Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 24

< January 23	January 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Let me state merger is a considerable and valid option, however I suggest you to discuss the possibility to turn List of Ball State University alumni into List of Ball State University people in the article talkpage. Additionally, I am concerned about the lack of notability assertion for the faculty members in this list, so a simple merger is not appropriate unless a selection is made. In any case, I am definitely available to apply the David Eppstein solution and restore the whole content once a clear consensus to do so is established in the article talkpage. --Angelo (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ball State University faculty and staff

This list was originally broken out of Ball State University, apparently over concerns about the length of the parent article. The word "notable" was originally in the title, then it was later moved to the current title, although the lead sentence still refers to "notable" faculty. I see this as an unmaintainable list. Is it intended to be a complete listing of all the faculty or not? If not, then the title is misleading, and there's the problem of having a list of notable people that is totally arbitrary and unsourced. If it is intended to be complete, then it's inaccurate. It hasn't had significant editing in over a year, and I doubt that the faculty at the school is that static. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have a direct link to the university's own faculty search page in the parent article? Joyous! | Talk 23:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that Wikipedia was trying to compete with "The Whitepages" WP:NOT - Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. As it stands, the article is a red link farm and has little chance of being more than that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ "Is it intended to be a complete listing of all the faculty or not? If not, then the title is misleading" --- no, read WP:BIO#Lists of people: "Several articles contain or stand alone as lists of people - for instance, usually an article on a college includes or links to a list of notable alumni. Such lists are not intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, inclusion on the list should be determined by the criteria above. Because of this, "notable" is assumed, and that word (or similar, such as "famous," "noted," "prominent," etc.) should not be included in the title of the list article. See list naming conventions.". Listing academics by university is a perfectly acceptable means of organisation. Nor do I see anyone making any attempt to determine whether the academics on the list are notable, and any university with tens of thousands of students is inevitably going to have at least some staff worth writing an article about [1] --- whether they're redlinks or bluelinks has nothing to do with it. cab (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote to Merge per David Eppstein to comply with naming and organisations conventions for university lists. cab (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure I understand the point; if you don't see anyone making an attempt to determine whether anyone on this list is notable, it means that the author hasn't established why these persons are selected. The bigger problem I see is that this comes down to an editor's opinion that some persons at Ball State are more important than others. Every college or university student can recall a person who was a major influence, but that's not the basis for a list like this. Nor, in my opinion, should we have who's who lists for each university. Mandsford (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not limited to notable faculty and staff--vanity page for the univ. JJL (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Ball State University alumni, rename to List of Ball State University people for consistency with the many other lists in Category:Lists of people by university in the United States, and remove all the redlinks. For "List of..." articles of this type, "notable" can be assumed as an implicit part of the title without having to actually have it there. The number of Ball State faculty notable enough to have their own article is too small to make a good list, but I don't see a good reason not to keep the information somewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has no hope of being anything other than a bunch of redlinks. Few if any of the people on the list are actually notable. Definitely not any more notable than any other member of the faculty. --L. Pistachio (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Ball State University alumni and remove redlinks, per David Eppstein. JohnCD (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename per David Eppstein.Bm gub (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Davodd (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would cleaning up entail? I would see it as deleting all the redlinks and leaving a "list" of two people --L. Pistachio (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that just saying you want to keep the article means nothing without an accompanying argument. AfD is not a vote. --L. Pistachio (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Robotforaday (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename per David Eppstein Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Most of the names need editing and wikipedia is not a directory. I consider a speedy deletion.--Pookeo9 (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete is not an option here. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pookeo and RfaD. Wikipedia isn't a directory. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that a list contains redlinks does not make it a directory. cab (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, one of a long history of articles on nonexistent films by a sockpuppet of User:Nede. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Mate Mick

Contested PROD removed without comment. Current article lacks information as to why the subject is notable. Doesn't appear to pass WP:NFF --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for "My Mate Mick" and the star turns up bupkis. Either a major crystal ball case or a hoax; either way, it fails to meet notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written as Crystal and unless otherwise proved with substantial edits should go quickly.--VS ^talk 01:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no evidence of notability. - Longhair\^talk 01:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons above. Earth bending master 01:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree that it's either very crystalline, or very hoaxy. Fails WP:V, at any rate. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Genesis

A Macguffin from two Star Trek movies, an article written entirely in universe in opposition to WP:FICT, and a subject on which there is not sufficient real-world information to justify an article. Indrian (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not written in universe (at least not anymore), and it's a significant within that universe. At least as notable as many articles in Category:Federation starships. Pburka (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even read the article? Your comment makes absolutely no sense. Indrian (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:FAITH. "In the fictional Star Trek universe, . . ." -- not in universe. Pburka (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, naming the universe as fictional has nothing to do with the definition of in universe. In universe means that all the information in the article relates to the subject as it exists in a work of fiction as opposed to discussing the subject and its relation to the real world. If this article were to document the screenwriters development of the device, the manner in which it appeared in the movies, and what greater significance it has in an analysis of the themes of the movies that would be a real-world relevant article. Only a short summary of the fictional elements would be included as part of a larger whole. This article gives the in universe history of the projects creation, the in universe significance of the project, and various explanations as to how the project works and fits into the larger fictional universe. None of the statements currently in the article matter in a real-world context. That is in universe. If you want to keep and provide your reasoning for it, I have no problem with that, but your statement that the article is not written in universe is patently false as you would know if you bothered to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (which for some reason is not linking properly or I would dab it). I do not doubt your good faith, but good faith does not make your statement any less nonsensical. Indrian (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The weak is the dopey "Project Genesis" title (this ain't Space 1999), that there's a lot more in-universe written here than could have been derived from movies two and three, and not as much real world as there should be. Keep, because there's plenty of real world notability: it was a plot point in two hit movies. The most striking point in Wrath of Khan was that both the good guys and the bad guys had their own ideas of what could be done with such a machine -- it didn't occur to the idealists that you could destroy civilization by terraforming right over the top of it. Moreover, it was a way out in case Leonard Nimoy changed his mind about quitting the role, and paved the way for III and IV. Finally, there was the humorous symbolism of a life-giving device in the shape of a... thing. Mandsford (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note last month's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis Planet, closed as a merge to this article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the very least the "Genesis Effect" graphics demo is notable as an early example of CGI.[2][3] The project was instrumental in the death of Spock, one of the most widely discussed character deaths in movie history, as well as his regeneration. Note also that story ramifications from the death of Spock and his regeneration through the project continued at least to Star Trek V. If that's just a Macguffin ... --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The early use of CGI is covered in Wrath of Khan, the Spock death and resurrection are covered in Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock respectively. How does this article, even if rewritten, add any understanding to that? The early CGI argument actually makes no sense if you think about it. Wrath of Khan the movie is notable as an early film using cgi to portray the Genesis effect and Genesis planet. The genesis project, ie, the concept as it exists within the Star Trek universe, has nothing to do with the movie's groundbreaking use of cgi. Indrian (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll try to clean up and source the article, but the topic has attracted nontrivial discussion outside Star Trek itself. Two chapters of the book Star Trek and Sacred Ground: Explorations of Star Trek, Religion, and American Culture (State University of New York Press, ISBN 0791443345) discuss the topic extensively, one in terms of Biblical symbolism, one in terms of the archetypal quest for immortality motif. Gender and Envy (Routledge, ISBN 0415916275) describes it as a "controllable" replacement for the symbolic mother myth. Several other books and journal articles mention it briefly to illustrate various arguments. A valid article is clearly possible here. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the transitional themes between Star Trek TOS, Star Trek TNG, and Star Trek DS9. (And yes, I realize that the article doesn't cover that aspect of things.)jonathon (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 assert notability. BLACKKITE 00:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrian Camilo

While the article makes it appear as though the subject is a notable entrepreneur, this is about a virtual "business" in the game Second Life. Google results (under 800) return primarily blogs from people who play Second Life. May also be a vanity page, as author's name is the same as the article subject. Gromlakh (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notable entrepreneur in the virtual world of Second Life and a key figure in the virtual economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyriancamilo (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google search Tyrian Camilo, results 1190

http://www.google.fi/search?q=tyrian+camilo&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyriancamilo (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC) — Tyriancamilo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Subject has not been covered in any reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some sources independent of Second Life can verify that he is notable. I suggest you read this site's notability guidelines first before claiming you meet them, Mr. Camilo. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer. Even for video game players, notability is defined by real world coverage. No coverage, not notable. Reso lute 01:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons above. Earth bending master 02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated above. --L. Pistachio (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation AIRPLANE

Speedy deletion requested because it is "not important", which is not a valid speedy reason. I did initially delete it as lacking context, as this was the version that was speedy tagged, but realized that there is more history to this, so decided AfD was the better route, even if I think this will end up as a snowball closure. It is simply an in-universe plot reptition, no real world notability. If deleted, redirect Operation: A.I.R.P.L.A.N.E. should go too. Reso lute 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is largely a plot-summary. No notability is asserted, and it is written from an in-universe perspective. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 02:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, it's not a speedy, but most Kids Next Door episodes are not notable, and this is O.R. at its worst. A page listing the episodes, and what the initials in each one stand for, isn't a bad idea; but episode pages should be temporary, not permanent. Someone got the experience of writing about something they know about, and maybe learned something along the way, but it's time to take it back down. Delete this one, and a few months from now, someone else will see a red link in the K.N.D. article, and say, "Nobody's ever done an article about Operation AIRPLANE" and the process will start again. Mandsford (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More specifically, merge, without redirection, with the KND article, stripping away the “Goshthisisgreat!” stuff. There is no more notability here than sufficient for a very few sentences. —SlamDiego_←T 17:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~Kylu (u|t) 02:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read before posting a note to my talkpage about this AfD:

AfD debates are guided by the conversation, and those comments (not votes) which point to clear policy outweigh those which do not.

In deciding this matter, WP:PLOT has come up, which points out to us that the intricacies of the Brethren Court need not be detailed in its own article when a more slim version could exist in the main article itself.
I don't see a reasonable amount (via google search) of reliable third-party coverage from reputable sites regarding the topic. WP:FICT
That said, this is a valid search term on Wikipedia, and the best ___location in my opinion is the List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean article. I'd suggest that those wishing to further work on the characters that are a member of the fictional group be included there in a section. Please avoid placing plot in the article and be sure to cite your sources.

I'll happily provide (via email, upon request) a copy of the article to those who request it.

If you feel this deletion has been against policy, you're invited to request a review at Deletion Review. Please note, though, that arguments that do not mention specific policies there will likely be either ignored or stricken. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brethren Court

Pure cruft. 43 KB on a topic that is only present in one film? Fails the requirements of WP:FICT by containing no out of universe details. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have just redirected it flat-out...but I'll ~~vote~~ comment on the dicussion page for this topic and say delete as there are no independent sources for the article. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite keep. Its an important topic for the franchise and NO, its not in just that movie. And what do you mean "no independent sources"? We have at least 6. You can not merge all of this information into another article and have it run smoothly, nor can you delete it without sacrificing alot of info. I'm really getting sick of all the crap POTC is getting for having too many articles. Star Wars seems like it takes up practically 1/2 of wikipedia's articles. I'd nominate a few of the character pages that are little more than stubs, like Sao Feng. Articles like that can fall back into this one - another reason to keep it. Put these deletion nominations where they count. --Count Mall (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources that are not the novel, the official site, etc. A reliable third party that has commented on it. Or, at the very lesat, information from the creators about why they created this court, their comparisons to the real world, what inspired it, etc. This has absolutely nothing but a long, convoluted plot and summary of characters. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If thats all that its lacking you should have said something on the talk page before. We can add that easy. Dont be so deletion nomination-happy next time. --Count Mall (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have five days. If you can do it, this nomination will be sunk. And David nominated the article, not me. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is absolutely ridiculous. The page has gone under several revisions, and it's been accepted that it's now at its best. if you want to change something, go to the talk page first. I agree with Count Mall. This is a hasty and uncalled for deletion and I ask for its immediate withdrawal. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Therequiembellishere; this information must be kept on because it provides a close look at the characters of the Brethren Court, something which is more than just a little pertinent for this continuity. Perhaps, though, redirecting the page for the Brethren Court to the "Minor Characters" page would not be out of line.--KnowledgeLord (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite keep I agree with the above, everything is right exactly as it is. No redirections, no merges, nothing. Just leave it as it is, it is a product of many discussions at its current state. Zisimos (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Delete (see below) I don't see much difference between this article and the thousands of other articles about elements of fictional works. The Star Wars example given above is a good example of this point. This article covers a lot of detail that wouldn't fit in the main article for the movie. --L. Pistachio (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. David Fuchs^(talk) 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that essay, which is not policy. In fact, I'll quote directly from it: "...it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged..."--L. Pistachio (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote of keep is not based on any valid policy, whereas David has. David has stated that this article does not meet FICT. None of the three people who have voted keep have disproved that statement. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So. We still voted. The votes till count. You're sounding very sppiled. Again, if theres a problem, say so on the damn talk page and don't be so racist against POTC. --Count Mall (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's are not votes- any comments that do not cite policy et al may be discounted. As for us being racist against a fictional work, I believe that would qualify for a 'lol'. David Fuchs^(talk) 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If these arent votes, than what are? And your last name qualifies as an lol, fucher! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countmall (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I haven't heard that one a million times... very original. To the more germane point, from WP:AFD, "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." David Fuchs^(talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, racist against POTC, good one. (not) hbdragon88 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've establised that.--Count Mall (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, I'll say that I don't necessarily agree with everything in WP:FICT. However I can't dispute that this article violates WP:NOT#PLOT. --L. Pistachio (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then why not address that on the talk page and state that the page need to stay more focused on its topic? Why jump immediately to an AFD? (Btw, I realise you aren't the nominator). I'll say again, this nomination need to be shut down and the discussion moved to the talk page where it belongs. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Also, I can't be sure but it looks as if you got your mop and bucket on 24 January and are trying out your new status on this page. Not meant to be entirely accusative, that's just what it looks like from the look of your userpage. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of Pirate Lords (Pirates of the Caribbean). In addition, the article List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean might have to be split up to follow this trend. Alientraveller (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note: the following four users were notified of this discussion by Therequiembellishere (see Special:Contributions/Therequiembellishere). David Fuchs^(talk) 19:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you insinuate that I attempted to influence the vote! I went though the history and the talk page and told them simply that an AfD was in order and asked them to join the discussion. Their is no rule against asking people to join. I didn't go up to them and write, "Hey, make sure we keep this one alive!" Don't accuse me of canvassing, it makes it seem much more like you're attempt to sway the vote. In any case you notified the creator of the page, why shouldn't I notify those who edit it most consistently?! Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered, Fuchs. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually suggested at the AFD page: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion....". Also, please remain civil. Thanks. BLACKKITE 01:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article contains a lot of information that has been possibly acquired through painstaking research. It is definately informative and it is in an acceptable format. Simply go in and remove the Fan Cruft. The Lord Voldemort page was full of fan cruft and it has been stabilized by editors and maintained clean. Why can't we just do that for this article as well. Why delete it! Seriously, just remove the cruft and leave the page in existance. Finally, it maintains a crucial role in the seires, and that amount of information can not simply be deleted. I must say that many have put an effort into this article and to simply delete (instead of improving) is outrageous and extremely ludicrous! Hpfan1 (Hpfan1) 12:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There is no such thing as fancruft, nor a non-notable article. The notability rule must be destroyed.Thanos6 (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this page has a lot of useful information for the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Also, it must have taken forever to compile all this information. Deleting it would be a punch in the face to all the people who have worked on it. Flamingtorch372 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Brethren Court is a major factor in the movies, particularly At World's End. Sure, it could stand to be cleaned up a bit, but that in itself is no reason to delete it. This article has valuable information on the pirate lords, the code, the Brethen's history, and lots of other topics that are extremely important, but would not fit into other articles. I think deleting this page would be a hasty, not to mention poor, decision. Grey Maiden ^talk 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Indefinitely - Wow, this is completely absurd. This isn't fancruft (or whatever else you suppose it might be) and it CERTAINLY is not something worth deleting. What I don't particularly understand is why the nominator has no desire whatsoever to improve the wonderful article rather than preposterously delete it. Quite frankly, several people, including myself, have worked many a day (and night, mind you) to write this, and it IS quite important to keep it in Wikipedia due to the fact that it plays quite a huge role in the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy. I suggest you keep your hat on and choose a particularly idiotic article to delete rather than articles as important as this. Enough said. BlackPearl14 ^{Pirate Lord-ess} 20:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wonder if there is any way the information about flags and their real-world users (or at least a similar version) could be sourced? That might be nice to see. shas^Yarr!/_T|C 20:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further: The stuff about the flags might be considered out-of-universe relevance, David? shas^Yarr!/_T|C 20:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC) (again)[reply]
Redirect - The article should redirect to the main article with a link to the POTC Wiki which already contains the Brethren Court article. See the following guideline from W:FICT

Relocating non-notable fictional material

Fictional material unsuited or too detailed for Wikipedia can be transwikied to the appropriate Wikia, such as Final Fantasy Wikia and Wookieepedia.

The information and work is preserved in the appropriate place and does not add further clutter to English Wikipedia. On the subject of "fancruft," the information is relevant to understanding the plot of the third movie, and both a passing moviegoer and die-hard fan could find it useful. However, it has no current notability in outside, unoffocial sources, so it does not meet standards to have a place on Wikipedia proper. Cybertooth85 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either Delete or Redirect to the main article with a short summary and, as noted above, a link to the POTC Wiki. There is a possibility that this could become a viable article, but this isn't it; it's 43K of plot summary and what may well be original research, backed up by no reliable sources whatsoever, and more importantly it's hardly been improved at all since the first AfD - it's just got longer with the addition of more trivia. The only Keep above that even attempts to defend the article on policy-based reasons is the first, and that's factually incorrect - there aren't 6 independent sources; in fact since the Yahoo! article is almost certainly a Disney-sponsored advert, there aren't any. BLACKKITE 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that the company who owns the franchise isn't a reliable source? Because all of the sources do come from the owner. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, most of the references are other Wikipedia articles, which is not allowed anyway. But yes, the company that owns the franchise is a primary source. Wikipedia's verifiability policy says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources..." (in fact, it's the very first sentence). There is nothing wrong with primary sources, as long as an article isn't sourced only by them. Cannot some secondary sources be found to source this article? To fix this, I think you'd have to do this, and trim most or all of the plot summary and original research out of the article. That might (and it's a stretch) just about sort it. BLACKKITE 23:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article and perhaps, add a link to the POTC Wiki. Just my two cents. Bradybd (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this a loving tribute to a fun movie franchise or an obsessive compendium of minutiae? It sure isn't an encyclopedia article. Policy soup: WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYN, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect and protect to avoid the inevitable edit war. An article on Wikipedia has to pass WP:V and WP:N. Put together, that says that an article has to be composed primarily of information derived from third-party sources. This article has none.Kww (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Needs multiple reliable sources, and no amount of "keep" votes that have nothing to do with policy should persuade us otherwise. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Point Being that this doesn't need to be deleted. Yes, there could be a third source, which would gladly be added in...soon...by a contributor. On the other hand, just nominating an article for deletion when such an easy, simple task such as sourcing could be done in seconds...why didn't you and/or others just post a message on the talk page? Makes us all look like we're working ourselves off for nothing! Just my two pence. BlackPearl14 ^{Pirate Lord-ess} 05:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there are so many non-primary sources available, why haven't they been added in the six months since it was mentioned at the last AfD, instead of more trivia and original research? I've looked myself and there appears to be very little available, at least online. BLACKKITE 07:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't the top of the line issue last time. If you'd talked to us and given us time, we might have avoided this completely. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, it seems highly unlikely that there are several reliable sources which will establish the notability of this subject, given that none has so far been located. Without evidence to the contrary, the "Brethren Court" warrants a brief mention in the movie's plot synopsis, and nothing more in Wikipedia.--Trystan (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the respect! I think people are forgetting the larger purpose of the page however: the Court members themselves. Remove the page and the characters disappear and they certainly have quite a large amount of reliable information to them. If you are going to delete the page it is imperative that you move the character information to their proper places (the minor characters page and the main articles). Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea as a temporary measure, but moving the content around within WP isn't really the answer. We should only include as much plot and character descriptions as we need to provide a context for critical, out-of-universe discussion. I think the many PotC character articles should be interwikied and deleted, merged, or pared down considerably. This seems like a good place to start.--Trystan (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the brief characters descriptions to List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean would be reasonable. That article could definitely do with being trimmed, though; there are really minor characters that could be removed, and far too much plot summary about others (half a page of plot summary about a monkey, for example!). BLACKKITE 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like suggesting this here, but as I hardly edit it,Ihope someone else will here will suggest it there. I believe that they should be split up in minors in CotBP, minors in DMC, minors in AWD and minors spanning more than one film. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the only pirates out of all lords that we've seen in movies except for At World's End are Jack Sparrow and Barbossa....I'm trying to say that we wouldn't be able to span the rest of them across CotBP, DMC, and AWE unless you mean just Sparrow and Barbossa, in which case I'm okay with it. However, I don't see why we should delete this. I understand Fuchs's reason for wanting to delete the Pirate's Code Guidelines article, but this is just a step too far. Next thing we know, the List of Minor Characters will be nominated for deletion as well. And, BlackKite, there are several books out there that are quite relevant to the Brethren Court Lords. If this page lasts until a couple weeks from now, I'll be able to buy them and source the article properly (I can only buy it then with Birthday Money). I've read several of those books myself, so quite frankly, yes, there are a lot of sources. BlackPearl14 ^{Pirate Lord-ess} 01:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what I said. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting not only you, but Black Kite's reference to there being a scarce amount of sources. BlackPearl14 ^{Pirate Lord-ess} 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. There is an excellent PotC wiki that serves as a much more appropriate home for this sort of in-universe compilation.--Trystan (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion I've noticed that the Codes Guidleines book have been deleted, too. Why doesnt anyone go after the pinball machine or any article thats small and stupid like that?--Count Mall (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is "going after" anything. We are all interested in making Wikipedia the best encyclopedia it can be, and that involves making editorial decisions to ensure that its content follows its policies and guidelines. That means eliminating extensive in-universe plot summaries and requiring notability to be established.--Trystan (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really count as an in-universe plot summary, however, more or less, it's an article on one of the big groups involved in the Pirates trilogy. BlackPearl14 ^{Pirate Lord-ess} 20:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article as written does not attempt to analyze the film as an artistic work in any significant way, but rather attempts to treat its backstory as something that can be analyzed and synthesized in the way that historical people and organizations can. The lack of discussion in a real-world context is a natural consequence of the absence of reliable sources indicating that this aspect of the movie's plot is discussed by other sources.--Trystan (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, but I still know of several sources. I'll be able to add them in this weekend (or sometime soon). How long would this nomination last before the article is actually deleted? BlackPearl14 ^{Pirate Lord-ess} 02:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguements to keep, including valid application of WP:SUMMARY seem adequate, and there were few votes to delete at this time.Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aggie Bonfire leadership

Nothing is notable about the leadership of the Aggie Bonfire. Should be covered adequately in Aggie Bonfire. It doesn't need a separate article. Twice failed PROD. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into Aggie Bonfire unless sources are forthcoming. Not notable enough on their own. Lawrence § t/e 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a subpage of Aggie Bonfire (recently featured on the main page) and covers details not included in the main article. Contrary to the information contained in the reason for the prod, the information contained here is not on the Aggie Bonfire page. Incorporating such detailed information into the article would give too much weight to the leadership structure. It satisfies all of WP:SUMMARY. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I find is disheartening that you posted this here without waiting for an explanation on the talk page. (note the times) — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "explanation" wouldn't have made a difference in my AfDing the article. At best, the leadership of the Bonfire should be a one paragraph mention. It is not notable and such detailed breakdown is not supported by verifiable, neutral, reliable sources nor was it covered to such depth in any independant sources. Giving it its own article gives it far more WP:UNDUE weight than having a paragraph added to the main bonfire article would. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tone portrayed with your quotes suggests you are being condescending to the explanation offered on the page and it is not very civil. My problem is more procedural than argumentative. My point is that you didn't even wait for a response.
Sources do not need to be neutral, only the article does, though WP:V applies. Articles do not need to be "covered in such depth in independent sources"; this is not Wikipedia policy. Is there something contentious that needs such information covered in an outside source? If so, please tag it accordingly in the article.
A detailed breakdown gives the reader more information without adding undue weight to such information in the main article IAW WP:SUMMARY.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing uncivil in my tone nor is anyone required to "wait for a response" after a PROD. The PROD was removed, so I immediately AfDed no matter what you had said. The article is not appropriate. Do we have articles breaking down the leaderships structure of every fraternity and sorority out there? This article is no different than one of those would be. There is absolutely nothing encyclopedic or notable about how there being redpots and brownpots and yellowpots, etc, or how the roles are transitioned from the graduating seniors to the younger students. That level of aggiecruft (for lack of a better word), belongs in an Aggie oriented Wikipedia. The general leadership structure does not need such excessive detail, only a single paragraph in the main article noting the general management of the bonfire. A detailed breakdown isn't needed and by giving it its own article, undue weight has already been given to the topic.AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, let me be a little more precise. I'm not saying you can't put it here, but I wish you had at least waited for comments on the talk page IAW the directions on the template "...it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.". This article is different from sororities/frats in that the leadership is a bit complicated and requires some explanation. It was moved to a subtopic during the FA review and more detail added for clarity in the main article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all pretty interesting stuff, so it should stay somewhere, but there don't appear to be enough notable and independent sources for the leadership stuff. Was there more sourcing? News coverage maybe from a non Texas A&M school paper? It just needs sourcing to pass WP:N. Lawrence § t/e 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of outside sourcing available for such a small article. Sources currently include CNN, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Scout.com. Can you please be more specific as to what should be improved? Perhaps you could simply tag the areas you feel need more sources. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should add those sources to the article that are about the leadership. Otherwise, anyone can AFD this and it won't survive... Are the articles about the leadership? Why weren't they added...? Lawrence § t/e 02:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

??? They are already there. I'm confused. Furthermore, an article/book does not have to be written explicitly about a subject for something to be notable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like someone has added sources from a book written on the subject; Texas A&M's annual bonfire (which had the disaster in 1999) was unique among college traditions, and it's no surprise that there was a hierarchy of leaders that was as complicated as the anual engineering of the structure. It's as valid a spinoff as the article about the tragedy itself. Mandsford (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While in the strictest sense this is "notable" it is not notable outside of the Bonfire event itself. If relevant at all it should be part of that article (though best condensed to a paragraph). It is very odd to have this inside-baseball information as a separate article, and have no separate article at all on the bonfire collapse, which takes up about half the parent article's space. If anything should be broken out for space or organizational reasons, it is the most notable aspect of the bonfire, that is, the most newsworhty and encyclopedic part: the collapse. Breaking this out instead shows middling judgement. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a proper application of "summary style" but could use some general sources. Ursasapien (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if some better sources can be found. If so, it would be a decent use of summary style. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial details; a summary belongs in the main article.DGG (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A basic summary already is in the article with more details here IAW WP:SUMMARY. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs the 3rd party independent sourcing about the leadership, though. Lawrence § t/e 02:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see above — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't want to formally issue a vote since I don't want anybody to misconstrue my intentions here, but I feel like Dhartung is absolutely right in this case, this subject's only notability is in the context of the bonfire itself. The information should be merged into Aggie Bonfire since it is the one thing that gives the "bonfire leadership" their notability. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I don't like this page. I find a level of detail here that is frankly tedious. However, the primary author has stated - correctly I think, that this article was spun off from the Bonfire article. It has weak, but passing notability in its own right, and absolute notability when viewed as part of Aggie Bonfire. That article is all ready at 49K, which really is the effective limit for the managable size of an article per WP:LENGTH. Merger of the full contents of this article to that one therefore would not be appropriate. This content could be greatly pruned and merged as some are suggesting; however, I don't see that policy requires the loss of the sourced information in this article. So, weak keep, and I'll tag this article w/ the subarticle template if I can get it to work. Xymmax (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. What is that template? I'll add it myself. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly no agreement has been reached on if this article should be kept or not. A merge and/or re-direct can be considered, but that would probably be better decided outside AFD. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amparo High School

