album tracks generally lack the notability to support their own article, any information about them should be under the album name, UNLESS they have generated significant press on their own, which is usually a fairly small exception. Thus, we should redirect this back to the album and include any relevent information there. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The song is one of Fergie's most beautiful in the album..." If it hasn't been released, I don't think it needs a mention here. If it were to be cleaned up to conform to the crystal ball clause and the NPOV policy, it could be speedied under CSD A1, as the article would basically be "All That I Got is a song performed by Fergie for her album The Dutchess. It has never been released." Even then, it still does not follow the reliable sources guideline, so I think it is a pretty solid delete. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear cut case of a non-notable song. At most, it should be mentioned in the album. Spellcast 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album: this might be a notable song for the artist, however should be listed on the appropriate artists/albums page Carter | Talk to me 08:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mention it in the album article if necessary, but right now there's no source about the song being notable per se. --Nehwyn 17:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Feast of Immortal Peaches

This article was nominated for speedy deletion, but I declined, as I have a feeling that this editor won't let it go peacefully. Thus I take it to AFD to get a clear consensus from the jury... SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a real article, but it could be a well-designed hoax. I am inclined to lean towards a "keep" vote, but I am not sure what the grounds for the dispute is. A Google Search turns up some interesting results; it appears that the Immortal Peach Tree is a real concept and that the Feast of the Immortal Peaches (sometimes Feast of the Peaches Immortal) turns up in several real references in Chinese literature. Since I don't read chinese, I find it hard to check the sources for the article, but without further reasoning from the nom, I can find nothing to object to yet. I won't vote awaiting further information, but I am leaning towards a keep vote. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to a lack of verified-to-be reliable sources. Mmmmmmm, peaches. Burntsauce 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment incined to delete, yes the immortal peach tree and the feast is a traditional element of Chinese mythology and culture ( peach shaped and coloured buns are still served at birthday banquets, and I'm convinced that this is neither OR or a hoax, however this article is not about the peach in traditional Chinese mythology or traditional Chinese immortals. The article claims that it is about a book compiled by mortals in 1934 AD under the instruction of Chinese immortals by means of sift text ( someone in a state of religous ~~frenzy~~ trance making marks in a sand pit, with someone else seeing what words he can see in the sand). This is a religous text of a modern taoist inspired cult (written it seems as a synthesis of traditional Chinese and Western beliefs). I haven't read properly the external link provided but I'm pretty sure that it will verify the claims of the article, but that wouldn't make the claims of either true. The thing about whether to keep this article or not is how notable the originating cult is? For example Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is not notable in and of itself, but notable because of its position within Scientology. KTo288 23:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)KTo288 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE KEEP- The Book is real enough, not a hoax, and it will stand up to more than a few checks. I implore Wiki-editorial team to exercize more latitute on English sources even though some were given- no English translation or website should not demean its existence. What matters is the contents, which is NOT just about the 6,000 old Peaches, it's about creation and doomsday and more, worthwhile subjects that should be aired and possibly challenged. As far as I have researched, this Book was not written by a living person. I hope with similar articles, Wiki-readers like Kto288 can stop opining on what he/she does not quite know, Sift-text writers write in perfect lucidity, and sift text writing is NOT an Taoist inspired cult. Not quite sure what place it has in Scientology, only that people who only reads English has a chance to know about it. ACHKC 05:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply:Typing in all caps, and using phrases like "this Book was not written by a living person" will not help your cause. Lets keep the arguements in the realm of rationality. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I left a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taoism, at this article seems to have the same problem as Understanding Heaven and Hell--Victor falk 11:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your help, Victor.ACHKC 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless the cult/group involved is notable. --RaiderAspect 12:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with comments above that the Feast of Peaches is a notable element of Chinese mythology, but this article is not about that myth. It is about a non-notable book. I am voting for deletion because (1) no sources cited to show notability; (2) article is poorly written and from an in-world perspective; (3) as with Understanding Heaven and Hell, the book is in the form of a novel, and this article is largely written from an in-world perspective. (4) As a result, many statements appear to be factually untrue, e.g. the statements that it was written by a god, programmed by a bodhisatva, and edited by a Ming Dynasty immortal in 1934! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Zang Sanfeng was a verifiable historical figure from the 16th Century. His role with this book was similar to Guan Yin, no contradictions. Whether it was feasible that Guan Yin & Zang came together to do this book in 1934CE would be a different question about the text. I would very much like to know how PalaceGuard could assess the book in comment(2) above, and should he/she read Chinese, will note the best and the classical Chinese literature were written in novel i.e. Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Fengsen Yanyi, Journey to the West etc. The in-world perspective is precisely one of the substance to be read and shared.ACHKC 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question As it written in modern Chinese in novel form, is there any possibility it might be something akin to Beowulf's saga novelised and written in modern English?--Victor falk 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, and no. There is a list of recognized guidance books from taoist & buddhist library that eventually I hope to introduce to Wikipedia in English, that togther will give a very holistic picture of both religions on top of what the sutras and their canons say. Admittedly one of the main problem as I see it is that taoist adherents lacks scholars much less western scholars; admist its unorganized adherents many had embraced other forms of beliefs without thoroughly understanding what taoism is or is about, before abandonment. Hence many scholarly work will stop short at the definition of dao or what Tao Tejing is.ACHKC 04:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd say its no more untrue or unverifiable than any other book written in a state of Divine inspiration whether by burning bushes, voices in the desert, gold tablets and magic glasses or million year old alien spirts passing by dentist surgeries. These kind of books cannot be proven untrue or verified this side of heaven,however what we can decide is if these books have a real and notable effect on the world, people and popular culture. I apologise if I've caused offense because I used the word "cult", but similar works are notable because their attached organisations are notable. ACHKC I'm not saying scientology is related to this book I was using it as an example, for illustrations sake, may be I should spell my reasoning out: by itself "Dianetics" is just another crackpot book probably not notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, it has an article because the organisation it is attached to is notable, attracting numerous and wealthy adherents, building up a large financial portfolio, has been covered in popular culture, has attracted controversy, and the ire and attentions of governments.

As it is "The Feast of Immortal Peaches" article has failed to show that it has had a real world impact, I don't know what the exact notability guidelines for religious sects is, but if it can be shown that "The Feast of Immortal Peaches" has a significant following, been instrumental in historical events, been the subject of irrational government persecution etc than it may just maybe notable enough for inclusion.KTo288 15:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A jest about the Scientology, no offense taken Kto288 whatsoever. A similar example would be the new gospels dug up in upper Egypt in the 70s/80s- are these part of the revelations? It will take time to sort out some of the questions mentioned by you, appreciated.ACHKC 01:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside if this AfD goes against this article it might be worth opening an AfD for Guan Shengdi, which also asserts a knowledge of recent changes in the Celestial bureaucracy. KTo288 15:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, mind-blowing if you follow its persuasion, I've made some adjustment to the chinese myth pages accordingly. I mentioned to the wiki-editors that for this reason this and many other books like it should be included in the English wiki-library, it will begin to make sense as some of these come online later, irrespective of your religiosity or views on doomsday.ACHKC 03:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone watching the Chinese mythology pages? Someone needs to look out for these edits. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The in-world perspective is a major problem. What I mean by "in-world perspective" is that the article is presenting as fact the claims made by the book. These claims are most likely to be intended to be fictional, given that the book is in novel form. Even if they are not intended to be fictional, they are unverifiable claims of a religious and philosophical character. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Real world perspective. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Along with Understanding Heaven and Hell this article seems to be non-notable new age gobbledygook. Add some real sources or delete this poorly-written article. Zeus1234 16:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't think Zeu1234 is able to comment objectively for the simple reason that the taoism today is not quite the version taught in University or that used by new age books like Capra's Tao of Physiscs, of Pooh etc. which are more zen than tao. I will be happy to compare notes with Zeus on this, but if there is a subject of interest that looks anything like gobbledygook to me today, I will personally verify it. ACHKC 03:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with all the other articles this user has created so far as they seem to be well-written nonsense. Perspicacite 08:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 16:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Alphabet Number Value

I am proposing International Alphabet Number Value for deletion. The only reference cited is a broken link. A Google search on the title produces no hits besides Wikipedia. It's an interesting idea, with some basis in ancient numerological practice, but the article seems to be original research/neologism. I had indicated concern about the lack of a reference on the discussion page back in January and there has been no response. Unless this AfD stirs up some significant improvement, I think the article should go. --agr 15:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD was badly-formed when it was created--I have (hopefully) formatted it properly. I am neutral on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 22:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- HOAX Remember when you were in elementary school and you did the cipher where A=1, B=2, C=3, and so on? And you wrote messages like "10-1-14-5 9-20 1 23-8-15-19"? Didn't know it was the "international alpahabet" did you? Luckily, the international alphabet is ABC, just like ours. Mandsford 11:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. --RaiderAspect 12:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this really existed, it might be part of numerology and we could cover it in that article. The word 'International' makes it sound like a standard, for which there is no evidence. Delete per WP:NEO and WP:RS. EdJohnston 21:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Icaros

The result was redirect by Onnaghar - 14:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page reads like an essay and is most probably an OR article Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb ! ed.rev.} 15:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD G12 - most of the text is copyright violation ([20] [21]). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Icarus, as that's how the article originally was. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreferee (talk • contribs)

Message Weaving Algorithm

Contested prod. This is about a cipher that is web-published, not published in any reliable source, not peer-reviewed. It was part of a walled garden with Imran Shaik and Definite Avalanche, both of which were deleted through PROD. The article was created by User:Iashaik; the algorithm inventor is Imran Shaik. Mango juice^talk 15:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this were a cipher taken seriously by the crypto community, I'd expect to see some hits for it in Google scholar, but I couldn't find any. —David Eppstein 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because the sources are all encrypted, so the joke's on you! Actually, the sources are an apparently pending M.Sc. thesis, and a website that doesn't contain (or at least cannot find, see first sentence) any reference to the article subject. Delete unless independent verification of notability can be established. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in EBSCO computer-science index. DMacks 18:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'delete per David Eppstein & DMacks. Pete.Hurd 05:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources confirming notability. --Nehwyn 17:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close and redirect to Applicability Domain. — Satori Son 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applicability ___domain

Wrong spelling, correct article is Applicability Domain Maunza 14:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samnaun

Shows no notability, shows no reference, shows nothing other than basic information KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 14:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (probably will be a speedy) - It's an actual town. Communities, villages, etc. are inherently notable. The German Wikipedia article is much more extensive. An expert German speaker might want to take a stab at translation. Wikipedia is a never-ending process and many articles will build over time as this one will.--Oakshade 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Kwang-Do

Minimal sources, one on criticisms and one magazinewithout ISSN, for 10 months, has been cleaned up from an advert, but no evidence of notability Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability asserted and no reliable sources provided. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 16:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 18:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what little sources that are provided seem very spurious. Not notable. BMurray 08:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. —PC78 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - About 48,700 Ghits suggest there might be something to it. --Nehwyn 17:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete. Although there is agreement that the topic is importance/significance to get past CSD A7, the delete reasoning of lack of reliable sources has not been rebutted and rough consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 13:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection at the DRV, the delete discussion regarding this and this reference was "No 3-rd party sources" which does not appear to be true. Given that this statement was in the nomination, it may have improperly influenced the remainder of the discussion. The other delete comments regarding these two sources focused on the importance/significance flowing from the two qx.se articles, which did not address whether they provided sufficient reliable source material to write the article in combination with other reliable source information. The keep reasoning was poor as well, largely focusing on personal judgments of importance/significance. On reflection, my delete close should have been no consensus and I have changed it as such. -- Jreferee t/c 15:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malmö Devilants

Non-notable. No 3-rd party sources, etc. 18 Google hits SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable rugby club. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 16:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They probably wouldn't qualify as a rugby club alone, but I think the "first gay rugby club in Scandinavia" is actually a significant claim. I found an article on the Washington Renegades in the notability backlog a couple of weeks ago, and initially thought it was a deletion candidate until I found a number of articles (in the Washington Post, and the UK Observer) on the rapid growth of gay rugby clubs. It seems to be a notable international phenomenon, and this team appears to be the first notable Scandinavian appearance of that phenomenon, as attested to by the two third-party articles in Sweden's QX (magazine). Thomjakobsen 17:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Thomjakobsen 18:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see this as harmless, and it's probably notable to the Scandinavians. Wandering Star 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see WP:HARMLESS. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Thomjakobsen. I also feel there is enough material from online searches to expand the article at least a bit. NO reason to delete a perfectly acceptable article when improving it is also an option (and especially when I see so much other crap on this site that's far worse than this). Jeffpw 17:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hate to say it but as a member of the International Gay Rugby Association and Board which has 37 member teams, 9 of which, including this one, have an article on WP, and being the first gay rugby team in Sweden and Scandanavia makes it Notable to me. For a 3rd party source, see the International Gay Rugby Association and Board's official web site, which lists them at http://www.igrab.net/members -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect The team doesn't seem to meet the Notability guidelines for non-commercial organizations, which say:

“

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. [...] Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article.

”

However, if we can find a source for the claim that it's the first gay rugby club in Scandinavia (that seems to be unsourced) I would say that fact is certainly notable enough for inclusion in the IGRAB article.

And...I hate to get all witch-hunt-y (again), but this team seems to me to be quite a bit more notable than any of the other IGRAB member teams that also have their own articles. Perhaps these articles should be made sections in IGRAB, and their articles redirects? Dybryd 01:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dybryd 01:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable an references supplied. Also this is not a chapter of an international organization but rather a local club that has joined an international league. I think there was a LGBT film loosely based on this club or utilizing them as well. Benjiboi 02:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 06:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and turn into redirect The few bits of information on this article could very well go in the IGRAB article. Does not deserve an article of its own, since there is very little evidence of notability. --Nehwyn 17:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nothing to show how this article passes WP:MUSIC CitiCat^♫ 03:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slowearth

Non-notable band, see WP:MUSIC --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search seems to yield numerous results showing notability. Article needs to be rewritten though for better prose and wikification. However It doesn't seem to be a notability problem from what I'm looking at. Perhaps an assertion of notability might be helpful though Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This group has released four albums so far if I am not mistaken. Moreover, a quick google search shows quite a number of hits for this band. It is also possible to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3000 hits isn't really much (atleast not in my opinion, and definitely not for a band) and with a tweaking of the search terms (+band) to remove any unrelated results the count is siginificantly lower - here. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could the above two editors please provide links to the reliable sources that affirm notability? I'm lookin', but I ain't findin'. If you did, I'd like to see what you turned up before I offer an opinion. I do see some indications that they've won local music awards regularly, but whether that meets WP:MUSIC, I'm not entirely certain on. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless claims of WP:RS made above are actually added to the article before the end of this AfD. A1octopus 01:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not seeing much assertion of notability in the article. The band's albums come from independent labels. Cap'n Walker 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Design

Article for an artist who does not meet the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Article was apparently created by the subject himself, and I have been unable to verify its contents with “secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.” Prod tag removed by anon, so comes here for discussion. Thank you. — Satori Son 13:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. — Satori Son 13:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable person. We also have a COI here. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam J Lewis

Appears to be an article about a not very notable Wikipedia editor: User:A Lewis. Note the link between firefighting, and acting in the user page and the article page.
The Adam J Lewis article is full of unverifiable claims, including vanity and commercial links to Produced Power Records. It also includes promotional information on a forthcoming "release".
I'm not sure if this is proveable as a case of sockpuppetry, but both Adam J Lewis and Produced Power Records articles were created by User:Sian Richards. This account seems to have been set-up purely to create the two vanity pages.
User talk:193.115.180.10 Has made a number of trolling edits to fire related articles and to my user page, and has also contributed to the Adam J Lewis page, see: [22] Again there appears to be a link, and an ongoing refusal to sign pages and edit in accordance with Wiki policy. Regards Escaper27 13:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable person. We may have a sockpuppet here, but too early to tell. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abridged Series

The Yu-gi-oh series mentioned was deleted by AFD a while back for lack of notability, and has been recreated and deleted and salted repeatedly (Under many varient titles) since then. This article mentions other, likely similarly non-notable YouTube series, but is again mostly a YAS article. It wasn't notable on it's own, and it's not notable dressed up like this, sorry. TexasAndroid 13:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This specific use of the term cannot be verified by reliable sources. -- Satori Son 13:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Satori Son. Also, can I get some salt on those deletion fries? If it's been repeatedly recreated and deleted, it should be salted (again). NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large heap of salt already piling up here. We can just add this one to the heap, assuming it ends in Delete. - TexasAndroid 16:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Satori Son. As popular as these are, they still have no real world relevance. JuJube 21:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just how many times are we going to delete articles related to this? Almost of all of these kinds of fan parodies never meet Wikipedia:Notability, much less the idea itself. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salt per TexasAndroid. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt In fact, this should be done (as speedily as possible) under any additional titles the creator happens to think up. Since this appears to be a persistant, targeted wikipedia spam/vandalism campaign, associated accounts should be blocked. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm watching for more direct reposts of the YTAS series, and G4 delete/salting them as I find them. This one was different enough, being about the classification of these series rather than about YTAS itself, that I did not feel comfortable with it as a G4. And it's not one of the types of things that qualify for A7 either. So I felt it needed/deserved it's own AFD. - TexasAndroid 21:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Kreuzer

Non-notable junior footballer who does not meet WP:BIO for athletes. He is an amateur who has not played at the highest level possible (yet). In terms of his future as a professional athlete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. He has not even been drafted yet, let alone signed with a professional club or played a AFL game. Mattinbgn\^talk 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many good sources out there. He is going to be the number-one pick in the draft. Its obvious he is going to play AFL football. Hes a keeper. Twenty Years 13:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When he plays a senior AFL game he gets an article. The notability rules are quite clear on this. Nick mallory 14:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Nick mallory. The referenced medal for amateur sport doesn't confer sufficient notability to meet WP:BIO. Accounting4Taste 15:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick Mallory. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that Kreuzer does not meet the Athlete criteria of WP:BIO, however, it is explicitly stated that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". The wikipedia general notability guideline states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". I feel that the article in the Herald Sun, a major australian newspaper, justifies inclusion under general notability guidelines. Dr bab 16:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr bab, this is a rare exception to the rule. See also Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if you still don't get it. Burntsauce 17:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given that he is widely tipped to be drafted and we would have to recreate the article anyway. If for some reason he isn't drafted we can look at it again. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is forever. It can't and shouldn't be retrospectively reviewed. Either the subject is notable now and the article is kept now and forever, or (as is my view) the subject is not notable and the article is deleted (or userfied) to be recreated once notability is established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of sources; [23], [24], [25]. Hell, just look at the number of Herald Sun articles on him [26]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaiderAspect (talk • contribs) 12:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone has just jumped the gun on giving him an article. It is rather poorly written, and acts as more of a discussion on the top of the draft than Kreuzer himself, but than can be easily rectified. In fact, I'll do that now. Bryce Gibbs had an article for at least a couple of months before he was drafted. Aspirex 09:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to my above comment, I have now edited the article. The paragraph about his junior football essentially never has to be edited again. Aspirex 10:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is-phone

Article for an insufficiently notable software program. Subject has not received non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. I was unable to locate any reliable sources for subject using Google News or LexisNexis News searches. Even the “News Archive” of the company that produces the program contains virtually all press releases. Speedy was denied, and Prod tag removed by anon, so comes here for deletion. Thank you. — Satori Son 12:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails to assert notability. Calltech 23:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people youngest in their field