High school in the Philippines, makes no claim of notability Jeodesic (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are two sources cites; perhaps some degree of notability can be found there. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NOTE. The references are the Department of Education's list of all schools in the Phillipines and the school's entry in the Department's database. These are clearly not "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" as they are brief entries in a list which every school in the Phillipines is aparantly included in and which is maintained by the organisation which is ultimately responsible for the school. A Google search of 'Amparo High School' does not provide any reliable sources [4]. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being a high school with over 2500 students is in itself a claim of notability. The nom's "High school in the Philippines" stipulation is not a valid reason to delete an article and appears an example of systemic bias. Consensus has constantly found that high schools are notable (see WP:OUTCOMES) and there is no evidence that consensus has changed. --Oakshade (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OUTCOMES states that "consensus is frequently not reached" on AfDs concerning high schools, which is rather different to your statement that it says that high schools are constantly found to be notable. In lieu of a specific notability guideline (WP:SCHOOL is only a proposed guideline) each AfD on high schools needs to be treated in isolation (though obviously WP:OUTCOMES provides some guidance for the closing admin) - what references can be drawn on for this school to meet the criteria at WP:NOTE? --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Consensus has not deleted high schools. --Oakshade (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, no - articles on high schools usually survive AfDs because there is no consensus one way or the other. As there is no consensus at present for high schools to be automatically considered notable each article needs to meet WP:NOTE. As such, simply stating that its a high school and so should survive an AfD isn't sufficent as this has no basis in any existing policy and merely rests on a common AfD outcome. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes. Consensus has found that if the high school and the content is verified or verifiable, it is sufficient. There are exceptions to the letter of WP:NOTE and high schools are an example of one. --Oakshade (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please provide a reference for that claim? - it seems to boil down to high schools being automatically notable and articles being justified if it can be proved that the school actually exists and is hence not a hoax. WP:OUTCOMES does not directly support your argument and WP:SCHOOLS is contested and yet to be adopted as policy. I've been involved in a few AfDs on high schools recently, and the thing that led to their survial was the presence of what were argued to be reliable sources external to the school (which enabled them to meet WP:NOTE), such as stories in newspapers, and not the fact that they had a website or were listed on a relevant government department's list of schools. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you didn't see this in the article; The proof is here. That's an actual government website. Don't know why you're claiming it's a hoax now... Unless of course you think the Philippine government is pulling a hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where did I say that this high school is a hoax? In my vote I stated that the article's references are a government list of schools and the school's entry in a government database and that these are not the kind of reliable sources required for the school to meet WP:NOTE. I was actually hoping that you could provide a reference for your claim that "Consensus has found that if the high school and the content is verified or verifiable, it is sufficient" as I don't believe that there is in fact a consensus view that high schools are automatically notable as you are claiming here. --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may not be as famous as Columbine High School, but hey, it's still a school and therefore notable. What it needs is expansion. Starczamora (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, for high schools, it has to be notable about it (like, largest population, good academics, etc.) since not all of them are notable by default. Especially for public (government) high schools such as this. --Howard the Duck 18:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Howard. There are a lot of high schools here in the Philippines and this is one of the non-notable ones. In my opinion, only Science High Schools are notable by default on WP:OUTCOMES as they are usually created with a Republic Act. ~~Please swat the nom with a fish for nominating the article because it is simply a "High school in the Philippines".~~--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to make it clear for the record that the first five words are a description of the article, NOT a reason for deletion. Apologies for any confusion, Jeodesic (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assuming good faith. Apology accepted. Trout returned to the water. ^_^.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - large high school that has a significant place in its community. TerriersFan (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Public high schools in the Philippines always have large populations, since most of the students in a community who can't afford studying in private schools study there. --Howard the Duck 06:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't that exactly what makes them notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, if there are lots of high schools like this one, they'll all look identical and won't be as notable as the others. IMHO, public high schools would only be notable if they established anything that is notable, like the highest student population anywhere (Rizal High School), or above-average academics (Philippine Science High School System). --Howard the Duck 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this igh School was in Tempe or Hartford it would be kept, just because the Philippines has lots of large High Schools doesn't mean they shouldn't be included. Isn't this a case of systemic bias against things not North American?Moheroy (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - of course it is. It is hardier to get sources about schools outside the Anglosphere because of linguistic and cultural considerations. What is needed is a dose of common sense. I think that we should be tough on vanity article, attack pages and the numerous company and product spam that abounds Wikipedia, but to try to delete an innocuous page on a not-for-profit public high school defies belief when we have thousands of pages of CD listing (and I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS so don't remind me), marginal reality show contestants and all the rest. Is anyone going to criticise WP for a page on a high school? Of course not. But for hundreds of pages on porn stars, possibly. If we have any pretence of being a serious encyclopaedia we need a reality check. TerriersFan (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, what you're saying is that we should just assume that sufficent reliable sources exist for the school to pass WP:N, despite the only editor who identified themself as Philippino who's contributed to this debate stating that the school is not notable and nothing turning up in Google when 'Amparo High School' is searched? (English is one of the Philippines offical languages, so if the school is notable something should turn up there). If something turns and proves the school is notable the article can always be recreated. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment. Uh Nick, its Filipino not Philippino. I believe high schools should meet notability regardless of nationality. I also don't think it is that large (comparing to other schools in our country), maybe more like "Average" student population.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a large high school, it's notable. RMHED (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost all secondary schools are notable, and considering that it is rather large (I acknowledge the fact that most Filipino High Schools are) I see no reason for this article to be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As of now, the discussion is more on keeping the article. Now the problem for keeping the article is where to find reliable sources for public high schools in the Philippines, considering one public HS won't be covered by the media extensively unless something notable happens. So if reliable sources can't be found, how can this be an article? Think about it. --Howard the Duck 04:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7. Pegasus «C¦T» 10:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bupti Sumani

This gives no indication of notability and no verifiable sources. None of the three links provided work. PROD removed without comment by anonymous IP. Subject is related to Mariama Sumani and Ama Sumani, the subjects of existing articles, but does not seem to have notability in her own right. The article has a curious history: after creation by Glean Eagles golf cub time (talk · contribs), it has been much tinkered with by several anonymous IPs in the 86.29.xxx.xxx range who seem to be SPAs for this and the related articles and who have, among other things, put on and removed a {{hoax}} tag, removed the PROD, and put on the originator's user page a (false) assertion that the user had been indef. blocked, and an accusation of sockpuppetry. There seems to be some kind of feud going on. In any case, I see no reason to keep this article. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:V. Pburka (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Activeweb

Non notable company. No refs found. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-most definatly, the link in the article is not english and I did a quick search and couldnt find anything related to this "activeweb" name.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Truco. Cheers, L A X 03:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Visor (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Visor (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D.O.P.E - Death Or Prison Eventually

Not sure that this qualified for speedy deletion but it is neither notable nor sourced so here we are at AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete tl;dr - article does not assert notability -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn episode of Kids Next Door. Mandsford (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mandsford--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (after undoing my own closure): The current article is not in good shape, but it is about a full 1-hour documentary that was premiered at a prison and has just been featured at the 2008 Santa Barbabra film festival.[5] So if its deleted, then without prejudice against recreation of a proper article if and once sources can be found. Documentaries,, however, are often not notable themselves, but with respect to their subject. So this should be mentioned in the articles of Jay Adams and Christian Hosoi and may help to built a case for having an article on the main protagonist Dennis Martinez (skateboarder) and possibly also Bruce Logan (skateboarder).--Tikiwont (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insignificant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation: L.U.N.C.H./Operation: M.U.N.C.H.I.E.S.

Unsourced article that does not show enduring real world notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-most cartoon episodes shouldnt have their own pages, they should be listed in a "list of episodes", same applies here. Also per nom--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insignificant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and expand. Keeper | 76 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Schafer

BLP subject is notable (barely) for a single opinion piece that he wrote about another BLP subject. He was in support of the Ashley Treatment, and this generated domestic scorn in Canada. That's it. Per BLP we ought to delete this. He may have other (not documented to our standards) things he has done, but he is known primarily for that one action of writing a newspaper column, which is 50% of his stub article. Lawrence § t/e 22:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. very un-notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep based upon the CV [6] and Google Scholar [7] he has written a good deal more than that. Yet another incompetently writtten academic bio which concentrates on a single point and doesnt try to show the actual notability. Its good to at least look at the article links. DGG (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL there appears to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Dodge

Delete and salt. NN, Vanity. His reference is his Angelfire website. I have also requested we delete (and salt) his friends page which had been deleted in the past. EndlessDan 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin, please also delete the pic.--EndlessDan 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Cheers, L A X 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this article should be deleted, because it is for an up-and-coming Professional Wrestler, who's early history will be valuable once he becomes more famous. Furthermore, The reference is not his Angelfire site, it is the site to a company that he works for, that he also owns, but is still as reliable as any other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.109.121.23 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC) — 141.109.121.23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as non-notable. ~~The one link on the page is currently 404, and~~ no other references are given. In any event, the site as described by the anonymous editor from 141.109.121.23 would not establish the existence of independent media coverage. If he is on his way up, an article on him can be recreated once he has made it. He is at present non-notable, however. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 02:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and RJC. Nikki311 15:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, comments about "once he's famous" it itself shows he's not notable even to the guy defending the article. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't even the best part of that rebuttal. I liked how it wasn't his site it was linking to, it belongs to the company he works for...which he owns. --EndlessDan 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per RJC. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asian Languages

Delete Due to original research by the creator of the article, I am nominating this article for deletion. There is no linguistic classification "Central Asian Languages". Also the map created by the user is extremly wrong. People do not speak Arabic in Kermanshah or Bushehr. Neither do they speak Oguz languages in Rasht, Mahabad or Uzbekistan! Nor is Uighyur spoken in Uzbekistan. The population of Tajiki speakers in Tajikistan is off by at least 1 million. Also the article is poorly written (grammer, cohesiveness) and has no sources. If people want information on languages spoken in Central Asia , they can click on the country of interest. Finally, besides having no such linguistic classification as Central Asian Languages, the article's name is non-scientific and does not consider languages that are now dead (as an example Chorasmian). Also it is not Encyclopedic/Academic for an author to create a map with wrong information. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the nomination. It is listed now. Procedural, no opinion on deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self-made nonsense. Also, the map was the funniest part; the creator even grouped Baluchi and Pashto as one single group!--Pejman47 (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Central Asia. There's a languages section on that article. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many mistakes in this, this is a delete. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very weakly, and with some reluctance, and entirely without prejudice to re-creation. The subject certainly seems like it is one that would support an article. The consensus appears to be that the current content is seriously misleading. Ordinarily, I'd say this should be corrected, not deleted, unless the current content is so flawed that wiping it might be the best course. Central Asia seems to contain many languages. I do not know whether they might share areal features or constitute a sprachbund of some sort, or whether there is any research suggesting this may be so. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The Article might not be a superb standard article, but i think we can develop it, especially since the article is requested in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia/Request Articles |Central Asia Project]].

and the Map is not created out of my imagination, but it is based on the reference at the end, i have created the map after collecting several maps of Central Asian republics and putting them in one map...

i will also re-update the map to be more specific... i agree that he article deserves a high assesment, but it shouldnt be deleted, instead it needs to be improved, and the information i have got are all from the Ethnologue wwebsite

Afghanistan - [8]
Iran - [9]
Kazakhstan - [10]
Kyrgyzstan - [11]
Tajikistan - [12]
Turkmenistan -[13]
Uzbekistan - [14]

Arab League (talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue is not a reliable site. Check their wikipedia entry. The map is horrible. But anyhow Central Asia has the necessary information. Central Asian languages is not a linguistic classification and it is misleading. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eventho it was somehow insultive of you to say the Map is "horrible", i mean you couldve just used other words like, unproffesional, or just "bad", anyways i was wondering why do you think its not a reliable site?

and i also want to point out that the article is not for a Linguistic classification, but for a Regional Classification. similar to regional articles like Languages of Europe, Languages of China, Languages of Iran, Languages of the Arab League, and BTW most if not all of these articles have ethnologue as their reference.[15]

Arab League (User talk:Arab League) —Preceding comment was added at 06:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- On a point of order: One of the four articles you've listed uses Ethnologue. And then, it isn't the only source used. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map is terribly inaccurate. You have shown the language of Gilan, Kurdish areas and Mazandaran as Oghuz and Arabic. Also you have shown the language of Uzbekistan as Uighyur. Sorry I come from this area and that is why I said, the map is "horrible". I should have just said it is extremly wrong and I request you delete it from Wikipedia because you are giving the wrong information to readers who might not know better. You check for professional maps in university of texas map archives which are somewhat more accurate (although they have their own flaws). --alidoostzadeh (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well please check the Map again, since i have corrected it, and made it simpler, and proffesional, i have done so yesterday... youll find that the map has changed dramatically, in colors and description, and i also sourced the map back from Ethnologue.

i still dont find the article needs to be deleted, no one has yet gave me good reason!! other then some members disagreeing with the references and sources... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talk • contribs) 08:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map is again very wrong. Such blobs of Afro-Asiatic speaking groups do not exist in Central Asia. I do not think we should create maps by Wikipedia users unless it is very necessary! Also the article is unnecessary since a section in Central Asia covers it and each country has its own entry. Ethnologue anyhow is a 3rd rate source. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense, original research, and unencyclopedic. If kept, for some reason, it should be renamed "List of Languages in Former Soviet Republics" or such. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the evidence above --Namsos (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the afro-asiatic languages used in C.A. are Arabic mostly, it is called Tajik Arabic or Bukharic Arabic, but wait ... you should know this right!! coming from their and all..

Arab League User (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue is not a reliable source. Such a big blob does not exist in the map. In Bukhara they speak Persian and Uzbek. If there are any Arabic speakers left in that whole area, it is no more than 5000. There is probably more chinese in the area now and definitely Russians. In the end, you should't make demographics maps in Wikipedia, it has to be from a reliable source. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are grave errors in this article from top to toe.cs (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, even with only one comment this plainly fails WP:MUSIC. BLACKKITE 01:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six Foot Smurf

NN band; only claim to notability is NN zine Sneftel (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient evidence of notability; no references. Tivedshambo (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2008

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaden Yuki Starter Deck

Also adding Adding Yugi Starter Deck • Joey Starter Deck • Pegasus Starter Deck, Yugi Evolution Starter Deck, Kaiba Evolution Starter Deck • Zombie Madness Structure Deck • Blaze of Destruction Structure Deck, Fury from the Deep Structure Deck, Warrior's Triumph Structure Deck • Spellcaster's Judgment Structure Deck, Yu-Gi-Oh! Starter Deck 2006 • Invincible Fortress Structure Deck Lord of the Storm Structure Deck, Dinosaur's Rage Structure Deck, Machine Re-Volt • Surge of Radiance Structure Deck • Yu-Gi-Oh! Starter Deck 2007 and Advent Of The Monarch No evidence of all these decks meeting WP:N, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legend of Blue-Eyes White Dragon for current consensus on this issue Delete all Secret ^account 21:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I fail to see how individual decks for a card game would even be able to meet the notability or verifiability guidelines. The card game itself can be notable, but not so much individual decks. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. This is nuts. JuJube (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Deleate Waste of bandwith. Leave this all to the Yu-Gi-Oh Wikia. --HungryJacks (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. — Athaenara ✉ 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Teehankee, Jr.

Non-notable crime, violation of WP:BLP1E. There's nothing here to hang a biography on, it's just the reporting of a crime which would not be notable at all if this person weren't related to somebody famous. Corvus cornix_talk 21:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BIO, not notable Jeepday (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keep and cleanup based on below comments. D.M.N. (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~. I'm not sure. I managed to find quite a bit on google--not all of it usable--but I was struck by how much material there was to be found in English on the web about a relatively routine crime. This would seem to suggest that Teehankee's trial was a media circus ala OJ Simpson in the Phillipines, as it indicates that: "The accused blames the press for his conviction as he contends that the publicity given to his case impaired his right to an impartial trial", "the trial of appellant was given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage" and "the barrage of publicity that characterized the investigation and trial of the case". (Also of note, Teehankee "presented in court no less than 7 newspaper reporters and relied heavily on selected portions of their reports for his defense. The defense’s documentary evidence consists mostly of newspaper clippings relative to the investigation of the case at bar and which appeared to cast doubt on his guilt. The press cannot be fair and unfair to appellant at the same time".) This 2007 article on Newsbreak seems to suggest that the 1991 case has lasting notability, as it lists solely among the "most celebrated cases" of Dennis Villa-Ignacio "the conviction of Claudio Teehankee Jr., son of the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee, in the 1991 Maureen Hultman murder case". I note that WP:BLP1E doesn't indicate that persons known for one thing are not suitable for biographies, but rather that they may not be. I've left a notice of this AfD at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines in case any of the contributors there can provide context, since my linguistic limitations rather hamper my ability to assess this. :) I'll be keeping an eye on it, as further contributions may help me hop off the fence. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopping off the fence now, as I find the below persuasive and the additional note about the impact of this case on the death penalty does suggest a larger notability. I agree that revising to an event article is probably appropriate and would be happy to help out with this (using the limited English sources available) if the article survives AfD. Somebody would need to tell me what to move it to, though, as I'm not at all sure. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at other murder case articles, it seems that it is either the suspect or the victims that are in the title. Since massacres or murder cases here in the Phils. are named after there victims (Vizconde massacre, Payumo massacre etc.), I suggest moving it to Hultman-Chapman murder case I'll try help convert the article once it is kept.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No vote/comment -- he was the son of Claudio Teehankee, former Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court. --Howard the Duck 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These perspectives may help, as I was in college during that time. I could vouch that the murder and succeeding trial dominated news coverage in the Philippines during that pre-Internet period. That he was the son of a Chief Justice was only one reason for that. The victims were very well-off, and the killings took place in one of the richest enclaves in the Philippines. One victim, Maureen Hultman, was a pretty aspiring model who lingered for several weeks before dying, there being a prolonged media vigil outside her hospital room, supplying daily new footage of the comatose victim juxtaposed with her modeling audition tapes. I hesitate though to vote keep because I personally thought the media coverage then was excessive and sensationalized, though news dominance of that story should be a more determinative factor. Also, the murders were among a series of early-1990s high-profile "heinous crimes" that swayed public opinion and Congress to restore the death penalty sometime in 1993. Other such crimes include the Vizconde massacre and the U.P. Los Banos killings for which Mayor Antonio Sánchez was convicted. Teehankee's crime alone was not decisive in restoring the death penalty, but it contributed to a swelling atmosphere of fear of violent crimes. In fact, Hultman's mother ran (but lost) for the Philippine Senate in 1992 on a platform advocating victim's rights. I don't think O.J. is a fair analogy, since he would have been notable even if the crime didn't occur. Murderers who are significant only because of their crimes may be a more appropriate comparison, such as Scott Peterson or even Lizzie Borden, though the coverage and fame of Teehankee Jr. is certainly more localized.Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with things that happened in the Philippines during the 90's is that there is a lack of online sources for it. However, I believe that the article must be converted and renamed to describe the killings rather than the suspect. I also found a source regarding Anyo Niminus's claim that it indeed influenced the legality of the death penalty in the Philippines. I'd like to thank Moonriddengirl for reaching out to us and not do a drive-by deletion vote.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My classmate Manuel Antonio Teehankee duplicated the feat of his father 44 years ago when he topped our 1983 Bar Exams, and I was 12th place with 87.55%, with only 21.3% passers, record low in bar history. In fact Ateneo and UP law schools passed only about 45%. Devastating. While Jr. Teehankee may not have been at notable as them, still, the tragedy catapulted him to being notable. He is not just anybody who has 15 minutes of fame. He is has a royal blood. Just sayin. I vote for non-deletion since Filipino users will benefit from this which has global impact on murder. ---Florentino floro (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then edit. The crime the subject committed was a HUGE news story in the Philippines. Argument brought by the nominator is simply systemic bias. Starczamora (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Then modify the page to become an event article instead of a biography (like Claudio Teehankee, Jr. murder case). The murder itself is notable but that seems to be the only thing notable for Teehankee Jr. --seav (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to article about the event In the first place it shouldn't start off by telling us who he is related to. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable. One thing though, changing to an article abouth the event makes sense, but there will still need to be a redirect to that new article from this one. Moheroy (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the entry - it was a truly heinous crime, and demonstrates that even those related to great men are not above the law in the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbara Manilena (talk • contribs) 07:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 implausible mispelling. In future, please take redirects to RFD. J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highladner:series

Delete misspelled title that would not even be useful as a redirect. This probably qualifies for a speedy. Wryspy (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per nom. There isn't even anything written in the article.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 20:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Hurtado

Doesn't seem to fill any notability criteria for biographies. Article's just a few words, 2 works cited are really blog entries. GreyCat (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 20:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure he's a nice fellow, but NN. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insignificant media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predator Biology and Culture

Content fork of Predator (alien) after a long-awaited rewrite deleted all the in-universe fancruft from that article. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the Predator (alien) article has wanted a cleaup and now it has. The fictional information has been removed, however, fictional infromation is in alot of articles. In the related (sort of, because of their crossover) Xenomorph article we have their information in design and real-world information combined with the fictional lore. I wanted to have that for the Predator's too, so instead of messing around with the article and ignoring everyone elses wishes for the cleanup i simply moved the information to another article so that we still have the fictional information that is displayed in other media, such as the Xenomorph, The Simpsons, Chucky, Freddy Kreuger etc. I feel this allows us to keep the actual information for real-world links in the Predator (alien) article and still allow for the fictional infromation in the Predator Biology and Culture article. Please consider what i have said, thank you S-m-r-t (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not have any articles which treat fictional content as real, and if examples exist in other domains (I know they're rife in Simpsons articles, for instance) that too should be addressed. But it is not a rationale for maintaining this particular in-universe article.

User:Dark hyena does, however, appear to be in the process of moving those parts of the biology/culture section which can be properly referenced back into the article. So the best bits will be preserved. You might want to discuss the issue with him to see if there's anything you could do to help out. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: most anything salvageable from the article has now been moved back, sourced, into Predator (alien). So there's no longer an argument that we're losing material that could potentially be cleaned up. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The article even in its present form, makes clear they are fictional. There is no reason not to have a more detailed discussion of one of the aspects of the fiction in a separate article. The various items discussed, however, need to be cited properly from the actual sources in the fiction.DGG (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point i was trying to get across. If we specify that it is fictional and improve the article i see no reason why we should delete it. S-m-r-t (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's probably an encyclopedic article to be written about this subject; however, this enormous chunk of completely original research is not it. BLACKKITE 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced speculation, synthesis, and original research. --EEMIV (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —--EEMIV (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficiently notable to justify a separate article. Also, concerns about verifiability, and original research. Addhoc (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as the article fails WP:V and WP:NOR at the moment when I read the article. If you want to work on the article so it passes WP:NOTE and WP:NOR, leave a message on my talk page and I'll give you the copy of the deleted article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Bethisad

Non-notable online community, per WP:WEB. All sources are self published. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article looks descent enough but mayby with a few more third party sources it should be good. Although it is lacking sources, so I could go either way here.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NNOT. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NNOT is not a policy. WP:WEB is a policy. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you haven't actually read the large advisory at the top of WP:WEB: "This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. Editors are advised to follow it, but it is not policy, and it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception." Compare to WP:V which IS a policy. WP:WEB, llike all subsets of WP:N, is JUST A SUGGESTION that not everyone agrees with, and needs to be applied carefully if at all. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged this article with {{primarysources}} back in June 2007, and so far no reliable third-party sources have appeared. I see no reason to suspect that any are likely to be found. -- Schaefer (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IB is notable for a number of reasons: it is probably the largest and most detailed althistory project around, it is the home of many, if not most, of the so-called "alternatives languages", including a few languages that have their own article here. It is well-known among amateurs of alternative history and almost legendary within the conlang community. I'm not sure about any press coverage, although I'm sure there has been some, but Ill Bethisad as a whole is definitely not less notable or less well-known than some of the languages featured in it. Even if notability is disputed in this case, we should keep in mind that WP:NOTE is just a guideline and not an iron rule. Obviously, Ill Bethisad does not belong to the kind of subjects that would qualify for speedy deletion, as they don't have any notability at all. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 08:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE may be just a guideline, but WP:NOR very much is an iron rule, particularly the part about secondary sources - WP:PSTS. If you ask me, Wikipedia would do very fine with just WP:PSTS, WP:CIV and WP:GFDL.

Anyway, there's nothing in this article that is anywhere near secondary sources. Add some, and i'll withdraw this AFD immediately. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give it the axe. Non-notable. Lumberjake (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with tags to improve. POV is not extreme. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to Me (NYC)

Non notable. Extremely poor article. It's also seeming to be written in an extremely one sided view of the event. Metal Head (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - badly written, and point of view are content issues for editting (and in fact there are a whole lotta cleanup tags on the article). The article provides multiple valid references so it meets WP:N with WP:RS. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve there are adequate sources for notability. DGG (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 21:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Ling Liang English School

Non-notable school. Contested speedy, but another editor strangely insists that a two-sentence article that doesn't even list where the school is located has sufficient context (huh?). No references, not much of anything at all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the admin who declined the speedy (both speedies, actually, including the one marked {{db-bio}}, I'd like to briefly explain myself for the benefit of this AfD: A1 speedies require that the article lack "sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." Two sentences was enough to identify what the school was. I didn't see the lack of a "where" as being sufficiently damning to justify a speedy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an A1 as it's didn't tell where the school is, or any useful info, other than who founded it. We know it's a school based on the title, but it doesn't give no info that can be used even for a small stub Speedied Secret ^account 21:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Coatrack aside (my pet peeve), consensus for delete due to lack of real-world notability and context, and lack of secondary sources was clear. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kawatche Caves

The article shows no edvidence that the topic described is notable due to the complete lack of secondary sourcing. The article is largely written from an in universe perspective and gives ver little real world context or information. It also appears to be something of a coatrack for the information in The Kryptonian Crystals (an article which is also currently nominated for deletion). If this fictional ___location is of significant importance to the television series it appears in then sourced, verified information on the topic should be added to the main article for the series (Smallville (TV series)); it is unlikely that the depth of real world coverage from reliable, independent sources required to justify an individual article currently exists. Guest9999 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real world notability. RMHED (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kremlin (bar)

"Kremlin Bar typically refers to a nightclub with a Soviet theme. Although unrelated to each other, at least three bars exist with this name." Brief descriptions of three bars follow, none asserting notability. This article is far too vague and only serves to promote a few bars that bank on Soviet kitsch. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree. Would make a good section of a bar review website, but there are zillions of bars and nothing to indicate that these are notable. — brighterorange (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete the bars are not notable as is the name itself that may qualify as a neologism. Poeloq (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Non-notable neologism. Pastordavid (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. GreenGourd (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Kremlin Bar in Northern Ireland, had any of you actually read the article, is notable as being the region's first gay bar. It has a certain level of notoriety. Please re-assess. --90.197.80.97 (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Said info sourced exclusively to that bar's website. There are competing claims[16] and even if the assertion is verified, it's little more than trivia. What's next, Northern Ireland's first Nazi-themed bed & breakfast for the transgendered? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aljoscha Rompe

The article probably fits A7 criteria, but there are at least a few Google results so I figured I'd come here instead. It's sad that he died, but he's not notable enough to warrant an entry. Google brings up a bunch of YouTube videos, but that's about it. Nevermind, creator changed it to a redirect. Please close. Gromlakh (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 05:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rewitzer (cocktail)

Probably should be speedied, but it doesn't fit neatly into any of the speedy categories. Assuming this is even real, it's completely non-notable. Google search for "Alan Rewitzer" returns several results; add in "cocktail" and that drops off to only 3 (none of which have to do with this drink). Gromlakh (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You're right, this doesn't fit a speedy criteria. Probably could have used a prod, but the end result is the same. Pastordavid (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not a big fan of prod. The last several times I've used it, the original authors of the articles have just deleted it without explanation. I've found the AfD route also offers a better chance of a snowball delete, which this is probably headed towards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gromlakh (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable even if could be documented somewhere. I usually try prod, it works at least half the time; cutting down the number of afds in half would be a great improvement. DGG (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasKeep and rename to Quilley School of Engineering, the proper name of the school. Obviously, expand the article as well with sources. Keeper | 76 18:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alderman quilley

Non-notable school. Google search for the name reveals about 1300 results, but they are primarily from websites that are merely directories of various schools. Gromlakh (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Insignificant coverage in secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename "Quilley School of Engineering" - All high/secondary schools are notable as consensus in WP:OUTCOMES indicate. Under both names, Googlenews turns up many secondary independent sources regarding this school. [17][18]. And this article was nominated for deletion within 30 minutes of its creation. Unless an article is blatant spam or vandalism, it should not got up for deletion so soon. It often talks months, sometimes years, for articles to improve. --Oakshade (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could you point to where in WP:OUTCOMES it says that all high/secondary schools are notable? I did not see that anywhere. It just says that in AfD debates, high schools generally end up not being deleted, but those that do usually just get redirected to their school district page (assuming that's already been made. Gromlakh (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That high schools are being kept is an indication of consensus. There's no evidence that consensus has changed prior to this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say anything about a consensus to keep all high schools. Most are, but not all. This one doesn't have any demonstration of notability. Gromlakh (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's everything about what consensus has found. It's the only indicator of previous consensus we have, and that is WP:CONSENSUS has found high schools notable. --Oakshade (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If some are still being deleted/redirected back to their school district page, then there is no such consensus to keep all of them. Gromlakh (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Some" are NOT "still" being deleted. High schools weren't being deleted in the first place and I've not seen any deleted since I've been paying close attention in the last year. --Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Almost no high school articles are being deleted. Even a low quality stub like this one can be improved. The point of OUTCOMES is that it saves the trouble of nominating things that will clearly be kept, even though it has no authority on its own. I support the consensus because even if 20% or so of the high schools would turn out strictly speaking to be non-notable, it isnt worth the trouble of trying to remove them--we'd probably make more than that frequency of errors if we considered them individually. Its the junior high schools and elementary schools (in US terminology) thta are being combined into articles for the districts unless something really special is shown. DGG (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Smith (Race Car Driver)

WP:BLP, WP:N - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Needs more references from WP:RS and establishment of notability. There is some notability apparently, but lacks proper citations. Will retract AfD when these issues are fixed. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable Legends driver on a local circuit. --Smashville^BONK! 19:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:BIO Secret ^account 23:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 most editors recommend some changes to this article, those recommendations ranging from merge to trim to complete rewrite, these actiona all result in a default keep result. Such actions are within the jurisdiction of editorial discretion, and do not require AfD or any other formal process in order to be actioned. No one solution had a clear consensus here. What was clear, was that there was no consensus for deletion. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of the Ninth Legion

Ancient history article based on an imaginative reconstruction on a TV show but not supported by ancient sources; not notable enough or enough material for its own article; adequately covered in other articles; prod tag deleted by article's originator (who also deleted the discussion page) Nicknack009 (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV program presented by historians, so they know what they are talking about from the shreds of evidence they got from historians of the period. such a significant subject not adequately covered or recorded anywhere on Wikipedia. I believe it should stay. (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Weak Keep. There ought to be historical sources to back up the material presented such a show. Just a matter of finding them. Pastordavid (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for the Boudican revolt are well-known. There is only one source for this incident, Tacitus, Annals 14.32. All Tacitus says is that the 9th legion, led by Quintus Petillius Cerialis, attempted to relieve Camulodunum but were defeated by the Britons and almost wiped out, with only Cerialis and some cavalry escaping to a fortified camp. That's the sum total of it. Archaeology has nothing to add about this particular defeat. Everything else in the article is either from a speculative dramatic reconstruction taken from a particular TV program (presented by Peter and Dan Snow, who are TV presenters, not historians), or padding. Take all that out and we're left with a one line article with no prospect of expansion. The incident is perfectly adequately covered in Boudica, Quintus Petillius Cerialis, Legio VIIII Hispana etc. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Legio VIIII Hispana. I agree with Nicknack009 - we should not mix serious history based on sources with TV dramatic reconstructions. JohnCD (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a Boudiccan rebellion article. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boudica#Boudica.27s_uprising, or take this advice and rewrite this as an article on the mythology surrounding the event, which seems notable enough, inspiring a major historical novel and at one point three potential film treatments.[19] --Dhartung | Talk 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source for this article is an episode of Battlefield Britain. According to the Wikipedia article for that show, "The series became known for historical inaccuracy [and] the presentation as fact of wild speculation unsupported by historical evidence." Unfortunately, that statement was not sourced, but it is an indication that there is serious doubt that the television series is a reliable source. I would not oppose the recreation of this article from scratch using reliable sources.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also would not object to changing the article to being about the mythology of the event per Dhartung provided that the article clearly indicates that it is about the mythology, not about what really happened and if the article uses more sources than just one episode of one television program.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite to separate the history from the show. There is probably a good deal of commentary on the Tacitus to be found. Historians usually do discuss the inter-relationship of the people & events, and that can be cited. But in the meantime, do as FreeKresge suggests, and discuss it as the show. In fact, if the series was criticised, there should be real-world references for the specific inaccuracies. DGG (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect. The episode isn't worth its own article, and the historical events are covered in other articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but trim anything which is speculation from the TV show. This battle looks important enough in isolation and there's one reliable source which states that it happened. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Nick Dowling. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and userfy per request. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese pens and stationery

Written like an advertisement. Does not meet notability standards. This article has been this bad for a long, long time. It's been tagged as an advertisement for a long time. Delete Metal Head (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~Delete - ~~needs expanding and sourcing and rewriting, but is potentially a decent enough article in the making.~~ as per comments below Poeloq (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Typical Japanophilia. Is there something inherently different between an American/British/Canadian/Mongolian pen and a Japanese pen? Is there an exclusive composition of eraser that can only be produced in Japan, where in America said production of eraser would fall apart? Would I feel Japan-y if I use these pens and stationery? I had no idea! Anyways, now that that's off my chest...fails WP:N by a country mile. Wikipedia is not a primary source. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Did you read the article? Some Japanese pens *are* different. Poeloq (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The articles notes that many Japanese pens have narrows nibs for writing detailed characters. Naturally, this is not sourced, but you know... Also, a number of the pens are not "Japanese" in any meaningful sense. Many are not produced in Japan, or distributed exclusively in Japan. The only defining feature which makes them Japanese is that they are, according to the author the "most popular" type of pens in Japan. --Haemo (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did read the article. Yes, they are different, but as Haemo suggests, I imagine they're not different strictly because they're Japanese. It would be absolutely remarkable and peculiar if that was the reason. As such, there's no particular need for this article. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above. --Haemo (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, personal opinion essay, per WP:SOAP (mild soap, but still). hateless 07:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Japanese stationery is evidently notable. And, yes, their rubbers (erasers) are different and newspapers like the International Herald Tribune find this worthy of note. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and/or WP:NOT#WEBSPACE Doc Strange (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand, and consider articles on the individual items. a distinctive part of their culture, influenced by a different tradition, & as important as similar items here. That we write about such things on the basis of our own culture only is ethnocentric. Given what academics are like, there are probably academic articles. DGG (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and improve — The presentation needs to be vastly improved, using some of the sources suggested by Colonel Warden above. The section on "Erasers" is already valuable. And individual paragraphs under the "Pens" section are notable enough to be in the following articles:

Other sections need expanding.

Closing admin: If this article needs to be deleted, please move it to my user space (or another appropriate place), so that I can move the relevant paragraphs to the above articles. Thank you.--Endroit (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Edgar

Notable only for one event, essentially an obit entry or news item. Tragic, yes; but is it encyclopedic? Pastordavid (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a news item. There is no evidence of any widespread ongoing coverage or other impact that would justify an article. News search results appear to indicate coverage was fairly local. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable only for a local news event. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, made-up word bogdan (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiscorporatizationism

Fails per WP:N. No such thing - there are no references by 3rd parties I could find anywhere. DJBullfish (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:NEO. This appears to be entirely WP:MADEUP, happy to be proven wrong. Keeper | 76 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to link my google search. It speaks for itself. Please look before rendering your welcome opinion. Keeper | 76 19:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Million Dads March Network

Let me start off by saying that I realize that I'm probably throwing myself into the fire by nominating this. I found the link to this in another AfD...and tried to clean it up. After reading through parts of it, I don't see any out-and-out assertions of notability. Basically, the article says the organization exists, this is what it does...and it reads, very, very, very promotionally. This article has somehow been around for 3 years...I don't really know how. The founder has been making several edits to the page. More importantly, this fails WP:V by a longshot - I cannot find one single reliable secondary source. Or - quite honestly - any secondary source, period. It also doesn't meet any WP:CORP guidelines. I don't really see any way to salvage this one...or anything in it worth salvaging. Smashville^BONK! 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Zero Google News Archive hits. The book that's cited is self-published through Xlibris. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually removed the link to the book because it linked to Amazon.com and seemed a little toooo spammy. --Smashville^BONK! 19:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete with extreme prejudice. Fails WP:CORP and WP:V, there's WP:COI problems in addition. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing notability and decent refs that establish that notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references in independent reliable sources can be found. If they can, I would change my vote. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per evidence by Smashville. BigDunc (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else, good catch Smashville. dab (𒁳) 17:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. No notability whatever. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment COI is not a reason to delete.—This is part of a comment by TableManners (of 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
- I don't think anyone claimed COI was a reason to delete. In the nom I specifically said WP:V and WP:CORP. --Smashville^BONK! 20:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, COI was not mentioned by you, but One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs). Sorry about the ambiguity.[20] TableManners^C·U·T 03:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And my mention of COI was after I said "Fails WP:CORP and WP:V". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That being said, delete per WP:CORP. The article would need coverage by reliable secondary sources, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. TableManners^C·U·T 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - fails WP:CORP, WP:V. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SLOVO Academic Journal

Delete non-notable publication with no reliable sources. Mayalld (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Among the missing content initiatives is one to create content for all peer reviewed academic journals. This claims to meet that requirement. I'll look around on this one, but it shouldn't be an open-shut case. matt91486 (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment - the journal is also produced by a very high profile department, which also should be factored in. matt91486 (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment I'm not exactly sure why you want to delete this page. Can you please explain? Or give suggestions as to how it can be improved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darothster (talk • contribs) 12:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This field isnt covered by JCR, so it is relatively harder to judge the importance of the journal. But the journal is included in Ulrich's, the standard RS. Its been published since 1988. Its articles are covered by some of the major relevant disciplinary indexes: MLA Bibliography, Sociological Abs, Int. Bib. Social Sci, RILM, CSA Political Science Abstracts, and Wilson Humanities Index. The articles are included after the usual 12 month delay in Ebsco's collections. Meets the requirements. I do not think all' peer reviewed journals are notable--but an established one in the major indexes is. DGG (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This journal is highly regarded within the field of slavonic studies; it is similar to many other journals currently featured on wikipedia and should not be deleted simply because it caters to specialized research interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.57.11 (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DGG -- for journals, inclusion in the major indexes is the best way of determining notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Justin^(c)_(u) 20:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AjlDocs

For one, this is written like an advertisement. Plus, it is not notable. It has not been notable since last January. Delete Metal Head (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage by reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, since the article hardly asserted importance and nothing else has been put forward. Tikiwont (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Tamjid Aijazi

No sources. Very short article that does not signify importance. It does not say what "national" services he writes for. Does not meet WP:BIO. Metal Head (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources and nothing to establish notability. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, as copyvio. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Paskins

Non notable person. Does not meet WP:BIO. Delete Metal Head (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this article a hoax? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Have you any reason for thinking it might be? He has an offical web page at University College. DGG (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete However, the article is unfortunately a copyvio of that page. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/ws/staff/bap.html] DGG (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he's actually written at least one book. Deb (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadnight Warrior - Something Wild

A music video of a band. The music video itself does not appear to be particularly notable, but I could be wrong. Originally I was going to CSD this but in hindsight thought a wider review would be better. Lawrence § t/e 18:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I suppose the claim to notability is that it is the first video by the band, but I see no coverage of the video that would indicate it has attracted any more attention than any video by any other band. There's no indication of awards or other achievements with it that are distinguishing aside from the small budget which isn't sourced, and isn't that notable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems just be another music video. Videos are listed at Children_of_Bodom_discography#Videos and maybe be can be elaborated more, but there isn't much to merge nor does the name give a meaningful redirect.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hustle Game

Appears to be a non-notable online video game. Lawrence § t/e 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an advert for a gambling site. Lurker (said · done) 19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 16:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it contains a description on how to make real money. Spam. SWik78 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Moon Neo S

Article on fan-made season to Sailor Moon. No claim to notability. Fails WP:N. Redfarmer (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insanely non-notable. JJL (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fan cruft, no reliable sources, no notability, no verifiability. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even have categories. --Funper (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft and NN. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all. Zerokitsune (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say speedy as non-notable but whatever. JuJube (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletion does not cover notability. That's what AfD is for. Redfarmer (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, patent nonsense. Why do people think these made-up sex act articles are funny? NawlinWiki (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dixieland Delight (Sexual Act)

Non-notable neoglism. Article only provides a short definition of the term with no indication of secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Redfarmer (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Lee (scientist)

Article does not meet WP:BIO guidelines for establishing notability. Article appears to have a conflict of interest. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Funper (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does meet notability guidlines, but it does need some work.Metal Head (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already mentioned --Jamesmh2006 21:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmh2006 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Non-notable. Allegation of COI is a concern. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC).
Keep. May have had COI issues early on but has been massively rewritten/sourced by Uncle G. --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article still reads like a vanity puff. Still non-notable. What does Sammy Lee think? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Lquilter (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The books and articles are sufficient for notability. As for the outrageous puffery, it can be removed easily enough; starting from the good rewrite by Uncle G, I've removed the righty-named trivia section listing everyone he knows professionally, and the duplicate listing of his positions. I think it still needs another round or two. I do not care what the subject thinks, or that there was COI in the writing. The career is notable, & its facts are documented by the official CV at University College. DGG (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DGG, and also a quick Google search revealed extensive use as an expert on fertility by the UK media (eg BBC, Guardian) which makes it likely readers will search for him here. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Post Oak Mall

The result was Speedy Keep as withdrawl by non-admin closure Collectonian (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable shopping mall in Texas. Only sourcing comes from primary sources and SEC reports for the parent company. Since AfD in October, only two minor edits were done, and notability still not established despite claims it existed. Collectonian (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing suggests to me that this mall is non-notable, and there are more than ample sources available to meet verifiability. Thousands of other notable articles on Wikipedia receive less edits. We do not delete articles based on how many edits are done between any period of time. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of edits was noted to indicate that despite the last AfD, no efforts were made to establish notability though people saying "keep" claimed it could be easily established. Collectonian (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Coccyx Bloccyx. It is a major feature of the Bryan-College Station area. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it notable. We have lots of businesses that are "major" to us, but that doesn't automatically mean they are notable, nor is every little mall in the country/world notable. Collectonian (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six million visitors each year seems pretty notable to me. That it is the largest single business under one roof and the sole major mall for about 100 miles also seems notable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That stat does not come from a reliable source, and considering the entire population of B-CS is around 160k, I'd love to know how it has 6 million unique visitors a year. Looking at that site, is also has a bunch of false info, so definitely not a reliable source. Collectonian (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Malls of this size are generally considered notable enough for inclusion. I have found one reliable source and added it to the article; there are probably more sources out there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...if its size automatically makes it notable, I guess the nomination can be withdrawn, for now, though it is only ever talked about in the local news if a store there gets robbed something (or for its 25th anniversary). I've given it a little cleaning and will take a look at the shopping center project's info to see what other information a mall article should have to see if it can be expanded into a proper mall article using real sources.Collectonian (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comics Bulletin

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Hu12 (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Question -

Notable or not? Comics Bulletin is mostly a review site. It contains reviews of comics. It contains lots and lots and lots of reviews of comics. And comic publishers, authors, artists etc. cite the site (online and offline) lots and lots and lots of times, although these are citations usually refer to their own reviews, and not their opinions of the site. The article cites few reviews of their reviews - surely that's not very surprising? Who'd bother to review the reviewers? (Apart from the crazy folk at Eagle Awards who have recognised the notability of Comics Bulletin in its previous carnation as Silver Bullet Comic Books four years in a row). So Wikipedia, if someone compiled a list of all the thousands of sites that cite this site, would that count as notability? Because if that's sufficient measure, there's no question about the notability of Comics Bulletin. Vegetationlife (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

This a site of long standing which is quoted by a vast number of publishers and creators in connection to their work (though those references are rightly not useful as citations here), and has published the work of many creators w**ho appear to have passed the notability test in the past. It would seem odd if an individual's work was of note but not the publication the published it. MopyNZ (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The flaw in your argument is the references you claim are not useful here, when in fact those citations are exactly what the Notability guideline requires to prove the site's notability. The question at issue is "what makes this particular website more authoritative than some random WordPress blog?" If there if significant published proof, it needs to be added to the article as references. -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well that answers it for me. Stick in some more references and a BIG FAT KEEPVegetationlife (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Notability needs to be established independently; notability is not inherited. The existing links seem to be self generated press releases and trivial coverage or mentions which are not sufficient to establish notability.--Hu12 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - notability is not inherited???? What about Kelly Osbourne? Vegetationlife (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ? Read the first line in the article →"Kelly Michelle Lee Osbourne (born 27 October 1984) is an English television personality, singer, actress, radio presenter, and fashion designer."^[21]. Obviously these claims are supported with the requirements of verifiable objective evidence and support her claim of notability. Thustly Kelly Osbourne meets the inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability for having a stand alone Wikipedia article. Her father^[22] is also notable;). See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--Hu12 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I'm only toying with you. Have you seen the latest batch of citations? And there's millions more that could be used - I really think anyone would be hard pressed to deny the site is notable in the comics community. That may not be worth much to the rest of society, but hey - don't they have a right to have their culture represented in Wikipedia? Vegetationlife (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Adding references such as a Google Link Search ^[23] isn't the correct path towards establishing notability.--Hu12 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you want fries with that? Vegetationlife (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm going through and cleaning up some of these added sources. Granted, some of them are tripe, but I think that the Eagle Awards and Gibson Awards mentions might satisfy WP:WEB enough to pass my Heymann test -- RoninBK _{T C} 01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Cleaned up now, (a rough sanding to be sure.) Links to the site do not establish notability in and of themselves, nor do quotes of positive reviews. However, there do seem to be some diamonds in the rough here, and I've left those to stand. Let's see what can be found in the next few days. -- RoninBK _{T C} 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the site is, in my experience, a notable and important comics site. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if CBR and (particularly) Newsarama have articles here, I don't see why SBC/CB shouldn't. Kelvingreen (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A further comment - I find the programatic and dogmatic approach to notability evidenced by this nomination deeply problematic. It seems to me an attempt to remove all aspects of big picture and holistic thought from the matter in favor of a numerical threshold that can and will be applied without reference to the actual purpose that notability is supposed to serve for us. Things like this are why we routinely get bad press for our notability standards - they are so often phrased as arbitrary litmus tests and not considered with an eye towards the real questions: is this something we can write a good article about? Will that article be viewed as useful by our readers? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you wholeheartedly Phil. Unfortunately, when editors can't get past the knee-jerk "WP:IDONTKNOWIT so therefore must be non-notable" response, the dogmatic test of "multiple non-trivial published works" has to be applied to prove the case. Until Admins routinely throw out AfDs that clearly have not had the minimal amount of vetting though, we're going to have this situation though. </soapbox> -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tried that once. It turns out you get angrily RFCed if you do that. :( Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It certainly didn't help that the article was about a site registered just last year and created by an WP:SPA (the publisher/editor Jason Brice^[24]). Usually articles created like this^[25], cited with blogs and trivial covererage doesn't make for a controversial or problematic AFD. see Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criterion & Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline--Hu12 (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The new site was explained away by the fact that the site went through a relaunch. And for the record, I agree that at first the page didn't look like much. I do however credit the fact that there were a few people who were both vocal enough to see it kept, and were willing to learn about the process. The COI aspect does admittedly need to be addressed. I've left a note on the Comics Wikiproject to see if they want to take !ownership of the page. -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Go you! Down with the bean counters. Vegetationlife (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple award winner whose notability is obvious and well sourced. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is an unfortunate tendency both here at at WP:SPAM to judge the quality of contributions by the apparent COI of those who make them. Except for banned users, I don't see why we care from whom content comes, as long as it's suitable.DGG (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests. Which is What Wikipedia is not. Editors with a conflict of interest are permitted to contribute to Wikipedia, so long as they abide by other policies and guidelines, including avoiding controversial edits on articles where they have a conflict. This was not the reason in the AFD summary, however it was based on the articles content at the time. There has been some improvements but the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. A site launched on January 14, 2008 and an article created by the publisher/editor 5 days later is problematic. --Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though as has been explained, the site was not launched on January 14th - it was renamed on January 14th. And, yes, the original author issue is substantial, but it is not a trump card. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI explains that COI in and of itself is not a grounds for deletion, and I don't believe anyone here is claiming that it is. That doesn't make COI good, in fact part of the reason we're at AfD in the first place is that the interested parties did not know how to write an article from an encyclopedic stance, and approached it as advertising copy. However, nstead of the typical "shoot first, ask questions later" approach, we managed to recognize good faith, and find the notable article buried in this interesting confluence of circumstances. -- RoninBK _{T C} 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Johnson's column for the site was reviewed quite extensively in The Comics Journal. Hiding T 16:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. When did WP:N become a test articles have to take? Guidelines are different from policies, and it is policy an admin refers to when closing a deletion debate, not guidance. Hiding T 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/redirect to Comics Bulletin. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All The Rage (Comics Reportage)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABLILITY. Non notable.Metal Head (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the only source is the website on which the column was published. I'd say Merge to Comics Bulletin, but it looks like that article is up for deletion as well, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comics Bulletin. If the column ran for 7 years, as the article indicates, and was indeed notable, there would be some sources that verify this, but I can find none. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As there are few publications or websites that critically analyse comic publishing culture its notability is going to be hard to quantify. The Comics Journal saw it as an important example of all that is wrong with on-line journalism that deserved investigation, and in its heyday it did have the ear of the comics community. MopyNZ (talk)
Keep. Added citation for longevity of column. The original All The Rage writer, Rich Johnston, is notable enough to warrant an article for his work on his column. Jasonbrice (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jasonbrice is the publisher/editor and has a WP:COI..Non notable spam, Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article--Hu12 (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COI is not a deletion criterion -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Comics Bulletin since it survived its AfD -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin E. Jacques

Non-notable missionary and amateur historian. Has written one history book of dubious scholarly value. Article was written as a WP:COATRACK only to criticize certain perceived nationalist ideas, whose proponents on wiki were quoting this author as an authority. There is no independent sourced biographical coverage of the man himself as opposed to just the book. And real-world coverage of the book consists of just one critical academic review. While that review is doubtlessly a reliable source (it's by the leading scholar in the field), it alone does not constitute enough notability for this person. PROD was removed with the reason that the book "appears to have generated significant controversy" - but it apparently hasn't. A single critical review of a book is not "significant controversy", it's just run-of-the-mill academic routine. Real academics don't automatically pass our "professor test" just because they get a poor book review once; why then should an amateur scholar get such treatment? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No real evidence of notability, or that anyone cares apart from said Albanian nationalists and their opponents. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't comment on the coat-racking that Fut.Perf. mentions, but The Albanians is still available via Amazon [26] -- pretty good for an academic book published in 1994 -- and has been cited and reviewed. An article on the book might be of more value than one on the author. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. Well, I've written an academic book, and it's been cited and reviewed (more often than this one). Doesn't make either myself or my book notable. And the fact that it's still available (along with 17000 other history books from 1994 on Amazon) just means it never sold out its first edition, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The book he wrote in in 309 WorldCat libraries. there are about 15 real refs to it in Google Scholar. There is a second review, by Jim Cole, in the academic journal Political Geography Volume 16, Issue 7, September 1997, Page 626-628. But even if he held an academic position, the author of a single academic book, with two reviews, is not generally notable. Nor is the book, usually. DGG (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DGG I'm reading your comment of 2 years ago. The most independent scholar that I can find and has a review on the book is Robert Elsie's and actually he RECOMMENDS the book (see last page of Elsie's review). The only people that use the word "controversial" are some greek wikipedians, who made the edits and whose version was brought back. If rewritten the article will not contain that word because it wouldn't be just (but the article was brought back only for 15 minutes). The book of Jacques is heavily studied in Albania because he uses a huge amount of references. In addition, as far as reliability is concerned, Jacques also was noted for being a high figure in his denomination. At this point I will leave it in your hands to rebring the article back and I hope that you will reconsider. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler o'connor

Non notable character from a non notable book (which is prodded) from a redlink author. My prod was removed by an anon editor without comment. A7 does not apply, and since the prod was removed, I bring it here. Delete, for obvious reasons. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Character from a work that has not been published yet, and apparently will be self-published. Does not meet WP:FICT. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystal balling on on a fictional character -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ma (negative space)

Prod and deletion are disupted. Prodder's concern is "Merely an English translation of a foreign word; non-encyclopedic". Procedural nomination, I'm not sure I agree with it myself (I'm doing this for someone else). UsaSatsui (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia. Our article titles are in English. We already have an article with an English language title at negative space which is just crying out to be globalized and expanded with discussion of non-Western perceptions of negative space, such as how it is perceived in Japanese art. We don't need a separate article under a non-English title. A link directly there from ma will do. Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm understanding the subject, ma is a negative space in a metaphysical rather than design sense. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I based the above on what I saw when I had a look at some of the books that Google Books turned up. They equated "ma" with negative space, simply pointing out the different perceptions thereof. I think that the problem here is that our article on negative space restricts itself to just images, when even in Western thought this isn't actually true. ISBN 088706955X pages 79–80, talking about Hegelianism, discuss art in general, for example, not just images. But then, the article does cite no sources and is a stub. So it's not necessarily comprehensively and accurately covering the subject as it stands documented outside of Wikipedia. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
absolutley agree Abtract (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The MA dab page can still link to negative space. Pastordavid (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, if it is metaphysical, it doesn't fit into other article. Chris (クリス) (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Don't base your decision solely upon what has been included in a stub article so far. Base it upon what sources actually document for the subject, instead. Uncle G (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article to promote further discussion of a topic which I believe is just as important as the Japanese word 'Mu'. Mu has its own, quite comprehensive, page on Wikipedia and is interlinked with other articles extensively. Ma and Mu are related concepts and to have one without the other belies their importance. Perhaps contributors to the Mu article should be consulted as to the relevance and meaning of Ma. I have added more detail to the page, including references from well known graphic artist Alan Fletcher. I will continue to search for valid sources of interest surrounding its use in English. 0bvious (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge. I have added almost all the info from Ma (negative space) into Negative space and it works seamlessly (I'm not suggesting I did a perfect job) so that is the way we should go IMHO. Abtract (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article about negative space is relevant to the concept of Ma, but I do believe that Ma as a term needs its own page. It seems ironic that there is a space in the English language where Ma isn't (apologies for the bad joke). I believe that Ma (negative space) is more important that simply Negative Space. If only one article should exist it should be the former. 0bvious (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For better understanding of the word. See how the word translated into English. [27] [28] Oda Mari (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps expand. a concept as well as a word, and the material is well beyond that appropriate in wiktionary. DGG (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO, Ma can not be translated as negative space. Translation of negative space is yohaku/余白. But it seems strange to me the word “negative”. It's intentional space to me. Please look at this. And in stage plays, films, etc., I think Ma/pause can be translated as “sound of silence.” Oda Mari (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a dicdef. Don't send to Wiktionary, because it's a poor dicdef. (However, it has its pleasant touches: I do rather like the notion that ma is a Japanese word used by Lao Tse.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 lack of reliable sources or other indication of notability.Tikiwont (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Ville (Animated Series)

Within the last week, this article has been created and deleted by WP:CSD#A7 multiple times. It contains no assertion of significance. It does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB. It offers no reliable secondary sourcing. I can't find anything. Rather than continue the speedy delete/recreate cycle, I bring it here for discussion. If notability cannot be verified, I believe the article should be deleted and the title protected against further recreation. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Do not delete

I believe that this article should stay in the encyclopedia because it is currently being edited through to meet Wikipedia's standards. Further plans to edit this page have also been established. I believe the article is put in an encyclopedic manner because the article contains information about West Ville's impact on fans of the show and detailed information about almost all of the characters. More details in episode summaries will be added soon as well. Any assistance in editing this page will be more than appreciated.