Delete - arbitrary potentially unbounded trivia list. Every field of endeavour has a youngest participant. No objective criteria for what fields to include or exclude. Otto4711 12:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Could be a good concept with a good writer. A good writer would have at least listed the persons' ages when doing an article like this. Then there's the title. This is not about people who are "youngest in their field" but rather about people who hold a "record" for being the youngest to achieve an honor at a particular time. Perfect example is Tatum O'Neal, who is approaching 50, but was a kid when she won the supporting actress Oscar for Paper Moon. Even if acting were considered a "field" in the way that, say, cancer research is a field, Tatum may have been among the youngest back in 1973. I don't think it's worth fixing. This will come back in another form in the future. Mandsford 15:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's a 'field'? JJL 18:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a generic term that you use when you can't think of anything better. Mandsford 22:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this is wrong for so many reason. One how will it ever be sourced. Two it's a topic that will constantly change. Ridernyc 00:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, because this material should be verifiable (as always additional references never hurt) and reference guides would note notable things like milestones, records, etc. Thus, a structured list indicating the youngest individuals in various fields does have some research value. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is a very trivial list. Also I want to point out: putting strong in front of things doesn't help, so why even do it? The closing admin wont consider a strong keep or strong delete, any better than one without the word strong in it. RobJ1981 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or more likely userify since as hard to maintain as this would be, it does serve a purpose. It's quite possible that some group of people could fix many of the difficult problems facing it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as potentially encyclopedic--and move to "List of youngest leaders in their field" as I think was suggested elsewhere. Seems a clearer title. "Field" is a standard terms, in the sense of academic field, artistic field, etc. organisations giving prizes frequently use it. "Profession" is an alternate, tho it is stretching it to apply to some areas of endeavor. Obviously this can be used absurdly by over-restricting the field, but so can any criterion in any article-- largest inauthentic sicilian pizza fast-food restaurant in northern minneapolis. (imaginary, but not much worse than I've seen as justification for notability sometimes) This will be a difficult list to maintain, but that is no reason to delete it. I think it needs some more details to make a good list, such as date, and some logical suborganisation within groups such as athletes or politicians. I see the individual items are beginning to be referenced. May eventually become a good article.DGG (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no encyclopdic value here because literally anything could be defined as a "field" to be included. "Youngest person to sing a song at Carnegie Hall." "Youngest person to throw out the first baseball at a National League game." "Youngest person to perforn gastric bypass surgery." Anything that humans do will have a youngest personwho does it. Eddie's Teddy 03:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Semi-random collection of trivia. No context which would be more interesting than handful of names. Pavel Vozenilek 23:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:AFD - If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Just because you might not see the encyclopedic value hardly means that the information is of no use and wouldn't easily benefit someone else. Keep, expand and add clarity so others can more easily understand the notability. Benjiboi 04:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be fixed through normal editing. There is no normal editing that can be done that will impose any non-arbitrary limitation on the list. Otto4711 18:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This certainly can be fixed through regular editing and since when do have to impose limits on information and lists? People are regularly born and young people being documented doing exceptional things is likely to happen more so add clarity, sources and allow for a better article to emerge. Benjiboi 00:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the specific and non-arbitrary standard for inclusion in this article? If you can set a non-arbitrary inclusion standard then I'll withdraw the nomination. If you can't then you should acknowledge that and be done with it. Otto4711 02:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for and frankly get the impression that whatever I respond with will be picked apart for one reason or another. There will always be a reason to delete articles so on that front you certainly win. However, the information is encyclopedic and presented well and referenced so I'm missing why you don't fix whatever short-comings you have or spell out for the rest of us what would make this article pass whatever bar you have in mind. Is the lede not sparkling the right way, the title not spot on? I feel like we're talking about numbers v. colors and not connecting what this article still needs to do. Benjiboi 03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said several times already, the major problem with this article is that it has no objective inclusion criterion. Everything that humans do, there's been a youngest person to do it, and neither you nor anyone else has suggested any standard for when that youngest person to do such-and-such should be included. Youngest person to eat a 72-ounce steak in a contest? Youngest person to be a professional pedicurist? Youngest person to hang glide? I would find all of these examples far too trivial to include but would also bet dollars to donuts that for each of them or for any other "youngest person to..." entry you could think of that's too trivial or obscure to include, there would be someone who wants it included, and there's no possible standard that can be applied. Otto4711 13:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some of the contents but move/split up ASAP into one or more lists with more objective criteria for inclusion (youngest egyptologist according to a Spanish newspaper?) Cosmo0 22:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what might those objective criteria be? Otto4711 23:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for example, the youngest winner of a particular prize, or the youngest holder of a particular office, are objective facts, don't change very often and are easily kept track of, whereas 'youngest person in their field' is both arbitrary (what does it mean to be 'in a field' - see the example I gave above) and temporary (people age). I'm not sure how I would re-organize the list, but I do think that, on balance, the page should stay for now, to give someone else a chance to sort it out. Cosmo0 00:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then, no objective criteria. Got it. Otto4711 02:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG; information on who the youngest recipient of an award etc. was is encyclopedic, and there is no special reason not to compile that into a list. Looks to have been fully referenced since the AfD was started. -- phoebe/(talk) 22:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again, because here's the question that's not being answered, what limit do you put on the list? At what point does being the youngest whoever to do whatever become too trivial for inclusion, and to what objective, non-arbitrary standard does one look to make that determination? Otto4711 23:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's for our customer's to decide. People come to wikipedia for all manner of information, it's not our job to judge if their interest is valid, our job is to ensure that all information is presented as well as possible. Benjiboi 00:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one here has made any judgment about any person who may come to Wikipedia. It is most certainly our job to evaluate content and "people might want to look at it" is not a valid reason for keeping. There is at least one person, its author, who wants to read every article that's placed here. That desire is not relevant to an AFD discussion. Otto4711 02:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Wikipedia is to be the sum of all knowledge and this article certainly adds to that. It's an informative list with wikilinks galore that encourages further investigation. The information is central to young people being capable and able to excel which is certainly of interest to all people who are or have ever been young. Non-notable material certainly may be added as happens with many articles and good editing will prune it away. Benjiboi 03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not, nor is it intended to be, the sum of all knowledge. There are entire areas of human knowledge that are specifically excluded from Wikipedia as a matter of policy. Arguing in favor of an article on the basis of believing that Wikipedia should be about everything ignore the basic realities of what Wikipedia is and how it works. Otto4711 13:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep material is notable, material is encyclopedic. it could be improved with citations.--Buridan 05:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any problems with this list. Tim! 07:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journalistic writing

Merge or delete: Very stubby duplicate of News style (to which News writing and Journalistic style already redirect). May have hard/soft lede material in it worth merging into News style, otherwise just delete it and redirect it to News style. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom--Victor falk 13:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The bit about Charnley is well worth moving over to news style. But we definitely don't need both. --Dhartung | Talk 13:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. "Journalistic writing" is a reasonably likely search term, and the article on news style seems the most pertinent. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the article; consensus is for merging but it remains unclear where to. That's a matter for editors to sort out. Sandstein 07:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Moulthrop

3rd generation woodturner. Talented, but not up to WP:BIO. Deiz talk 10:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 11:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as lacking independent sources establishing encyclopaedic notability. Cruftbane 11:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka's merge makes good sense. Cruftbane 21:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability sufficient to meet WP:BIO inclusion standards cannot be properly verified. -- Satori Son 12:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a Moulthrop family article should be created I will leave to others, but this single individual does not yet meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. -- Satori Son 13:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability standards for people and notability is not inherited. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Matt Moulthrop and the article about his father Philip Moulthrop into the grandfather's article Ed Moulthrop. Or, make a "Moulthrop family" article. There's definitely a notable subject here overall, and the work (and family) have been the subject of multiple articles, especially in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

November 24, 2005: "VIZARTS: Knock on wood - FOR THE MOULTHROPS, CRAFTING SLEEK DESIGNS IS ALL IN THE FAMILY"
September 25, 2003: "ATLANTA CRAFTSMAN/ARTIST: ED MOULTHROP: 1916-2003: Finding the glory in wood - He brought ancient craft into realm of art"

The work is well-known enough that I also found mentions in articles in other states/countries. I'm not convinced that each family member is individually notable enough for a separate article, but one article covering all of them would seem sufficient, and then if any one of them becomes further individually notable, a separate article can easily be split out at that time. --El on ka 18:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Elonka. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Elonka's got a good idea, there. I'd also suggest creating redirects from the individuals to the new article on the family, as they would be reasonable search terms. LaMenta3 19:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (1) There is an entire book on Matt and his family: Moulthrop: A Legacy in Wood (2007). (2) Very likely sufficient biograpy material in woodworking magazines, which those in this AfD have not addresses. Of course the Atlanta International Museum of Art and Design is going to write up significant details on Matt's life in the Museum's magazines since the Museum features his work. (3) Further, there are significant Google books hits. In addition, Matt is detailed in (4) Fox, Catherine. (April 27, 2003) The Atlanta Journal-Constitution A burnished and beautiful legacy. Section: Arts; Page M1. (5) The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (May 18, 2003) AccessAtlanta summer guide: Vizarts. Section: accessAtlanta; Page S30. (writing: "Atlanta International Museum of Art and Design:"Turning, the Moulthrop Legacy: Three Generations of Innovation in Wood." Works in turned wood by Ed, Philip and Matt Moulthrop. Family night takes place 6-8 p.m. June 5."); (6) Fix, Catherine. (September 25, 2003) The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Atlanta craftsman/artist: Ed Moulthrop: 1916-2003: Finding the glory in wood, he brought ancient craft into the realm of art. Section: Features; Page E1. -- Jreferee t/c 13:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would support Elonka's idea, I think. All these seem to consider the three together. Cruftbane 14:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it supports Matt Moulthrop being its own, independent article. Also, since it presents significant references not considered by others who support merge, the merge discussion has been rebutted by this keep argument and the article should be kept. -- Jreferee t/c 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I propose merging some of the information from the whole family into the article woodturning. Muntuwandi 03:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per per Elonka. Its a good idea to merge the article into woodturning. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- RockMFR 16:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2017 in rail transport

Page has no facts/events scheduled. Page should be recreated when an event/events need to be added. The "completion of London crossrail scheme" should be moved to some article about future rail transport events.Flaminglawyer 21:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep for the same reason we have an article about 2017 itself, to list events related to the topic that are scheduled for or expected to occur in that year. The Crossrail completion is the only event that has been officially announced so far. Slambo (Speak) 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the CRYSTAL BALL. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I agree with Slambo, as with any industry the Railroad industry is constantly changing. These changes don't happen overnight they are proposed years in advance. This article allows those interested in the railroad industry to read about such changes as they are proposed. Flaminglawyer wrote: "...should be moved to some article about future rail transport events." 2017 in rail transport is about the future of rail transport (In case you hadn't noticed). The article belongs here. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 22:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was initially thinking "delete," because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but I found that we have a number of pages that cover future years and detail events expected to occur in those years, such as 2058. We also have a number of templates for handling those pages. Consequently, since this really doesn't involve predicting the future but only listing and discussing events scheduled to happen at known times in the future, I'm for keeping this article. --Tkynerd 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I, too, was initially going to suggest deletion for similar reasons above. I am however, in favor of keeping this article because it talks about a rail project that is scheduled to complete in the future; it is not a blind prediction of of the future a-la a crystal ball. VCA 16:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments. STORMTRACKER 94 11:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is appropriately tagged with {{future}}. There's nothing in principle wrong with this and particularly for major engineering works there are multi-year schedules. The only issue is that schedules slip, but ... we've got ten years, I think we can catch it when that does happen. Nominator's proposal for an article on "future rail transport events" would look exactly like this one, as far as I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 14:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Anthony5429 16:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All that this article is, really, is a statement that the London Crossrail is projected to be completed in this year and has no other information about anything else confirmed to be projected to happen in that year. The content of this article is covered already in significant detail in the Crossrail article, which makes the existence of this article pretty redundant. I would suggest a redirect, but "2017 in rail transport" doesn't even seem to me like a likely search term. I'm actually quite confused by all of the "keep" !votes in this AfD, as I am typically all for keeping/salvaging articles and information when no one else is, but this seems like a no-brainer to delete as redundant. LaMenta3 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that there isn't currently any other content on this page doesn't mean there never will be, so that's no reason for deletion. Look at 2010 in rail transport, for example. It only started out with one event, but has accumulated more as that year has drawn closer. So is it likely to be with this article. This isn't a likely search term, but many of our articles' names aren't really likely search terms either due to our naming conventions; this article is more likely to attract some links as time goes by rather than being searched for directly. List of Friends episodes isn't a particularly likely search term either, but it makes a great link from Friends. --Tkynerd 22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This seems like an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to me. Your example using the list of Friends episodes is also a sort of false comparison. Articles/lists like that are often made as forks from the main topic article to present additional information that would make the main article unwieldy. Most [year] in [subject area] articles, particularly ones listing future events, are just redundant listings of information already available in a set of related articles, and their inclusion there does not make those articles unwieldy. If anything, these should be categories rather than articles. LaMenta3 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Using this article, we can keep the citations to reliable sources with the listings of future events and keep them all in one place so we can go back and edit them as appropriate in the future when the events come to pass or are rescheduled. Also, data from the rail transport timeline series of articles are used in building and maintaining Portal:Trains when I go through and make updates to the portal. I'm updating something on the portal almost daily to keep it up to date and to maintain its Featured Portal status. For example, when I added the note about the discussions to open cross-border freight service between North and South Korea in the news section, I used the timeline pages to find the information on and the link to the previous milestone of test cross-border passenger trains earlier this year. Slambo (Speak) 18:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your arguments don't make any sense to me. I've never before heard anyone argue that Wikipedia should avoid duplication of information at all costs; indeed, for the sake of usability it is frequently helpful to have information in more than one place, which means it can be found more easily. You also haven't addressed my point that even if there is only one item on this page today, there will probably be more items here later on as we get closer to 2017. Finally, it seems you're arguing against having any [year] in [subject area] articles at all, and I don't think you're going to find consensus on that at all. Your argument seems to amount to WP:ITBOTHERSME. --Tkynerd 22:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It doesn't "bother" me at all. In fact, I attach no emotional qualification to my opinion about this article or others very much like it. Also, I never said that duplication of all information should be avoided "at all costs." There are in fact times where duplication of information is useful, particularly in cases of subject matter forks where a main article might include a very brief summary of some information that helps with the understanding of that main article, but the same information is repeated and laid out in greater detail in a fork article. In this case, I simply don't think that an article about 2017 in rail transport brings anything new to the table in the subject area of rail transport. Its existence doesn't add to the understanding about the London Crossrail, nor would it add to the understanding of any other items that would potentially be added later. I make this qualification on the fact that none of the other articles that I have looked at that are truly similar (as this one is admittedly underdeveloped since it is so far in the future) amount to much more than non-enlightening lists. It is simply my opinion that this sort of classification would be better served by being a category rather than an article. I presented that as a constructive alternative to completely wiping it out, as I honestly believe that the classification could be useful, but not so much in its current form. LaMenta3 02:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem with a list, as I see it, is that the relevant information may be buried in the linked article and hard to find. For instance, a major rail project may be opened in stages and thus might show up on multiple "year" lists, but it would probably be difficult to dig into the article and figure out exactly what is happening in any one of those years. An article like 2017 in rail transport makes it immediately clear what is happening in 2017. To my mind, that's the value it provides. An article like this, when fully developed, also contributes to a more global view of events than one can get from a list, especially since an article like Crossrail will show up on a list with no context, including geographical context. That's what an article can better provide than a list. Again, compare 2010 in rail transport for a good example. --Tkynerd 02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many rail projects are major undertakings and will take over a decade to complete. Some will take less. The Crossrail is officially announced as one of those to be completed in 2017 and the list will only expand. --Oakshade 05:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the topic meets the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 13:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas E. Harding

Does not appear to satisfy the notability guideline for biographies, NPOV, tagged for notabilility since May 2007. Found only his books and a few references from websites (on an individuals homepage, two Google returns only his books and short mentions of him (such as one man's guru rating service page :) NPOV could be changed but I could find no external sources for info on him that were not very closely tied to him or his own website. Fitzhugh 06:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NPOV. STORMTRACKER 94 11:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although Googling is complicated by other Douglas Hardings, I see some hits on Google Books, and the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh had him write an introduction to one of his books (And The Flowers Showered), indicating that he has some notability among Western Buddhists. WorldCat indicates that his two most popular books[27][28] are still held in a couple hundred libraries, and some have been translated into foreign languages. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've found out from his obituary[29] that the introduction to his The Hierarchy of Heaven and Earth was written by C.S. Lewis. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are biographies of MANY less interesting and influential thinkers and writers in Wikipedia, including one or two self-promoting but minor academic philosophers I could name. Harding is not an academic philosopher, having spent his working life as an architect alongside a serious and sustained intellectual and "spiritual" avocation. His work is, however, excerpted in an important academic volume on philosophy of mind: The Mind's I by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett. The editors give the excerpt their commendation, as well they might. It is highly original and challenging. Myself, I have recently read and appreciated Harding's The Little Book of Life and Death. It too is engaging and challenging: a serious effort by a very thoughtful mystic in something like the "debunking" tradition of Alan Watts, who had a somewhat similar origin and early religious formation. The article itself is not yet in good shape, but again there are many worse! I'm strongly in favour of letting it stand; and I will probably put some effort into it myself – as a competent editor reasonably well versed in this area (though it is not one I normally contribute in).

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 12:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 :: maelgwn - talk 07:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelynne Scutt

Unreferenced, orphan, "unwikified" and substantially autobiographical article. I would say this needs either aggressive and expeditious cleanup, or removal until a properly independent and sourced article comes along. Cruftbane 21:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 11:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Dr Scutt is a well-known feminist academic in Australia and has also served as Tasmanian anti-discrimination commissioner. [30]. She also has a number of scholarly works. [31] and books to her credit. [32].
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Capital. Twenty Years 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh....Keep. Not a well thought out nomination. Tag for cleanup, references etc... but a small effort on Google scholar, google news or anywhere else shows she clearly has sufficient independant commentary to pass WP:BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 21:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable person, but a very poor article.--Grahamec 04:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup desperately needed - not afd - notability assured - bibliography/works section needs broom or brush Satu Suro 05:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and rename. It is clear from the discussion that the name of the article skewed the discussion. The topic is one that is widely known and various lists on this topic have been and continue to be compiled by reliable sources. The term accused does raise BLP concerns, which may be addressed by renaming the article as List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses. -- Jreferee t/c 13:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic priests accused of sex offenses

"Accused"??? Someone hasn't been reading WP:BLP. If we are going to make articles out of accusations, then we will be sued, it's just a matter of time.

The list contains some cases which the media document as sex abuse "accusations". Why would WP be sued if we simply reiterate what the media say? -- Alan Liefting talk 20:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When nominated the list contained unsourced accusations. However I don't think the issue of being sued is really the point - WP:BLP is at least as much about the impact we have on the lives of people we write about as it is about protecting our editors from being sued. -- SiobhanHansa 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is NPOV, verifiable and with no original research there is no problem with WP:BLP. -- Alan Liefting talk 05:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom. 1of3 16:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1of3 16:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Roman Catholic priests convicted of sex offenses and prune list. Jeffpw 08:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses and prune list; this name will not exclude listees by gender, and will not needlessly engender the creation of a separate list for those charged vs. convicted (you must be charged before you are convicted, so if two lists were created they should be merged anyway), and also avoids the problem of the term "convicted" having actually a narrower legal definition than many editors think it does. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It won't be an easy fix. This one has a lot of problems. Eight of the persons on there are isted as "convicted", several are just a blue link. Others out there have been accused in a lawsuit, rather than in a criminal indictment. When the lawsuit is successful, it is not a conviction. Lof3's concerns are valid, to the extent that when you make a list like this, there's no guard against a vandal adding in someone's name (in effect, making an accusation). That can be just as much of a problem for a "list of priests convicted". While it's a worthy topic, I don't think it can exist independently of an article about the lawsuits that have been filed in recent years. Mandsford 12:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe repairable. Bishops and higher can stay somewhere, maybe in higher level article. Articles on ordinary priests probably should be deleted (as they probably should on non-RC woman teachers and boys - this is just plain prurience). List can be maintained impersonally to meet WP:BLP guidlelines. e.g. "Rector at St. Brendan's 1992." The name would stay imbedded as a comment for tracking by editors. A footnote reference should be provided that documents the charge. Willingness to do this would also indicate that there is no pov by author. That is, the point of article is to record not to embarrass. Student7 15:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just about as pointless as List of groups referred to as cults. Hey, wait a minute... Burntsauce 17:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipolicy WP:NOT#Directory. There are numerous wikipolicies in WP:NOT to justify deletion of this list of names of accused priests. Besides that, it is really an unethical use of Wikipedia to have a list of accused persons. What if some of these priests are innocent as may be the case with a certain percentage. How cruel is that to have a Directory on Wikipedia with your name on it even if you have never been convicted and are possibly innocent? Also, why would there only be a list for priests? Why not a list for accused public school teachers having sex with students? Once you open the bottle, its hard to put the genie back in. I think this bottle should stay closed (and delete this list).NancyHeise 20:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Corvus cornix 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with similar lists up for AfD at this time even were anonymity possible to everyone's satisfaction and the inclusion of people merely accused dealt with, listing every person of a particular type who has committed a particular crime just isn't encyclopedic - it's the basis of original research and does nothing to reflect the significant opinions of experts on the subject. We're not a database of cases from which to build theories or launch campaigns. -- SiobhanHansa 00:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP nightmare. Might work as a category, per above concerns about 'accused' v 'charged' v 'convicted'. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses and prune list. -- Alan Liefting talk 19:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. Suggest that interested authors limit themselves to: List of Roman Catholic priests convicted of sex offenses --SmokeyJoe 03:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Rename to List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses and prune list.? -- Alan Liefting talk 05:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The current article contains potentially libellous material that should not be available in a history. Also, I mean “convicted” not “charged”. Someone can be charged on the basis of false testimony. We can wait. Wikipedia is not current affairs. --SmokeyJoe 05:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "accused" to "convicted" and trim the list. Reinis^talk 06:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many other lists exist in WP. What is wrong with a list of articles about priests who have been accused of sex offences? -- Alan Liefting talk 08:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure Camaron1 | Chris 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The I's Mind

Band's page was deleted, so the album should be as well.--Hraefen ^Talk 02:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:MUSIC and common sense. --Bongwarrior 10:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7. STORMTRACKER 94 11:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If band not non-notable then their album wouldn't be notable as well--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. Camaron1 | Chris 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Unbelievable Meltdown (U-Melt album)

The band's page was deleted, so the album should be too.--Hraefen ^Talk 02:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:MUSIC and common sense. --Bongwarrior 10:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7. STORMTRACKER 94 11:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD A7. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 10:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amato Residence

It's a house. A not particularly notable one for that. Unverifiable, apart from the usual real estate directories. 160 ghits. MER-C 10:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Completely Cuckoo Theatre Company

A student theatre group. I used to work at the college where this group is based, a member of my family still works there, and I still live under 10km away. I have not come across this group; their fame has not spread as far as the next town. The sole source is a piece in the local paper, which reviews every event in the area from school gymkhanas up (and yes, I have also been reviewed in that paper more than once) - this does not count as substantial coverage. In short, then, this is a generic school theatre group with no evidence presented of encyclopaedic notability or non-trivial independent coverage. Cruftbane 10:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability and sourcing. --RaiderAspect 12:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged by User:Yngvarr. Since it's been merged we can't delete for GFDL reasons, and the redirects are useful anyway. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 10:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironforge

In light of the recent mass Warcraft AfD, I am now nominating Ironforge for deletion. My reasons:

WP:N. This article is not notable, because no reliable source has covered it in a non trivial way, i.e. it has never been the primary subject of any reliable source.
WP:NOT#GUIDE. Wikipedia is not a gameguide, meaning that we do not teach nor show people how to play a game. This article contains several paragraphs which belong in a game guide without doubt. The second paragraph of History, the list in Structure, and much of the Trivia are examples of this.
WP:V. Specifically, it is impossible to find a reliable source for many of the statements in the article. Note that this point ignores the (according to me) irrelevant fact that it currently contains no sources.
If all mentions of the above kinds were removed, a very small article would remain. In fact, just about as small as the summary of this city in List of major cities in World of Warcraft.

User:Krator (t c) 08:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, if you notice the history for List of major cities in World of Warcraft, I've been merging the cities into here. For some reason, I missed both Ironforge and the Exodar! I'll get around to it shortly, unless someone else feels like merging these last two in a similar manner. Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification It looks like I did what I wanted to do, but just forgot to apply the redir! As implied above, this one just slipped my mind, and I apparently never finished the chore... [33]! I think the basic procedure is that when a merge occurs, you don't delete the original article so that you don't loose the edit history (based on GFDL). I will apply the redirect now. My apologies for the troubles and for not finishing the task I set out to do; it would have saved you all the trouble of this AfD. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for Yngvarr to retrieve valuable information and merhe it into List of major cities in World of Warcraft, then delete. per nom, WP:N. Nothing more to be said. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V. STORMTRACKER 94 12:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close the articles are redirects now, good job Yngvarr--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the article is an improper content fork of MAME -- Jreferee t/c 14:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAME arcade cabinet

Purely prescriptive elaboration on something which warrants a sentence or two in MAME. It's been copied to Wikibooks, where it belongs. Chris Cunningham 08:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it's been transwikied to Wikibooks, no need to have it here. Perhaps worth a mention and a link in MAME. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NASCAR Fan. STORMTRACKER 94 12:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, transwiki of how-to material complete. I've added a Wikibooks template to MAME in place of the See also entry. --Dhartung | Talk 13:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to the MAME article, without any of the "how-to" guide material. I'm positive that this has been covered in multiple reliable sources. Amazon.com confirms this. Burntsauce 17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Case in point, an intentionally limited search string on books.google.com reveals a number of hits [34] from books such as Hardware Hacking Projects for Geeks, Retro Gaming Hacks, The Medium of the Video Game, Make: Technology on Your Time, and Project Arcade: Build Your Own Arcade Machine. So while I agree in principle we're not a how-to guide, we can still write a non-how-to article about them as they're notable beyond a shadow of a doubt. By the way, I *love* the how-to imagery we're hosting in the Paper plane article. Burntsauce 21:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So we can have a paragraph on emulator or MAME dealing with them. The concept of emulator cabinets really isn't complicated enough to warrant an article. The implementation has a lot of nuances, but discussing these without getting prescriptive is really difficult (check out accurizing, which is a perfect example of how to take a non-article and phrase it in such a way as to make a 60k guidebook seem like an article at first glance). Chris Cunningham 11:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. So you agree then, as nominator, that this subject can be dealt with in the MAME article? I will perform the merge now. Burntsauce 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but excise how-to material. Pranab 13:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 05:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme

I think the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme meant to include these two related articles, but there is no consensus to delete them, or even much of a notice that they exist. Presumably the same rationale applies. Cool Hand Luke 08:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you Luke, I should probably have nominated those as well. I certainly advocate deletion, for the same reason we deleted the List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme; there is an authoritative database freely available online, there are nearly two thousand possible members of the list, and the job can be done with less maintenance through categories. This was endorsed by strong consensus in the earlier debate. Cruftbane 09:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT#DIR. This isn't the type of material we should be updating; the earlier debate was correct. --Dhartung | Talk 13:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 17:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of notable educational institutions. This list is no more of a directory than ANY OTHER LIST. Either delete all lists or scrap this entire notion of WP:NOT#DIR all together. Burntsauce 17:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think this is the right forum to scrap NOT#DIR, and you must admit that this is much longer and difficult to maintain than most lists—say, the list of U.S. Presidents, or even list of second season Ugly Betty episodes. Cool Hand Luke 18:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is exactly what lists are for and fits the textbook definition of WP:LIST of where and how lists should be used, in manners that can never be achieved using categories, as suggested. There is no commitment that the list will be synchronized with the IB website, other than to list articles, and the argument that there is an authoritative source elsewhere is not just an argument to get rid of this list and all other lists in Wikipedia, it's a demand that we junk Wikipedia in its entirety as there are always going to be sources or details that aren't reflected in the articles we have. As to WP:NOT#DIR, this list provides a clear, well-defined, unambiguously-classified list of useful information. While there are many schools that could meet the qualification, the number of school articles is far smaller, and far easier to manage than, say, List of shopping malls in the United States, which lists a potential universe of 46,990 shopping malls and centers in the nation, a few dozen times larger than the maximum here. Plain and simple, there is no Wikipedia policy justification for deletion of this list, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alansohn 19:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete unmaintained (or it would be complete) and unmaintainable list. Chris 21:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Must all incomplete lists be deleted per Wikipedia policy? Is there any violation of Wikipedia policy that requires this article's deletion or is this just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Alansohn 21:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Crying "incomplete" is an absurd argument for deletion, as Wikipedia is a perpetual work-in-progress. The list is unambiguously-classified and maintained quite well based upon my own examination. Sad to see that the WP:BIAS against schools hasn't died down. Silensor 04:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst the programme itself may be notable, a list of schools that has it is completely usless. What could be mentioned in the IB article is that there are "X" amount of schools that have it. Twenty Years 14:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung and 20. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously per WP:NOT#DIR. Eusebeus 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an encyclopedic subject and a maintainable list, and meets our list guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira 21:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very important list and one that many will look up. Every effort should be made to update it regularly. Most people looking for the info will look here as the IBO website is not as easy to navigate as Wikipedia and this allows quick movement from the list for one country to another.Avman M 13:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Heaven and Hell

No English references. This was a speedy, but after talking with the author, I think the AfD route is a better choice for this. Rocket000 07:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided as nominator. (Even if my vote changes to keep, I won't withdraw because it was speedy before.) Rocket000 10:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The subject seems eminently encyclopedic, but I can't find no verifiable sources. I tried to read the book in original with my non-existent Chinese skills but it made no sense whatsoever to me. I think someone more knowledgeable on the subject and/or the language should give his or her opinion in this discussion. --Victor falk 11:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I can't help but maybe they could. Already notified them.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- New update Moved notification to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Taoism, maybe ACHKC can get more help there.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- I am pleading with all readers and wiki-fans on the grounds that without an ENGLISH translation or website does not mean this Book is non-existent, a fundamental flaw perhaps in the Wiki-rules. I hope to see Wikipedia around in 2050 CE, care to think how many articles then will be in Chinese or originated in Chinese, meaning perhaps Wiki should be flexible about this. There are more than thirty books of similar nature that I hope with time to introduce to the English-reading Wiki-readers, help me on this....ACHKC 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really wish I could help you. If only the Google translator work better.. I don't know if you are aware, but there is a Chinese Wikipedia. If you can find a good article on this subject there, it will definitely help. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find anything (or on other language Wikipedias). I'll keep looking though, because honestly, I don't know where to go with this. Rocket000 07:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not the same in Chinese Wikipedia, the benchmark and the reach quite different, thanks.ACHKC 05:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have looked at both the article and the source cited, and while no expert on Taoism, make the following observations: 1. the article is extremely poorly written. For example, "issued by the current divine sovereign" makes no sense at all. 2. the "book" is in the form of a novel, with all the traditional chapter headers, structures, and styles of a novel. 3. the "book" is not written in Han-dynasty classical Chinese. It is certainly a much more modern work - perhaps a contemporary work, as seen from the following sentence in the epilogue: "堪以慰我天皇在天之靈，迫望印刷百餘萬卷，公諸全球，以勸五族同人，並勸歐、美、各國": "To please my Heavenly Emperor's spirit in heaven [note: usually used to refer to the deceased rather than a deity], I hope to print more than a million copies, present it to the world [a modern term], to entreat colleagues of the five ethnicities [a term originating from the Republic of China era], and also to entreat upon the nations of Europe and America." I believe that the article should be deleted because: (1) it cites no sources for all of its claims about the book, e.g. the "controversy"; (2) no sources are cited to show its notability; (3) many of the claims made are plainly false, or seem to be written from an in-world perspective of the novel. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that was helpful, thank you; would you care to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Feast of Immortal Peaches, as it seems to have much the same problems?--Victor falk 11:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment makes sense if you also read Guan Shengdi which asserts a knowledge of recent changes in the celestial court.KTo288 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- PalaceGuard008's reading of Chinese is quite mono-dimensional in this: ..在天之靈, the 靈 is a word not only refering ...to the deceased rather than a deity it can also mean spiritual or transcendental. Many different ways to approach it really, reading the base text, some of the expressions, the message, what it is saying. Putting off the book based on one-take on a sentence is really saying something about the prejudices of PalaceGuard008.ACHKC 05:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACHKC, the crux of the problem is that you haven't provided with any information that establishes (1) exactly when this book was written, (2) whether it has been published, and the surrounding circumstances, and (3) how notable it is. To keep the article, you will need to (1) detail exactly who physically "penned" the book, (2) whether, when and where it was published, and (3) at least one external academic source or a couple of non-academic independent sources that confirm at least some of the claims being made about this book in the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per PalaceGuard and lack of sources. --RaiderAspect 12:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tending to delete, same arguements as I'm making for "Feast of the Immortal Peaches" this class of book claimed to be written in a state of divine inspiration cannot be verified or sourced this side of heaven, however what can be verified and sourced is real world impact by its followers and adherents, if ACHKC can demonstrate that it has a substantial following, that it has maybe two or three very famous adherents, or that the controversy he/she claims has had a significant impact on religious practise etc than maybe I could be convinced enough to make mine a keep vote. KTo288 15:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I studied Daoism in University and have never heard of this book. In addition, I did a few searches for anything with the title , and found nothing in English. I got a few hits in Chinese. Nevertheless, sources should be provided here, and there are simply some things that don't make sense in this article. I wasn't aware that there was still a Jade Emperor, who has been reigning since 1924, no less. Add some sources, or else delete this article.Zeus1234 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Please could Zeus1234 let us know the terms of reference of Daoism you studied- syllabus, presumably based on books written by western scholars and perhaps viewing daoism as a sect or semi-religion? No attack on that course you took but quite dubious about what you came away knowing. Here is my view, taoism is not an organized religion like Roman Catholic Church, thus it can not be compared as such, meaning using similar establishment-yardstick to quantify its success(adherents) and measure its tenets(practicable, understandable etc. like a book from the new testament, say) would be imposing different sets of benchmark. Your points about sources per Rocket & Wiki-editor duly taken.ACHKC 02:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thank comments eitherway on this, but I noted amidst the delete-voters they might be voting against it as a part critique of the book, or passages they partly read. The overall message about this book, as it was intended, could be overlooked. Notability of this can be subject to more discussion I am sure. ACHKC 03:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ACHKC, you seem to have voted about 3 times in this poll so far. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this and the other articles started by this user seem to be well-written nonsense. Perspicacite 08:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger B. Chaffee Elementary

non-notable school, only the namesake is notable Chris 07:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Elementary schools generally aren't notable, and I don't see anything that makes me think this one is notable. --Bongwarrior 08:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Elementary case of non-notability--Victor falk 11:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability is not inherited clause. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Existence of school rates a brief mention, with basic relevant info, in Roger B. Chaffee article, along with Huntsville, Alabama which, the article says, named schools after Grissom and White as well. After that, delete Mandsford 15:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this school or its curriculum. Page creator is only contributor.Triple3D 21:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least until I have a chance to get to Huntsville and obtain the additional materials I was planning to add to this summer before my travel plans were changed. (On a side note, I would have appreciated a note on my talk page about this AfD.) - Dravecky 01:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 17:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schoolcruft. Twenty Years 14:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, page can always be recreated when notability is established. SolidPlaid 20:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will reconsider if better sourcing can be found. W.marsh 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark R. Graczynski

With all due respect to the subject, this autobiographical entry fails to meet important criteria for Wikipedia articles. Dr. Graczynski does not appear to be a notable subject for a biographical entry, especially since no reliable sources focus on him as a biographical subject. Absent independent sources, the article is a work of original research and, moreover, research provided by the subject himself. Deletion of this article in no way casts a shadow on Dr. Graczynski, who seems to be an successful publisher. However, even his major projects, as listed in the article, have not yet merited Wikipedia articles. Thank you for considering and commenting on this nominated deletion. HG | Talk 06:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 07:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep One time advisor to the Polish Minister of Health seems notable, if it can be verified.--Sethacus 04:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending more information. I think the publishing company is worth an article, and so is at least those of its journals that have made it into Science Citation Index--some of them have, and I consider that notability for a publisher. . Index Copernicus I remember vaguely having heard of, but it's almost impossible to search on Google, for it gets all the articles they publish or index. I did find one mention in a conference proceeding [35]. I will ask about it. DGG (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If sources establish notability, fine. But I don't see a need to speculate about potential notability. Maybe it will turn out more relevant to mention him in a Health Ministry article or an article related to his publishing, if such an article eventually gets written. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"advisor" to a minister is a very undefined role--that can be really meaningful, or altogether otherwise. I wouldn't consider it notability for anyone without further details, nor would I add the names of all advisors to the articles for the ministries.DGG (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is only one mention of him in a reliable source: Dynamic Chiropractic. (November 4, 2004) DC Accepts Invitation to Become Scientific Reviewer. Volume 22; Issue 23; Page 30. -- Jreferee t/c 14:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jreferee. Note that it's Graczynski is mentioned incidentally in item about a chiropractor. HG | Talk 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He may have wrote this, but it's not independent and doesn't container any biographical material. -- Jreferee t/c

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty manager

This appears to be a thinly-disguised means of promoting several websites which clearly fail to satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for web content. I'm not familiar with this type of game, however, so I'd welcome improvements to the article if there is something encyclopedic which can be said about the general concept it discusses. JavaTenor 06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual pages listed have few links and while I am not as big into the scene as I use to be, these programs were minor and rarely used. Spryde 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough information and no sources. Should be deleted and rewritten with a much improved information:links ratio. VikingCommand 23:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC) — VikingCommand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydroplaning monkey

Doesn't meet notability guidelines for neologisms - if it does, it hasn't attempted to verify it with soruces. Almost nonsense, but i wasn't sure. James-Sugrono_{Contributions} 06:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be independently sourceable and the conclusions are original research. Not even worth adding to SEO contest. --Dhartung | Talk 14:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The specific words used are not of interest for an article (NN). --Alksub 23:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roll initiative

Article is completely unsourced and doesn't seem to be notable, and the opening section needs a verifiable source (as it is, it says every GM says that to start a session; that does not make sense to me). Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 06:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Opening paragraph is 100% OR and POV. It is used to start combat. Not ever session starts with combat. It appears to be a description of a specific gaming group. Yes, there are T-shirts for it, but you can find T-shirts on just about anything. Turlo Lomon 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure, it's used in RPGs, but a couple of NN internet memes doesn't make a phrase notable. --Dhartung | Talk 13:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. shadzar|Talk|contribs 09:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wim van mierlo

Non notable academic per WP:PROF. Kudret abi^Talk 05:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the article nor ghits go anywhere near establishing the criteria for notability under WP:PROF. There appears to be very little independent recognition of his work. Poor guy. --Mkativerata 06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 07:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding trends

Article reads like a how-to manual. And as we all know, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. I was looking at trying to edit this article so it conforms to our policies but nothing is really salvagable from what I can see. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a substantive copyvio of this page. --Mkativerata 06:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nice catch Mkativerata! --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyvio status probably takes it out, but if not, there's no possible authority for entering/not entering something on the list, so 100% original research. Accounting4Taste 15:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyvio is sufficient - and kudos to Mkativerata for the catch. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-encyclopedic even if not copyvio. Pavel Vozenilek 23:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn, no support for deletion, non admin closure. Davewild 07:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High yellow