Now you may want this article to be deleted because you may think that there isn't any significance to the article. Let me assure you though, this article is signifant and offers important information that certain people may want to know. The animated series "West Ville" may not be very popular, but it is still an existing animated series with several fans who would greatly appreciate an article in an encyclopedia about the show. Furhtermore, the characters in the show "West Ville" are constantly growing. There is a lot of character growth in this show, and I believe it is necessary to record how certain character's personalities have changed overtime in an encyclopedia because some people may find it difficult to stay up-to-date with information about their favorite characters.

In conclusion, I believe that if you want this article to be deleted, give the article a change and truly find the significance of the article. Several people would greatly appreciate an article about this show and I would appreciate it if you let me, and all the other people who edit this page continue editing this page. Please give this article a chance to grow, there is significance in this article that you may have not found, so please keep this article on the encyclopedia, and thank you for your time. --Thekidwithoutaname (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment In order to establish this article on Wikipedia, you need to be able to demonstrate notability according to the guidelines at WP:WEB. This means utilizing reliable sources to demonstrate that the material is of encyclopedic interest. If you can assemble sources to demonstrate that the article is notable per that guideline, I will happily withdraw my nomination or, if others have already argued for deletion, change my particular opinion. Otherwise, it may be that you would find another website more appropriate to host the history of this series. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the discussion on this page, I added an external link where all of the episodes of the show "West Ville" are put.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by reliable sources, but would the official YouTube channel where all the episodes of the show are put count as a reliable source of information. All the information about the characters can be found in the episodes and episode summaries can also be written by either reading the episode's description on the internet, or watching the episode and coming up with a well thought out summary for it.

If this isn't enough of a reliable source, or if this isn't a reliable source for any reason, then please tell me.

Yo it's me (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question isn't whether the show exists; the question is whether its existence is of encyclopedic notability. As WP:WEB explains, there are three basic criteria that can be used to establish notability of web content:

(1)If it is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works independent of the site itself;

(2)If it has won a well-known and independent award;

(3)If it is distributed by a respected, independent medium, EXCEPT for hosting content on entertainment-like sites.

The reliable sources that are needed are needed to document or verify that the web content meets one of those criterion. For example, if it has been covered in an article by Entertainment Weekly or mentioned by Rolling Stone, you would include a pointer to the specific issue or a link to that site. If it has received a significant award, you would provide a pointer to a reliable source verifying that. I hope that this clarifies the matter for you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm sorry Moonriddengirl, but the show has not been covered in Entertainment Weekly or any type of magazine. Though I think the article follows one of the criterion, number one. The article is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, independent on the site itelf. Though it may not follow the last part, see there isn't an official "West Ville" website. I heard from the creator (Matt Saunders) that plans to create an official website have been made, though. Although I don't understand why the episodes of the series aren't enough of a reliable source. All the episodes and characters are of course protected by copyright and have been published to the internet, so most of the sources for information on the article can be found in the episodes themselves or in Matt Saunder's YouTube channel. Also, like what I said, I think things would be easier if instead of trying to delete this page, you can help edit the article. If you want a source to information on the article, follow the external link in the article. Jennifergirl18 (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like what Jennifergirl18 said? Aren't you Jennifergirl18? -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I meant to say like what I said, just fixed that problem. I also forgot to say that if you won't help edit the page, can you at least tell me which sections of the article are not put in an encyclopedic manner or do not meet encyclopedia's standards and how I can fix them? Jennifergirl18 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be happy to help edit the page if it conformed to the notability guideline. But as I said in my nomination above, I can't find any sources to validate the notability of this article. At this point, rather than evaluating independent sections, it would really serve you much better to see if you can verify that. In the last comment on this page, I've set out how that can be done and attempted to explain what "reliable source" means in terms of Wikipedia and notability. Even if an official website is made, it would not satisfy either; there is a specific section of the verifiability policy that explains what a "reliable source" is in Wikipedia's terms right here. As the notability guideline on web material explicitly says, "Primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability". It is a common requirement that articles be able to offer verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. (Which is distinct from a claim of existence, which the episodes and an official websites could themselves substantiate). If verifiable objective evidence can't be produced, it would probably be better to seek a forum that does host this kind of material so that the labor already put into the article is not lost. I'm not that familiar with wikia, for instance, but it seems to be very open to variant content and might be a good place to host this material until it does satisfy the notability guideline, when Wikipedia will happily accept it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and SALT Non-notable web series (A7), ~~article's just an ad to get more viewers (G11),~~ article's been recreated multiple times (G4...kinda). Open and shut case. --Closedmouth (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment retracted G11 as the creator doesn't seem to be involved (assuming good faith). --Closedmouth (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:N (WEB) is a guideline, and can be interpreted reasonably, but there is simply no evidence for any degree of notability, importance, or even popularity. If the show is there will eventually be some. I consider this within Speedy A7 on the basis of the evidence so far. DGG (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT delete This is still an existing show, and I believe that information about the show should be in an encyclopedia. Resources for the information available in the article can be found in the "External Links" section. More links to more sources of information should be available shortly. To keep this short, I completely agree with thekidwithoutaname, keep the article in because there is a lot of information about the show that many people can find usefull, no matter how popular the show is.

Yo it's me (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)— Yo it's me (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please leave the article in the encyclopedia thekidwithout a name made a great statement, although I believe it necessary to quote thekidwithout a name to help back up my opinion on this article. As the kidwithoutaname stated: "The animated series "West Ville" may not be very popular, but it is still an existing animated series with several fans who would greatly appreciate an article in an encyclopedia about the show. Furhtermore, the characters in the show "West Ville" are constantly growing. There is a lot of character growth in this show, and I believe it is necessary to record how certain character's personalities have changed overtime in an encyclopedia because some people may find it difficult to stay up-to-date with information about their favorite characters."

thekidwithoutaname also said that further plans have been made to edit the article, and thekidwithoutaname, I would be happy to assist you in editing this page.

Personally, I don't care if the show "West Ville" is very popular or not, it is still a great show, and several people have been amazed and inspired by the creator's talent! So please, do not delete this article. Let us continue editing it and let the article grow.

If you're looking where the resources for are information is, click on "external links" in the article. And what Yo It's Me said, "More links to more sources of information should be available shortly".

So please, leave the article in the encyclopedia.

PwnMaster08 (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — PwnMaster08 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete the article I agree with thekidwithoutaname, Yo It's Me and PwnMaster08. They all took the words right out of my mouth. All I have to say is that this article is not an advertisement to gain more viewers, this show doesn't belong to any of us! The article should stay on wikipedia. End of story.

Kristineyoface (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — Kristineyoface (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete

I would like to argue with what Closedmouth said by saying that this article is not an advertisement to gain more viewers, I even personally asked Matt Saunders (creator) if he knows that there is an article about his show on wikipedia and he said that he never knew there was an article of his show on wikipedia. So you were wrong Closedmouth, everyone who has been editing the article is just a fan of the show.

Secondly, from what thekidwithoutaname said, there is a lot of significance in the article. Episode description are on thing, but character descriptions are huge. The character's personal traits continually grow throughout the series. The show's impact on the public has been put into the article and I will soon create a section on the show's history. So, those are a few significant details about the show in the article that are put in an encyclopedic manner, and if they're not, I will happily edit the article so it sounds more like an encyclopedia article. If any part of the article doesn't seem to meet an encyclopedia's standards then please, either edit the section of the article that doesn't meet the standards or simply tell me what sections of the article are not put in an encyclopedic manner and I will edit them.

Additionally, more reliable sources for the information conceived for the article will be added shortly, although most of the information needed can be found in the episodes of the show themselves. So, to keep the short, all the information came from a published reliable source, the show itself. Besides that, there are several articles about animated series in the encyclopedia that no one seems to have a problem with. Though with the article "West Ville (Animated Series)" it seems like your trying to get it deleted just because the show isn't very popular. Well I still believe that the show is a very good show, the animation has amazed several people since there is only one animator for the show, and the only reason why it isn't very popular is because not much advertising has been done and not that many people can find the show.

In conclusion, I believe it is necessary to have an article about this series in an encyclopedia. Instead of trying to delete it, why not help edit the page instead? I rest my case.

Jennifergirl18 (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — Jennifergirl18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I'm afraid that you and the other fans are completely missing the point of reliable sourcing. Reliable sourcing is required to prove that the show is notable. The concept of encyclopedic notability is set out at the notability guideline and, with regards to specific web material, at WP:WEB. If the article cannot be demonstrated to be notable by secondary sources (the show is itself a primary source; the difference is explained at WP:V), then it is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. The number of the fans of the show who come here to argue that they enjoy it is immaterial to this debate; "I like it" is not an argument that holds much weight in deletion discussions, which are based not on numbers but on the strength of policy. If you would like to see this article remain on Wikipedia, you can best help it by finding proof that it is (1) the subject of multiple non-trivial published works independent of the site; (2) the recipient of a well-known and independent award from a publication or organization; or (3) distributed by a respected, independent medium that is not an entertainment-like site hosting content (e.g. online newspapers or magazines). Failing this, the time that you are putting into crafting the article may be wasted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete such a huge article and not even any sources. And WestVilleCreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contributed to it. No official website either. Per nom.--Seriousspender (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahwazi Democratic Popular Front

Delete unencyclopedic propaganda/promotion/advertisement page for an unknown self proclaimed group Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic Website with no academic references. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talk • contribs) 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is that your excuse?? that it is not legally recobnized??

Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopedia is to show the truth, both truth, you cant deny the fact that their are organizations trying to work for independance of the Ahwaz, and they have chosen this flag for them, and an article needs to be made to explain what the flag means...

and i am an arab nationalist, it is not a bad thing being an Arab, its actually pretty natural ;)

as for you my friend, your nationalism of being a persian is threatening Wikipedia, by deleting articles that you think are "imaginary".

the Ahwaz region is similar to other territories in the World that are trying to claim a free state for themselves, pretty much like Kosovo trying to gain independance, and serbia disapproving, but the Irani style is to just delete the name from the History...

these links prove that their is a liberation front calling for a free Ahwaz...

[alahwaz.org]
[www.alkarkha.com]
[29]
[30]

other Links in Wikipedia created to inform the reader of the Ahwaz:

Ahwazi Democratic Popular Front

the Ahwaz region articles have been vandalised by the previous members calling for a speedy deletion, removing categories in its articles...

[31]

they have also called for the speedy deletion for several articles that show the truth about Ahwaz's liberation movement...

i, along with the Arab World Wiki Project denounce the act, and call for Wikipedia to see the truth in this, and find that these persians are making Wikipedia into a political forum debate, which is something im pretty sure wikipedia is not...

thank you --Arab League User (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, without any mainstream reflection of its activities, it should be deleted. And dear "Arab League", I can not give any comments about your honor about being something, but using wikipedia for advertising your goals is a big NO and also watch for personal attacks. and it seems that your desire for broadcasting what you call "truth" is so high that you have also uploaded several pictures with bogus tags. I am afraid your contributions to this project is becoming distruptive.--Pejman47 (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable organisation regardless of the above rhetoric by the article's creator. Incidentally AfD is not the place to soapbox. --WebHamster18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be plenty of notable information on this group:

"Two Iranian Arab separatist groups, the London-based Arab People’s Democratic Popular Front and the Canada-based Ahwaz Arab Renaissance Party, claimed responsibility for the bombings. However, the main foreign-based Ahwaxi separatist group, the Democratic Solidarity Party of Al-Ahwaz, condemned the bombings, arguing that many of those killed were Khuzestani Arabs." - Green Left [32]

MIPT Terrorism Database [33]

"These terrorists have been trained under the umbrella of the Americans in Iraq," he charged, and added that Iran suspected there were links between British troops across the border and the London-based Ahvaz Arab People's Democratic-Popular Front." - Asia Times [34]

"Observers said the statement is a reminder of similar tracts distributed by a group named the “Democratic Popular Front of Ahwazi Arabs” during large scale disturbances that erupted in the province last April, leaving scores of people killed in clashes with security forces that made more than 1000 arrests." Iran Press Service [35]

Perhaps the article needs expansion to prove its notability and to make it more encyclopaedic.--Conjoiner (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per User:WebHamster, wikipedia is not the place to promote non-notable fringe political advocacy groups, please see soapbox. ----07fan (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB among other problems. Khorshid (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:WEB only applies to articles about web-specific content; it doesn't apply to other subjects just because they happen to have a web site. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure how this organisation fails WP:WEB. They seem to have attracted a reasonable amount of attention from external sources, such as this one from Al Jazeera, and this from the BBC. Yes, the organisation has a strong bias towards Ahwazi independence, and may be a front group, but those aren't criteria for deletion. Some (but not all) exiled political groups deserve articles, and I feel this falls well within the criteria for inclusion. There's notability and verifiability. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just a few mentions in the media, does not make a a tiny fringe organization with no constituency, notable enough to warrant an article. --07fan (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the Iranian government has accused it of terrorist attacks on behalf of Western governments, then it warrants an article.--Conjoiner (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Iranian goverment has never acknowledged or named such self-proclaimed fringe groups. --07fan (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to this[36]: "These terrorists have been trained under the umbrella of the Americans in Iraq" he (top national security official Ali Agha Mohammadi) charged, adding that Iran suspected British troops across the border might also have links to the separatist group -- the London-based Ahvaz Arab People's Democratic-Popular Front."--Conjoiner (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* That's not a direct quote in quotation marks, it's speculation by the journalist that the official is speaking about this group, since this fringe group had claimed responsibility for the Ahwaz bomb attacks. --07fan (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a group is involved in insurgent attacks in Iran, then doesn't it deserve an article in Wikipedia? If the BBC, Al-Jazeera and numerous other media organisations are associating this group with bomb attacks then an article is required.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bombing has its own article: [37]. The question is the notability of the particular group, which is not notable and a webpage is not sufficient. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this party or political group exist and was involved in some activities (terrorism or whatever acticvities) then I think it is notable enough to be kept --Aziz1005 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of being good or evil, this group exists and is based in London [38].Heja Helweda (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references provided, no independent verification of notability of the party--Larno Man (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. Advertisment for a non notable political group. Far from encyclopedic.Farmanesh (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete while there are undeniable separatist movements in the Iranian province of Khuzistan aiming to ethnically cleanse the province from its Persian, Luri, Bakhtiari and Qashqai Turkic residence and to deliver it as a Arab homeland to the Arabs, these articles are partisan. They fail to describe the external ties of the separatists, and the extent of support under population. In addition they do not show that all these oragnizations are different names of the same and they only refer to their own pan-Arabist propaganda websites as "sources". Waht is more disturbing is that they call the province Khuzistan as Al-Ahwaz, while Ahvaz is only the name of its capital and the region has never been called as such by any one else than the pan-Arabists.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't that an editorial issue, rather than a reason to delete these articles? If you think there is a bias, then you should get involved in editing the articles rather than advocate their deletion. Having an article on a group accused of terrorism does not mean supporting its actions or its ideology. As it has been mentioned by the BBC, Al-Jazeera, Asia Times, Iran Press Service, the MIPT Terrorism Database and various other media, it obviously has notability, even if it is notorious for ethnic unrest and terrorist attacks.--Conjoiner (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you are right but the biggest problem is its fictious nature. I think these names could be mentioned in a general article dealing with terrorism and ethnic separatism in Khuzistan, in that sense we can give a fair description of them without examining whether all these organizations are the same or not. I must say that I have seen this problem in other movements too in which there might be a great overlap with other (fictious organisations). That would be one option and the other is editing these articles and describing their possible fictious character and overlap with other names under which they operate as well as mentioning their "terrorist" actions. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis can you say this organisation is fictitious when it is mentioned in a range of reliable sources, which also quote the leaders? I'm not trying to condone their actions, but clearly the group exists and it is regarded by Iran as responsible for terrorism and ethnic unrest. And, from the looks of it, there is an international dimension as the group is based in Britain and accused of killing scores of people.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arab separatists truely exist but it is not clear who is who. UNPO for example claims that Democratic Solidarity Party of Ahwaz (DSPA) is the representative of nation of al-Ahwaz (Arabistan) in UNPO. http://unpo.org/member_profile.php?id=6

knowing that UNPO.Org which harbours a number of terrorist organization claims that it only accepts peaceful members, it is likely that the latter one is just another version of the latter. there are so many websites all of which claim to be the official website of the Ahwazi separatist movement. It is also not clear why there are several versions of the separatist flags? One with the rep. Azerbaijan symbol on palestine flag, one the former flag plus Allaho Akbar is Saddam style hand writing (similar to the last Saddam flag) one is the one on Pan Arab clors plus one star encircled in green. Then their leader Mansouri was the leader of ARC " Al-Ahwaz Revolutionary Council " http://www.alahwaz-revolutionary-council.org/NL/0000-NL.htm. It is known that Ahwaz studies is a pseudo scientific proxy of the separatists and that the Ahwazi British and Ahwazi danish friendship society function as their links to the west, but it is not clear what is the relation between Abaistan organisation and Ahwazi liberation organization. While they talk good about mansouri and the ALO they also report from MONA an unknown organization with a militant coath of arms ::::::http://www.arabistan.org/images/000000000000.jpg Then you have ahwaz.org that claims to be the website of Ahwazi liberation organization and the al-ahwaz.org that say the same. All report the same things and are controlled by the clique around mansouri who apparently is the leader of democratic solidarity, popular front, Ahawzi Liberation organisation at the same time. This movement claims to be democratic and is baatist at the same time (http://arabistan.org/7_2008/sayed_almogal.htm) while getting support from the west most notably UK. According to Kayhan newspaper the British and Jordanianofficer in Jordan are training the Arab separatist terrorists and that they did the same with regard to the anti-revolutionary groups (MKO)http://www.kayhannews.ir/860418/2.htm#other208, this makes sense as the leaders of the Mujahedin Khalq also resides in Jordan. There is, thus, a conflation and overlap and it seems that all these groups with different colrs (democratic, popular, militant etc...) are in fact the same and one group around Mansouri clique. It will be ok if one mentiones these fact in Khuzestan page --Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim to be an expert on this and I don't know Arabic or Farsi, but I can't see anything you have quoted that suggests all these organisations are the same group. It is not our position to guess, but simply to report impartially from the verifiable sources available to us. Whether or not they are run by the same person is a matter for investigation that Wikipedia does not exist to conduct. They could all be bitter enemies, in the same way that Communist parties can bitterly hate each other for factional reasons. Clearly there is a big issue here and I can't see anything on Wikipedia that reflects the importance of Arab separatism in Iran, either as a political force or a geopolitical issue. If Iran is accusing foreign governments of inciting such unrest, then it is a major issue and such groups as this one deserve an article, no matter our personal opinions on whether it has a significant following among Al-Ahawzis or whether it is a terrorist group inspired by the West.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I prpose is to bring them all under the Arab separatism in Khuzistan to avoid short articles tagged because of their neutrality or factual accuracy. Just one article and we mention them all in their possible relationships --Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good compromise, since it would allow everyone to concentrate their minds. If there is any overlap - and I've seen nothing yet to suggest there is - then this would provide an opportunity to put this forward, provided there is no original research. I am a little confused, though. Is Al-Ahwaz a city, a people, a province or a nation? Is it another name for Kuzistan? What is the name for the Arab inhabitants? Are they one tribe or many? Are they the same as the marsh Arabs? This needs to be made clear, either in the article you are proposing or in an existing article on the area. I cannot find anything in the Ahwaz article or the article on Iranian Arabs. Given that there is a low-intensity international conflict over the region, it makes sense to expand such articles and create an article on separatism.--Conjoiner (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes you pointed to a good point which is another reason why this page under this name deserved to get deleted. Ahvaz is the name of a city the capital of province which is called Khuzistan. The Arab separatists call the whole region Al-Ahwaz. This they do just to claim the Khuzistan capital as theirs. Most of inhabitants of Khusitan and city f ahvaz are non-Arabs, by calling Khuzistan Al-Ahwaz they try to Arabicize the city (at least in the mind). Some 1/3 or more (but no the majority) of Khuzistanis are Arabic speaking they belong mostly to bani Torof and Bani Kaab tribes. They are most likely the Mandeans who are Islamicized and are ethnologically related to the marshland Arabs of southern Iraq. Their homeland is also the lower parts of Khuzsitan in the Western Khuzistani marshlands. Begining 20th century england tried to separate the province from Iran but was not successful. Then with the rise of Pan-Arabism some forein powers tried to create ethnic violence in the 0s. In the 70s Saddam's Baath party did the same. In the Iran-Iraq war the Khuzistani Arabs proved their loyalty to iran by fighting back the invading Iraqi baathists troops. Nowadays agin the foreighn powers are supporting them i order to establish the Bernard Lewis plan.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It seems like the subject warrants an article of its own, incorporating the information on these Al-Ahwaz groups.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is there a systematic effort going on here in propping up these "Ahwaz" articles all at once?--Zereshk (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a systematic effort going on to nominate them for deletion? If the numbers mean anything, this won't survive AfD, but I do feel that the nomination and a number of the delete votes are to do with the subject of the article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't you think it's suspicious that all of a sudden three articles about a fringe nationalist group (with their flag included) pops up out of nowhere? Could very well be the actual group fishing for attention in order to further its agenda. The motivation could be self-promotion in order to gain support, or anything like that. Is the movement notable, it should of course be kept. So far it hasn't managed to establish notability. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it is no coincidence that the same people are voting for the deletion of the same articles!!!!! There may be a systematic effort to include these articles, but equally there appears to be a co-ordinated effort to delete them because some don't want the subject matter dealt with, for whatever reason.--Conjoiner (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can only speak for myself that I followed the links and noticed all three articles were up for deletion. And I voted. I've been voting a lot of delete lately on most topics because I think articles that aren't important or interesting need to get deleted. As for this movement, I'm willing to vote keep if notability can be established. I still think it's suspicious though that all three articles were up on wiki at the same time. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 12:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — Per Zereshk. Yes, these Ahwaz topics just came out of nowhere. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic page. Farhoudk (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, real and notable org. This afd is narrow-minded nationalist vote-stacking. ~~There should probably be rename.~~ [39] gives the name الجبهة الديمقراطية الشعبية للشعب العربي في الأحواز ('Popular Democratic Front of the Arab People in Ahwaz). Note that the inclusion on the PFLP website denotes notability, PFLP is a highly notable org, and would not include messages from spoof organisations at its website. --Soman (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the inclusion on the PFLP website's Arabic section denotes notability how? PEFL is itself a minor Arab militant group, which is neither a reliable source, nor independent of the subject as required by notability guidelines. The threshold of inclusion in English Wikipedia is widespread independent mainstream media coverage in English that meets the requirements of WP:CORP. The notability guidelines explicitly states that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.". --07fan (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Nokhodi (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Politics of Khuzestan article exists for a reason. Almost no notability to merit an independent article. -Rosywounds (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roaring 20

I originally speedied this at A7, but the author pointed out that the group has played on the set of The Price is Right, although we have failed to establish whether this was on television, or just to the live audience, and recreated the article. I have decided to bring it here for wider input. I have failed to find any reliable sources, but the band name is rather generic. I still think it (just) falls under A7, personally, so it's delete from me. J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Only coverage is in university presses -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Princeton Roaring 20 seems to be a better search term, with coverage, however, still minor. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to keep. Good improvement so far, but still need a bit more sources to establish notability. - PeaceNT (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubbledge

Non-notable musician; has released 1 album, 1 mixtape—no hit singles. Fails WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. PROD might have done the job. SingCal (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was declined for speedy deletion so I figured I'd skip right to AfD. Precious Roy (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Highly regarded artist and pioneer of Watford Hip-Hop, signed to the largest and most well-known UK Hip-Hop label. Gazh (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Watford hip hop? The redlink indicates that this is not a notable style. And I don't see anything in the Low Life Records article that indicates they are anything other than a moderately successful independant label at best. In any case, he would need to have two full-length releases on the label to even possibly meet criterion #5. Precious Roy (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Name another successful UK based Hip-Hop label? there are a couple, but they are nothing in comparison to Low Life in terms of amount of releases and sales. Low Life is by far and away the most important label for UK based Hip-Hop. Gazh (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Arguing Low Life's importance here is pointless—even if it were a major label, he's only released one album. Precious Roy (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I've expanded this article a bit as I believe it should remain. According to Wikipedia it needs to meet at least one criteria, which it now does. There are now three links in the article's reference section, which should cover criteria no.1. Also, his "mixtape" is technically an album, he only called it a mixtape because of the number of collaborations on it (see the ukhh.com interview for the reason for this). All the tracks on there are his own tracks and not previously released by other artists like mixtapes by Funkmaster Flex or DJ Clue. This means he has two albums, which covers criteria 5. Therefore this artists covers two of the criteria for notabilty, which is more than enough to save it from deletion. Dj rizla (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Precious Roy (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article includes evidence of multiple significant non-trivial coverage.--Michig (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Interviews on two minor genre websites and a three sentence review doesn't seem particularly significant to me. Precious Roy (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment They can only be considered "minor" when you take them out of context of the genre of music they are about, any website about UK hip-hop can be considered minor, but within that genre they are both respected websites. One of them even comes up as the top result in a Google search of UK hip-hop. But Dubbledge still has two albums out ("Fist of Jah" and "Richest Man In Babylon"), which is enough to keep the article. Dj rizla (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment One mixtape, one album; try and spin it however you like. Note that the Guardian review of ...Babylon refers to it as his debut. Precious Roy (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. One short, mediocre review is insufficient for notability. TerriersFan (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airy Points

Non notable. No sources. Been orphaned for nearly 2 years. Delete Metal Head (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no idea what that means, but Harvard seems to think it is important at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966AmJPh..34..419P and there are other links as well. Pharmboy (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's perfectly legitimate, and reasonably notable. The language is too technical for easy understanding, and I'm not sure I can help much there, but I'll see if I can improve the refs. Tim Ross·^talk 16:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless this article is improved, it should be deleted. It's been like this for 2 years.Metal Head (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What policy is that idea based upon? You're proposing that if no one wants to write about a notable topic, we delete every reference to it? J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment: The policy is simple. We do not need to keep a page for years if no one will ever touch it. That is worthless.Metal Head (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And how long has that been a Wikipedia policy? J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The policy is pretty clear and you don't even have to read the whole policy to find it. In the nutshell section of WP:Deletion policy it states: Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion Every editor is OBLIGATED to research a topic before nominating it, to insure it is truly not notable and they are not just wasting other's time. Pharmboy (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I did research it but I did not find that Harvard article. (I found a video game though) I nominated it because, at the time, I could see nothing notable about it. It had been in the same way for a long time. Thus the nomination.Metal Head (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        comment And I believe you did in good faith, but your interpretation of the deletion policy is misguided, based on your comment above The policy is simple. We do not need to keep a page for years if no one will ever touch it. That is worthless.. I'm trying to gently say that you are misreading the policy and another look-see might be in order. If you think the Harvard article does indeed prove notability (it was #5 when searching google for the term in quotes) then it would be appropriate to withdraw the nomination. I've done it a time or two myself. Pharmboy (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: Actually, the official policy is that yes it CAN sit around for years waiting for someone to grow it. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is nothing in Wikipedia policy requiring constant changing of an article in order to be worth keeping; after a while, there just isn't anything new to say. Does nom have any grounds upon which to declare the subject non-notable? Ravenswing 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope it will now be considered "improved". I added a couple of decent references, and smoothed out the technical writing style. Tim Ross·^talk 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep - Easily meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is improved. I have never taken anythign off of AfD. (mainly because of that message that says not to) It was a bad article when I listed it. I looked for sources and could find none, but others have succeeded in finding them. Good job.Undeath (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasSpeedy deleted by Dloh cierekim as vandalism. Dloh cierekim 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry washio

Contested prod; removed by anon IP without explanation. WP:HOAX. Googling only returns Wiki links; article claims notability, but fails WP:RS due to lack of sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete First of all, "She" lead the team in tackles? That's remarkable that you have a female playing collegiate football. Also the claim that "she" won the 1990 MAC Defensive player of the year is false, it in fact was Sean Mulhearn of Western Michigan. I'd almost say speedy for CSD G3 as vandalism. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G3 and so tagged —Travis ^talk 15:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akiha Tohno

No offense, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a big Tsukihime fan, and I love the characters (especially Kohaku! X3). But unfortunately, Ms. Tohno's article has NO sources or real world information. She should be improved with sources, or at the very least be merged into a list of Tsukihime characters, before this article ultimately gets deleted. Thank you for understanding. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Major character from visual novel series, fighting game series, anime, and manga. If no real world context or notability can be assumed from such things, I humbly suggest all fictional articles be deleted from Wikipedia as well. Also, AfD nominator is being Pointy, having nominated several dozen articles in the course of a single day, and when combined with his own comments that this and all other articles should be improved, his choice of going for Deletion makes me wary of motives, even assuming good faith. Nezu Chiza (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. Fails WP:FICT, has no notability outside of the series, and would be in keeping with recent discussions in Anime and manga project regarding character articles.AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. Has some notability in Japan. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and merge to Characters in Tsukihime. -- Ned Scott 02:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I am not familiar with any of the fiction involved, and it is impossible for me to tell from all the details in the article such basics as whether & why the character is important. That meets my definition of "in-universe", "fan-fiction" writing. Not that i want to keep the fans from doing a proper article for the rest of us. DGG (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Afzali

Article was created by Filmstudent1980 (talk · contribs), who has made no edits outside this article, so he may have a conflict of interest. The article fails to assert his notability; most of the external links are irrelevant or outside of policy. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sorry, just not here yet. All hits MySpace this does not constitute notability. Shoessss | Chat 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls short of notable at this particular time. Maybe someday. Pharmboy (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reason proffered for this subject to pass any element of WP:BIO. Frankly, I'd love WP:NOT amended to include Wikipedia is not for wannabe auteurs with a camcorder and a YouTube link. Ravenswing 17:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Keep this away from Wikipedia. --Funper (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcueid Brunestud

No offense, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a big Tsukihime fan, and I love the characters. But unfortunately, Arcueid's article cites NO sources or real world information. She should be improved with sources before this article ultimately gets deleted. Thank you for understanding. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Major character from visual novel series, fighting game series, anime, and manga. If no real world context or notability can be assumed from such things, I humbly suggest all fictional articles be deleted from Wikipedia as well. Also, AfD nominator is being Pointy, having nominated several dozen articles in the course of a single day, and when combined with his own comments that this and all other articles should be improved, his choice of going for Deletion makes me wary of motives, even assuming good faith. Nezu Chiza (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. Has popularity in Japan, and is the mascot of Type-Moon. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. Fails WP:FICT, has no notability outside of the series, and would be in keeping with recent discussions in Anime and manga project regarding character articles.AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Nezu Chisa. Reliable sources... in English maybe not, but in Japanese, are many many many official guides by TYPE-MOON. If you don't research right, you will not find. And I have one of those books: the guide of Tsukihime and Fate/stay night. This AfD reminds the former AfD about Fate/stay night characters... final results: keep articles... and Wikipedia gains more and more articles of TYPE-MOON Nasuverse. Zerokitsune (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a TYPE-MOON Wikia. The information is safe in there (minus pictures)--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to the Annex as this article has no primary or secondary sources, and comprises of plot summary with a heavy in universe perspective. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. Nom didn't provide a single valid reason for deletion. AfD isn't cleanup and that seems to be what he's wanting. It's hard to argue for or against a deletion if valid reasons aren't given at the start. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging can be discussed on the talk page. Wizardman 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Qwark

This page cites no sources or real world notability. Should be improved or should not exist at all. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Needs to be improved is not a reason for deletion. Feel free to tag the piece for improvement but recommending an article for deletion that has been around for well over two years, is usually not recommended. Regarding the sourcing, the article is sourced by the links back to the main articles. Do I believe Captain Qwark is notable, no! However, it seems like the gaming industry does and happy to say consensus rules.Shoessss | Chat 15:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in the Ratchet & Clank series; character has zero notability and impact outside of these video games. Ravenswing 17:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciel (Tsukihime)

No offense, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a big Tsukihime fan, and I love the characters (especially Kohaku! X3). But unfortunately, Ciel's (or should I say "Elesia's") article has NO sources or real world information. She should be improved with sources, or at the very least be merged into a list of Tsukihime characters, before this article ultimately gets deleted. Thank you for understanding. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Major character from visual novel series, fighting game series, anime, and manga. If no real world context or notability can be assumed from such things, I humbly suggest all fictional articles be deleted from Wikipedia as well. Also, AfD nominator is being Pointy, having nominated several dozen articles in the course of a single day, and when combined with his own comments that this and all other articles should be improved, his choice of going for Deletion makes me wary of motives, even assuming good faith. Nezu Chiza (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. Has popularity in Japan. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. Fails WP:FICT, has no notability outside of the series, and would be in keeping with recent discussions in Anime and manga project regarding character articles.AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Alex

Previously deleted as Dark AleX (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark AleX), re-creation speedily deleted by me. Upon the creator's request, I have undeleted the page for a re-consideration (see deletion review). Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify. The intro, and probably a little of the body text, is pretty good, but much of the content is coatracking for his hacks or other things. That, combined with almost a lack of sources after the intro, leads me to believe that this information probably shouldn't be so detailed. Notability overall looks pretty good. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. — brighterorange (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (assuming I am allowed to vote, considering it was me that requested the deletion review and so it is pretty obvious how I would vote). As a casual wikipedia user I did not realise the extent to which the page had evolved since I made it and I accept there are parts which need editing now. However, deletion is unnecessary in my opinion as Dark Alex is far too important to the PSP scene. Are users allowed to start editing the article while this review is active? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skip1337 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, articles for deletion are more a debate than a vote; so yes, you can have your opinion heard. And yes, you can edit the page while it is being considered here, as long as you don't remove the deletion notice or make other disruptive edits. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool, thank you. I see one of the other contributors to the page isn't as hot on full stops as me. The actual content I'll think about at the weekend, but I can do quick things (minor edits) now. Skip1337 (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably ~~one of~~ the most notable name associated with the PSP who is not employed by Sony. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage seems to indicate notability. matt91486 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very famous in homebrew scene and spain police is hunting him. --Ciao 90 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. In addition to notability concerns, in the current poorly referenced state there are BLP concerns. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David_Vieira_Kurz

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/David Vieira Kurz

Not Notable Spatulacity (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOTABLE

The subject is a security researcher, no doubt. However he has not invented any notable security techniques, written any notable security texts or discovered anything more than what would be expected of a typical penetration tester. Spatulacity (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOTABLE

The page itself states that he is primarily known for 'aledgedly' contributing. Either he did or didn't. Even if he did it doesn't make him notable. There are no references to any of the vulnerabilties, any of the tutorials it says he wrote and the link to the VLOS page makes no mention of him. Does he even live in Berlin? There's no proof of that either, but we can probably let that slide.
TheHammockDistrict (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Lquilter (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't see hw this is supposed to pas WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Allegations of wrong-doing do not add up to notability, and there is not really anything else to hang an article on. Tim Ross·^talk 12:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- non-notable unreferenced security practitioner, article is the product of an WP:SPA. --- tqbf 05:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dignity (Hilary Duff song)

Not released as a single or not notable in any other way than an album track, and this information can probably be merged into the Dignity article. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song has been the subject of media coverage independent of the album, and the article includes information about this. I didn't reference every source that discusses the song in this way, but if for any reason the sources already present in the article don't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability—"significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"—there are more available via, for example, LexisNexis. The article's content was split from Dignity (album) because the information about it in that article was becoming too specific to the song to be appropriate for inclusion in an album article. The Dignity article is substantially longer now than it was when the "Dignity" song article and Gypsy Woman (Hilary Duff song) were split off from it. Also, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and songs states, "A separate [song] article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I'm not sure how "reasonably detailed" is defined, but I'm pretty certain that the article isn't a stub. In any case, AFD is for proposals for deletion, not merging—if you think the article should be merged somewhere, please follow the instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Both this and Gypsy Woman (Hilary Duff song) could easily be included under one section in the main album article. --neonwhite user page talk 16:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per my !vote on Gypsy Woman (Hilary Duff song), the only difference here is that this song is in fact about Ritchie to some degree, though not specifically to the Duff/Madden/Ritchie triangle. Regardless, both of these articles could be much stronger as subsections of Dignity (album). In fact, much of this article is already covered in Dignity (album)#Style and themes, and Dignity (album)#Critical reception -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : per Extraordinary Machine. Europe22 (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's enough to say here to support an independent article, and the Dignity album article is already packed at 50KB (which means, if anything, that more stuff should be split from it; other articles should certainly not be merged into such a long article). Everyking (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eggman Nega

This character article asserts no real world ability and is filled with almost nothing but gamecruft. There are no proper sources as well. This article should be improve ASAP or it shouldn't exist. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Needs to be improved is not a reason for deletion. Feel free to tag the piece for improvement but recommending an article for deletion that has been around for well over a year, is usually not recommended. Regarding the sourcing, the article is sourced by the links back to the main articles. Do I believe Eggman Nega is notable, no! However, it seems like the gaming industry does and happy to say consensus rules.Shoessss | Chat 15:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - if not keep, I belive this would be more suited to being a note/section on the Doctor Eggman article, but otherwise, I don't understand this current witchhunt for videogame characters. Doktor Wilhelm 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -It needs to be improved but he's a main charcter who shouldn't be ignored and he plays major parts that may be vital in the future.SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -By all means keep he's been in over 3 video games and my beliefs are after 3 major roles the character should get his own article, (unless of course there's enough info.)Fairfieldfencer (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeman Vox

This page cites no sources or real world notability. Should be improved or should not exist at all -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ratchet: Deadlocked Nakon 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect – to Ratchet: Deadlocked. Shoessss | Chat 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Character not notable enough for own article, redirect as previously suggested. -- Atama ^chat 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 content. Those still in favor of a merge may want to look for further consensus as indicated below by Extraordinary Machine. Tikiwont (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy Woman (Hilary Duff song)

Not released as a single or not notable in any other way than an album track, and this information can probably be merged into the Dignity article. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song has been the subject of media coverage independent of the album, and the article includes information about this. I didn't reference every source that discusses the song in this way, but if for any reason the sources already present in the article don't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability—"significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"—there are more available via, for example, LexisNexis. The article's content was split from Dignity (album) because the information about it in that article was becoming too specific to the song to be appropriate for inclusion in an album article. The Dignity article is substantially longer now than it was when the "Gypsy Woman" article and Dignity (Hilary Duff song) were split off from it. Also, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and songs states, "A separate [song] article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I'm not sure how "reasonably detailed" is defined, but I'm pretty certain that the article isn't a stub. In any case, AFD is for proposals for deletion, not merging—if you think the article should be merged somewhere, please follow the instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simple searches do not yield enough information other than lyrics. I have found no specific coverage of the song that is notable either.Metal Head (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The song is metioned in multiple reliable sources, though a little trivial it probably qualifies as notable though i can't see why it can't be included in the main album article for neatness. --neonwhite user page talk 16:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Media coverage is primarily around a single incident, a rumor that turned out to be false. If this was a charted single or if the song was otherwise notable then I could support a Keep. -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : per Extraordinary Machine. Europe22 (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EM. Everyking (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hisui

No offense, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a big Tsukihime fan, and I love the characters (especially Kohaku! X3). But unfortunately, Hisui's article has NO sources or real world information. She should be improved with sources, or at the very least be merged into a list of Tsukihime characters, before this article ultimately gets deleted. Thank you for understanding. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Major character from visual novel series, fighting game series, anime, and manga. If no real world context or notability can be assumed from such things, I humbly suggest all fictional articles be deleted from Wikipedia as well. Also, AfD nominator is being Pointy, having nominated several dozen articles in the course of a single day, and when combined with his own comments that this and all other articles should be improved, his choice of going for Deletion makes me wary of motives, even assuming good faith. Nezu Chiza (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. Fails WP:FICT, has no notability outside of the series, and would be in keeping with recent discussions in Anime and manga project regarding character articles.Collectonian (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. Has some popularity in Japan . 132.205.44.5 (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 note that this is an articles for deletion, if you wish to discuss a possible merge, you can use the talk page. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kohaku (Tsukihime)

No offense, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a big Tsukihime fan, and I'm ESPECIALLY a big Kohaku fan. But unfortunately, her article has NO sources or real world information. She should be improved with sources, or at the very least be merged into a list of Tsukihime characters, before this article ultimately gets deleted. Thank you for understanding. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 03:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Major character from visual novel series, fighting game series, anime, and manga. If no real world context or notability can be assumed from such things, I humbly suggest all fictional articles be deleted from Wikipedia as well. Also, AfD nominator is being Pointy, having nominated several dozen articles in the course of a single day, and when combined with his own comments that this and all other articles should be improved, his choice of going for Deletion makes me wary of motives, even assuming good faith. Nezu Chiza (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. Has some popularity in Japan 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. Fails WP:FICT, has no notability outside of the series, and would be in keeping with recent discussions in Anime and manga project regarding character articles.Collectonian (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Zero, if what you really want to do is merge, it shouldn't even be here. Take it up on the article talk page. DGG (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Len (Tsukihime)

No offense, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a big Tsukihime fan, and I love the characters (especially Kohaku! X3). But unfortunately, Len's article has NO sources or real world information. She should be improved with sources, or at the very least be merged into a list of Tsukihime characters, before this article ultimately gets deleted. Thank you for understanding. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 03:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters in Tsukihime 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. Fails WP:FICT, has no notability outside of the series, and would be in keeping with recent discussions in Anime and manga project regarding character articles.Collectonian (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 14:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in the Ratchet & Clank series

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Ratchet & Clank series

This page cites no sources or real world notability. It should be improved with sources, or it should not exist on this site. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 02:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Article is no different from other lists of characters in major series, and helps keep the information together. Also, AfD nominator is being pointy, having nominated dozens of articles in one day while commenting they could be improved, yet making no effort to do so nor tagging articles as NEEDING cleanup, instead resorting to AfDs. Even assuming Good Faith, I'm wary of the reasons behind such mass nominating, especially in light of the nominators own comments. Nezu Chiza (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag for cleanup. Lists of characters are pretty common. Editors knowledgeable about Ratchet and Clank should keep an eye on it to prevent very minor characters from needlessly being added. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 London Underground infrastructure. Keeper | 76 19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground statistics

Article is simply a list of statistics, which violates policy at WP:NOT#STATS. –Dream out loud (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, Merge this into ~~London Underground~~ London Underground infrastructure. Simply south (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I'm not the biggest fan of this article, but it was created as a compromise after drawn-out discussion over the page London Underground trivia. (See first, second, third, and fourth AFD nominations.) WP:NOT#STATS cautions against "long and sprawling lists of statistics", which this is clearly not. If this page grows, maybe it will need more context, as recommended in WP:NOT#STATS, but for now it's plainly understandable and useful to the average reader. It really needs to be referenced, but that's a whole nother story. I oppose a merge because this is more detail than necessary in an overview article on the Tube. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not meet WP:NOT#STATS. It seems to come mainly from TfL's website and linked pages. I don't see why these facts cannot be incorporated into the relevant LU articles, for example on the size and range of the network, or the engineering aspects. Just listing it makes it a trivia section in article form. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing things do not make things trivia necessarily, mainly lists. Simply south (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - London Underground is already a big article, so merging another article into it doesn't seem sensible. The information is clearly presented and not at all confusing, which is the reasoning behind WP:NOT#STATS. Above all, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - its here to help people to find information. If someone wanted to know what (say) the highest Tube station was, they wouldn't want to trawl through every article on Underground stations to find it; listing these facts here makes the information far more easily accessible, and that's the purpose of an encyclopaedia. In a nutshell, deleting this article would make Wikipedia harder to use and therefore worse, not better. Waggers (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to London Underground infrastructure - does the same job, but better! Waggers (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - One promising avenue for the improvement of the article series is the creation of an article called London Underground infrastructure into which this article could be incorporated. I may be bold and do this soon. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOT#STATS is to prevent articles with useless and long lists of statistics which would just confuse readers. This is not exactly confusing or useless and is something which would be useful for anyone researching this. Another option is to merge it into the main LU article as suggested above. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I just merged this article to the newly-created London Underground infrastructure (which is also a helpful place to have too-detailed info on electrification etc that is inappropriate for the main article). It fits in very well there and that article is a fine length. No need for a separate stats article any more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er - haven't you already "suggested" this above? I know Wikipedia is not a democracy but one vote/comment/suggestion per person is sufficient unless you're replying specifically to someone else. Waggers (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --Funper (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some interesting statistics here that could do with an article of their own.--Conjoiner (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not a big fan of statistic pages, but this one has useful information that would if included in the main page bloat that even further. The article needs expanding to more sources, rather than just relying on the TfL website. It passes the criteria set at Wikipedia:NOT#STATS. Poeloq (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE NOTE Sorry to shout but no one seems to have noticed my comment above. This content has found what I think is a happy home at a new article called London Underground infrastructure; please consider this before voting to keep it as a separate page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article may be expanded to contain statistics that are not related to the infrastructure. Poeloq (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I think those statistics should go in whatever subarticle they are related to rather than lumping together a bunch of unrelated numbers under the heading "statistics". Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – As nominator of this AfD, I think it should be redirected to London Underground infrastructure as that is a similar article, but written as an encyclopedia article, rather than as a list. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current article is not at all about statistics, not even in the descriptive sense (please refer to our article), but about simple facts of the numerical and trivial type.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern arcana

1. There are no references: the existence of the term is unsourced and unverifiable. This is possibly because no one but the author and a few pals use it. As a matter of notability, we can't have an entry for every local slang term or a subgenre for every game, movie and book title that someone might use as a type of a genre. LotR is not a fantasy subgenre: heroic fantasy is, even though people on the street use LotR that way. 2. It is an orphan article, very likely because no one else uses the term. Nothing in it is any different than the usual writer/editor/reader terms urban fantasy or contemporary fantasy, or even elfpunk. 3. It does, however, permit the mention of a few RPG directly from the Fantasy Genres page. Less-than-blatant advertising? The complete lack of reference to the multitude of novels and movies possible to list under this description makes me think so. I see no reason to add them to this when they are already covered under terms actually used in the F&SF community. HollyI (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The creation of an all-but-SPA who hasn't much been heard in a long while, this goes beyond WP:OR and almost into WP:NFT country. It's sad that it's taken two years to AfD this. RGTraynor 17:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable term. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and please add the references found here to the article. Keeper | 76 20:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 6080

Non-notable cellular phone. Insufficient substantial third-party references exist to support a Wikipedia article that itself is not a review or an advert. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Wikipedia is not a cell phone directory. Mikeblas (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Per WP:GHITS, having a lot of hits on Google doesn't guarantee "evident notability". If we dig into the hits your search gives, we find that most of them are about promotion. They bulk are either advertisements for buying the phone, advertisements for buying accessories, or press releases announcing the same. Such references are not "independent of the subject" per WP:N. The remainder appear to be trivial reviews, which are not "significant coverage" per WP:N. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google News is just being used a convenient way of assembling a stack of news coverage. This seems more than adequate to demonstrate that the world has noticed this phone. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except that Google News includes press releases and reviews, not only news. Per WP:RS, independent sources are required -- not just re-hashed news items made from press releases. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The world has to do more than merely "notice this phone." Coverage has to satisfy WP:V, and specifically go beyond trivial reviews. I just went over those Google News links myself, and the same language keeps repeating; there's nothing in there that isn't an ad or a press release. RGTraynor 17:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's more material out there. For example, casting my net more widely, I quickly found a review that isn't flattering: Mobile Gazette. But notability isn't about whether a product is good or bad. It is sufficient that it has been noticed. Another word for reviews is notices. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, why is this nomination from the 21st Jan in today's list - it's now the 24th? This is not normal practise. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage of Nokia mobile phones. --Funper (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The continued crusade against notable mobile phones on Wikipedia continues to perplex me. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of everything. I don't really see why it should lose to any commercial cell phone encyclopedias. GreyCat (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Not an article, just listing specifications. Uncited too. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan (Sly Cooper)

This page cites no sources or real world notability. Should be merged or should not exist at all. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP If anything, article should have been tagged for Cleanup or Merging, not Deletion. Nominator is being pointy, having nominated dozens of articles in a short time with much the same comments, yet made no effort to either improve or otherwise work with the articles beyond AfDing them. Nezu Chiza (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the above poster. Keep or create a new article "Villains in Sly Cooper".Reinoe (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI have noticed a trend of people lately arbitrarily deleting, merging, or otherwise making major edits to videogame articles without even trying to engage in a discussion first.Reinoe (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 17:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shiki Tohno

No offense, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a big Tsukihime fan, and I love the characters (especially Kohaku! X3). But unfortunately, Mr Tohno's (or should I say "Nanaya's") article has NO sources or real world information. He should be improved with sources, or at the very least merged into a list of Tsukihime characters, before this article ultimately gets deleted. Thank you for understanding. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Major character from visual novel series, fighting game series, anime, and manga. If no real world context or notability can be assumed from such things, I humbly suggest all fictional articles be deleted from Wikipedia as well. Also, AfD nominator is being Pointy, having nominated several dozen articles in the course of a single day, and when combined with his own comments that this and all other articles should be improved, his choice of going for Deletion makes me wary of motives, even assuming good faith. Nezu Chiza (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. Fails WP:FICT, has no notability outside of the series, and would be in keeping with recent discussions in Anime and manga project regarding character articles.Collectonian (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question surely somebody has written on this series and discussed him? It is rather unfair to nominate in one day many articles which may together take weeks to properly document. DGG (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. The article shows no evidence that the subject is notable (due to the lack of significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources), currently the article has no sourcing and is written largely from an in universe perspective with no real world content. If evidence of notability is found, it might be appropriate to create an article supported by reliably sourced, verifiable information. At the moment this would not be possible. Guest9999 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. limited notability 132.205.44.5 (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No current consensus to merge, a merge can be discussed on the talk page. Wizardman 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sion Eltnam Atlasia

No offense, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a big Tsukihime fan, and I love the characters (especially Kohaku! X3). But unfortunately, Sion's article has NO sources or real world information. She should be improved with sources, or at the very least be merged into a list of Tsukihime characters, before this article ultimately gets deleted. Thank you for understanding. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 03:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Major character from visual novel series, fighting game series, anime, and manga. If no real world context or notability can be assumed from such things, I humbly suggest all fictional articles be deleted from Wikipedia as well. Also, AfD nominator is being Pointy, having nominated several dozen articles in the course of a single day, and when combined with his own comments that this and all other articles should be improved, his choice of going for Deletion makes me wary of motives, even assuming good faith. Nezu Chiza (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Melty Blood. Fails WP:FICT, has no notability outside of the game and is only seen in that single game. Completely fails the FICT notability standards, and seems to be full of OR and unreferenced information with no real-world notability to back up having her own article. Collectonian (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notability is established here [40]. Shoessss | Chat 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Google hits does not establish notability. Collectonian (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Characters in Tsukihime. A somewhat popular videogame character. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merge in to Characters in Tsukihime? Sion is not character of Tsukihime. Is of Melty Blood. And Melty Blood is spin-off, not canonly related about Tsukihime. And Sion is the main character of this game (sorry, Arcueid). Some people mistakes Afd and wikify or clean-up. If there is a problem about this page, is question about clean-up, not deletion. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete without prejudice to recreation with sources. We simply have an unsourced bunch of original research here and no-one has really suggested that there are sources out there for this. If you can find some sources then you can redo this but this content is unsalvagable Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic toponyms for Greek places

see talk:Slavic toponyms for Greek places#Request for Deletion Andreas ^(T) 19:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article should not be deleted. It is a fact that certain northern Greek cities had alternative names in the past. If the dispute is over whether these are Slavic names, then the discussion should centre on a new title for the page. It is significant that a similar article exists in the German Wikipedia[41] and is indeed more detailed.--Damac (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is an important topic and quite useful, especially in any historical research. Much of Northeastern Greece, as well as the whole Balkans has a tradition of alternate names used by different ethnic groups. Maybe a better article would be something along the lines of "Alternate toponyms for Greek Places" tha would be divided into sections, these could include Turkish, Italian, Albanian, etc... alternates as well. Moheroy (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Do not Keep I support the deletion of this article; the entire articles presents various names from different languages as Slavic place names of Greece! Most of those are villages of the exchanged Muslim and Bulgarian populations. Others are Slavic alternatives that there were never used!! (such as Ber!!!! Solun!!! Kastor!!!! Lerin!!!)The logic of the existence of such an article has a meaning only if similar articles about every language in the region are created! For example “Greek place name of FYROM, Bulgaria, Albania, Turkey” or “Turkish place name of FYROM, Bulgaria, Greece and Albania”. (Under that logic we could also have “Greek place names of Italy, Spain, France, and India”). The only real solution is either the completely deletion of the article since it doesn’t serve history or provides any information (not to mention the numerous mistakes!!!) or to incorporate the worth full material of it into a new article called “Different place names in the Balkan languages during ottoman empire”Seleukosa (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these names were used, and as exonyms, there are of interest to an encyclopaedia. There are lists of List of Greek place names, Greek exonyms on Wikipedia, for example.