*Delete Article was transwikied to Wictionary, but has not been expanded. Article is nothing more than a dicdef. Strothra 05:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nom per article upgrades. --Strothra 19:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, article explains some background about the term. VoL†ro/\/Force 05:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than a dictionary entry. Explains the history, background, social context and usage of the term. --Mkativerata 06:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is already more than a simple dicdef, and the discussion of the term could easily be further expanded. Dybryd 07:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Term has cultural associations beyond most other color nicknames (so merge with mulatto or biracial is also not warranted). The "high yellows" were the upper crust, socially acceptable blacks until the era of Black Power upturned (many) things, and continue to represent not-always-unspoken resentments in both directions. Probably peaked as a term before WWII, but notability is permanent. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article seems to have reached the The Heymann Standard--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the upper crusts. Burntsauce 17:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced article, and important sociological concept in racial stratification in the United States. Edison 03:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as copyright violation. No clean version to revert to. Author advised of policy. Moonriddengirl 19:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdwara Toka Sahib

Probably non-notable place of worship. Also, this was copied verbatim from this page on the Sikhiwiki, which has an unclear (to me) GFDL status. There are several other pages copied as well, and if this qualifies for Speedy Delete those would go also. CitiCat^♫ 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as copyvio. There is no explicit site wide copyright or licensing information. Numerous individual articles have copyright notices on them, some of them stating that the material was copied without permission from "sarbloh.info". We should err on the side of assuming copyright. --Dhartung | Talk 14:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please discuss article on talk page. --VoL†ro/\/Force 23:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Studebaker

Not notable. Yet another unremarkable criminal, listed for a single briefly notorious crime. Dybryd 04:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article looks remarkable enough for a paperless encyclopedia, all of the facts are backed by multiple non-trivial sources. Burntsauce 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seriously??? Even this guy? What the heck does WP:NOT#NEWS even mean, then? Dybryd 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! Why do we have an "In the news" section on the FRONT PAGE of Wikipedia? Boggles the mind. Burntsauce 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you think that WP:NOT#NEWS ought to be removed from the policy, or altered? Or do you think it says something different from what I think it says? Dybryd 18:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The In the News section is used to keep track of news events which are covered in Wikipedia articles. It is not a newspaper, that's why we have Wikinews. Corvus cornix 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable criminal. Corvus cornix 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a play called Blackbird, which opened up in New York early this year that, according to its playwright, was inspired by this case. It premiered overseas in 2005. Does that have any bearing on this discussion?Here is the NY Times review. And this is a review from the 2005 Edinburgh Festival.--Sethacus 04:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I think that would make it a more notable case because it's had an effect on popular culture. Red Fiona 11:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The play looks notable in its own right - won the Lawrence Olivier Award and all (in fact, I think I'm off to start a stub on it after I post this). However, the guideline on biographies of people notable for one event (on which I based this group of nominations) emphasizes "cover the event, not the person" - that people who are unremarkable except for a bit of media attention should not have articles of their own, but should be mentioned in the article about whatever they're connected too. My reading of how this apples to Tony Studebaker is that he merits a sentence in the article on the play: "The play is based on the cased of an American Marine, Tony Studebaker, who abducted a twelve-year-old girl." and that is sufficient.

Dybryd 04:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.84.10 (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, keep.--Sethacus 03:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have had no impact upon the world beyond the normal effect of a crime of this type, which though tragic, is not notable simply because it happened. Coverage seems to be non-remarkable, and there does not appear to be anything encyclopedic to say about the event. (Did not garner significant public attention or outrage, did not change policy or become the subject of specific law reform, did not become the subject of a significant advocacy campaign etc.). From a quoting specific policy perspective - per: WP:NOT (indiscriminate information and news) and WP:BLP. Just noticed the comment above by Sethacus. Merge into Blackbird (play) 03:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete and redirect ~~Delete and redirect~~ to Child grooming and to Blackbird (play). The article is not a biography and needs to be judge on the criminal event, which it fails per WP:NOT#NEWS. Thus, delete. However, in February 2004, Scotland created a specific crime of internet grooming in direct response to to the Toby Studebaker case.[36] Toby Studebaker might deserve mention in Child grooming since the law creation activity was by Scotland, not Studebaker. Also, Blackbird (play) was inspired by the child grooming event, so Toby Studebaker might deserve a mention in Blackbird (play) since the inspiration activity resided in the author of the play. -- Jreferee t/c 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Changed to "weak" in considering AnonEMouse reasoning below, there is a lot of Toby Studebaker reliable source material, perhaps enough to support a Toby Studebaker article about the event and add to Child grooming based on Toby's nefarious inspiration to Child grooming laws and to the Blackbird play. -- Jreferee t/c 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event got international coverage Spain Australia, and of course countless in the US and UK. Then the Scottish law and the likewise internationally famous play. The event clearly deserves coverage. I would not be against changing the article to be about the event, not the person, but that requires keeping almost all the content and the edit history, that's not a deletion, and certainly not a merge into the play and Child grooming. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Blackbird (play). Bearian 22:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr.

Notability claimed for a single event of very passing importance in the news. Just another guy with a rap sheet who was on the evening news for a week. Dybryd 04:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. VoL†ro/\/Force 04:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable criminal who has received widespread media coverage. His crimes resulted in his being the first person sentenced to death in the state of North Dakota in a century. Also, for what it's worth, Google returns over 11,000 hits for this individual ([37]). I realize that Google hits don't establish worthiness of having a Wikipedia article, but clearly we are dealing with a notable criminal here. Searching for "Rodriguez Sjodin" on Google (Sjodin was the victim) returns over 60,000 hits ([38]). --MatthewUND^(talk) 07:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Matthew. Federal death penalty cases like this are not very common, and this seems to have generated sustained coverage. Not a lot of Google News hits, but check out [39] for the level of local coverage. I found a couple of stories citing that law enforcement priorities may have been affected by this case: [40], [41], [42]. Mango juice^talk 15:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, CrimeLibrary.com, an excellent and reliable source, has a feature on Rodriguez in their "notorious criminals" section: [43]. Mango juice^talk 15:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MANGOJUICE, this is a notorious individual who has received wide coverage by multiple reliable sources. Full stop. Burntsauce 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Dru Sjodin. Nearly all of the material is duplicated in that article. Clarityfiend 04:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're going to reorganize, I think it's better to have the article at Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr. rather than at Dru Sjodin, but better than either would be to have the article at something like Dru Sjodin murder case. Mango juice^talk 12:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rizal National Science High School

This article was not sanctioned by the administration of the Rizal National Science High School. I urgently demand the Wikipedia to delete this article. This article has already caused a lot of trouble in the school, with the teachers and students. Please, to anyone who wishes that this article be sustained, please think again. The trouble this article had brought did not just damage the school name but damaged the whole of the Rizal National Science High School Community, the names of the people who were included in the past articles. I made this page and I ought to be responsible for this mess the editing of the article brought, so now I want the article be removed and deleted completely. Rob alfie9 04:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't really understand the nominator's reason, as the article content seems quite uncontroversial (though I haven't really gone through the history) and doesn't contain any unsourced material about living people. However, the school itself does not appear to be notable. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL cab 04:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. cab 04:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But not because of the nom. The school is not notable. As to the nom, what problems has it caused? i ^said 05:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep-we don't just delete articles from the Wikipedia just because they are controversial. This is a notable high school, a notable topic, and it should stay. List out the problems and they can be fixed. Yes, it's crufty, no, it's not deletion-worthy. See WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Chris 05:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep we don't delete articles because you dislike it. The school certainly doesn't have to sanction our article for it to exist. No valid criteria given for deletion. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep, deleting the article to address Rob alfie9's concerns is not necessary as any personal details can be removed from the article, and from the history if that is necessary. I am pretty confident that local/regional newspaper and other reliable sources will be added in time. John Vandenberg 06:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not per nom, but because this school is simply not notable, as shown by User:CaliforniaAliBaba.--Victor falk 11:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~. It seems that a Republic Act was enacted to create this school. [44]. I don't know if it gives notability but I'm sure Science schools are set apart from normal high schools here in the Philippines.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep. I'm now convinced that a law enacted to create your school is enough notability.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The scope and nature of the school and its curriculum are strong evidence of notability, above and beyond the overwhelming consensus demonstrated based on WP:OUTCOMES that high schools in general are notable. Alansohn 13:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:OUTCOMES as mentioned above. shoy 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Where is the AfD template on the article page? The lack of a template makes this look like an improper AfD nomination. Overall the article is lacking in citations, especially regarding the awards the school has supposedly won. The tone is also somewhat non-encyclopedic and non-neutral. The school may well be more notable than is typical, but the article needs more work to demonstrate such. — RJH (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have now added an AFD template. Camaron1 | Chris 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn, the school does appear to be notable. The article could use a bit of editorial clean up, but this isn't the forum for discussing those issues. Burntsauce 17:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article does clearly need a cleanup and further references, though it does not seem that controversial to me. The article suggests that the school does appear to have some importance - a search indicates the school is mentioned on many websites though nothing very conclusive. It has to be taken into account though that my searches is restricted to English speaking sources only. Camaron1 | Chris 18:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smashville (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because your school's administration did not give their permission to post this article doesn't give us enough reason to delete this article based on Wikipedia guidelines. In fact, any such permission or sanction is never needed anyway. Besides, even an alumni or a casual passerby to this school with enough reliable contacts willing to give a helping hand will be able to create the article anyway; do you think Wikipedia needs to contact the living descendants of Jose Rizal's family just to create the article about him? Or, to consider contemporary examples, I don't think local celebrities such as Regine Velasquez, Francis Escudero and maybe even Victor Wood ever came to Wikipedia to complain that they weren't happy the article about them existed. Take a look around at the articles about schools and colleges on Wikipedia...chances are, they're not even sanctioned by their respective administrations. University of the Philippines? Ateneo de Manila University? University of Santo Tomas? Xavier School? Name it, it's here. And not one of their administrators complained and asked to have the articles removed. As for any "damage", I wasn't able to find any information that might be considered demeaning or degrading to your school, so if ever you find one such information, I invite you to go ahead and edit, you're welcome to do so (and more so since you admitted it's your school). With regard to the school itself...there are only few public science high schools in the Philippines, and these are almost always created by virtue of a republic act, so I'd go against deleting this article on the grounds that it's like state colleges and universities (like UP and PLM and the other State Universities in most major provinces) and, as a science high school, is legally on the same level as the Philippine Science High School. I would rather push for improving this article. --- Tito Pao 22:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I usually think almost all high schools are worty of inclusion, because of their importance to the local community etc. This is no exeption. We can't delete it just because it's not sanctioned by the administration of said institution. bbx 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contra Alansohn and everyone claiming "per Alansohn", WP:OUTCOMES#Education says nothing about automatic notability of high schools. Also you all should see Wikipedia:Speedy keep; it's not a valid vote when other reasons beyond the nomination have been presented for the article's deletion. I might be convinced that, e.g. "all national science high schools in the Philippines are notable" if someone presented actual sources about those schools in general, but "it's a high school therefore it's notable therefore we don't have to bother sourcing it" is not acceptable. cab 23:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjects of articles do not need to give permission for articles to be created on them, there is a anti-Wikipedia guy who has tried to get his article deleted because he doesn't like the site. However, this scholl does not appear to be notable (and high schools are NOT automatically notable, they have to pass WP:N just like everything else). TJ Spyke 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wishes of the subject are less important than the integrity of Wikipedia. - Dravecky 01:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons explained at User:Silensor/Schools. It is also interesting that a Republic Act was enacted to create the institution. Silensor 04:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.220 (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one can be disregarded as the anonymous user didn't even sign in, the bulk of their edit history is at this article, and they have not given a reason for deletion. Sockpuppet. Chris 21:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't understand the nominator, but I do understand that this is a nn topic. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not all high schools are notable, but schools created by a national legislature is. --Howard the Duck 04:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: The article has been vandalized once and can be vandalized again. To avoid such event, deletion should be done at once. None of those who answered "Keep" actually know about the controversy caused by the vandals of the articles. Also, the deletion of this article is not motivated by personal interests but by far deeper matters.- CK Luna 04:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
reply every article ever on the Wikipedia has or will be vandalized, that's the nature of the policy allowing anyone to edit. And you're right, nobody who has answered "delete" due to controversy has ever bothered to answer what the controversy was about. Until you do, you've nothing to point at others with. Get over yourself. Chris 04:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A grand total of 1 person has said "delete because of vandalism". The rest of us have all said "delete despite nominator", because no one is bothering to show it's notable. The closest thing that's been shown is that it belongs to a class of schools which are notable --- in which case an overview article National Science High Schools in the Philippines would be appropriate, to where this can redirect and receive an appropriate description there (i.e. not a listing of subject teachers, heads of clubs, etc). Also, you might want to avoid language like "get over yourself". AfD is supposed to be a joint process of discovery to determine whether a Wikipedia-suitable (WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS) article can be written about a subject, not a war. Regards, cab 04:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of those who claim special knowledge about a topic to the exclusion of other editors, wherever they are found. I know what to avoid and when. Chris 05:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn school. User:Alansohn et al are trying to invent consensus (via outcome) that simply doesn't exist. Eusebeus 05:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Eusebeus is continuing with his fantasy that notability does not exist and demanding that all school articles be deleted because he just doesn't like them, based on a rambling screed that completely ignores any Wikipedia policy. Despite the empty bluster from Eusebeus, consensus is amply clear that this and all other such schools are notable. Alansohn 05:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hope my fantasies are a bit spicier than school debates with Alan. Meanwhile, since you have enjoyed my "screed", please read: User:Eusebeus/School_Notability#Lack_of_Consensus_Does_not_Mean_Lack_of_Good_Faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, Eusebus. I think I'll have the occasion to cite your essay in the future... or in the past[45] (:--Victor falk 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Schools are uncontroversial topics. I don't see any other school complaining (like mine, Colegio San Agustin-Makati) about their school having a Wikipedia article until this one. Frankly, I wouldn't support deletion for RNSHS unless the school admin gives substantial reasons for its deletion. The reasons given by the proposer are quite baseless given that permission is not required to write Wikipedia articles on any topic, no matter how big or small, and given the context of this AFD, some schools are actually quite proud that their institution has a Wikipedia article. --Sky Harbor 11:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete-I just think it should be given the fact that the administration of the school wanted it deleted. Also, I think the school shall have its own website that is why they want the article be deleted. --allen 05:30 pm , 10 October 2007 (UTC)
strong delete-Since I don't think that the article matters at all--aryu 09:54 pm, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- The two previous delete votes (the ones after my previous comments but before this one) originate from the same anon IP (122.2.120.192) But anyway, unless there is an express valid reason to why the article should be deleted, there is no basis for such action to be taken. Mere upheaval of the RiSci community without valid reason or basis is no reason to delete the article. --Sky Harbor 14:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion is headed in a bad direction. People WP:CHILL, be civil, assume good faith, don't discuss wp:outcomes, what deletion guidelines wikipedia should have if any, accuse each other of deletionism/inclusionism, and concentrate at the matter at hand, namely if this school fulfils WP:N.--Victor falk 14:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Silensor/Schools and User:Xoloz/Schools. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. --Myles Long 22:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long standing consensus as indicated by WP:OUTCOMES that high/secondary schools are notable. There's no reason to single out this high school for special deletion. --Oakshade 04:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All we (students and teachers who supported the articles deletion) plead is that the article be permanently removed to avoid being vandalized agaib which will eventually defame the school more. I am fully aware of the policies that you guys have but can you please start thinking about the sake of other people's honors? The vandalism done by theriscian has already stripped our school of its honor. Every other school in th province is talking about us. Now what would you feel if you were in our place? Or do you even have feelings!? All you think about is yourself, you never give other people a chance, you never care about the honor, about reputation just because they aren't yours and will not help you in anyway. Okay, I know I'm definitely going too far so sorry... but, we're not asking you delete the article just because we don't like it. We want it to be deleted so we can at least move on and rest assured that whatever happened in the past will not repeat again. Sincerely yours, 58.71.109.21 14:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you what...if you find anything offensive placed on this article by one of the "less civilized" or trouble students in your school, go ahead and remove the offending edit, we're not going to stop you. The mere fact that you can write in your comments even anonymously means that you could do this to the article yourself. If you're having problems with the way it's written, the only way to go is to contribute and make improvements to the article. And, hey, if you can even make it a featured article like Stuyvesant High School, then you're more than welcome...it'll be nice to have an FA about a Philippine school, it'll be something nice to have. Just don't worry about the vandals and the good-for-nothing edits, you can change it yourself (otherwise, there's no point in me responding to you, whoever you are). If you're having problems with the editor going by the name "theriscian", then you can report him to one of the Wikipedia administrators so that they can deal with him. But articles on Wikipedia can't be deleted merely because you don't like it to appear here. You'll need to come up with more substantial reasons than that. --- Tito Pao 19:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tito Pao wholeheartedly. If you have a problem with the article because of some editor, you report it through the proper channels and the system does the rest. Deleting an article because of some editor is way too extreme for actions of vandalism, which can be reported and reverted, and the vandalizing user can be blocked from editing the article or Wikipedia in general. --Sky Harbor 05:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The deletion rationale is wholly invalid, and it has been demonstrated that this school is notable. RFerreira 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete:Just delete this. Put an end to the debate. Why are you making your life more complicated by posting that this article should be kept? Just type strong delete, eat, sleep, and that's it. You made almost 500 students of Rizal National Science High School carry lighter loads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayeorwhatsoever (talk • contribs) 06:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply saying you don't like an article for whatever reason doesn't give an impetus to have it deleted on Wikipedia, you'll need more substantial reasons than that. You'll make things easier for you if you can also contribute to make this article a better article. You're more than welcome to help improve this article. Thanks. --- Tito Pao 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepAs a graduate of a public science high school myself, I strongly believe this article should stay.

1. It has been demonstrated that the school is notable. Lenticel's link showing that the school was created by virtue of a Republic Act is enough to convince me, [46] besides the fact I believe the public has the right to know about its public science high schools.

2. The argument in favor of deletion is not only invalid, its unfair to a general public who have the right to information about this school. Isn't it paid for by taxpayer's money? And don't parents have the right to know about the school if they are considering allowing their children to study there?

However I DO AGREE that the article needs work - it doesn't cite its sources and has far too much irrelevant information (The school hymn, fine. But does the public really need to know who the current head of the MAPEH club is? I think not. In the meantime, the article says virtually nothing about the educational facilities of the school, its academic performance, etc.