As I've said above, the content should not be deleted, but renamed or incorporated into a new article. Balkan language exonyms for Greek places would be one such solution, where the Balkan languages would be limited to those spoken or once spoken in Greece. This new page could incluce information from Turkish_exonyms#Greece, Bulgarian_exonyms#Greece, Albanian_exonyms#Greece, Serbian_exonyms#Greece, etc.--Damac (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed an article on Balkan language exonyms for Greek places is better.Megistias (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since all this articles already exist why there is a need for this one???? It would have a reason to exist only as “Different place names in the Balkan languages during ottoman empire” and have all the languages and all the regions represented. That should include all the Greek names of Turkey/FYROM/Bulgaria/!! All the Turkish names of Balkan/Greece/ etc and on and on and on!!!!!! I can’t found any use for an article to exist only for Greece and not for every other country. Seleukosa (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats true and it seems biased amd strange that there is only for Greece.Megistias (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Do not Keep This article is of very poor quality, containing little useful information, and gives no sources. It seems designed solely to push a particular implication. Many of the place names are also factually wrong or entirely spurious. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Damac's suggestions (ie name change etc.). 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename per Damac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalkanFever (talk • contribs) 12:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Do Not Keep Unfortunately, this article does not contain any historical, social, and/or political information behind the supposed alterations made from Slavic toponyms to Greek toponyms in parts of Greece. Moreover, the list in of itself seems pointless since toponyms come and go. Without a strong source-based context, this list has no basis for providing any useful data to readers and users alike. Of course, I am not implying that toponyms do not have their value. It is just that other Wikipedia articles tend to treat the subject matter regarding toponym changes a lot better. That is all. Deucalionite (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Do Not Keepand merge with a new article on the Balkans in general.Megistias (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Do Not Keep. Seleukosa said it all here, no need for me to repeat. Helladios (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, for the sole reason that it's been sitting around unsourced for so long and no sourcing is in sight. Allow recreation if sourced. The systematic eradication of non-Greek placenames and renaming to (partly artificial) new Greek names in the areas that were incorporated into Greece in the early 20th century is an potentially interesting encyclopedic topic, if handled correctly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suga Mama

It wasn't released as a single, just to music channels in the UK and I think that this information can be merged into the B'Day article Surfer-boy94 (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song didn't receive a conventional physical release as a single, but it was given promotion independent of the album, so the statement "[i]t wasn't released as a single" is rather misleading—particularly given that digital downloading is redefining the definition of a "single" (see Billboard). Also, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and songs states, "A separate [song] article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I'm not sure how "reasonably detailed" is defined, but I'm pretty certain that the article isn't a stub. The B'Day article is already very long, and though at a glance it appears to be in need of a little tightening, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for content containing information specific to the song to be included in the album article. In any case, AFD is for proposals for deletion, not merging—if you think the article should be merged somewhere, please follow the instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is rather the issue here. But notability does not mean a song should be released as a single. Also, maybe in other place the song is not notable enough but in Europe, it is. I was thinking also of merging; B'Day was just revamped by me and I personally assert that its long and need professional copy-editing. Everything important in the article is already mentioned in the mother article. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — This song is not worthy of an article. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And why? Give rationales so that the admin can decide what to do in the future. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 since no-one, not even the nominator, wants the article deleted.

As a general point: Please note that the idea of our Wikipedia:Deletion policy is for editors to look for sources, using which stub articles can be expanded, themselves, without bringing the article to AFD. Please follow the procedure outlined in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage (which echoes the procedure that used to be explicitly given in our deletion policy) and only come to AFD after you have looked for sources yourself from which a stub can be expanded and found nothing. We only delete stubs when Wikipedia:Article development is impossible (and it is impossible to rename, refactor, or merge the article into a broader topic) because no suitable sources exist.

As another general point: Don't nominate articles for deletion when what you want is a merger. Article merger does not involve AFD, or an administrator hitting a delete button, at any stage of the process, irrespective of how large step #2 of the merger process happens to be.

Uncle G (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taco_Liberty_Bell

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Taco Liberty Bell

I would suggest a merge into Taco Bell but most of the info has already been merged. Other than that, the page has one source, really does not qualify as notable (it's an April Fool's prank), and since most info is on another page, I really don't see why this article should exist. James Luftan ^contribs 00:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search shows that this got national press coverage when it happened, and is still referenced when the media feels like summing up history's greatest pranks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and memorable media prank often listed among the top 10 or greatest. Received international coverage and continues to be listed as recently as April Fool's coverage in 2007. --Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a notable, perhaps even historic prank. Ayengar (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Nomination, Close debate ASAP Wow guys! This article has been icreased enormously. More info, refs, etc. I only nominated it in the first place because it was almost word-for-word in the Taco Bell article. Now it gives plenty of reason to believe it was noteworthy and is no longer a copied paragraph from another page. Thanks. James Luftan ^contribs 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 20:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Vogt

Keep. The previous AfD discussion for this article resulted in a weak keep, and there is no reason to believe the subject is less notable now than six months ago. Sagsaw (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result of previous afds cannot be used as a reason for keeping an article. The article must meet notability criteria. --neonwhite user page talk 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Submission of patches to SELinux policies is hardly notable. Being sued by DVD-CCA is not notable as up to 500 others were also sued for this. This leaves writing some non notable games and beta testing Tribes 2.Spatulacity (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does everyone who has ever added any code to a somewhat noteworthy project get his/her own page? The other stuff is even less noteworthy. Are you noteworthy just because you are a beta tester? I think just about every computer gamer I have ever met would be noteworthy under those rules. CaptainObvious2007 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspedted this user to be a sockpuppet. Has no other posts and uses the same incorrect formatting as Spatulacity --neonwhite user page talk 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine they're both simply following the formatting used by Sagsaw in the first comment. I see no reason to assume sockpuppetry. Jfire (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. new accounts and rarely used accounts are always prone to suspicion. --neonwhite user page talk 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I see it, the only thing that changed since the last AfD is that someone who posted on the discussion page that he wants the article gone has done multiple edits to remove content and references. Google also shows several mentions of non-Internet media, such as this page which apparently belongs to a a part of the austrian television ORF. There are more hits pointing to german and norwegian newspapers and more. The deleted content should be restored and evaluated before another AfD is made. --Arcanios (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GHits is hardly a measure of notability - especially for computer related topics. Which deleted content are you referring to? Is it substantial in nature, in that it refers to some type of independent development, referenced text, or anything that is significant in the computer security community or even computing community? My reasoning for resubmitting the AfD is that debate was very weak with 2 out of 4 keeps regarding DeCSS. This takes trivial research to refute, leaving the subjects importance along the same lines as google notability. Spatulacity (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to the edits by User:Tqbf? Those look like good faith and appropriate edits to me. That editor is an expert in computer security. Jfire (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any real assetions of notability here. No evidence of him being published in notable journals, you can't be notable for simply doing your job, being sued and putting your name on a letter to congress. --neonwhite user page talk 16:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because an article doesn't have notability written in it doesn't mean it's not notable. If someone can establish notability, then there's no reason for the article to be deleted, but if after some time notability can't be found at all, then it should be deleted. Redphoenix526 (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of deletion policy, what was the point in posting that? --neonwhite user page talk 02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence in the article, in the article's sources, or in the sources cited on this page that he is notable. The sources are nonreliable sources and/or contain trivial mentions. A Google search suggests that he may not even be the most notable person named "Tom Vogt," as pages on a voice actor and a medical doctor come up early. The previous AFD was a weak keep, which suggests that none of the !voters were confident about his notability.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from the self produced documentation stating his involvement with the whole DeCSS affair, there appears to be very little other reference to it from reliable 3rd party sources. Even the Wiki page lacks reference to him. Being sued does't make one notable. If perhaps he'd written or reverse engineered the code he may be, but talking about it does not constitute notability, nor does writing or beta testing on-line games (in the context of computer security experts)

TheHammockDistrict (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- I spent some time investigating this article (as noted above, I made several edits to attempt to clean the article up), and determined that Vogt's contributions to these projects are at best superficial, on the order of configuration files. Many hundreds of people are sued in the "copyfight" by the content industry every year --- certainly WP isn't expected to maintain an article for everyone who received an RIAA subpoena. Apart from being sued, the remainder of the content here is just puffery --- "was active in", "laid the groundworks for", "worked with others to". Distilled to its bare essence, this is an article about someone who beta tested Tribes 2 and wrote a config file for SELinux. --- tqbf 05:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per TheHammockDistrict's reasoning. Kingpomba (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If an article survives AfD once, I see no need to renominate it. Samboy (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result of one afd has no bearing on the result of another (especially one with little contribution and a weak result). Articles can change and so can policy. It needs to qualiy under WP:BIO. --neonwhite user page talk 03:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (already done as far as i see) to List of Pulp Fiction characters. Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Vega

Delete and Merge into Pulp Fiction. Merely recaps the plot of Pulp Fiction, provides no real world context other than unsourced trivia, could be cut down to about a twentieth of its size and merged, possibly creating a more detailed cast section, as happened to Reservoir Dogs which also had a number of seperate pages for characters.--The Dominator (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —The Dominator (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same editor as the one over at the AFD for Freddy Newandyke? :) I agree with your assessment. There is decent real-world context about this character and the actor who played him at Pulp Fiction (film)#Cast, so I say delete this character article on grounds of redundancy and limited scope (appearing in only one film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the nominator wants a better article then he should edit it - AFD is not cleanup. There is lots of critical commentary on this character as it is a notable part of a highly notable work. For example, see Google Scholar. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is a lot of critical commentary on the film, of which this fictional character is a part. All these academic papers are film-centric because Vincent Vega's singular appearance was in this one film. All critical commentary is thus relevant to the film as a whole with no need to preemptively spin off a separate article when the commentary can be covered in the film article itself. The fictional character does not transcend the film of his origin; the film is his entire background. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pulp Fiction article is 103K which exceeds the guidelines of WP:SIZE: > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up. Sub-articles on aspects of the film such as the major characters are therefore appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk)

Go to Pulp Fiction (film)#Cast -- there is a passage discussing the character in a real-world context, along with others. Now, go to Pulp Fiction (film)#Critical analysis, which uses sources like the ones you pointed out in Google Scholar. So why is there a need for a character article that would be redundant? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main article on the movie is too large, as I have already explained. Sub-articles such as this are a good appropriate place to put detailed influences such as the Batusi. How these articles are structured and their exact content is a matter of content-editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, merge it with Pulp Fiction and delete it. (Got a message inviting my opinion since I've edited the article.) Helgihg (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)helgihg[reply]
I can understand the merge part, but why delete? What is so objectionable about the article that it's edit history must go away, when the GFDL requires that it be kept? -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, the reason I nominated this was because I hate inconsistency on Wikipedia, if we're going to merge the Reservoir Dogs characters than we should do the same here. I think that this article provides practically nil information. 1. The plot is covered in Pulp Fiction, 2. Most of the trivia is not notable and the ones that are, are original research and can easily be merged with Pulp Fiction. The article is fairly long yes, but there is such a small amount of useful info here that it won't make much of a difference.--The Dominator (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, your nomination is WP:POINT. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, my nomination is that I wish to have consistency on Wikipedia and this article provides no meaningful context, no sources and no useful real world info.--The Dominator (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the major character in a major work--the actor won an academy award for the portrayal-- is notable, and can be sourced from the work itself, but additional sources can surely be found discussing the performance, which is real world context .DGG (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check this, the performance is already discussed in the Pulp Fiction article, which is the little meaningful context this article could possibly ever have.--The Dominator (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and John Travolta did not win an academy award for the role.--The Dominator (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge with and redirect to List of Pulp Fiction characters (see discussion below), an article about a widely noted and significant film like this one can spin off encyclopedic articles about its main characters. I stumbled across this AfD only because I went to Vincent Vega after watching the movie (although I likely did this because I know WP has articles about characters). I would deprecate sub-articles about characters from most films, though. Further, I've seen lots of published commentary on this character which could be sourced to make a helpful article (the article is indeed a big mess now). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some cleanup and expansion on it. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but it still needs references to published sources.--The Dominator (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so too, lots of cites to published commentary and criticism about the character, which is how the article would support its assertion of notability. I think your AfD was a reasonable thought btw, it's only because this lead character is so widely cited (and the film so historic) that I voted for a keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if we made a List of Pulp Fiction characters and merged the useful info here into that one? It seems strange to me that we have an article on Vincent but not one on other important characters like Jules, Marcellus, Butch, Mia etc. etc. etc. If we made a character page we can write meaningful content about major and minor characters.--The Dominator (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though I'd rather say, call it Pulp Fiction characters, since such an article would have plot recaps and cited criticism and commentary for each meaningul character, I'd be ok with a merge into something separate like that and moreover, I would be willing to work on it with other editors as a project. Again, this would be only because the film has so much sway in late 20th century cinema. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well most film character articles are called "List of..." so I think we should go with that.--The Dominator (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for consistency then... :) My suggestion would be, start the new article now and vote to ~~delete~~ merge this one as a lapsed fork. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'll start writing down all the characters, my knowledge of the film is fairly good, so I probably won't miss many.--The Dominator (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are the ones I can think of now, some are probably totally unnecessary, tell me if I missed someone: Vincent Vega - Jules Winnfield - Mia Wallace - Marcellus Wallace - "Ringo" or "Pumpkin" - Yolanda or "Honey Bunny" - Brett - Marvin - Paul the bartender - Judy - Lance - Butch Coolidge - Fabienne - Maynard - Zed - Jimmy Dimmick - Winston "The Wolf" Wolfe - Esmeralda (cab driver) - Other minor characters, Flock of Seagulls, The fourth man, Restaurant manager, Trudy, Buddy Holly, Waitress at beginning, Woman who offered Marcellus legal help, The Gimp, Bonny Dimmick.--The Dominator (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Maynard (Zed's friend/pawn shop owner), also, it's spelled Bonnie. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have Maynard. I'll start putting the article together in my sandbox.--The Dominator (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yep there he is, can't think of anyone else Gwen Gale (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the proposed list. Do not delete and keep the edit history intact. Dimadick (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we won't actually delete in that sense, we'd just redirect "Vincent Vega" to "List of Pulp Fiction characters#Vincent Vega".--The Dominator (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys might be interested in this, I'm tagging it for deletion so we can create the character page.--The Dominator (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also this.--The Dominator (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If any more of these show up we can easily vote to merge on each article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope there aren't any more. This is what I have done so far: User:Dominik92/My Sandbox, I've got three characters, if you want to help let me know which characters you're doing so we don't both write the same thing.--The Dominator (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a helpful start to me. How about building a more or less bare skeleton with most of the character names and then putting up the article straight off? Looks to me like it'll grow and smooth out fast enough? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of afraid of it being nominated for deletion right after I create it, so I was thinking add most of the info on major characters, then just mention the minor characters to get some content, I want to at least complete Marcellus and Mia.--The Dominator (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to work on it is all :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done the major characters and I'll create the article soon.--The Dominator (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the article as List of Pulp Fiction characters please help improve it.--The Dominator (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus and WP:MUSIC. (non-admin closure) RMHED (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return (band)

Non notable. Orphaned for nearly 2 years. No other sources but their home site. Simple searches yield nothing. Metal Head (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several major label albums (easily verifiable via online shops), several hits on national charts (ref added). I've tagged it as needing more references, which is really the only problem with it. Not the easiest band name to search for and get meaningful results, but a band that has had hit albums is bound to have received coverage. --Michig (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig; band has had multiple major-label albums and at least one chart single, so they meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This band was really big in Norway. I know this is the English-speaking Wikipedia, but nr 1 in a smaller country should qualify. Inserting a hit, like [42] ,gives 23 K Ghits. Greswik (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable with charting hits. Chubbles (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batter-runner

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This term could possibly be merged into List of baseball jargon (B), but I've never heard it used. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At best, a little known term. Shoessss | Chat 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact that it isn't already listed at List of baseball jargon is prima facie evidence that this doesn't belong on Wikipedia, or need to be merged to said page. The entries for Batter and Baserunner are sufficient Keeper | 76 20:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Las Vegas Shooting

I question the notability of this; it seems more appropriate for Wikinews. Pairadox (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It is a shame this is not notable. However, very little coverage in the area let alone outside of Vegas. Shoessss | Chat 15:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trasnwiki and rename "2007 Las Vegas bus stop shooting". I never heard of it, the naming of the article by city assumes it's a major Vegas event, and...that's it. Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it did get press coverage locally. Don't know what that means for notability. Does it mean that we need an article on every shooting? What about the cars that run into bus stops and kill someone? Shootings are a way of life and that is not encyclopedic in my mind it needs more substance. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Funper (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why? 131.94.182.49 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Give it time, make a search on the googles, maybe it is important. --Funper (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe"? No, whether something might be important is not the threshold. --Calton | Talk 12:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news 131.94.182.49 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage was apparently international. School shootings usually do get that sort of coverage, DGG (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely local news, therefore not actually notable or having actual international or long-term impact. --Calton | Talk 10:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree with that. I created the article and live in England. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC) unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you're on Mars, it's still purely local news -- in its scale and impact -- notwithstanding your ability to use Google News. --Calton | Talk 12:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not news, and not everything that happens or exists is notable. MSJapan (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An incident where someone shoots at children - in or near a school - is of enough importance. --Funper (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And being important makes something notable? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not notable. No one was killed! Does every news report of a shoting need to have an article? What makes a shooting notable or encyclopedic? A transwiki would also be acceptable. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is why we have Wikinews. Recent events are rarely encyclopedic... and this one does not seem notable enough to be an exception. To be encyclopedic the event has to have a lasting impact... if such an impact developes, and the event is deemed notable in a few months time, then we can recreate an article to explain that impact and notability. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete This is wholly unsourced so no merge is possible given that the information is almost certain original research. Since no-one has suggested that real world sources exist for this, there is only one option per policy. If you can come up with references feel free to ask me to review on my talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kryptonian Crystals

The article gives no evidence that the topic is notable outside of the fictional Superman universe. There is a complete lack of sourcing and nothing that indicates that the topic has recieved significant coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. Notability is not inherited (links to essay) and if the fictional element is particularly important to the series then any verifiable information within the article can be easily included in one of a number of already existing articles (such as Krypton (comics), Smallville, Superman). Guest9999 (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination, no coverage in reliable outside sources. Article is completely original research and likely unverifiable. Wisdom89 (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Smallville (season 4) where there is plenty of space for this. JJL (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – It is a natural redirect and merge with Kryptonite. At the Kryptonite article there are already links to both the TV showes and movies. Shoessss | Chat 13:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in fact, that page links to a Kryptonite in Smallville page. The crystals are apparently something different but there seems to be enough in common between krytonite and (non-dangerous) crystals from Krypton to consider at least merging to a single page. JJL (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 by Keeper76. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Thanks Redfarmer, you're quick! I edit conflicted with you, but said the same thing:) Keeper | 76 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Boston Interfaith Organization

Non-notable organization. Fails WP:ORG with no secondary sources to be found. Article written like an advert. Redfarmer (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I live in Boston, and have heard of the outfit, but I agree it fails WP:ORG; it's strictly a local ecumenical talking shop with no impact beyond Rte. 128. RGTraynor 17:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article reads like an advert because it's a copyvio of their "About Us" page. A search for WP:RS shows that they are locally powerful, but I can't find much coverage beyond the Boston Globe and zip outside Massachusetts. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, which defaults to keep. Keeper | 76 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Calvignac

Person is not notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (people). He was responsible for two IBM products, none of which was particularly successful. So what? EnOreg (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Espresso Addict removed the prod tag from the article, remarking that: "patents & publication history might constitute notability." IMHO there are only very few patents that establish notability of their authors, like the invention of the DRAM cell. Calvignac has none of those. I'm also not aware of any breakthrough publications of his. --EnOreg (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:BIO says is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. He has a number of patents in his name [43]; he has several publications [44], [45] although that one is a little sketchy, but that's coming from a non-professional POV; and [46]. Yngvarr 12:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- His own publications and patents are not secondary source material. That would have to be articles about him as a person. --EnOreg (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your argument is valid, but I'm still of a mind to keep, so I am going to change to weak. Yng varr 13:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - per WP:BIO. I am not seeing reliable secondary sources. It seems like he should be notable, considering his accomplishments, but the lack of reliable secondary sources stands out too much.Gwynand (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, not weak at all. There are how many millions of patents out there? (Heck, I've a deceased uncle who holds one.) Being a patent owner even of a famous invention provides zero notability beyond that invention, failing reliable secondary sources about the subject. Where are the sources about this fellow? RGTraynor 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficiently notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete - he is an IBM Fellow, but there is little coverage about him. He is mentioned in a few articles, but does not appear to be the subject of any of them. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep IBM Fellow has always been considered to be notable, as a very high research position. "He holds more than 120 patents in the field of communication and networking and has published more than 90 papers or contributions for standards." That's why they made him a fellow--scientists are notable because of their science. The products he designed are very important also. There is a difference between holding a patent or two, and holding multiple patents for notable products. 211 items in Google Scholar. The most cited patents of his are cited by 53, 45, 33 others. That citing shows his recognition. the patents are sufficient even in the absence of bio details. There's a Forbes reference to show that the positions are real. More than enough. DGG (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that IBM Fellow is a very high recognition. However, that doesn't mean that all Fellows are notable. In this case I don't even see why they elected him. Patents have nothing to do with science -- they are about engineering. And like I said above, there are only very few patents that warrant notability while many others are trivial. Interestingly, the citation record of his scientific papers is rather poor. The only notable paper is only kind of a survey paper that was only published in an IBM journal and where he is only 5th author. What do you consider important about his products? --EnOreg (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - First I've heard patents had noting to do with science. But if you class them in engineering, how does it make any difference? he's a notable engineer. I agree patents as such dont prove notability, but patents that are widely referenced do. And so do patents which, like these, are patents for important realized products. DGG (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Frankly, I don't see it. There is nothing in WP:BIO making a presumption of notability for an IBM Fellow or patent holders. Failing that, he has to clear the same bar as everyone else. Which criteria of WP:BIO does he meet, please? RGTraynor 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - DGG, if you don't know the difference then you're probably also not aware of the fundamental debate on the triviality of software patents. If his inventions were breakthroughs there would be scientific literature about it. But there is none! Moreover, there is still no evidence that his products were important. --EnOreg (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep someone who holds more 200 patents and is an IBM Fellow has a remarkably strong claim of notability, supported by available sources. It's a shame that Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which requires nominators to research potential claims of notability, and expand or merge articles as appropriate, has not been followed here. Alansohn (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, then you've done so, and have sources to contribute demonstrating notability. What are they, please? RGTraynor 04:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alansohn, according to the USPTO he actually holds "only" 124 patents. And there is still no evidence that any of these are notable. There are thousands of engineers who hold that many patents. I did search for proof of notability—it is just hard to find if there isn't any... --EnOreg (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't seen the "WP:DIDNTINVENTDRAM" policy nor seen any discussion of its validity as an excuse for deletion. Holding "only" 124 patents -- and you acknowledge you have the sources -- is a rather extremely strong claim of notability. Heck that's 123 more than RGTraynor's uncle. Of the seven million US patents issued to date, how many patent holders have "only" 124? Alansohn (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted - no claim of notability (and possible promotional). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UploadPedia

Seems to be about a nonnotable web site, only sources given are first party, asserts notability so not a7? VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't actually see the assertion of notability here, but either way, it certainly doesn't appear to satisfy our inclusion criteria for web sites. JavaTenor (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy WP:CSD#A7, but I'd argue also under WP:CSD#G11, advertising, as the thing is written basically like an advertisement. Yng varr 12:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy O'Leary

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Timothy O'Leary

Blatent advertising for someone of questionable notability. -- Dougie WII (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He has had coverage, as the sole reference will attest, but the article as it sits is basically just his resume. Yng varr 12:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Resume, doesn't pass bio as individual may have done some interesting things in his career, but it doesn't extend passed the companies he did them for, ie: not notable. Pharmboy (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. This is a WP:RESUME not an article. If someone wants to write an actual article, go right ahead. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CyberEvolution

Pretty sure this is a non-notable organisation, but it doesn't really fit a speedy, so brought here. BLACKKITE 10:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage from secondary sources, so it fails WP:CORP and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 17:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable as it stands. I would say it is also borderline advertisement, but could not say if it really is, never having used this service. Slavlin (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect, which has already been done. No admin action needed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot code