As for what supposed trouble it has caused - I don't get it at all. I understand that vandalism would cause some grief, but that's easily correctible. That's why we watch articles for vandalism. Thats why we have reverts. And frankly, that's the nature of life in an information society. Is there any reason other than vandalism you'd like to bring up? Because that's the only vaguely acceptable argument for deletion that has been brought forward other than notability (which I've already covered).Alternativity 09:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge. Whether a merge is supported isn't really clear, but merging doesn't require an AFD. W.marsh 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Weird Sisters (Harry Potter)

Non-notable fictional band in Harry Potter series. Sole claim to outside notability was a publicity-seeking lawsuit by real band with a similar name. Band is uninteresting even within universe. Information on the page can be placed on various other Harry Potter pages. SolidPlaid 03:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 'Delete but keep any verifiable and notable information on other, related pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamessugrono (talk • contribs) 03:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant Keep. I am not 100% sure as it is a borderline case. However, the band is mentioned in most of the Harry Potter books, and I think the lawsuit bumps it to a point where it can have its own article, as that makes it fairly notable. - Minute Lake 03:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there was some interest in the musicians who played the band in the movie, like Jarvis Cocker. It was this publicity that led to the lawsuit. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only because the lawsuit. i ^said 05:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the lawsuit, and the lineup of musicians playing the band in the film. Maxa megalon 2000 05:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was going to suggest merging into Yule Ball, but that page is a redirect to a subsection, so I'll go with not enough importance there. The law suit is covered under Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series#Wyrd Sisters where it seems to belong. CitiCat^♫ 05:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to the legal disputes article. Either's fine. Will ^(talk) 10:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move the law suit in the Legal Disputes article. Lord Opeth 19:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it concerns a subject from one of the most notable book/film series of the present and the law suit just increases its particular importance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge anything useful into Legal Disputes article, delete the rest, and redirect. Judgesurreal777 02:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 - no assertion of notability. the_undertow ^talk 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape massacre

Article about some event in some game that only some people care about. Prod removed by author. JuJube 03:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A7 "No indication of importance/significance." --Phirazo 03:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete childish junk. SolidPlaid 03:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually unsourced and violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) by failing to take a real-world perspective. --Metropolitan90 03:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, and is pure, immature, garbage.James-Sugrono_{Contributions} —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fast as possible. And thanks to Metropolitan90 for noting that it fails Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Accounting4Taste 04:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Lafave

Another sex offender I'm nominating for deletion over notability concerns. Of the group I've nominating tonight, Lafave has by far the best claim to notability. I have heard her name outside Wikipedia (unlike my other nominations), her beauty kept her face on TV for some time, she has been parodied in South Park (although the episode isn't solely about her and I don't think it names her - the story combines a number of scandals then current). I even had the vague feeling that there might have been a TV movie about her, but I checked and there wasn't. So again, she is notable only for a single not-especially-unusual crime, and I don't think getting your face in the tabloids for a week or so is really notability in an encyclopedic sense.

One last note: this group of nominations is all of women. That's just because I had a list of women! What got me thinking about it was a vote to delete the article of a man charged with a similar crime. I don't have a point to make about gender, just one about the fleeting nature of tabloid fame! Dybryd 04:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary. Although this woman is only known for this one particular crime the amount of national attention she received lead her name to be a closely associated with the criminal act as a whole. Obviously I'm not saying all of your AFDs should be a keep vote, but this one in particular stands out to me as one that if an encyclopedia of sex offenders were to be published, there would certainly be an article about her in it. Not only did she get coverage for the crime, but she sparked the national debate about the double-standards of her beauty vs. the crime in how society treats offenders. This is one of those rare cross-media stories that (unfortunately) results in notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchwoodwho (talk • contribs) 05:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. Chris 07:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per what Kintetsubuffalo said. Saruhon 17:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:N is not temporary, as stated. Burntsauce 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, Strong Keep. Nom is going through a bunch of criminals and nominating them all. However, the problem here is that even in his nomination with this one, he points out that this one was parodied by South Park. Smashville 19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being parodied by a tv show that regularly hits on current news topics is not particularly good evidence of notability, IMO. --lquilter 18:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is definitely not temporary. The fact, the arrest, even the appeals made the INTERNATIONAL news (the story was covered here in Greece)Sokime 22:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem that the subject is inherently notable, although for reasons which are unpleasant and/or undesirable. The nomination sets out the claim to notability rather well; kudos to the nominator. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.
Comment. Regarding Notability on this article, the article itself does not contain any reasons for notability. However, there is potential for such material to exist, such as "long term consequences". What effect did her acts impose upon society? Etc. Etc. KyuuA4 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm on the fence about this one, since it has achieved more longlasting recognition -- or at least, so far as we can tell at this point. Suggest that it be revisited in a few years. (No, notability is not temporary, but historical hindsight can aid in more accurate assessments. Of necessity, anything which is current and temporal can't be fully-assessed for notability; it can just be predicted with greater or lesser accuracy.) --lquilter 19:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish a presumption of notability for this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and there is insufficient evidence of a consensus to override this presumption. WP:BLP1E issues, though raised, do not form a compelling argument for deletion, since WP:BLP1E is intended primarily to avoid unjustified harmful publicity being focused upon people through little or no fault of their own. For example, the sort of articles whose deletions were disputed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff might qualify for deletion under WP:BLP1E. However, persons who stand convicted of serious felonies, like Sarah Jayne Vercoe [47], have no one but themselves to blame for their own infamy. John254 02:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jayne Vercoe

I'm nominating a group of long-standing, well-sourced articles about notorious sex offenders for deletion. The reason is notability - I just don't think these folks are all that notorious anymore. They are scandalous news stories that got a lot of attention at the time but have by and large faded from public memory, except here. They are marginal cases - all get lots of google hits, and consensus may go either way. It's possible that were they deleted, true-crime fans or age-of-consent advocates would rapidly recreate them. But my view is that these articles just don't add a lot of informational value to the encyclopedia. Curious to see which way consensus will go.

By the way, I'm getting these names by going through a list often posted by I-know-not-who as a "See Also" list on articles regarding gender politics, sex abuse, and other related topics (for example, here). I've often noticed this list and sometimes deleted it from articles, but I have no particular point to make against the guy who posts it, I just remembered it tonight when another AfD made me think of the tendency of forgotten scandals to remain immortalized in Wikipedia articles. If anyone knows who the list's promoter is (I think he uses an IP range) please notify him. Dybryd 03:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't think that it passes WP:N any more. James-Sugrono_{Contributions} —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's notable .. but let's see the outcome as nom said :) Elmao 07:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. Chris 07:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree! That's why I nominated her!

Dybryd 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As her case caused a change in the laws of Tasmania, I would think that means the case is notable, so I'd think she was. Red Fiona 16:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject passes WP:BIO with multiple non-trivial sources about the subject. Burntsauce 17:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Red Fiona, with a comment. I'm a little uneasy about the nominations this nom has presented. I'm always willing to assume good faith. However, looking at these nominations and the comments made by the nom (She was referenced in South Park--why nominate the article, then?) as well as the odd agreement with the keep vote above, I don't know what the motives behind this are, and I hope I'm wrong, but let me make one thing clear. Afd is not about testing the waters or seeing the behavioral patterns of people who vote on Afds, unless it's a procedural vote, in which the nom may have no opinion, which these are not.--Sethacus 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see that being referenced on South Park adds anything to figuring out notability. It's pretty much the same thing as showing up on late-night comedy routines, and anything that's a current news item might show up on current events-aware comedies. ... Now, if some comedy show ten years from the incident references it, then that's an indication that the incident/person has achieved lasting notoriety, cultural significance, and notability. --lquilter 20:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sethacus, I nominated the articles because I don't think they're notable under WP:BLP1E. I nominated them all at once because I don't thing any of them are notable. I agree that "notability is not temporary" - because it means the opposite of what user:Kintetsubuffalo seems to think it means. I'm amused to see now that folks are arguing for Vercoe's significance on the grounds that she is connected to the creation of the Code of Professional Ethics for the Teaching Profession in Tasmania. And yet no one has bothered to create that article! It's hypocrisy to pretend that her article exists because of the law when it contains nothing about the law and everything about the prurient details of her case. WP:BLP1E says "Cover the event, not the person." I would support a sentence or two about Vercoe in a full treatment of the Code of Professional Ethics for the Teaching Profession in Tasmania. But, in the absence of any information on that law, it does not justify a lengthy article about an unremarkable criminal. Dybryd 11:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or maybe you could create the article on the law. I 1) thought there was one, and 2) my wiki-skills are not up to it.Red Fiona 12:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an interesting conundrum. But, I have to ask, as this idea (or something similar) has been approached at the Toby Studebaker Afd, for which myself and the two above have been participants, why? Why create an article on the basis of adding a one or two sentence remark about how these peoples' crimes inspired others (in positive ways, of course)? Others would just leave wondering about the stories of Vercoe and Studebaker. A word I keep seeing is "unremarkable". Let me give you two examples. Kasey Kazee (whose name should still be a redlink). The "duct tape bandit", he held up a liquor store, covering his face with duct tape. The only reason it got any coverage was his sheer stupidity. We HAD an article on this guy. It was, rightfully, speedy deleted. Another guy who's best known for one crime. Guy in the 60's, killed a few people, went to trial, is serving life in prison. Oh, yeah, I forgot. His name is Charles Manson. Charlie may have done some heinous things, but he is known for one event, the Tate-LaBianca Murders. It appears, IMO, Vercoe is caught somewhere in the middle. I would like to know more, if possible about the Code of Professional Ethics for the Teaching Profession in Tasmania and its effect on Tasmania. As far as I've seen, Vercoe has had a fair chunk of coverage in Australia for over a year after these crimes were committed, plus minor (1 article) coverage in two other countries, though, oddly, not the US (I wonder how I heard of her, then...).--Sethacus 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not temporary, but people may be confused between notability and press coverage. Relevant points from WP:N:
- This concept [notability] is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".
- A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined.[1] (emphasis added)
- "Notability is not temporary. Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events.[10] In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." (emphasis added)

--lquilter 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - As her case lead to a change in Tasmanian law, would you merge the details into the page for that particular law? Red Fiona 10:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable, but it would obviously be far fewer details. Is there a page for Tasmanian sex offender law? was the change case law-based or statutory? Either way, yes, it seems like it would be appropriate to mention it in the relevant article about the law, if it led to a change in the law, or was a widely publicized incident that caused discussion of the law. ... I don't think we would want to have biographical articles about every plaintiff or defendant in every case that has precedential significance, so I don't think that merely being a party in a legal precedent-setting case is notable. If an otherwise-notable person had a role in a precedent-setting case, I think it's worth a small mention in the person's biographical article; but if an otherwise-unnotable person had a role in a precedent-setting case, then I think only so many details as would ordinarily show up in a case summary. No legal encyclopedia would include the biography of the parties, for instance. --lquilter 15:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... or is the "law" the "Code of Professional Ethics" referenced above? Codes of professional ethics are not often actual laws; they're more often codes adopted by professional associations. I'm not sure that a regional/state-based would be notable, but that would be a different AFD. --lquilter 15:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As with the others, why not have a single article that surveys the cases and notes any trends that have been discussed in the media? Surely that would actually be informative. Unlike simply having multiple such articles giving an impression of sensationalism, having one article covering the issue could in fact discuss sensationalism, moral panics, increase in rates of abuse versus rates of reporting, and other relative topics to the trend (if there is one). --lquilter 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.84.10 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Rogers Turner

AfDs for this article:

I nominated this article for deletion over notability concerns, only discover by clicking the link in the afd template that it had been nominated before in 2005 with a result of DELETE. That discussion is below. But the article either wasn't deleted or was recreated. I think the subject is non-notable, and it ought to be deleted again! Dybryd 03:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This debate should be created under "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rogers Turner (2nd nomination)" since there was a previous discussion. If it is a simple recreation of the old article, it can be deleted right away(WP:CSD#G4). --Phirazo 03:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the 2005 nomination (including a comment that the article can be recreated should Turner become notable with new news) resulting in a delete determination, the old article was deleted. After this deletion, more U.S. news on a national level came out about her, and another different Wikipedia article was written anew about her (with the same title) which included this latest news. The new article was not merely a recreation of the old article, but was independently written anew. Seksinfo 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. There are enough keep votes to disqualify a speedy delete anyway. If the result of this AfD is Keep (which seems to be the consensus at this point), an admin should do a history-only undeletion, so the old version is in the article's history. --Phirazo 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was deleted when she was charged. She's since been convicted, paroled, reconvicted. The straight up weirdness of the whole thing makes it notable (for one, she was text messaging dirty messages to the victim from the courtroom while she was on trial). The fact that she committed the crime doesn't make her anymore notable than any other convicted sex offender...however, the completely bizarre stuff that kept popping up after she was convicted, served time and paroled made her notable. The case was covered by USA Today, the Washington Post, Newsweek. She's not your run of the mill sex offender. Smashville 03:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the second writing of this article, there has been numerous edits of this article, indicating significant interest in the article subject. Also since the second writing of this article, even more news has come out about her; that she apparently violated the terms of her probation (forbidding contact) by trying to communicate with the "victim" through the MySpace website in a rather unusual manner, resulting in national attention in the U.S. This action of hers resulted in another criminal charge. This latest news (made known nationally in the U.S.) made her even more notable. Although not yet as famous (or infamous) as Mary Kay Letourneau, Turner is well on her way. Seksinfo 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. Chris 07:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree! That's why I nominated her!

Dybryd 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still very notable in relation to an issue that continues to be notable. 23skidoo 13:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to kinda seal this. Subject meets WP:BIO because a) the text explains why she is notable, b) the text follows BLP guidelines, c) she is the primary subject of many reliable secondary sources - the article itself quotes The Globe and the Tennessean. As mentioned above, there are also sources available in Newsweek, the Washington Post, the New York times, etc, but there isn't necessarily a need to use them, as everything in the entry is referenced. She also meets the criteria of being a participant in a significant controversy covered by the media and she has been featured numerous times in the mainstream media. I think the more pressing question is...why do you argue that she is not notable? What is your reasoning? Smashville 13:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is the guideline WP:BLP1E, which says: "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. [...] If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. [...] Cover the event, not the person." Dybryd 23:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, though, the person and the event are inseparable. Smashville 14:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 23skidoo who I would trust with my first born children, if I had any. Burntsauce 17:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.
Comment. This exact case was the basis for tonight's Law & Order:SVU. Two years after the conviction...Still want to claim it's not notable? Smashville 02:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Smashville. If it was on Law&Order, than clearly passes notability -- Elmao 15:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will point out that my comment on the L&O episode was more WP:OR than anything...it seemed blatant to me, as I have been kind of fascinated by the case more or less from the day she was arrested, but others may disagree. Smashville 15:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another hit on Google News...this one from Monday. Smashville 15:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish a presumption of notability for this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and there is insufficient evidence of a consensus to override this presumption. John254 02:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Mary Nolan

I'm nominating a group of long-standing, well-sourced articles about notorious sex offenders for deletion. The reason is notability - I just don't think these folks are all that notorious anymore. They are scandalous news stories that got a lot of attention at the time but have by and large faded from public memory, except here. They are marginal cases - all get lots of google hits, and consensus may go either way. It's possible that were they deleted, true-crime fans or age-of-consent advocates would rapidly recreate them. But my view is that these articles just don't add a lot of informational value to the encyclopedia. Curious to see which way consensus will go. Dybryd 03:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's notable .. but let's see the outcome Elmao 07:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary. Chris 07:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree! That's why I nominated her!

Dybryd 08:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, borderline massive WP:POINT nomination. I say borderline because I believe that Dybryd, in an experimental way, is working in good faith. Burntsauce 17:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Noticing that something is a problem and then going to fix it is not the same thing as WP:POINT. --lquilter 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not temporary, but people may be confused between notability and press coverage. Relevant points from WP:N:
- This concept [notability] is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".
- A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined.[1] (emphasis added)
- "Notability is not temporary. Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events.[10] In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." (emphasis added)

--lquilter 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article states that it is "one of a number of cases" -- why not have a single article that surveys the cases and notes any trends that have been discussed in the media? Surely that would actually be informative. Unlike simply having multiple such articles giving an impression of sensationalism, having one article covering the issue could in fact discuss sensationalism, moral panics, increase in rates of abuse versus rates of reporting, and other relative topics to the trend (if there is one). --lquilter 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.84.10 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish a presumption of notability for this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and there is insufficient evidence of a consensus to override this presumption. John254 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Louise Ellis

I'm nominating a group of long-standing, well-sourced articles about notorious sex offenders for deletion. The reason is notability - I just don't think these folks are all that notorious anymore. They are scandalous news stories that got a lot of attention at the time but have by and large faded from public memory, except here. They are marginal cases - all get lots of google hits, and consensus may go either way. It's possible that were they deleted, true-crime fans or age-of-consent advocates would rapidly recreate them. But my view is that these articles just don't add a lot of informational value to the encyclopedia. Curious to see which way consensus will go. Dybryd 03:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary. Chris 07:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Right! " a short burst of present news coverage" is not necessarily evidence of long-term notability. That is in fact the basis of my nominations! Dybryd 08:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:N has been fulfilled and, as stated before, is not temporary. Burntsauce 17:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not temporary, but people may be confused between notability and press coverage. Relevant points from WP:N:
- This concept [notability] is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".
- A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined.[1] (emphasis added)
- "Notability is not temporary. Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events.[10] In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." (emphasis added)

--lquilter 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was Redirected to Halo (film). CitiCat^♫ 03:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halo (motion picture)

Delete little context but what there is seems to point to a planned (or rumored?) film, unsourced as usual, WP:CRYSTAL Carlossuarez46 03:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weißwurstäquator

Claims to be the "equator" dividing Germans who eat "white sausage" from those who do not. Unreferenced, unencyclopedic, and nonsensical. Outside Wikipedia, only 911 Google hits [48] . Fails WP:V , WP:N and WP:NEO. Edison 03:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure Delete per WP:NEO? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Perhaps there's more to this but not that I can see. Pig^man 04:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wondered if this might be an Economistism, but I found it in several books (mainly in German of course) and the de wiki article is sourced to a dictionary. Note that you get significantly more hits when you use "ss" instead of "ß" (Google can handle the "ä", though). Importance seems limited to being some kind of metaphor for how different Bavaria is, but it does seem WP:N. (My German, and my ability to edit the article, is shaky.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Reference for an instance: Duden Deutsches Universalwörterbuch , 6.Auflage, ISBN-10: 3-411-05506-5 ; this attempt for deletion seems to be based purely on speculative arguments not on a positive knowledge! --Kresspahl 08:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Danube. The German article says it's a metaphor for this river. I'm German and have never heard this term (then again I don't live in this region), and I doubt the notability/significance of this word in the English language. So the best presentation is IMO in the article Danube. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The team of lexicographers at the Duden presumably have better criteria for determining the notability of a neologism than number of google hits. A news archive search shows that it's been used in all the major German newspapers, even in article titles. I wouldn't support a merge to Danube because the concept is really about the cultural differences between large areas, and the river serves to demarcate them — it hasn't got much to do with the river itself. Thomjakobsen 16:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So the lexicographers at the Duden dictionary have decided it is a German word and given it a dictionary definition? Then delete it as a WP:DICDEF, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not a German dictionary. Edison 02:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it is a concept which has gained sufficient recognition and coverage to warrant a dictionary entry in the German equivalent of the OED. The article discusses that concept, in a manner quite unlike a WP:DICDEF. We are using its presence in a major dictionary merely to demonstrate its considerable notability. The language is irrelevant; we cover notable concepts, and if an English word for the concept doesn't exist, we use whichever one is most natural, in this case German. Thomjakobsen 03:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An entry for an English slang word or neologism in the Oxford English Dictionary would never justify an encyclopedia article about the word in the German Wikipedia. Edison 12:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the article is about the concept denoted by the word, not the word itself (this is the key difference between a wikipedia article and a wiktionary entry). As to the German Wikipedia: that's not relevant because we don't follow their rules here, but it's also demonstrably false: see Yuppie, McJob and Bushism for the first three examples I could find. Thomjakobsen 12:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I always herd of this cultural border referred to as the Weißwurstgrenze in Bavaria. Indeed, a google search brings up 9,870 hits for Weißwurstgrenze. Perhaps we need to move the article.--Damac 23:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to delete Weißwurstgraben you have delete the Röstigraben as well.--Kresspahl 05:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily verifiable (I get about 20,000 Google hits, possibly because google.de does some different indexing and/or weighting of search resutls than google.com), widely used by the German media, and quite an interesting concept. See, historically and culturally, Germany is rather strongly divided into a Northern and a Southern part; the border, while not clearly defined, runs somewhere along the river Main where the low/high German isogloss and the dividing line between the predominantly protestant North and the predominantly catholic South more or less coincide (I know I am grossly oversimplifying here; the above is not necessarily true in a scientifically verifiable sense, but it's true in the perception of most German people which in this context is more important since the (real or imaginary) border is one of the defining aspects of German culture). The Weisswurstäquator is just the humorous form of this concept and is quite often used as such in the German media. I agree that the article as it stands now is not exactly a stellar example of a well-referenced, interesting article, but that can be fixed and in itself does not warrant deletion. -- Ferkelparade π 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ferkelparade. How very strange. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't make it "unencyclopaedic and nonsensical". And it's now referenced too. PeteVerdon 10:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely known in Germany. I have created and added an audio file *G*. --Neg 18:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 19:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest airlines in Europe

This article is in violation of WP:V and WP:OR. The article is ranking airlines in order from largest, yet there is no sources cited which verify that this ranking is in fact correct, failing WP:V. It appears that editors have simply worked off a list of airlines and compiled their own lists, which of course is in violation of WP:OR. An example showing that this is the case is that S7 Airlines is missing, an airilne which [carried 4.9 million pax in 2006]. Totally WP:OR. Rankings need to be attributed to WP:V sources, not as a result of WP:OR. Russavia 02:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see relevant comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest airlines in Oceania, to which this nomination is related to. A list of statistics, each entry of which is sourced, is not WP:V nor WP:OR. I would have expected Russavia to cite WP:SYN as a better reasoning to assert WP:OR, but even if he does, there is far less grounds for claims of WP:SYN when it comes to relatively undisputable statistical tables. When source A says Airline A flew 1000 passengers in 12 months, and source B says Airline B flew 1500 passengers in the same period, is it original research to say Airline B flew more passengers than Airline A? If an entry is missing, it is up to any user to add and correct the list. List of airlines and List of airports may not be fully complete. Shall we delete them?--Huaiwei 02:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your point that if an entry is missing--add it, is evidence enough that these lists are original research. --Russavia 02:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These series of articles lists the largest airlines based on existing verifiable information. The exclusion of non-verifiable information is not to be penalised. Also, the exclusion of any entry simply enforces the fact that this is a work-in-progress article. It dosent turn into Orgainal Research just for being "uniquely incomplete".--Huaiwei 03:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment You could almost add WP:SYN to this. According to this list, the 23rd largest airlines in Europe is Meridiana. But if we were to only use the example above (S7 Airlines), the original research used to create and source the article has resulted in a breach of WP:SYN. Additionally, correct me if I am wrong, does it not have to be demonstrated that this article is no WP:OR? --Russavia 03:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am surprised you do not know WP:SYN before launching into this nomination exercise, but at least I have pre-empted it. There is a reason why I chose to exclude numbered lists in List of largest airlines in Asia, for example, only adding in the numbers just three days ago[49] on an experimental basis. Would you object to removing those numbers?--Huaiwei 03:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Huaiwei. --Emesee 03:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few of the individual entries are not sourced, but this is a matter for clean-up, not deletion. It isn't a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" to rank airlines. Also from WP:OR "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." I don't see how ranking airlines in size violates the spirit of WP:OR which is essentially an extension of WP:NPOV. --Phirazo 04:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is the danger of using company sources for information, as I have found something which calls into question the reliability of using sources given by Lufthansa (and by default, any company with a PR motive), and which can be used in violation of WP:SYN (without the editor even realising). Refer to this site which is referenced in World's largest airlines, IATA being a reputable source of course. Now look at World's_largest_airline#Scheduled_passengers_carried_.5B1.5D, which is sourced to the IATA site. Now look at Lufthansa's site which uses a source for its figures Source: IATA World Air Transport Statistics (i.e. the above linked IATA site). However, there is one big difference. In the IATA version, Lufthansa is at No.6. In the Lufthansa version, Lufthansa is at No. 5 (with Southwest at 96million being omitted). This is not isolated. Look at World's_largest_airline#Scheduled_international_passengers_carried which uses the same IATA site as a reference. Now refer to Lufthansa's PR site, which claims to use the same IATA site. BIG difference, Ryanair has been removed completely which conveniently pushes Lufthansa into the No. 1 spot (a point they made no small mention of here), and additionally, Easyjet which is at No. 6 on the IATA list is also conveniently missing. What is needed is a neutral reliable source which can provide the 'largest' list, so that the lists are not in breach of WP:V, WP:OR, and possibly also WP:SYN --Russavia 20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is included as a paragraph in article World's largest airlines which also has paragraphs relating to list articles for each of the other continents/regions of the world. If an article needs improvement, then fix it, not delete it. Nominator's arguments are irrelevant to the goodness of WP Hmains 05:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no paragraph in World's largest airlines relating to this article, in fact there is an entire single sentence in the entire article (with the exception of an explanation). The only thing which exists is a link to this article and nothing more. If one refers to World's_largest_airlines#Scheduled_passengers_carried_.5B1.5D or World's_largest_airlines#Total_scheduled_freight_tonne-kilometers_flown_in_2006_.5B2.5D, they are clearly sourced, and there can be no 'dispute' as to any rankings of 'largest'. These articles do not supply an external source for any rankings but rather rely on editors own assumptions. What is needed is industry sources which establish these rankings. --Russavia 07:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may reiterate, this article, like all other similar articles in this series, were split off from the World's largest airlines article. This was the section in the original article prior to split off: [50]. This is the article as it was split off on 22 June 2007:[51]. Some time later, the table in the original article was removed and reduced to a one-line paragraph to avoid dublication of content, so Hmains is entire right in what he was saying. Kindly check edit histories (and the relevant talkpages) before making assumptions. Thanks!--Huaiwei 07:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Is one supposed to go back thru the history of edits from 4 months ago to understand an assertion that is made in regards to the article as it stands now? With all due respect, what a silly thing to say?

Silliness is subjective, especially when one considers the following: You are able to ascertain the original author of this article, given the insertion of a deletion nomination warning[52]. The natural way of deducing the original author, is to look at the article edit history, and check who made the earliest edit. And the earliest edit summary includes the following text: New page from list of largest airlines[53]. You are now claiming that you could deduce who is the original author, yet misses the edit history clearly stating a fact you claim ignorance of. Silliness? Perhaps, perhaps not. And as a matter-of-fact, it is indeed expected that everyone reads the edit history, and all relevant talkpages, as much as they can master, before they intend to do something drastic, AFDs being one of them. Four months is not a long time, compared to some edit conflicts which drag for four years or more. You want to join in those discussions? You gotta do your own research and check up on past discussions, because if you fail to do so, do not expect others to be too pleased in having to repeat past discussions on the same issues. This is simple ethics and basic courtesy. Now of course most wikipedians are kind enough to refer to old discussions if they have to englighten those who fail to read up properly, but I think you have to realise that no one owes you a favour in having to read four months of edit histories for you and constantly remind you on what has transpired in the past in a situation like this.--Huaiwei 10:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For all the reasons listed above. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all above. Any inaccuracies is a matter of editing/correcting, not deleting. --Oakshade 00:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because the World's largest airlines article needs (or needed) to be split. This is just the end result. SchmuckyTheCat

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1

per WP:OR Chris! _ct 02:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best these types of articles are uninteresting collection of trivia; of course the versions are going to differ between media. At worst these articles bleed off the few facts notable enough to have a citation from the main articles. Merge any sourced differences to the main articles. SolidPlaid 03:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (2nd choice: Merge) No reason has been given for deletion. If you look at the history, all of this information originally came from the movie and TV show articles (Stargate and Stargate SG-1 respectively. It has it's own article because it isn't clear which of the other two articles the information most belongs in. Seeing as the information seemed to have randomly surfaced separately on two different articles, I think that (worst case scenario) it should be merged. --Roger McCoy 03:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this article suffers from some trivia entries, but all in all, I know the producers commented on many of them in audio commentaries. The article also serves as not having to fork the same information into two separate articles (Stargate (film) and Stargate SG-1). If it wasn't for this, I'd say merge for notability reasons, but the presentation as a cross-product in IMHO best as a separate article. In the worst case, merge to ~~both mother articles~~ (edit: Stargate SG-1, and link there from the movie) until someone has uncovered the audio commentaries. I'd do it myself, but unfortunately, you can't Google audio commentaries unless someone transcribed them (and there are over 160 of them, each 40 minutes long).– sgeureka ^t•c 11:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the producers comment on them in comment tracks on the DVDs might help with the WP:OR issue, but it does not establish notability or change the nature of the "differences" from trivial to notable. --lquilter 19:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, stylistic reasons. And if we go down the NN road - per WP:FICT#Non-notable topics: "The article is merged, in whole or in part, to another article to provide better context". I already said I'm open to merging. But I consider differences notable when they are needed to understand the bodies of fiction (4 light years versus a completely different galaxy; the last of a dying race versus hundreds of them; actor changes with completely different personalities...). This needs to be mentioned somewhere, and it is (now) already sourced. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The producers audio recordings are not independent reliable sources, which the general notability guidelines requires. -- Jreferee t/c 15:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not solely based on non-independent sources, and there its stated nowhere that articles may only consist of thirdparty sources. See my reply below your !vote. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) for similar precedent. Chris! _ct 20:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a precedent case, because there was no attempt to source those articles in three months. So I sourced all differences with independent and/or reliable sources, and moved the other instances to the talk page (if someone can source them also). I left in one {{fact}} because I know that it was said in an audio commentary, or that I read it in an interview. So OR is no longer an issue; notability possibly, but that's what merging is for. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 21:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this article appears to be cited with in-line citations throughout and is organized is a nice textual way supplemented by good images. Plus, I would think an interest in this topic exists for people wanting to reference the differences, too. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as stand-alone article); merge content per WP:N and WP:NOT (2.9). Yes, some people will certainly want such a list/article, but that doesn't make it of encyclopedic interest. Any significant differences can and should be listed in the individual articles about the works in the discussions about intention and arc of those stories, and in the articles (there are many) dealing with Stargate canon. There is zero need for this article in wikipedia, although I'm sure it would be very useful in a Stargate-wiki. (Hey, here's one). --lquilter 19:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Any significant differences can and should be listed in the individual articles" -- Shouldn't your !vote then actually be merge? – sgeureka ^t•c 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If by "merge" we mean strip mine for notable content & redirect, sure. If by "merge" we mean, dump all the content in without close examination, no. I understand "delete" to refer to "delete as an article", not "delete or scour the content from Wikipedia", but I've clarified my bold summary in case of doubt or confusion. --lquilter 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merge means leaving the edit history intact, for the editorial process or otherwise, and if it's just a preliminary redirect. Deleting means that all the "work" that has been put into this article is automatically lost because the edit history is no longer accessible. If at least some of the parts of this article are copied to one of the main articles, the edit history of the diff article has to remain intact under the GFDL. Straight-out deleting makes exactly this impossible, basically nuking the existent information from Wikipedia for the non-admin Wikipedian. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, I'll try to be more precise in the future. I like edit histories & retention of content; I just also like information to be presented in the most parsimonious, intelligible, and sensible fashion. --lquilter 23:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 22:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blogs and fan sites (e.g., What differences are there between the movie and the TV series?) are not Wikipedia reliable sources. No Wikipedia reliable source has addressed this topic. If the information was a sourced summary of a reliable source publication by someone that noted the differences between the versions of, that may make a difference since it would be a non-Wikipedian's research rather than a Wikipedia's research. As it is, this article brings together sources to create an original research comparison. To the extent it is not original research, the topic lacks reliable source material that is independent of those responsible for Stargate and thus does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee 15:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you doubt the reliability of the sources, or do you doubt that these sources establish notablity for a separate article? If it's the latter (which I hope), then per WP:FICT the outcome of this AfD should be to merge, not delete. BTW, this article does have enough independent sources (BBC, New York Times, +++) now to illustrate that there is more to this than first meets the eye. And while GateWorld is a fansite (by definition independent), it is still so reliable that it is regulary favorably mentioned in audio commentaries and producer blogs. This article in its current state completely satisfies "source-based research" as mentioned in WP:NOR, and I don't know what to do further to persuade people that this information is notable enough to be included somewhere on wikipedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book and film versions of Timeline

per WP:OR Chris! _ct 02:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best these types of articles are uninteresting collection of trivia; of course the versions are going to differ between media. At worst these articles bleed off the few facts notable enough to have a citation from the main articles. Merge any sourced differences to the main articles. SolidPlaid 03:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and very trivial. RobJ1981 13:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see it as trivia at all. These are big differences, and important aspects of comparative literature and deconstruction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) for similar precedent. Chris! _ct 20:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect without deleting to the film article on Timeline. The information can be easily verified by reading the book and watching the film and I have actually gone to articles on films curious about how it differed from the book. Considering that people have also created articles on this kind of information, no real need to cut it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merge content as needed & redirect to relevant articles) per WP:N and WP:NOT (2.9). --lquilter 19:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between the W.I.T.C.H. comic and animated series

per WP:OR Chris! _ct 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best these types of articles are uninteresting collection of trivia; of course the versions are going to differ between media. At worst these articles bleed off the few facts notable enough to have a citation from the main articles. Merge any sourced differences to the main articles. SolidPlaid 03:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this will be the article's second nomination, the first one closing with no concensus reached. Also, I'd like to ask why this nomination is "on top" of the other one (see the page history). —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 14:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) for similar precedent. Chris! _ct 20:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was asking why the second nomination is on the same page as the first, more specifically, this diff, I didn't say anything about the nomination's subject. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per this diff; the discussion does not seem to have been formatted properly. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

AfDs for this article:

per WP:OR Chris! _ct 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (2nd choice: merge). A reason hasn't even been provided for this article to be deleted. (Or, for that matter, the other similar articles that have been nominated.) At worst, it should be merged. --Roger McCoy 03:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best these types of articles are uninteresting collection of trivia; of course the versions are going to differ between media. At worst these articles bleed off the few facts notable enough to have a citation from the main articles. Merge any sourced differences to the main articles. SolidPlaid 03:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While a lot of this article reads a bit like a trivia list, unlike some of the other noms of the same ilk, there are some actual sources regarding the differences in the versions. They don't necessarily speak to the SPECIFIC differences, but there have been published interviews with Douglas Adams as well as scholarly papers about the intentional differences between the versions. Unfortunately, I'm not "all here" enough to look for them right now. At best, this article could stand some serious cleanup. At worst, the pertinent information could be merged with the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy article, as there is some underlying discussion about this in there already. LaMenta3 04:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are these "scholarly papers"? SolidPlaid 22:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well sourced article whose material spans books, radio shows, LPs and a film over 30 years. Hitchhikers is one of the most influential and memorable sci-fi/comedy creations of our time. This is far too long to be absorbed into the main Hitchhiker's article and deserves a place on its own merits. Even the nominator doesn't offer a good reason to delete it. Nick mallory 06:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merely being verifiable, doesn't mean the information is suitable to include it in an encyclopedia. Last time I check, violating WP:OR is a pretty good reason to delete it. Also calling Hitchhikers the most influential is simply your opinion. That is irrelevant to this discussion. Chris! _ct 02:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comparative literature is the stuff of college level English classes. Its not original research, it is sourced from primary documents, thats a big difference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SolidPlaid, this is, at best, original research. Burntsauce 19:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) for similar precedent. Chris! _ct 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick mallory, who said it better than I could. —Quasirandom 00:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pains me to say it, as this would be good stuff anywhere else but Wikipedia. But I can't see how it can be anything but original research. Doesn't matter if it cites to the original works, or even cites to broader comments about differences. The content itself is unique and original. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This could easily be fixed. See the cleanup that sgeureka recently did on the (also up for deletion) Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1 page. While the final decision hasn't been made on that page either, the changes are now clearly cited and all unsourced changes were been moved to Talk:Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1. An excellent solution to the problem IMHO. --Roger McCoy 18:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between film and musical versions of The Producers

per WP:OR Chris! _ct 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best these types of articles are uninteresting collection of trivia; of course the versions are going to differ between media. At worst these articles bleed off the few facts notable enough to have a citation from the main articles. Merge any sourced differences to the main articles. SolidPlaid 03:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comparative literature is the stuff of college level English classes. Its not original research, it is sourced from primary documents, thats a big difference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) for similar precedent. Chris! _ct 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A worthless store of information, however impressively compiled. Thedreamdied 21:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book, film and TV versions of MAS*H

per WP:OR Chris! _ct 02:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (2nd choice: merge). A reason hasn't even been provided for this article to be deleted. (Or, for that matter, the other similar articles that have been nominated.) At worst, it should be merged. --Roger McCoy 03:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best these types of articles are uninteresting collection of trivia; of course the versions are going to differ between media. At worst these articles bleed off the few facts notable enough to have a citation from the main articles. Merge any sourced differences to the main articles. SolidPlaid 03:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Unlike "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", there were several forgettable paperback M*A*S*H books that came out after the success of Richard Hooker's original, the film and the TV show. Most of these, like M*A*S*H Goes to Maine, were out of print 30 years ago and are hard to find even in a used book store. If this were just a list of differences between Elliott Gould and Alan Alda, I'd vote delete. Mandsford 12:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and very trivial. RobJ1981 13:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comparative literature is the stuff of college level English classes. Its not original research, it is sourced from primary documents, thats a big difference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) for similar precedent. Chris! _ct 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roger, Mandsford, and Richard. Although I never watched MASH, I have looked for material of this nature for other items on Wikipedia (Charlies and the Chocolate Factory differences for example and so I reckon there is in interest in this material and a willingness to edit it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very trivial, can be widdled down and merged to main page(s). Most of the keep votes are basically "MASH is popular". Dannycali 08:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Per WP:HEY. -- Jreferee t/c 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Angeles

Fictional city, an article that combines stuff from all kinds of fictional universes as if they had anything to do with each other, its also crufty and unreferenced, there is nothing here in my opinion that stands up on its own Cloveious 02:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. a honeypot for trivia nuts. MarsRover 02:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Dabify it would be better if each of the fictional universes' articles mentioned the other fictional universe's unimaginative use of the same term. SolidPlaid 03:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and WP:OR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigman (talk • contribs) 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not WP:OR, IMDb (and most certainly many other reliable sites that contain movie reviews) states that the movie plays in that fictional city, don't know about Sliders and the Power Rangers thingy, but i'd guess it's the same. As the city happens to be existant in more than one story and seemingly leaving an impression, if the article was cleaned up, it would be a "nice to have". ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is, of course, meaningless to combine stuff from different fictional universes, but a small disambiguation page might be acceptable. I've tried that out as new paragraph --Tikiwont 11:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DAB page per Tikiwont. Just add a short info on the San Angeles for each fictional universe--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Demolition Man and Power Rangers. It's a slice of trivia, along the same lines as discovering that Joaquin Phoenix has a cousin named Simon. Until someone describes a megalopolis as "San Angeles" (the way Boswash is used), this is not an encylopedia topic. Mandsford 15:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and dabify 132.205.44.5 03:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat similar to Patusan, which has appeared in other unrelated universes from unrelated movies and television shows. Some articles mentioning the fictional "San Angeles" megacity: An washingtonpost.com article referring to Southern California as "San Angeles" [54]. Director Ridley Scott stating that the original name he wanted for the world Blade Runner was in was "San Angeles"[55]. Businessweek article mentioning "San Angeles" [56]. --Section8pidgeon 08:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sliders. No independent sources, fails WP:N as a stand-alone article. No need to suppress article history. --SmokeyJoe 03:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a weird article. I wish there were a Wiki for this kind of stuff. Ichormosquito 03:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per above. Ichormosquito 14:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 19:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest airlines in Asia