Aside from this article, there appears to be no indication that "idiot codes" even exist. Brian Jason Drake 09:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found in a Google Books search other than something in Robert Heinlein's novel Friday. --Dhartung | Talk 09:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. —SlamDiego_←T 11:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak delete or merge: Well, I basically feel like one while reading that article. Not that I don't understand it, but I don't understand it. At best, this all sounds like WP:OR. Can't really dig up too much information, either. The phrase is fairly generic that it catches too much in several search engines, using different styles of quoting. Yng varr 12:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amend I've struck my delete to weak delete or merge. There has been some context added, which makes it much clearer than it was prior. But it ultimately sounds like one-time pad, as mentioned below. I'd also support a redir as suggested by Ronin. Yng varr 13:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe this is a valid technique for securing communications, but I remember it being called something else. However, the article as it stands reads as original research, and provides no sources for the use of this term in this manner. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way -- this must have been studied and named at some point in the history of cryptography. It has similarities to cryptolect/cant or even codetalking. It isn't technically a cipher, though. --Dhartung | Talk 20:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Perhaps Code (cryptography)#One-time code? -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nah, this is obviously something that could be used more than once and would require creative encoding, e.g. in response to conditions. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, and unsourced original research at that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a shame this isn't sourced properly - it could be sourced it would definitely be a keep, so I hope the author is able to source it before it gets deleted. Skip1337 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't count on that, unless someone can track down any information about the IP address that created this article.
  The article was created by 203.113.232.109 and its creation appears to have been the only substantial edit ever made to this article. The user page does not exist. The only edits ever made to the talk page relate to the notifications of the proposed deletion, speedy deletion and Articles for Deletion nominations. The creation of this article was the only edit ever made by this IP. Brian Jason Drake 01:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was proded, deproded (and in the same edit, had a merge proposed) by me, nominated for speedy deletion, had the merge proposal removed, had the speedy deletion tag removed and nominated for Articles for Deletion by me. Brian Jason Drake 02:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll take a wack at it. - Operknockity (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you found a few web refs and the Heinlein use. I had found those, too, before I proposed speedy deletion; I did not, however, find much of anything in books, which is where I usually go when looking for notability of a concept. I'm sure this kind of code has a real name, I just don't recall it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found it used in several interviews. It seems it may be intelligence agency terminology. I've added some info and references. References are a little hard to search for with all the programmers complaining about their own form of "idiot code". If you decide to Keep, it may warrant a disambiguation page! =) - Operknockity (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amend - I've found other people using it, non-agency personnel. It does appear to be synonymous with or a variant of one-time code, not one-time pad (Thanks RobinBK). I'm not voting though because I'm too new to judge where these things should land. - Operknockity (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Holy Typo, Batman It's Ronin, not Robin... :P -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still don't feel this passes WP:N. One RS with a definition and one with a passing reference. Now, if One-time code were broken out to an article instead of a redirect and the sourced paragraphs that have been added to this article were moved there as a variant, I would have no objection. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I've done all I can to fix and source the article, but it's not enough. There are a few idiosyncratic uses of this term, but none in serious sources about codes or cryptography that would suggest it is an actual term in use. Maybe it's just something a few people picked up from the Heinlein book. Call it idiosyncratic, neologism, or whatever, but not notable in spite of my best searching efforts. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Since it is similar but not one-time code (due to it's multiple uses capability) but obviously a term being used to define something that we can find no other term for, should we merge it into Code (cryptography) after the One-time code section? - Operknockity (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a brief section to say that such things have been called idiot codes would be OK in such an article, since there are a few sources. I recommend you go ahead and make such a section before this one goes away. Dicklyon (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - ...and here it is. I stripped it down a little but not enough to lose the references. Thoughts? - Operknockity (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(rest of discussion moved to Talk:Code (cryptography)#Idiot code). Brian Jason Drake 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Margaret's College, Otago

Non-notable dormitory at a University. Shows no independent notability. Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Not notable. Guldenat (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand and add sources. Many of the Colleges of the University of Otago have articles, which demonstrate notability and are sourced. Some are younger than this College. I think it should be given the chance to develop in the way those articles have. It is not a dormitory. It is a University College. Let us use the correct term used in New Zealand. --Bduke (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The situation with NZ University colleges is a little difficult - they are more than just dormitories, but less than the British university colleges, though some did start their life as separate colleges along British lines. St Mags is one of the more notable of New Zealand's univesity colleges, and certainly one of the more notable of Otago's, and I could provide quite a large number of sources showing independent notability if you wish (let's start with Morrell, W.P. (1969). The University of Otago" A centennial history Dunedin:University of Otago Press.; Herd, J. and Griffiths, G (1980) Discovering Dunedin. Dunedin:John McIndoe.) Grutness...wha? 01:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for producing source. I still maintain this should be deleted, as one of the print sources is a history of the University published by the University... I would not call that independent. It would be nice to see some more independent sources. If some more truly independent sources could be produced that discuss this subject in detail, we may have something, but as yet I don't see enough. Also, with regards to Bduke's rational just because no one has deleted other articles yet does not excuse this one of its shortcomings. Grutness is on the right idea, and I would like to see some more sources before I change my mind on this one... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Given that the University of otago press is provbably the biggest publisher of books on Dunedin, it makes it pretty difficult to find books on subjects connected to that city's history that are not published by them. If the book had been published by St. margaret's (which is largely independent of the university), then that would, as you say, not be a reliable independent source. Something published by the OUP is, however, about as independent as a book by any other publisher. BTW, one of the sources noted that this was the first women's hall of residence anywhere in Oceania - surely enough notability for a "keep". Grutness...wha? 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that a large number of articles on University Colleges are on Wikipedia. Few have been sent to AfD and most have been kept. It seems to me quite clear that many are notable, deserve articles and rightly have articles. Some Halls of Residence have had more difficulty showing notability when challenged, possibly because they are more recent or lack the activities that can distinguish Colleges from Halls of Residence. On the source above, Colleges do have some independence from the university and histories of universities have some independence from the university too, even if published by the universities. Universities ask prominent historians to write such articles. They are generally not fluff pieces such as histories of corporate industries can be if published by the company. Universities have a reputation for independent research to live up to. I would therefore say that that book mentioned above is a reliable source and could justify notability for the College if it deals with it some detail. --Bduke (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem to be using a different definition of notability than Wikipedia uses. I understand that the entire rest of the world uses the word "notable" to mean someone cares about the subject a lot. At Wikipedia, in order to be deemed notable enough to merit an article, a subject must have multiple, independent, reliable sources which to write the article from. There does not seem to be any significant independent sources which can be used as reliable references for this article. All we seem to have is sources connected to the subject itself (websites and books published by the College or the University it is associated with). Also, there are thousands of articles that do not currently meet these standards at Wikipedia. That does not mean that this article is excused. Also, there are likely OTHER articles on similar entities that DO meet this standards. That sources exist for other dormitories or residence halls or halls of residence or university colleges or anything else does NOT mean that the sources exist for THIS article. If this article is to be improved, then sources need to be provided that establish that this article is about a notable subject. Just because other deletable articles exist and haven't been deleted yet doesn't make this one notable, and just because there are articles about notable subjects that can be classified as the same thing as this one can doesn't make this one notable. What will make it notable is the existence of multiple, extensive, independent, and reliable sources. Providing them as Grutness is trying to do will make this article be kept. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do not think you are reading what I said. In my first comment I used the existence of other articles on Colleges at Dunedin to suggest that this one should be given time and expanded with sources. What is wrong with that? My expansion was developing that theme. On the sources, we clearly could be disagreeing. I am saying they are likely to be OK. You are just assuming they are not because one of them is published by the university. I do not think the dependence is sufficient to ignore it. However, I have not read them, so I have no definite conclusion. Also if an article asserts notability, it should be sourced not deleted. A college at one of the oldest universities in New Zealand and one of the oldest Colleges too, is almost certain to have reliable sources that demonstrate notability. You should not be in a rush to delete it. Note I am not a New Zealander and only know a little about The University of Otago. People who do know should add sources. --Bduke (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        AFD's run for one week. If people who care have sources, they will be added. It is being given time. If no sources can be produced, we should not indefinately keep an article on a non-notable subject around under the idea that someday a source may exist somewhere. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The first women's hall of residence in Oceania is hardly "non-notable". Grutness...wha? 23:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a residence hall, based on the article and the sources, not a college in the UK sense. Such are almost never notable. DGG (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 09:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The citations simply prove that this hall of residence exists and don't appear to discuss it in any detail. Aren't articles on college dormitories one of the classic things articles shouldn't be created about? --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, unless of course, there is something notable about them, such as being the oldest of their type in a continent, say - as is the case here. Grutness...wha? 10:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the handbook[47] it is only marginally more than a "hostel" (which seems to be the best correspondence to the US "dorm"), in that it provides "welfare staff" and "tutorial facilities". But it is in no way a college in the Oxbridge sense, even if it is an independent institution. The only issue is that it seems to not really be part of the university, but regardless I don't think notability is established. --Dhartung | Talk 09:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the handbook linked to by Dhartung and secondary sources provided above. It's a lot more than a US dorm. Hobit (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit. The rationale provided for deletion is misleading as this is, as stated, much more than a United States dorm. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is it, then? Why is it notable? (And the handbook is not an independent source.) I'm open to cogent argument. --Dhartung | Talk 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have you seemingly ignored the cogent argument that being the oldest women's hall in Oceania is notable enough for an article? Grutness...wha? 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a private part of a public school with a long history. As noted below, it has an alumni society and had a rather large reunion. Toss in it's claim to being the oldest women's hall in Oceania, and I think you've got something. Hobit (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this "college" had a reunion and has an alumni society. My dorms didn't have that. [48] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not just a "dormitory", and has independent notability. That the sources aren't quite up to scratch (although I'm quite happy they're NPOV and accurate) is a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. --Dom (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness. Limegreen (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article describes this a hall of residence and nothing here to indicate independent notability. TerriersFan (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous teenage parents

This is another list of people grouped together by a non-defining characteristic. The only link between the people in this article is that they had a child before the age of 20, and none of them seem to have become notable as a result of having done this. The inclusion of people from societies and historical periods where it was normal to have had children before the age of 20 alongside people from societies where this isn't common reinforces that this is an indiscriminate collection of information. It's also odd that everone on the list is female... Nick Dowling (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited. If they are notable enough on their own, then let them have their own article. Pharmboy (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Each of them, in fact, does have an article; there isn't a redlink in the bunch. RGTraynor 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please explain why you think that that means that the article shouldn't be deleted? I'm not argueing that the people on the list aren't notable - it's my view that this is a meaningless grouping. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Which is entirely your personal POV. "Notable teenage parents" is scarcely meaningless; that's quite well-defined, as much so as any other list. I'm also perplexed by your argument that broad citations from times and places that didn't view this as unusual makes this an indiscriminate list ... surely failing to do so would? RGTraynor 13:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For details see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Microsoft Visual Studio Add-ins. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Microsoft Visual Studio Add-ins

Article fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:SPAM Hu12 (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article wasn't conceived for this, but unfortunately has reached an unsalvage-able state. --soum ^talk 09:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not very informative, hard to maintain due to volatility of the topic. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would hate to see this article get deleted. There is a newly released version of Visual Studio (version 2008) so there is a need for this information to be publicly available. Sadly, a comprehensive list of Visual Studio add-ins is very hard to find. By keeping this, you would be doing a great service to the developer community. Rhymed (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the rationale proposed for this article's deletion. Wikipedia has many lists of software (see Category:Lists of software), of which this is one. If the nom is concerned with the inclusion of non-notable add-ins or with spammy links, then the correct course of action is to edit the article, or to discuss on the talk page. It could certainly be argued that this article acts as a "directory", but I disagree with that assessment and argue that it is a useful navigation tool - which it is (as are the other computer lists), because it links to articles and not-yet-created articles.
I am confused by one of the comments that this article has reached an unsalvageable state. I do not think it is unsalvageable, as I have been editing it for the past couple of days, and regard my editing as progress. Further, although I have not added sources, I have found several sources that I will try to get at my local libraries tomorrow (Monday): ISBN 1886411697, ISBN 0596003609, ISBN 0321411757 and ISBN 0596008473 (see Google Books for some more).
I also am confused as to the deletion rationale that this article is uninformative and difficult to maintain. Firstly, "uninformative" is a subjective label, as it is clearly informative to those investigating Microsoft Visual Studio and to the developer community. Second, if it is difficult to maintain, that is a reason to edit it, not delete it!
And finally, I think we should seriously consider what Wikipedia is - or should - be: a service to the readers. Here, we have an article that is clearly related to existing articles, we have a group of readers that would clearly benefit from this article, and yet we are considering deletion? I argue that this article should be kept as many of the apparent and/or alleged problems can be fixed by editing, and because it is valuable and related to other existing and established articles. --Iamunknown 21:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no such thing as unsalvagable writing -- all writing can be fixed: it just takes copy-editing and more writing. And "hard to maintain" isn't a valid reason either - see George W. Bush for an example of an article that is hard to maintain. Wikipedia itself is hard to maintain, so should we delete it? The nomination itself is incorrect. The article is not a mere collection of links or a directory. It's a list of topics that are related in a significant way which users are likely to seek out, and which helps users understand the main topic better. And the article as a whole certainly is not spam. If there are any spam entries or links, those should be discussed on the article's talk page, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. This list shouldn't have been nominated for deletion. The Transhumanist 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Comments in support do not relate to notability as defined by Wikipedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey

A man who has got a doctorate and is doing research. Fine, good: but there's no indication that the research has yet blossomed into books or renown. When that happens, he'll merit an article; but for now, I'm afraid he's nn. (The article was prodded, but in view of this pair of edits I removed the prod notices.) Hoary (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a CV for a postdoc. If he does become a leader of humanity on International Level [49] he can have an article, but for the moment he's not notable. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wish the guy luck, but he is not important.--Conjoiner (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Iain99. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in this edit, 220.227.207.12 added the following within an SGML comment: Please remain the article as such all the things in the nature is not visible but why we feel its existance as voice and poetry have its effect when one reads and have its own realization if he have experienced the same condition in life, like the same Dr. Pandey is not only Science person and academic but he has influnced many person in his life, please see his social orkut page where he used to say boldly all the thing in indian society by writing own srap on own page, In this terrorist era he is bold academic person I request you please see his orkut page by searching"Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey" by opening an acount in orkut. I realy influenced by his phylosophy and knowledege he have in various [erspective of Indian as well common world life. (Hoary (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment User:Dr. vivek Kumar Pandey was a contributor to Dr. P.C. Pandey, NCAOR, now a redirect to Prem C. Pandey, whose biography also appears in the user page User:Ekbal anuj, belonging to somebody who has written about V K Pandey and P C Pandey. The article on the latter had a stunning mishmash of external links till I tried to clear them up; in its present state, it still links to this alumni association list, which has very terse mentions of each of fifty or so people and considerably longer entries for three other people, two of whom are Prem Chand Pandey and Vivek Kumar Pandey. I wonder if all of this is merely coincidental. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India. -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. article is sub-literate, ill-spelt. Subject is extremely non-notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Hang on. If the writing is poor (and I'd agree), that's neither a reason to term it "sub-literate" nor a reason to delete. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above RT | Talk 11:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Article is Notable for comming generation who are now even not obeying his parrents and have no any faith in his own country and migration is not a solution from trerrorist effected areas, How many peoples load wiil be carriable by itself trerrorist effected area, the minimum 25 % bold person in the every field should neccesary to make human kind safe. In the Global world due to terrorist attack migration of all people is not nessary, and bold and intteligent people should stay in each and every part of world even in Afganistan and Pakistan if in America and Britaniya. Altimately world is like a neural network as in case of atmosphere and bio-system. Acording to Shrimadbhagvat Geeta" Every sole have equal Energy" means every one can make usefull by guiding them and it is professional word that on top person are fair but coocks have also its importance, and according to nature of India which climate of India allow, the Indian Culture should be according to the same manner and then man can servive in that invioronment, thus India Should remain as India and Indian in India should remain as Indian is order of Nature not POnga Panthi Pandits staement but reality. Any culture is originated by the person who have experience to process of servivance in that climate. Thus according to Pandey, as as I have interacted with his Arabian Culture is best for remaining in Arabia and Western Culture is one of the best for survive in Population as Open sex in Western country other wise the loss theire population and will be forced to adapt Children from India and China where inteligent brain baby easily availabe form Orphan Missionaries(Anath Ashram so called in India). These of his thoughts and preachment between Higher education can solve the problem of terrorrist not bu gun system and force, but he don't denie the Armed force usses for person border security and hard work for development, The person who belives on such higher thoughts of Vishva Bandhutva and Panchsheel of India and have staement that he can talk with any terrorrist in close room for reform is a bold step in favour of humanity, may God blesh him. I request you let it remain as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.35.12 (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The service of Pandey at a new established centre KBCAOS was to make student happy at the centre which was under Interdiscilinary form and Teachers in Faculty have no any Idea of the subject at that time and they where involved in their cooresponding departments and it was an extra load bu seeing the population of Uttar Pradesh the skilled student for Job in standard Institute in India and Foreigh Lab. and Industries was necessary keeping in mind the Centre and 3 Institute were started by meeting happend between local highly experienced Academician to give the hard core man power to soft core in UP as UP have highest population and have brilient student but without resources, the in this time also follow the old method of job, clerck and Officers and teachers at primary and Intermediate leve. The person who have experience of Handeling students was necessary who friendly behave with good scholars selected at centre of the Institutes in which IIDS was on reserch orientted and may be lab orientted in Industris at Master level. The High computation Faciality Centre KBCAOS was on top priority at the University of Allahabad and politics was also against the centre as the money used was although no in doubt but place of centre KBCAOS was in dispute, Dr. Pandey(Mr. at that time) Ex-Student of BHU Varanasi and experienced person of Mess in Ram Krishna hostel BHU and leaded person in NCC Army Wing, and one year experinced person in India Civil Services and have land mark number in General Study in one chance was selected at the place, although he had a great desire of PHD from Department of Physics (Nuclear) Banaras Hindu University as he was specialization in Nuclear in India if he thought for PHD in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.35.12 (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete objectively: zero papers in web of science; one peer-reviewed publication not there yet. "Impact of Indonesian throughflow blockage on the Southern Indian Ocean" Vivek Kumar Pandey*, Vihang Bhatt, A. C. Pandey and I. M. L. Das K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies,CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 93, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2007 (a good quality Indian journal) DGG (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recover the page: as notability is not for the science but science is done where and Under whome and was the cercumstances was with him as he was responsible person and others were free and the Institute was now came in full Existance so new People should do his best, In my point of view if no one In India have have done work on the Indonesian region Using POM Model and having such a exact approximate valuess he got, therfore work without proper group and self developed skill shoul be admire and it reason it not clear why one not done best, under experienced guide then one can claim but his work is praise worthy what ever he had done even 30-50 year old India Institute not dare to work on such issue of High resolution where the Ocean Model failed generally and the person have experience on such a model should do comment if he has started work on newly established Centre independently. But the profile by Ekbal is not only emphasisses on science work but the step of Dr. Pandey, where carreer of his own were in safe like Instiute Banaras Hindu University. In last I want to say he is notable person as he remained at vacant place where all students are staying and always doing concerning question on stability of Centre as it was not properly(by Law) establish and was on trial and the in 2005 it was going to closed according the DOD report. It is my comment on deletion policy of Wikipedia from debates, reality can not be deleted one day it come in light of society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.35.12 (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC) The news from KBCAOS says the Dr. Pandey was belonging from the Banaras Hindu University therefore the reccommendation of local teacher was against him who generally participated in interview therfore in second phase of interview for Scientist post and Research Fellow post he reamain satisfied with the Reaserch Fellow Post although at that time he offered SRF post at IIT Delhi at Ocean Forecasting lab but at that time the reccommendation of UGC and CSIR team was not recieved by University of Allahabad, he think to remain at centre KBCAOS till the confirmation letter come and his perfect oath of to make KBCAOS as a national Centre complete at the presence of late Dr. S.B Singh,Ex-Directo, NCMRWF, Noida. Thus he remain at the centre till the viva of his thesis(First Doctoral from KBCAOS), now we can see he was hero of KBCAOS. And therfore he is worthy of natability and paper should be from new student in science and Nature but paper in Physical Oceanography(Computational) on a new area (basic) is not general for a young but possible with Experinced Guide and he will do soon as people think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.12 (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The faith of Dr. Pandey can also be shown by his papers also, in all of his papers he given the Institute name KBCAOS only and dos't shown the name of permanent Department of his Guide(Department of Physics, University of Allahabad) where other authors from Centre have both name used KBCAOS and Dept. of Physics as an already established Centres name also indirectly show the effect on mind of reviewer. The person working in same department have 13 of papers in International Journals of Geophysical Fields but Physical Oceanography group don't have such level get as expertise in such field comes afetr some time under much experinced Guide, the paper on international level were don on PC but server in KBCAOS generally forced to closed to make safe as power problem in UP and no permanant source of Disel was available more than 3 hour generator whereas longer run (50-200) years of ocean model needed 10 days on SGI machin available there, then only output data analysis was shortcut and one person have done from out side data as news came but the centre is kind enough from begining of KBCAOS due to internal colaboration but Princeton model case no larg group is involved and in such a high resolution generally outer person not servive. The person have so much paper in international general is connected with knowledgible person also, having long time experince from HRI, Allahabad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.12 (talk • contribs)

Keep the page on notable list, I want to ask question on paper comment person can he tell how many India Ocean Model and Atmospheric Model till now developed it should asked with Congress Govt. who have ruled till date and how many paper was Prof. Srivastava who was the Co-Ordinator in atmospheric and Ocean Science and Prof. Hari Prakash Saxena(in meteorology), who is working now and HOD of Physics. Please tell me how many papers were with PI and Co PI and co-Investigators papers at time of begining in Meteorology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.12 (talk • contribs)

Strong Delete: appears to be a vanity article written by a sockpuppet of User:Dr. vivek Kumar Pandey. Note that the article is just about verbatim his user page. Toddst1 (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sockpuppet report created: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dr. vivek Kumar Pandey Toddst1 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shows once broadcast by KTXL-TV

This page is full of nothing but trivial information that has no value whatsoever. Pure fancruft and non-notability, plain and simple. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It wouldn't be notable what a national channel (like ABC) has aired, yet alone individual stations (since local affiliates can air programs that other affiliates of the same network don't air, due to syndication). TJ Spyke 09:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not only trivial, but the station was merely an independent station most of its life, pre-Fox, carrying mainly syndicated programming, Would be an utter nightmare if there's such a page for each local station. -- azumanga (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivia. ~~Might be better being a category.~~ Poeloq (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Not even a category; otherwise, we'll also be flooded with categories for each local station. -- azumanga (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. Striked. Poeloq (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do likewise per other stations per nom. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for both, without prejudice to a future merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USS Kentucky (BB-66)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've long been a supporter of the position that articles on incomplete ships should have their own articles here on Wikipedia, but after watching these two battleship articles mired in merge discussions for some months and seeing how much Wikipedia's standards for quality content have evolved in the years since I argued for the retention of articles on incomplete ships I now think it a good time to revisit the issue here. I am nominating the articles USS Kentucky (BB-66) and USS Illinois (BB-65) for deletion on grounds that since the FAC's for these ships our standards for an article's quality content have evolved to the point where it would now be preferable to cover the material presented in these articles in the class articles for the Iowa-class battleships and the Montana-class battleships. In nominating here I also intended to settle the various merge proposals that have been made which have garnered little if any attention and therefore have been inconclusive in settling the issue of whether or not the ship articles should be merged into the class articles mentioned above. At issue here is whether the ships still satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards and therefore have the ability to remain independent articles, or whether the notability standards have shifted such that they now fail the notability requirements to retain independent articles here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous afd for USS Illinois is located here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom rationale. Intothat darkness 18:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both of these ships had their keels laid and were partially completed before cancellation. In cases such as the Montana-class battleships, where none of the ships which had names assigned to them were ever laid down, merging and redirecting the individual ships to the class article makes sense. In cases where construction was actually done, however, the ships should retain individual articles. Also, the "shifting notability standards" argument here is a bit of a red herring; while the standards considered for the notability of ships that don't otherwise meet the GNG might be stricter, WP:GNG still applies otherwise, and the subjects of both of these articles clearly meet the GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the "shifting notability standards" argument here is a bit of a red herring... I know, but this is being done for two different reasons. First, I have no interest in working to restore the articles, nor would I imagine that others would be interested in restoring the articles, if the end game for merge discussions is simply going to see the articles cease to exist independently. Secondly, I'm tired of watching merge discussions with two or three people commenting on the matter. Its extreme, I admit, but afd forces the issues by demanding a consensus one way or the other. This'll settle the merge debates and at the same time serve as a motion of confidence for the articles on notability grounds. Not a bad way o kill two birds with one stone, eh? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (no objection to merge though). The article is well researched and certainly meets criteria for inclusion in WP. How it is displayed/presented is immaterial to me. Buffs (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's tons of material on this ship so notability isn't a problem, and there's no reason why the article couldn't be developed so it regains FA status. Where has merging this been discussed recently? There are no discussions on the article's talk page or at Talk:Iowa class battleship. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm really not seeing how this discussion isn't in favor of merging both the Illinois and Kentucky. Performing the merge was even discussed somewhere (I think User:The ed17's talk page), and I volunteered to do the FA paperwork, but no one had the time to do the actual merge work at that point. Dana boomer (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kentucky at least incomplete ships in general don't deserve a separate article, but the Iowa class battleships are probably some of the most famous ships in history, and as such, even incomplete ships in the class deserve a separate article. Nergaal (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both USS Kentucky (BB-66) and USS Illinois (BB-65), (the latter of which is a Featured article). Both articles have received significant coverage in reliable sources, per the respective references sections for the articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both I find it strange that both are being considered for deletion. A quick scan of both articles reveals a plethora of sources, several coming form books, and the articles are, for the most part, well-written. The Illinois page is a FA, also. I don't see why they need to be deleted at all, they're both notable and both could be shining FAs again one day.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify a point I know that there is no real expectation that either page will be deleted, this is more a forced merge discussion to compel the community to settle a number of unfulfilled merge requests and merge discussions related to both articles. Really the only issue is whether this is going to close with consensus to keep both articles separate or put them in the class page. I admit its somewhat sidestepping the letter of an afd, but this does uphold the spirt of afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- notable enough for stand-alone article, but there's not enough information or controversy for a featured article (similar to, say Japanese battleship Tosa). All of the information here can be included at Iowa-class battleship. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is obviously enough information here to meet notability and to create a stand-alone article from. Too much good information would be lost in a merge and Wikipedia is not running out of space. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As others have pointed out, there is more than enough significant coverage for these article topics to support independent articles. --Oakshade (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even if you cover this in the class article, wouldn't you need to keep these around anyways, as redirects? WP:MAD (or are you proposing a merge through AfD?) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd end up leaving a redirect behind in the event of a merge, but I do not think that is going to happen since a vast majority of the above editors seem to be of the opinion that the article's have enough notability to stay here on there own without a merge. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see value in a merge since the distinct content (once background, general class information is accounted for) is fairly brief and further expansion limited. GraemeLeggett (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As others have pointed out, there is more than enough significant coverage for these article topics to support independent articles. Oakshade said it well enough. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. Subject meets notability criteria. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Haley