This article is in violation of WP:V and WP:OR. The article is ranking airlines in order from largest, yet there is no sources cited which verify that this ranking is in fact correct, failing WP:V. It appears that editors have simply worked off a list of airlines and compiled their own lists, which of course is in violation of WP:OR. An example showing that this is the case is that Air Astana is missing (an airline which carried 1.4 mill pax in 2006). Or that Air Asia is listed twice, as a group and as an airline. Totally WP:OR. Russavia 02:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see relevant comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest airlines in Oceania, to which this nomination is related to. A list of statistics, each entry of which is sourced, is not WP:V nor WP:OR. I would have expected Russavia to cite WP:SYN as a better reasoning to assert WP:OR, but even if he does, there is far less grounds for claims of WP:SYN when it comes to relatively undisputable statistical tables. When source A says Airline A flew 1000 passengers in 12 months, and source B says Airline B flew 1500 passengers in the same period, is it original research to say Airline B flew more passengers than Airline A? If an entry is missing, it is up to any user to add and correct the list. List of airlines and List of airports may not be fully complete. Shall we delete them? Finally, can Russavia explain in detail why the AirAsia entry should render the entire article worthy for deletion?--Huaiwei 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your point that if an entry is missing--add it, is evidence enough that these lists are original research. --Russavia 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These series of articles lists the largest airlines based on existing verifiable information. The exclusion of non-verifiable information is not to be penalised. Also, the exclusion of any entry simply enforces the fact that this is a work-in-progress article. It dosent turn into Orgainal Research just for being "uniquely incomplete".--Huaiwei 03:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the individual entries are sourced, and it isn't a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" to rank them. Also from WP:OR "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." I don't see how ranking airlines in size violates the spirit of WP:OR which is essentially an extension of WP:NPOV. --Phirazo 04:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are sourced mainly to primary sources. Additionally, it is WP:SYN in some respects, as at No. 13 you have Air Asia Group (made up of AirAsia, Thai AirAsia and Indonesia AirAsia), at No. 20 you have AirAsia, at 31 you have Thai AirAsia and 33 you have Indonesia AirAsia. This is clearly Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position --Russavia 19:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And just what position do those figures advance?--Huaiwei 10:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is included as a paragraph in article World's largest airlines which also has paragraphs relating to list articles for each of the other continents/regions of the world. If an article needs improvement, then fix it, not delete it. Nominator's arguments are irrelevant to the goodness of WP Hmains 05:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the reasons listed above. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because the World's largest airlines article needs (or needed) to be split. This is just the end result. SchmuckyTheCat

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest airlines in Africa

This article is in violation of WP:V and WP:OR. The article is ranking airlines in order from largest, yet there is no sources cited which verify that this ranking is in fact correct, failing WP:V. It appears that editors have simply worked off a list of airlines and compiled their own lists, which of course is in violation of WP:OR. Russavia 02:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the list seems to use number of passengers (per year?) to define the largest. To compile a list of existing information isn't original research.MarsRover 02:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is original research when rankings are made up from working from a rudimentary list, without reputable sources which verify whether these actually are Africa's largest airlines. --Russavia 02:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see relevant comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest airlines in Oceania, to which this nomination is related to. A list of statistics, each entry of which is sourced, is not WP:V nor WP:OR. I would have expected Russavia to cite WP:SYN as a better reasoning to assert WP:OR, but even if he does, there is far less grounds for claims of WP:SYN when it comes to relatively undisputable statistical tables. When source A says Airline A flew 1000 passengers in 12 months, and source B says Airline B flew 1500 passengers in the same period, is it original research to say Airline B flew more passengers than Airline A?--Huaiwei 02:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may not be original research to say A flew more than B, or whatever, but it is original research to compile a list of largest airlines without reliable sources which verify that the list is indeed correct. --Russavia 02:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a rather sophisticated distinction. Kindly explain the difference between the two. These series of articles lists the largest airlines based on existing verifiable information. The exclusion of non-verifiable information is not to be penalised. Also, the exclusion of any entry simply enforces the fact that this is a work-in-progress article. It dosent turn into Orgainal Research just for being "uniquely incomplete".--Huaiwei 03:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Actually, it is quite a simple distinction. The only sentence in the article states The is a list of largest airlines in Africa:, therefore the original research is implying that the few companies listed are in fact the largest airlines in Africa. It missed Comair with 3,141,000 and Tunisair with 3,777,189. This shows that editor compiled 'largest' lists are definitely not a good idea, as shown with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_largest_airlines_in_Asia] and [57] it is so easy to completely miss entities, so whilst the individual company figures presented may be 'verifiable', the subject of the article, that being 'largest airlines in....' is absolutely not verifiable, and is original research. --Russavia 10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the individual entries are sourced, and it isn't a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" to rank them. Also from WP:OR "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." I don't see how ranking airlines in size violates the spirit of WP:OR which is essentially an extension of WP:NPOV. --Phirazo 04:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is included as a paragraph in article World's largest airlines which also has paragraphs relating to list articles for each of the other continents/regions of the world. If an article needs improvement, then fix it, not delete it. Nominator's arguments are irrelevant to the goodness of WP Hmains 05:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the reasons listed above. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because the World's largest airlines article needs (or needed) to be split. This is just the end result. SchmuckyTheCat

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 22:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Sabres fan

Not verifiable. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} ^{Let's go Lightning!} 02:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not verifiable, no references, listcruft. The author says on the talk page that every team should have such a list. God help us all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no content, previously speedied as such. JuJube 02:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete keeping tabs of who's a fan of what just isn't a job for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. It's just a bunch of barely notable people who like the Sabres. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all delete comments above. --Metropolitan90 03:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: This never should have came to AfD. It was speedied as no context, and recreated as no context. - Rjd0060 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is a waste of AfD participants time. Burntsauce 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 because it is snowing. the_undertow ^talk 05:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pies

I dont know if this would qualify for speedy. I don't think I need to really expand on why I nominated this page. It is a useless list. Rjd0060 01:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Aww, you beat me to it. I thought I'd seen just about every list of random stuff I could, and then this comes along. Completely unmanagable list. A^RendedWinter 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not mentioning pumpkin pie. --Bongwarrior 01:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already included in Pie. @ Bongwarrior, the creator, for some reason, stopped in the middle of C. Domthedude001 02:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete missing shepherd's pie, too. Utterly useless. MarsRover 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's pointless CloversMallRat 02:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. This might beat my finding of an article that claimed to be the "official website" of a forgotten company. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already well-covered at Pie (and this is probably a joke in that I doubt anyone would want capiscum pie). Agreed, ridiculous, but not quite as bad as the recently deleted List of things. Now that was random. Accounting4Taste 04:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It only goes to C? •97198 talk 05:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 15:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rods of ancient Egypt

Categorizing this under Fiction and the Arts because I don't see a history category, and I suppose it could be part of the arts. This article is part of a subtle hoax. Someone has seized upon a feature of ancient Egyptian sculpture and invented a history and interpretation of it, which an editor then put on Wikipedia. I carefully checked the references, they fall into three categories. The first is a reference to the Cleveland museum of art, which makes no reference to "rods" but only to a piece of folded cloth in the statue's hand. The second source used is the Neilos site. This is a commercial site, and a commercial link to it was added near the end of the reflist. The third source is a reference to a book and other materials by Valery Uvarov.

I checked out this book by the link provided, and it has no scholarly information and seems to be part of a hoax. The Neilos site links to Uvarov's book as well. Looking carefully at the Neilos site and Uvarov's article on page 3, you can see the pictures of the Menkaure statue are the same, and the wands for sale on the Neilos site are the same as on page 6 on the Uvarov article. The editor who started the wikipedia page has a history of adding questionable material to other articles, and though this is "sourced," the "rods of ancient Egypt" is not a legitimate topic. Jeff Dahl 01:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting thing I just noticed is the "in other languages" box. It appears that each of these links is to the article about Horus in that language. It appears from the history that the hoaxster added these all at once, when the article was created. I also did some checking of the internal links on Rods of ancient Egypt, and it appears that Minnefer and Nykara were created to bolster the backstory of the article. I hesitate to nominate Minnefer and Nykara for deletion, because although the articles were created to support the hoax, these two officials did really exist and are cited. I guess I could go either way on keeping them. Jeff Dahl 00:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, per nom. Nice catch! -- Kesh 02:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rod of Ancient Egypt was a nice guy just not notable --Cloveious 02:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roylee Wizzy…☎ 18:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ver yfamiliar with deletion rules, but is this necessarily a hoax? Might it not just be poorly referenced, etc? The user has a history of edits, how likely is it to be a 2 year old hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.198.148 (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hoax. Read the last paragraph of the nomination (before all the comments). NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be noted that the rod was in fact a bona fide Ancient Egyptian unit of measurement. shoy 16:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 - blatant advertising that would require a total rewrite. Pedro : Chat 13:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Derby

Non-notable, promotional Peter Rehse 01:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 01:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:BIO. VanTucky ^Talk 01:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's like... all trivia.. which is supposed to be avoided CloversMallRat 03:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual also see WP:COI --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Spam.--Sethacus 05:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a plausible search term. W.marsh 20:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labatt blue line

Unsourced orphan with no assertion of notability. A few hits turn up on Google, but nothing meeting WP:SOURCE requirements. Acroterion _(talk) 01:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Labatt Brewing Company, the company is notable should deserve a mention as a business activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloveious (talk • contribs) 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (2nd choice: merge) Unusual ad campaign (of sorts) but if the dates in the article are accurate it lasted barely a few months and there just doesn't seem to be much one can say about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (2nd choice: merge with Labatt Brewing Company). This company does huge amounts of advertising in every medium known to Canadians and having a separate article for every campaign would be enormously unwieldy; probably too unwieldy for the main article too. And thanks to User:Starblind for putting it so well. Accounting4Taste 04:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There could be an article along the lines of Labatt Brewing Company advertising campaigns for this sort of thing; I would leave it to Canadians who've been exposed/bombarded with Labatt's ads to say if this is useful, or there's enough other content available. Acroterion _(talk) 15:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's an interesting idea, and wouldn't be totally without precedent either, see also Apple Inc. advertising. Another option would be to add a "Canada" section to the Alcohol advertising article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge not notable enough for an article on its own. --Kudret abi^Talk 04:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 22:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dusk (Visual Novel)

Probably a vanity article. Probably created with a conflict of interest. If not a vanity article, then a copyvio, and possibly infringement on proprietary information rights. No assertion of notability. No references, and thus, zero-verifiability. James-Sugrono_{Contributions} 00:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than the apparent conflict of interest (article was created by a user with the same name as the author of the visual novel) it just doesn't pass any inclusion criteria, and seemingly doesn't even try to establish itself. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 01:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- Magioladitis 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pig^man 03:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom vanity cruft extreme. Burntsauce 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN etc. This really ought to be marked for speedy delete, actually. tgies 12:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City (Thief)

Fictional city from a computer game series; pure game guide material with no assertion of encyclopedic significance. Stormie 07:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia not a video game manual. --Victor falk 11:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' You won't find any of the material in the article in a game manual for any game in the series. It is not a game manual, it is a collection of observations made from people who have played the Thief games, based on quotes and information established within the games from in-game books, papers, and quotes from characters (BTW, any information on how the cite something from inside a game, would be appreciated).

The article was created to discuss fictional world shown in the Thief games, and reduce the main article, Thief (series) down to just discussing game. A section in that article was moved to the new article, and original section redirects to the new page. I've also moved the City page to Locations in the Thief Series (Computer Game) as suggested by someone in the in talk page.

I wasn't aware that articles dealing with category:Video game locations, Category:Fictional countries or Category:Fantasy worlds were not allowed in the Wikipedia. If they aren't then perhaps most of those articles should be deleted? If they are allowed, then I don't see how this article breaks any policies. Though perhaps it needs to be cleaned up by various authors that originally wrote the content, in order to raise its quality. But I don't see why it should be deleted, if other pages like Daventry (King's Quest), or Hyrule can exist.Splintercell007 03:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, it's Original Research? --Stormie 07:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I think so, that might describe it well. Isn't there a template for that? Also, how does one cite a specific quote from within a game, or level to avoid it being considered "original research".?Splintercell007 10:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I found Wikipedia's citation method for video game refereces, Template:Cite video game, and have added citations to the article.--Splintercell007 02:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as gamecruft. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument. Clarityfiend 19:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of gamecruft or derivatives is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument for deletion based on existing Wikipedia policies. See, Wikipedia:Fancruft#Usage.

I don't know what gamecruft is exactly, and I can't find an article on it in wikipedia giving a straightforward definition on it, and I don't see it listed as "reasons to delete articles", infact the above article says it isn't. If it is part of wikipedia policy to delete so-called "gamecruft", I would like a link to it and its definition. I'd recommend that if such stuff must be deleted due to wikipedian policy, that we start adding deletion template to other pages that are "gamecruft" by whatever definition it uses.Splintercell007 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to have to agree with Splintercell007 here. We do forbid game guides, but emphasis here is on "guide". The relevant bit is specifically about instructions, tips, strategies, et cetera, none of which is present here. There's nothing against content about things in video games - we have that as featured articles. Neither is this OR by any definition. Although there's been a surprising amount of confusion over what constitutes OR, the page limits our scope to describing things, forbidding interpretation or original analysis. This article appears to contain only data that is apparent to the layman in the games themselves, which is specifically allowed in the policy. Forbidding the use of primary sources - the works - in writing about fiction is not a workable option. Have you ever tried to describe the plot of, say, Romeo and Juliet completely from reviews and analyses, without the actual play? Me neither, and I'd rather not do so in the future.

And even if the article had OR or game guide content, this AfD is nicely illustrative of the significance. It'll be fixed before the deadline, no worries. ;)

What Splinter describes above is a valid spinout, a common practice of spreading a subject over multiple articles when one can't adequately cover it. Cramming everything on a topic in one article can be a highly non-optimal solution. For examples of spinouts in use, refer to our article on the major country or capital of your choice. The relevant ~~rule~~ guideline is WP:FICT, which currently states that "sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style", as Splinter mentioned happening, and should be considered an extension of the original article. All in all, I see no problems with the article. "Cruft" when unaccompanied is no more than a statement of personal dislike, and I rue the word for giving such arguments a veneer of credibility. Finally: Yes, I do talk like this. --Kizor 04:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 00:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for deletion are heavily based in policy. The keep arguments are much weaker, and the fact that they will air defeat WP:CRYSTAL When the episodes air, feel free to recreate it, and/or create redirects right now. --Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 00:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McStroke

AfDs for this article:

No sources for anything on these pages. At all. Will ^(talk) 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated

Do not delete. These pages are relatively useless at the moment, but will definitely be filled out once the episodes air. Deleting them now would be pointless, because they would just have to be reinstated when the episodes air, which is only several weeks away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.203.169 (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These pages are relatively useless at the moment" - yes, which is why they're up for AFD.
"But will definitely be filled out once the episodes air" - WP:ATA#CRYSTAL
"Deleting them now would be pointless" - WP:ATA#CRYSTAL
"Because they would just have to be reinstated when the episodes air" - WP:EPISODE, and the fact these titles are confirmed
"Which is only several weeks away" - Season 7 will start in, no exaggeration, 12 months time. A lot more than several weeks, yes?

Will ^(talk) 16:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are there any reliable sources for these other than the copyright database (which doesn't appear to backup the claim that these are season six episodes)? If not these should be redirected to the LOE, until such a time a reliable source becomes available to prove the existence of this episode. Matthew 16:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Family Guy episodes. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were all given to us by a Greg Colton, one of the main directors for family guy. Same was done with season 5 and all those titles were correct as well if you went back and checked. In that case they were available about a year in advance as well Grande13 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you can't get anymore direct than a firsthand source... Grande13 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make that source public? And don't remove AFD tags. Will ^(talk) 21:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge Not notable enough and with no sources. WP:EPISODE. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the following to the LOE: Stewie Kills Lois, Lois Kills Stewie,McStroke, and Padre de Familia, until a synopsis is provided. All of these are listed in IMDb with release dates. Keep Peter's Daughter as that has a synopsis and air date. Delete the rest until they can be verified.--Sethacus 05:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but don't delete Those of you that don't know what delete and redirect means I will tell you. It means that the history will be lost, and then re-created for redirection. I don't want that to happen, once the sources are available we should keep this. TheBlazikenMaster 14:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stewie Kills Lois as it has been announced [58]. No opinion on the others. DCEdwards1966 14:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the episodes are expected, and can generally? be seen listed on TVGuide.com. Also, we have people from the studio as well as someone? having correspondence with the Family Guy director. Miranda 04:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, redirect the articles which haven't been aired yet to the list of episodes, but do not delete. Miranda 04:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide doesn't have any epiosdes listed beyond the just aired "Believe it or Not, Joe's Walking on Air". Will ^(talk) 10:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until they actually have enough information to warrant a separate page. Stuart DD _{contributions} 11:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ultra-strong mega-keep deleting wud be pointless, the episodes will air soon & these pages show a bit of good info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.235.20 (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until they do it's best to let them be redirects. TheBlazikenMaster 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are all confirmed titles, although im ok with having redirects for the future episodes that currently have nothing really notable to add to the page besides production code and title. I've done a test redirect of the episode Not All Dogs Go To Heaven, so im guessing this is how we should do the other ones that have no info. Although a few do have info such as Road to Germany, which has a plot, guest stars, director, and parts of the script from a live table read. A few others exist as well, although most near the end have nothing notable to add Grande13 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, source? Will ^(talk) 07:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grande13, I did never say they aren't, but until there is something else (other than the titles) confirmed, they should just redirect. TheBlazikenMaster 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect the articles and create them again once they air. No one knows what going to happen so there's no need for speculative articles about possible episodes. Especially with no source. WP:V is policy too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this mass deletion nomination on principle alone. It is horribly confusing to lump future episodes for which there is evidence with those for which there is none. I am separating out the one for "Stewie Kills Lois" because it is the most verifiable and the one with the closest airdate. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewie Kills Lois; those of you with an opinion on this one specifically please make your voice heard there. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stewie Kills Lois now has several sources. These are just restored, having been deleted a week ago by an IP vandal, hours before this AfD nom. Details here. / edg ☺ ★ 22:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Stewie Kills Lois removed from nomination due to sources. Will ^(talk) 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The episodes that have nothing but the title and production episode should be redirected to the main episode list page, while those with more notable information available should be left and expanded on. Although there are only a handful of those that actually have notable info available, so not all should be redirected —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grande13 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They will all just be recreated anyway. --Thankyoubaby 23:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Little Word

AfDs for this article:

No sources, too much of crystalballery Will ^(talk) 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated

Will ^(talk) 22:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all have official sources, and plus are already part of an ongoing discussing if you had cared to check... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grande13 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked. The copyright records say "screenplay". Not "television episode". "Screenplay". Some get copyrighted and don't even reach the voice acting. Will ^(talk) 22:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to burst your bubble, but copyright offices prefer the term screenplay or teleplay to television episode. I would know. I'm a WGA-affiliated screenwriter. I haven't seen the copyright records myself, but if they have episode numbers, they're pretty much set for air. And if the episodes with the titles listed are listed on IMDb AND TV.com, there's something to it. Unless this is just some grand scheme perpetrated on two different sources to "punk" Wikipedia.--Sethacus 04:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, someone could enter it on TV.com, then go to IMDB and add it there. Will ^(talk) 21:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I don't know if you're aware of this, but some of these episodes have already aired. (Ibaranoff24 01:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - These articles are merely placeholders for AD episodes that will air during the coming season. Although Wikipedia policy discourages placeholders—meaning the articles should have never been created in the first place—it seems kind of silly to delete the pages now only to have them recreated (possibly with incongruent styles) once the episodes actually air. --jonny-mt 05:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do we have a list of AD eps? If so, I propose we redirect the following:Big Trouble in Little Langley, Haylias, Widowmaker, Oedipal Panties, Red October Sky, Stany Slickers,42-Year-Old Virgin, Spring Break-Up, Phantom of the Telethon and The One That Got Away. All of these are verified upcoming episodes, but without synopses.Keep One Little Word, Vacation Goo, Tearjerker, and Franny 911. These have synopses and, in some cases (eh-heh) have alredy aired. Delete the rest until a synopsis is found.--Sethacus 05:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles have no sources whatsoever between them. So I don't see why you're wanting to keep unverifiable information. Will ^(talk) 06:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked through the articles to find sources, and while there don't seem to be any noted in the articles the episode list largely matches up with this one at TV.com. There are some gaps and the TV.com list doesn't have airdates yet, but I thought I would post it here for reference. --jonny-mt 15:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh you do know that TV.com is user-submitted, yes? Will ^(talk) 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And why wouldn't that work? Wikipedia seems to think TV.com is just peachy.--Sethacus 04:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any site that is user-contributed without a proper fact-checking system is automatically unreliable. Will ^(talk) 09:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you removed the TV.com link from the LazyTown article. Are you willing to do that for every television show?--Sethacus 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not TV.com links, but TV.com references. Will ^(talk) 21:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the site allows contributions from users in the form of trivia, quotes, etc., but it doesn't seem to allow me to add new episodes, which suggests that access to those is controlled to some degree. The addition of fairly extensive TV news coverage lends additional credibility, but whether it's acceptable under WP:RS is up for debate--if you want to pursue that line of inquiry, it might be worthwhile to put up a query on the reliable sources notice board. I'd be glad to participate in that discussion. --jonny-mt 05:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a capital idea. I noticed, as well, certain users have special privileges on TV.com. I also note that there seem to be upcoming episodes of AD that I didn't recognize from IMDb or this Afd. Interesting.--Sethacus 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same as User:Jonny-mt. - Just Phil 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Vacation Goo since it has already aired. No opinion on the others. DCEdwards1966 14:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dope & Faith will be airing in just a few days, and it would be stupid to delete its article in the mean time. 129.67.53.232 21:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding back info from remaining third season episodes that comes from the copyright database as its an acceptable form for source material as was discussed in the past and agreed upon. Numerous articles, some featured, or close to featured, for a show that utilizes the copyright database as a reference use this as well. Main example, the Simpsons [59], check on one of the discussion pages for the lengthy conversation between some of their editors and a few admins for how this came to be an acceptable source if you have any qualms about it.

Also, if you would have done some more research you would have noticed that more than half of the previously aired episodes on the copyright database have the word screenplay, which is just the style that american dad seems to be registering some of their more recent episodes. There hasn't been a situation where a title has been mislabeled yet, and in the rare occurrence if some situation should ever arise there is a upcoming television show disclaimer located above the current season.

I've also added back the season 4, as its properly sourced, and is setup in a way that discourages vandalism and people adding false material.

and its not too crystalballery as you noted, as the dates are left off and episode order left blank for the time being as I am only including the verified and sourced material. If you've noticed in the past i've removed peoples attempts at ordering and speculating dates as that is a bit crystalball-ish, but with this compromise they are in an acceptable form

Now regarding the episodes. Regardless of whether the discussion decides to delete some of the later upcoming episodes, they have a valid place on the episode list as they all have sources, and are labeled with that source and detailed info on how to confirm the existence of the episode. If it is decided that the episodes are to be merged/deleted later on then the episode pages can be kept although a redirect link can be implemented that just redirects it to the season 3 part of the episode list until further more concrete info becomes available on the episode. If you want to see that current system in action head over to the Simpsons season 19 episode page as episode pages that are confirmed but that do not enough info to be notable just redirect you to the main page. Also some of these episodes have been confirmed in articles/interviews. Im in the process of adding the sources to each episode that has such info. I've started with 42 year old virgin which had a live table read at comic con 2007. Grande13 01:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EPISODE. Forget finding sources for the titles, find some real-world information or these will end up as redirects anyways. -- Ned Scott 10:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merger is an editorial decision W.marsh 00:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letterkenny Shopping Centre (2nd nomination)

AfDs for this article:

Pointless shopping mall article. Has previously been deleted. Pathless 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object; it is certainly a very poor article but the notion that shopping malls are not-notable (or more likely unworthy) for inclusion is 24 carat POV. They are central to modern life in the English speaking world, just as Churches were one time. It was commerce that created towns in the first place; their very reason to exist! What this article needs is to be improved, not deleted. Commercial advertising in such articles can be handled just as it is in other articles. (Sarah777 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - notability is derived from Economic Impact to the community. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Largest shopping centre in County Donegal and also the first. As far as I can see it is as notable or non-notable as any other Irish mall article --Letterkennyboi 15:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been deleted through afd and recreated several times by now. It has not been improved in any way since its last deletion, and it was a unanimous "delete" last time round. ~~Furthermore, this article makes use of no reliable secondary sources.~~ Ah, I see that it does. It is still hard to see how this list of stores could be of use to anyone, besides functioning as an advertisement of the centre. Pathless 19:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - further to my original point it would be as useful to anyone who wanted to know what the shopping facilities in Letterkenny were. Which to many people is probably more interesting than many classes of Wiki article, such as the series of articles on the types and serial numbers of diesel engines CIE used on what line in the various decades since WW2. "Useful" is not a Wiki criteria; notability is and how a ___location employing 100+ people and which is a centre of considerable activity is not notable beats me. (Sarah777 21:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's not notable because it fails the notability criterea on WP:CORP. Pathless 21:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree. Can you specify the exact criteria you reckon it fails on? (Sarah777 21:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sure, from WP:CORP: "If the depth of coverage [by reliable secondary sources] is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Pathless 22:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with User Talk:Exit2DOS2000 notability is derived from Economic Impact to the community. The community of Letterkenny and maybe even the large area of County Donegal --Balloholic 18:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that an element of "ballot-stuffing" could be present here. Several of these accounts are "single purpose" accounts, contributing almost solely to Letterkenny related articles. Pathless 19:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming I'm not including in the alleged stuffing? Also clearly doesn't apply to User:Exit2DOS2000 and hard to see how it could apply to Balloholic either. (Can't see Letterkennyboi's record). I think you should specify who you suspect or withdraw the charge which reads as if it applies to all the rest of us.(Jeez it gets tedious having to do this 4 times - next time do your AfDs one at a time)! (Sarah777 21:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, I wasn't talking about you, or about User:Exit2DOS2000. You should try to relax, it is obvious that your account is not single pupose. I left a message on your talk page. It is easy to see how it could apply to Balloholic, if you just take a look through his edits. In fact, he seems to share editing habits with several other users. You can see Letterkennyboi's edits here. Pathless 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware The Citations I am adding today also are showing that the town that this shopping centre is situated in, is considered to be one of the fastest growing towns in all of Europe. There are several sites devoted to talking about how fast and poorly planed growth has been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nobody is disputing that the town itself is notable. Any mention of its shopping centres could be consigned to a paragraph within the main Letterkenny article. Pathless 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why not apply similar reasoning to all the other buildings and institutions the two editors (which you suspect are really one) have created? Letterkenny has lots of churches - why should any one be notable? Is there something especially notable about Letterkenny library? (Sarah777 10:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, there is nothing special about them, and if you want to nominate them for deletion, you should go ahead. I have, in fact nominated some of them for deletion already, and I wouldn't bother again, because nominations for institutions like this normally fail. Pathless 10:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth...I do not want to delete the church articles; I want to leave the retail centre articles where they are. (Sarah777 11:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - I seriosly can't see how this, over any other, article on a shopping mall is not notable. Look at other articles on Irish shopping malls. What is your opinion on them Pathless?. --Balloholic 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones do you mean, though? I think that they could normally be merged into the article on the area, like the one on Blanchardstown Shopping Centre has been, unless they are especially notable in some way. Pathless 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look through category of shopping centres in Dublin --Balloholic 21:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn Merge with Shopping in Letterkenny Pathless 21:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merger to Shopping in Letterkenny is an editorial decision W.marsh 00:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtyard Shopping Centre (2nd nomination)

Pointless shopping mall article, has already been deleted. Pathless 22:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object; it is certainly a very poor article but the notion that shopping malls are not-notable (or more likely unworthy) for inclusion is 24 carat POV. They are central to modern life in the English speaking world, just as Churches were one time. It was commerce that created towns in the first place; their very reason to exist! What this article needs is to be improved, not deleted. Commercial advertising in such articles can be handled just as it is in other articles. (Sarah777 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Keep - notability is derived from Economic Impact to the community. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Somewhat as notable as other mall articles in other parts of the country. I do not see any reason why this , over any other article, should be deleted. --Letterkennyboi 15:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been deleted through afd and recreated several times by now. It has not been improved in any way since its last deletion. Furthermore, the article makes use of no reliable secondary sources. Pathless 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I assumed "pointless" meant 'not notable'. It seems your issue now is merely with the quality of the article; not really a reason for deletion. (Sarah777 20:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, while the quality of the article is pathetic, there are several reasons why this article should be deleted, and a consensus was reached in previous afd discussions that it should be deleted. By "pointless", I mean that the article is essentially an advertisement for the mall which includes nothing of encyclopedic value. Pathless 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"encyclopedic value" - could you define that for me? 'Value' seems a highly subjective notion in this context; how do you measure it?(Sarah777 21:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The article contains only a list of businesses in the store, alongside original research. None of this is encyclopedic, not is it suitable for inclusion in wikipedia - see WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#OR. Pathless 22:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I seriosly can't see how this, over any other, article on a shopping mall is not notable. Look at other articles on Irish shopping malls. What is your opinion on them Pathless?. --Balloholic 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Which ones do you mean, though? I think that they could normally be merged into the article on the area, like the one on Blanchardstown Shopping Centre has been, unless they are especially notable in some way. Pathless 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, the Blanchardstown merge was clearly a bad decision; maybe we should revisit that one. Dundrum Shopping Centre has a separate article, as do many others. (Sarah777 21:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - Agree with User Talk:Exit2DOS2000 notability is derived from Economic Impact to the community. The community of Letterkenny and maybe even the large area of County Donegal --Balloholic 18:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that an element of "ballot-stuffing" could be present here. Several of these accounts are "single purpose" accounts, contributing almost solely to Letterkenny related articles. Pathless 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming I'm not including in the alleged stuffing? Also clearly doesn't apply to User:Exit2DOS2000 and hard to see how it could apply to Balloholic either. (Can't see Letterkennyboi's record). I think you should specify who you suspect or withdraw the charge which reads as if it applies to all the rest of us. (Sarah777 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, I wasn't talking about you, or about User:Exit2DOS2000. You should try to relax, it is obvious that your account is not single pupose. I left a message on your talk page. It is easy to see how it could apply to Balloholic, if you just take a look through his edits. In fact, he seems to share editing habits with several other users. You can see Letterkennyboi's edits here. Pathless 21:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some shared interests I grant you. But actually neither could be called a single-article account; they seem to cover every type of building in Letterkenny; Churches, Libraries, sports venues, factories, eateries and, yes, Retail Parks and Shopping Centres. And they have uploaded some good snaps of all of these. (Sarah777 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Article does not establish notability. It reads like an advert. Vegaswikian 02:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Malls

"Please stop trying to speedy delete tag notable malls. You will not succeed in subverting a consensus discussion, as any such taggings will be rollbacked on sight, and watchlisted so they can't be snuck through at a later date." - Rebecca 06:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So I see you have some "previous" on this issue Vagas? Wiki is NOT here to cater to the prejudices of certain editors. (Sarah777 09:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - I seriosly can't see how this, over any other, article on a shopping mall is not notable. Look at other articles on Irish shopping malls. What is your opinion on them Pathless?. --Balloholic 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, merge with Shopping in Letterkenny. Pathless 21:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forte Shopping Centre

Another barrel-scraping shopping mall advertisement Pathless 22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object; it is certainly a very poor article but the notion that shopping malls are not-notable (or more likely unworthy) for inclusion is 24 carat POV. They are central to modern life in the English speaking world, just as Churches were one time. It was commerce that created towns in the first place; their very reason to exist! What this article needs is to be improved, not deleted. Commercial advertising in such articles can be handled just as it is in other articles. (Sarah777 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah777 (talk • contribs)

Keep - notability is derived from Economic Impact to the community. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Notable. The complex have come out as the best in the country in terms of rent versus footfall. --Letterkennyboi 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you source that Jbeach56 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thought that this was a borderline speedy. I will offer further arguments. Fails WP:CORP, and does not make use of reliable secondary sources. Pathless 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Doesn't fail WP:CORP; it is a shopping centre, not a single company. There are 12 separate companies listed as trading there. Regarding reliable secondary sources - are you questioning its existence?(Sarah777 21:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The fact that no sources can be found says plenty about the (lack of) notability of the centre. Its single claim to notability is the unsupported "rent versus footfall" claim, a claim, which interestingly is shared with a related shopping mall article. A shopping centre is a company, the business of which is to lease premises to its tenants. Pathless 21:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily; they can be built and sold in whole or part. I have no idea what the arrangements are the the Letterkenny cases. (Sarah777 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - Agree with User Talk:Exit2DOS2000 notability is derived from Economic Impact to the community. The community of Letterkenny and maybe even the large area of County Donegal --Balloholic 18:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that an element of "ballot-stuffing" could be present here. Several of these accounts are "single purpose" accounts, contributing almost solely to Letterkenny related articles. Pathless 19:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming I'm not including in the alleged stuffing? Also clearly doesn't apply to User:Exit2DOS2000 and hard to see how it could apply to Balloholic either. (Can't see Letterkennyboi's record). I think you should specify who you suspect or withdraw the charge which reads as if it applies to all the rest of us. (Sarah777 21:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, I wasn't talking about you, or about User:Exit2DOS2000. You should try to relax, it is obvious that your account is not single pupose. I left a message on your talk page. It is easy to see how it could apply to Balloholic, if you just take a look through his edits. In fact, he seems to share editing habits with several other users. You can see Letterkennyboi's edits here. Pathless 21:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources, and 12 stores doesn't indicate a mall Jbeach56 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP plain and simple. Also fails WP:N. Vegaswikian 02:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:RS have now been added Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." You really think this description of a reliable publication applies to www.shopping-centre.co.uk? The other source is a local newspaper. Pathless 09:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the Donegal Democrat qualifies as well as any other newspaper. You have now added questioning editors to questioning a well respected and long established newspaper! And speaking of ballot-stuffing User:Vegaswikian appears to have a track record of antipathy to Shopping Mall articles.(Sarah777 10:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

But I never questioned its reliability as a source. With all due respect, your tone is somewhat shrill at times, and you seem always ready to jump to conclusions. My point is, coverage in this local newspaper does not imply notability. Most people and local businesses have appeared in their own local newspaper at some point. Pathless 11:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, I advise you to be mindful of WP:NPA. It was YOU who mentioned the Democrat in the context of a sentence discussing reliability, not notability. So one source that might indicate notability isn't reliable and another source which is reliable can't confer notability? Several editors are suspect and now I'm "shrill". Seems you are going to diss any editor or evidence presented. (Sarah777 11:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, if you reread what was written, you'll notice that I mention it in a different sentence. But I am not going to discuss this with you any further. You seem to have a problem maintaining a cool head. Pathless 12:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite an example of my "loss of cool"? That's a second breach of WP:NPA btw - if we must talk of cool heads. (Sarah777 19:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - I seriosly can't see how this, over any other, article on a shopping mall is not notable. Look at other articles on Irish shopping malls. What is your opinion on them Pathless?. --Balloholic 21:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones do you mean, though? I think that they could normally be merged into the article on the area, like the one on Blanchardstown Shopping Centre has been, unless they are especially notable in some way. Pathless 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look through category of shopping centres in Dublin --Balloholic 21:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are all pretty awful articles. Some just give a list of the stores. I think that in these cases, since there is so little material on each individual centre, it would be better if they were all grouped together in something like a Shopping Centres in Dublin article. So yeah, I think that the individual articles should go. What is your opinion? Pathless 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What about the other articles on shopping malls in ireland (e.g. The Crescent in Limerick). What about creating an article on shopping in Letterkenny. I agree with an article on Shopping Centres in Dublin . Ones could also be made for other areas. (Limerick, Cork etc.). --Balloholic 21:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. Pathless 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we go about it. --Balloholic 21:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "Shopping in Letterkenny" article would need to be set up, then it would be requested that the material from each shopping centre would be merged into it. If that could work, I'll withdraw my nomination from these articles. Pathless 21:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Will I just start off with a few lines and wait for merge? How long will merge take? --Balloholic 21:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be an appropriate name for the article. Shopping or Retail or something else? --Balloholic 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge needs to be requested and could be disputed. Merge with Shopping in Letterkenny. Pathless 21:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But should I start off Shopping in Letterkenny article first. --Balloholic 21:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please start it. Pathless 21:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Can you start the merges request now? --Balloholic 22:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happens now? Do I agree with merge on discussion page on Shopping in letterkenny? --Balloholic 22:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that the articles need to be taken off afd first, then it needs to be seen if anybody objects. I've proposed them for merging, and flagged this discussion up in the talk page. You can second the proposed merge on the Shopping in Letterkenny talk page if you like! Pathless 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? How long will it take? --Balloholic 22:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can second the proposal here. I can't remove the articles from afd, only an administrator can do that. Assuming there is consensus that the articles should be kept, it should take a couple of days. Pathless 22:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 21:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but At first glance I agree with the nom and really think that these shopping centres should all be referred to in a longer, better, Letterkenny article, but a single article Shopping in Letterkenny might just work and if it remains a shabby article can always be nomed for merge to Letterkenny later. Right now there seems to be too many tiny and/or non-notable stubs being written instead of making good comprehensive articles. Stubs are easy to create but articles are not and a stub is an easy way to not really bother doing much work or research on a topic, This seems to be the case these days with many Irish topics. ww2censor 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letterkenny Retail Parks

Advertisement for nn corp Pathless 22:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object; as before - it is certainly a very poor article but the notion that shopping malls are not-notable (or more likely unworthy) for inclusion is 24 carat POV. They are central to modern life in the English speaking world, just as Churches were one time. It was commerce that created towns in the first place; their very reason to exist! What this article needs is to be improved, not deleted. Commercial advertising in such articles can be handled just as it is in other articles. (Sarah777 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah777 (talk • contribs)

Keep - notability is derived from Economic Impact to the community. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Came out as best in rent .v. footfall in the country. Notable to the whole Country of Ireland in term of business and economy. --Letterkennyboi 15:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thought that this was a borderline speedy. I will offer further arguments. Fails WP:CORP, and does not make use of reliable secondary sources. Pathless 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By my reading of WP:CORP this doesn't fail; they are retail parks; it would be astonishing if TWO retail parks being built in a small town like Letterkenny attracted no comment in the media from independent secondary sources. (Sarah777 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The astonishing thing is that both shopping centres can share this "rent versus footfall" claim. If you can find secondary sources, you should add them. Pathless 21:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with User Talk:Exit2DOS2000 notability is derived from Economic Impact to the community. The community of Letterkenny and maybe even the large area of County Donegal --Balloholic 18:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that an element of "ballot-stuffing" could be present here. Several of these accounts are "single purpose" accounts, contributing almost solely to Letterkenny related articles. Pathless 19:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming I'm not including in the alleged stuffing? Also clearly doesn't apply to User:Exit2DOS2000 and hard to see how it could apply to Balloholic either. (Can't see Letterkennyboi's record). I think you should specify who you suspect or withdraw the charge which reads as if it applies to all the rest of us. (Sarah777 21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Small mall that fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Malls

"Please stop trying to speedy delete tag notable malls. You will not succeed in subverting a consensus discussion, as any such taggings will be rollbacked on sight, and watchlisted so they can't be snuck through at a later date." - Rebecca 06:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So I see you have some "previous" on this issue Vagas? Wiki is NOT here to cater to the prejudices of certain editors. (Sarah777 09:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - I seriosly can't see how this, over any other, article on a shopping mall/park is not notable. Look at other articles on Irish shopping malls. What is your opinion on them Pathless?. --Balloholic 21:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones do you mean, though? I think that they could normally be merged into the article on the area, like the one on Blanchardstown Shopping Centre has been, unless they are especially notable in some way. Pathless 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look through category of shopping centres in Dublin --Balloholic 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn, merge with Shopping in Letterkenny. Pathless 21:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge few bits per above). Wikipedia cannot and should not replace company websites. Pavel Vozenilek 23:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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