Non-notable actor and comedian. Every project he has worked on is a red-link. RJC ^Talk 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Kannie | talk 20:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears that as an article stub, it's missed some vital notability information. In trying to find information about the Haley Hints TV show, it appears that he is actually a co-author of a series of books based on the show that have made the NY Times best seller lists. See this as one example. The search results from the NY Times indicates that other editions of his book have also hit the NY times best seller list. So it looks like notability can be met, but the article needs expansion and sources. So tagged. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 07:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good catch above. A review of the links above shows that he actually had two books on the New York Times "self help" best seller chart at the same time. The aggregate of all of these things certainly, in my opinion, makes him notable. Xymmax (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xymmax's discovery of two NYT best sellers. Pharmboy (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although no one's gotten around to making an article about it yet, Haley's Hints was a nationally broadcast, long-running television production, which is enough to establish notability alone, even before you get to the books. 23skidoo (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. He's fallen off the radar even in Cleveland since the election anyway. Wizardman 17:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Pierce

Regional politician that didn't get elected. Doesn't appear notable enough right now. Lawrence § t/e 07:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local politician who lost the election, not notable enough. RMHED (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Duplantis

non-notable as athlete, support for athletes not inherently notable, Wikipedia is not a memorial Chris (クリス) (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual. Lugnuts (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of material in Bud, Sweat and Tees and the various news and reports and responses from golfers he has worked with to have an article. Catchpole (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the creator of this article i want to see my article stay. But even so he was one of the famous caddie's. He worked with several famous golfers and has made several major news sources. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —Catchpole (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know I'm supposed to argue from the guidelines, but doggoneit, Xymmax's Corrolary to WP:N is if people unrelated to you care that you died, you're notable. Mr. Duplantis was memorialized by the LA Times here, Fox Sports, Golf.com, Washington Post, ESPN.com and others (only citing the first since they all used AP feed) here. I believe he's notable based on the sources available now, and I strongly suspect that within a day or two we'll see appreciation bio type stories that will make it even easier to improve the article. Xymmax (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable contribution to society. Getting mention in an article or articles and working with celebrities is not enough. Same as trying to creating a page for a researcher with an extensive publication list, collaborating with very well known scientists - the researcher him/herself needs to have provided something notable to society (a remarkable deliverable, like vaccine, therapeutic, etc). This caddy did not provide anything sufficiently notable to society, beyond his duties. acrsaved (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Note: acrsaved has no other edits, so possible single purpose account. Catchpole (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - he may have worked with famous golfers, but not when those individuals were at the top of their game. "He worked with Jim Furyk early in his career" when Furyk had no rating to speak of, and the other golfers named are lucky to play in one tournament a year, either from not playing or being cut. Therefore, I don't even see notability by association here, which is about the only way it could be justified. I'm also not convinced that Duplantis' appearance in the book is at all notable, as the book is ostensibly about Rich Beem, and DuPlantis happened to be his caddy at the time. In the other golf books DuPlantis is mentioned in, he only appears by name twice. MSJapan (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not noteable. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aritcle only created after the subject died.....as Chris said, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Also, when did caddies become notable??? "They work with famous people".....so do hairstylists and costumers in the movies, and if any of those had Wikipedia articles, I'd vote for deletion there as well. Finally, had anyone who does NOT follow the PGA ever heard of him?Joshcating (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is Joshcating's first edit since October 2007, less than 15 edits overall. Catchpole (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Response: Does that make my opinion invalid? Tell you what, if it makes you feel so good, keep the damn article. I no longer give a rat's ass, I have work to do. I might also add that Catchpole needs to get a life. Joshcating (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, non-notable. Cheers, L A X 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as co-subject of Bud, Sweat and Tees (NY Times book review) whose off-course lifestyle earned him a reputation. Canuckle (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial as some people said and when did caddies become so famous? i could see pga tour players but not caddies. I want a delete ASAP. Thank you for taking the time to read this. P.S Making an article after the death is way to soon. i could see 3 months before the death but not right after the death.--Pookeo9 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For any golf fan, Steve Duplantis, is on the same level as other caddies like Steve Williams, who already has an article on Wikipedia, or Fluff Cowen. In fact, Duplantis' love of late night partying makes him an even more interesting figure. He was a wild party animal with an uncanny ability to make every golfer he works with better. Being a caddie is much more about carrying a bad and reading a yardage book. You have to be a friend, confidant, mentor, psychologist, and teacher. Steve had all these qualities...provided he could make the tee time. Many highly respected figures in the golf world, Jim Nantz, Alan Shipnuk, and Gary McCord to name a few, feel that Steve was a MAJOR contributing factor to Rich Beem's 1990 PGA Championship. That alone makes him worthy.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelrhoover (talk • contribs) 02:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC) — Michaelrhoover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Xymmax (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no lasting significance or impact; article mainly exists, I would submit, because he's just died. Biruitorul (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable in golf terms. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepy - me want keepy. me want it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.243 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-article. Zero information. And mind you, I'm what people call here an inclusionist. <K F> 16:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy is a caddy. He's not notable. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Surprisingly, since April 2006, there has been a Category:American caddies but, as someone has remarked above, this one wouldn't have an article if he hadn't died in an accident. <KF> 17:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Of the six people in the category, one wasn't famous for being a caddy (Brandon Lang), and all the others were people with 30+ years of experience and multiple major tournament wins over a span of years for their golfers, who were folks like Nicklaus and Woods. One guy had a very unique claim as being the caddy for a US Open winner at the age of 10. If unique experiences or long-term experience are considered as a reasonable barometer of notability, Duplantis doesn't really meet those criteria as the article stands, nor does it appear that he could. MSJapan (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it clean when speaking of the deceased. Individual seems to be notable based on media coverage, and ___domain name speculators. MichaelBTO 16:30, January 26, 2008

— Michaelbto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-trivial mentions in many significant reliable sources, fits the definition of notability of a biographical subject. He's even featured prominently (it is claimed) in a book. That most of the articles were written upon his death does not add or subtract to his notability - we can evaluate them for what they are. The article is about his life, not his death, and we can reasonably ask whether the articles establish that there is interest in his life. Given that ESPN, Reuters, the Torronto Star, and the San Diego Union Tribute devoted articles to him, plus the book, the answer appears to be yes. On the merits, notability is a question of whether something is worth knowing about. He is not a major figure but there is some good material there that adds to an encyclopedic understanding of the world so the answer there too is yes. Wikidemo (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many bios are in poor shape and can be greatly improved. It would help to explain his notability as he may be one of the more famous or accomplished caddy's of which, I imagine, we have little coverage. Benjiboi 02:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Working for famous people does not in itself make one notable. What's next, babysitters and gardeners and mechanics and proctologists of famous people? The only reason this article was created was because the guy died. Is he notable because he stepped off a curb and got hit by a taxi? Okay, it was one of the worst accidents in recent memory to befall a non-notable individual who worked for (some) notable people, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Qworty (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Disagree. He seems to have been well known prior and according to several accounts was so good he was repeatedly hired even after his "personal demons" got him fired from one job after the next.[50]. Benjiboi 10:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Well-known" because a self-described hysterical pregnant woman is talking about him on page 209 of an obscure book? "Notable" because he could get a job after being fired from a job? These are surely not the WP criteria for notability. Millions of people are mentioned in old books. Tens of millions of people lose a job and then get another one. These are not the criteria for notability, and there is indeed no notability here. Qworty (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Profession is not a reason to delete. We do not automatically include actors, nor delete caddies. There are enough independent sources to establish notability. the_undertow ^talk 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. Article has been much improved and is now well sourced. (non-admin closure) RMHED (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil McKenty

I prodded this article shortly after its creation, and it was contested by the article's creator, so I left it alone for a few months to grow and mature. It hasn't. On the article's talk page, there's a claim that this man "contributed importantly to the debate on Canada's constitution," but other than the letter to the editor cited as a reference, I'm unable to see what that important contribution was. He has a blog and has written a couple of opinion pieces, but that's all. However, I'm not Canadian, so I don't know if I'm missing a source or another important piece of the puzzle. Unless such sources exist, this article should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 07:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. There appear to be a few sources on gogle news and google books (the first books have him as author, further on there are a few independent references); there are also several reviews and citations on google scholar and jstor (mostly regarding his biography of Mitch Hepburn), including one mention on google scholar that I can't access, but seems to suggest that he was some sort of pioneer in using online paratext to a print book (John P.M. Court, "Bibliographies and Notes as a Separate Online Publication: A Novel Trend in Support of Scholarly Publishing", Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 2002: " ... Note on Sources that I have seen in a narrative form and distinct from endnotes and other supplementary material appears in Neil McKenty, Mitch Hepburn ..."). All of this, together with being a talk-show host, suggests he might be a little bit notable (enough to keep); but like the nominator I don't know enough about Canadian politics and media to give a firm opinion. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Notable author I count 6 books in Google Books. Based on the info there, there's a great deal more to say about him. His leaving the order seems to have been written about. DGG (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was one of the best-known talk show hosts in Montreal in the 1970s and 1980s. He has written books that have been reviewed in Canadian newspapers. In 1991 he toured Canada as part of the Quebec-Canada Committee to push for Canadian unity and received press coverage for that. I guess the difficulty here is that most of the articles are not accessible via Google. I have started adding references. Keep—easily meets the requirements of WP:N. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to elaborate? The nom's concern was the lack of sourcing and I have added citations to seven articles in major Canadian newspapers. Every one of those articles is focused either on McKenty himself, or his TV show or one of his books. WP:N says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and he has received that level of coverage. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still nothing there to assert any notability. GreenJoe 20:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to understand. There are now nine citations to major Canadian newspapers and that is not enough to pass WP:N#General notability guideline? Are you saying the coverage is trivial, the sources are not reliable, or that they are not independent of the subject? I don't mean to badger you, but I am honestly perplexed by what you are saying. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil was a legendary figure in English Montreal broadcasting. Plus the article is thoroughly referenced with prominent citations from major daily newspapers. Strong Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is much improved, longer and well-cited, including articles from newspapers across Canada, a good sign of notability. --Slp1 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article establishes notability, it's at the weak end but it's good enough to stay and be improved in future. Franamax (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of mainstream films with violent trauma

This list is unmantainable. A film qualifies if it has any form of violence in it, which includes just about every movie ever made. This article may have been created as a way to get around the deletion of Trauma in film (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trauma in film). The contents of the two articles are nearly identical. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe listing films based on content (as precedented in Wiki) is an important contribution Wiki can make. I am considering breaking the lists into more specific lists; e.g., a list for each subcategory. That would be maintainable. Yes, the article was created as a way to try to make the content of the previous article more appropriately organized and categorized. Thoughts? -Filmtrauma, 1:00, 2008-01-24
- Please note that Filmtrauma (talk · contribs) is the creator and primary contributor to the article. Also, he/she could be considered a single-purpose editor. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list is practically the same as the trauma afd. This article clearly has OR and forking issues. Defining violent trauma and establishing criteria would invite all kinds of original research. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —UnfriendlyFire (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list is a subset of the list on the original page, and it has an entirely different introductory paragraph and set of references. It is attempting a new approach at the original encyclopedic data. I fail to see why lists of films with explicit sex are somehow considered valuable encyclopedic contributions to a body of knowledge, and lists of films categorized by violent content are not. Can someone help me understand the contribution those other lists are making, and why it is more or less valid than addressing the issue of escalating graphic violent content in film? --Filmtrauma 1:20 am January 24, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmtrauma (talk • contribs) 06:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the list was meant to be followed by additional lists of other trauma content, not as a way to sidestep the deletion process of trauma in film. Does anyone read the AfD for trauma in film? Sheesh. Filmtrauma (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As I understand it, User:Filmtrauma above is trying to compare this article to List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex. The difference is that in mainstream films, it's very unusual for the actors to actually perform unsimulated sex acts as part of the film. However, the List of mainstream films with violent trauma includes films which just depict simulated violent trauma -- which is extremely common in mainstream films. If you had a list of mainstream films in which the actors actually got shot or stabbed as an intended part of the filming, that would be a much more manageable list and potentially worth keeping. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC) That sounds distasteful; let the record show that I don't know of any such films nor was I hoping to find any. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of loosely associated items. No objective standard for inclusion. Similar to the deleted List of films by gory death scene. Otto4711 (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed unmaintainable. —SlamDiego_←T 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the term "violent trauma" is not definable for the purposes of such a list -- domestic abuse, rape, serial killing? There's no specific criteria that would help keep this list objective. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "References" section has some good sources, it seems, but they would better apply to a prose article such as Violence in film. These academic secondary sources can't be synthesized with one's personal viewing experiences of films, i.e.: "This academic source mentions slave trafficking, and I saw some of that in Amistad, so I'll put that in." Wikipedia doesn't work like that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't believe people are actually saying there is no way to define violent trauma. Ok, first, the dictionary defines things very nicely. Second, I expect there's loads of research about violent trauma. Third, when it comes to films and what they contain, there's this whole movie ratings system all about that. So if it's a question of thinking this sort of thing needs to be added to the page to satisfy those who can't be bothered to look it up for themselves (and indeed that would be a nice enhancement to the content, but I don't think it should be necessary to avoid deletion!), that's one thing--but if it's a question of people genuinely believing there's no way to define violent trauma or "prove" that a particular film contains violence--that, I don't understand. I think it's completely over the top to ignore dictionaries, volumes of research, and the entire movie rating system in an effort to claim this content is not appropriate. Is this content somehow threatening to some folks? I see a lot of complaining about how much work it would be to maintain this. Is someone asking you to do that work? The whole way Wikipedia functions is that everybody pitches in and things grow organically. As for the ridiculous notion that this content would only be valuable if someone were REALLY getting raped or killed, I have no words for that. Isn't part of the point of this page to show that it doesn't have to be real, it doesn't even have to be "real" in the context of the film itself (for example, the "Kill Bill" scene mentioned on the page) to be a trauma trigger. The research supports that--the POINT to the page is that watching films that...oh, never mind, the page goes into the details. If this were a list of films that contained ACTUAL rape or murder (etc.) it would be (1) probably illegal somehow; (2) in unbelievably poor taste; (3) empty, because there ARE no mainstream films that contain actual rape, murder, etc.--ARE there???; and (4) of use only to help those who WANT to see that sort of thing--those who don't want to see it because it's a trauma trigger, won't want to see it whether it's "fake" or "real"--and who can tell the difference in a film, anyway? Tamarleigh (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) — Tamarleigh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment First of all, from your edit history, you look brand-spanking new, so I'd reccomend you take a look here and here. As for your argument, take a look below at some of the movies I listed that are included in the list. I believe two are rated G or PG, so the rating system didn't really catch the violent trauma in those. But, for argument's sake, say these are eliminated and it becomes a more realistic list. I personally believe a movie like Cannibal Holocaust to have "violent trauma" but a film like Die Hard to be a popcorn action flick with nothing close to trauma. This could be argued either way. Another example: Resevoir Dogs, I'd say tons of violent trauma, Shoot Em' Up, none at all. All four films have death and violence and blood... but the little things (i.e. the things that are very hard to argue) seperate them.Gwynand (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwynand, I appreciate that you are trying to keep things civil. It is very frustrating to see a page that makes a valuable, unique contribution maligned here, because the attack on the page seems to be based on misunderstanding and other reasons having nothing to do with any genuine problem with the page. I have never felt strongly enough about a page to bother creating an account. I created the account specifically to protest the deletion of this content. I have been using Wiki for years, but this is the first thing that I found worth contributing--an argument against the wrongful deletion of content because it is misunderstood or perhaps not structured ideally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamarleigh (talk • contribs) 13:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Tamarleigh, you are utterly missing the point of those of us who are noting that the list is unmaintainable. We are not saying that we don't wish to maintain the page; we are saying that the page a page of such or similar title will involve endless battles over that is-or-isn't mainstream, and will end-up as an uselessly enormous yet always far-from-complete catalogue of films in which some character is badly physically hurt. —SlamDiego_←T 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom - mainly, that based on what we have so far, there would be thousands upon thousands of movies listed here... almost as general as say a list of movies that are "about two hours long". Examples of what have been included as a "mainstream film with violent trauma"

And another thing. I don't think people are understanding the point of this content, why it's important. Take rape as an example. If you are a rape survivor and you don't want to see rape scenes because they leave you traumatized anew, the only section of interest is the Rape section. The whole list is not relevant to any one person. Indeed, if you never want to see traumatic content, best to avoid mass media entirely. The point is for avoiding specific types of traumatic content. No one person should be maintaining this list. Again, take rape as an example. If you are a rape survivor and have had experiences of watching films with rape content, you'll probably have some contributions to the list. I just wanted to explain (as I understand it--I am not a trauma survivor and have not edited the page) the purpose of the info and how it will grow. Tamarleigh (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But we don't know if that editor who adds films to the list is a rape survivor or not. Also, it's a blanket statement to say that all rape survivors would react to all films the same way. Would one person holding down the other evoke the same reaction as the actual act simulated on the screen? It's purely subjective. That's why Wikipedia uses secondary sources, so the claim is independent of the editors themselves. If a person has experienced trauma before and needs to avoid specific films, there are websites that exist that review the level of content in a film -- language, violence, sexuality, etc. Wikipedia isn't a guide for that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: That's a noble goal, but Wikipedia isn't the repository for any and every noble website, or even for any and every noble list and article. The way to attempt this sort of list is elsewhere, with a committee whose membership is screened, who can vet submissions (distinguishing unexamined from examined nominated films, and listing them accordingly). The only rôle for Wikiepdia here is to have an article on such a website if it works well enough to become notable. I, and surely others who are arguing for deletion of the list, would wish you (or whomever attempts such a project) the very best of luck. —SlamDiego_←T 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Try defining "violent trauma" in this context without violating WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. Some of the individual categories may well qualify for lists -- or, more likely, categories -- but this list article as it stands is just too broad. 23skidoo (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if better defined, as a replacement for the other article. There is no reason why it cannot be specified, and no reason why a long list is inappropriate. DGG (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)![reply]

The list is not questioned because of solely its length; it's the length of films that editors have originally interpreted to contain violent trauma. Violent trauma is a topic that could be written in prose and possibly have the subtopic of film, where examples can be cited via secondary sources. Here, connections cannot be assumed -- there are films listed because of abortion, which I question as a neutral category. The other categories are too general and interpretative to fit in with the so-called theme of "violent trauma". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to apologize for any misimpression that might have been created from my reference above to "a list of mainstream films in which the actors actually got shot or stabbed". The point I was trying to make is that, based on my reading of the articles Trauma, Blunt trauma, and Penetrating trauma, any movie in which a character was (for example) shot, stabbed, or seriously beaten could be considered a film with "violent trauma". And the number of films in which the characters suffer from trauma of those natures is very, very high. Thus the article as it is currently defined would be an extremely unmanageable list. Some other standard would need to be used to make this article worthy of being kept in the encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impossible to keep as everyone has a different perception of on-screen trauma. Somebody considers a death of any kind to be traumatic, while another person might sit through hours of gore without even flinching. The page was a good concept, but if it stays it will be subjected to POV. Maybe changing it from a list to an actual article defining aspects of violent trauma would work.--The Dominator (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have just discovered that Tamarleigh has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sockpuppet of Filmtrauma. See sock/Filmtrauma for the case, and the block log for Tamarleigh. Opinions expressed by these two accounts should probably be weighted as if from one account. —SlamDiego_←T 18:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too subjective and unmaintainable without original research. --Beloved Freak 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete despite the best efforts of the sockmaster trying to disrupt this discussion. There isn't enough third party content for this to stand as a bio. This individual is marginally notable so this can be created if proper sourcing can be found for a new article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kemo the Blaxican

Not enough notability with the information given, Even though he was a member of a notable rap group, the information of the person himself is not notable; album links to another different artist Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, i b notable, mr. sanchez. please my user name is my LIFE! dont take my LIFE! my page is my LIFE! i b sory mr. sanchez!KemoTheBlaxican (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Pure vandalism. ESanchez, I think you accidentally reverted a good faith edit here.71.203.246.128 (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete. TheHallMonitor (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Why? This is a consensus, not a vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, as I have concerns about the legitimacy of this WP:SPA. Indeed, al;l three above comments are likely the same person. I may request a checkuser, maybe... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Delinquent Habits. The rap crew is evidently notable, but its individual members aren't necessarily. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it troubling that the creator/subject's comments have been reverted. No, they were'nt particulary coherent, but he was probably upset and not at his best. Generally, AfD's allow greater lattitude than this. Dloh cierekim 03:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Agreed - I restored it above CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I was under the impression that if a band is notable, individual members are too? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so: see WP:NOTINHERITED. PKT (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; otherwise, we'd have a page for every member (past and present) of the London Symphony Orchestra. Only those who have some notability beyond their presence in the band--either as a notable solo career, or in some other endeavor--should get their own article. Ig8887 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this retrospective? ie., does this count for articles about band members that already exist (and do not meet the criteria? If so, I have an orgy of AFDs to create. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say so...there is no "effective as of" date on the guideline. PKT (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. allmusic.com has a page for the guy, but it's essentially blank, which tells me he hasn't made much of a mark in the business yet. PKT (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted the person posting as Kemo the Blaxican is not the real Kemo. Kemo is one of few Latin rappers who can be accepted rapping in both Spanish and English, getting radio play in both. He also owns his own record company, clothing line and is well respected in the hip hop community. I can not comment on this page being deleted but I will say that Kemo is a good role model for the youth. He stays working and is not one to get in trouble or bring a bad light to himself or the hip hop community. He is notable in both the Latino community and the hip hop community at large for his work ethic and the time he has spent in the game.HHRB (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)HHRB[reply]

RE: Dunno if that much of an argument of the page. I mean, some info mentioned but the topic here is if the page is notable enough. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: In the line of work I am in I meet alot of these artists and that is why I said did not want to comment on the delition, but if nothing else maybe it can be merged with Delinquent Habits.HHRB (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)HHRB[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this page, Kemo stands for the latin hip hop community and if this page is deleted it will be based on racist reasons. The world has a right to know of Kemo and his accomplishments and to delete this page would be inhuman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.23.229 (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - DO NOT REMOVE KEMO! ==

KEMO THE BLAXICAN DESERVES MORE THAN BEING ON THIS PAGE. HE HAS MORE THAN SET HIS FOOTSTEPS IN THE LATINO HIP HOP GAME, HE HAS PROVED TO EVERYONE THAT THIS MONEY HUNGRY INDUSTRY AND HATERS WILL NOT TAKE HIM DOWN! HE HAS OVERCOME SO MANY STEREOTYPING AND HAS SUCH POWERFUL MESSAGES IN HIS MUSICK, HE IS MORE THAN A POSITIVE ROLE MODEL, HE HELPS OUT HIS PEOPLE IN EVERYTHING THAT HE CAN HELP WITH, GIVING DOWN A HAND AND OFFERING HIS HOME TO PEOPLE IN NEED. HE HAS DONE MORE THAN SHOWS, HE HAS BUILD HIS OWN REALM AND EMPIRE WITH HIS STRONG PERSONALITY AND HIS SOPHISTICATED VOICE. TO THE PEOPLE THAT WANT HIM OUT OF THIS...YOU ARE ONLY EMPOWERING US TO STAND UP FOR A PERSON WHO WE STRONGLY BELIEVE IS A TRUE PIONEER TO SPANGLISH HIP HOP! HE DOESN'T TALK SMACK ABOUT ANYONE, NEVER AIRS OUT DIRTY LAUNDRY AND IS DEFINITELY NOT TRYNG TO GET ANYONE OFF ANYTHING. I FEEL SO SORRY FOR YOU, BUT I CAN SEE THAT HIS LYRICS ARE KILLING YOU! MORE POWER TO KEMO AND HIS PEOPLE THAT WILL MAKE IT PAST THE TOP. DO NOT LISTEN TO THESE KINDS OF PEOPLE THAT JUST MAKE US STRONGER. FROM THE STREETS POINT OF VIEW....PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE KEMO THE BLAXICAN! siefemprefeyfiufunificafamefentefelafalofocafarufucafa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.223.251 (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wuz up! Why do people want to get Kemo off this page?? It's not his fault the other two members are dum dillies! If anything the name Delinquent habits should be removed, they are the ones that aren't doing anything with the music anymore, no shows, sucky albums and new members that completely change the name and the game their trying to play. I have seen Kemo, he keeps going strong with his bad ass new album and super sick videos, doing shows every week, even his crew is blowing up, Kemo is leaving his tracks on the hip hop hall of fame and he will be in chicano history books as one of the best solo rappers of our time. Haters...Step OFF! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.223.251 (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comments but also, note that the comments are from the same person. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to 28 Days Later: The Soundtrack Album and protect the redirect. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the House - In a Heartbeat

Either delete or merge and redirect to the album article. Redirect was undone with the claim that the song's use outside the film makes it independently notable. I disagree and Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums and songs does not support that position. Otto4711 (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this track has been used so much outside of the film makes it independantly notable, as well as the fact that this track is held up as on of John Murphy's most notable works[51]. Darksun (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 28 Days Later: The Soundtrack Album and protect the redirect. For independent existence the article needs reliable sources and Answer Bank correspondence and YouTube are some distance from meeting WP:RS. The content would give a much needed boost to the target page. TerriersFan (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Brust

Fails WP:BIO. Non notable. Plus, it's been orphaned for nearly two years. Metal Head (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete just a businessman now, orphan RT | Talk 07:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nukm Radio

Contested prod; removed by author. Non-notable online radio station. Page servers largely as advertisement for the station. Cites no reliable secondary sources; fails WP:RS and WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 17:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article needs to be speedily deleted. It reads like an advertisement and looks like every image in the article has already been removed per other deletions, not that it is a criteria, I am just sayin... Slavlin (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Snow? Bearian (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Braff/Maroon 5 (32.20)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Zach Braff/Maroon 5 (32.20)

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not mere plot summaries and Wikipedia is not TV Guide. The notability of Saturday Night Live does not make a listing of every sketch of every episode notable or encyclopedic. Prod removed by anon without comment, which, whatever. Note related nomination here. Otto4711 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOT#DIR. Doc Strange (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Doc Strange. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does not describe the plot, and this show is notable enough that the individual episodes are significant. DGG (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A listing of sketches on a sketch show is most certainly a description of the plot of the sketch show. And since notability is not inherited the notability of the show does not impart notability unto every single episode of the show. Otto4711 (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We do not cover episodes without some kind of significant real world coverage. TTN (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Good intentions on the part of the creator, but not really notable enough for an article. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roundabouts in Billings, Montana

Totally non-notable. Scarcely even worth a mention in the Billings, Montana article. Apparentlythey will more than treble the number of roundabouts in the whole of Montana but it still don't make them notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, I really should get around to writing list of transsexual graphic artists living in the closet, list of men with dyed red beards, List of boats in Anchorage... zzz! Unless these are all super-notable roundabouts, I say delete. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes let us delete them too! Punkmorten (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sets a new standard for non-notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason to have this. Punkmorten (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Personally I'd be happy to list these articles for deletion too - possibly bundled here. What do others think? But at least these articles have the advantage of being about roundabouts that actually exist, rather than being in the planning stages for possible appearance in 2010. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wolfdog, you need to learn to create links! What is worse, the two list articles link to lots of articles about individual roundabouts. At least this side of the pond we restrict ourselves (I think) to interesting roundabouts such as those in Hemel Hempstead and Swindon. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you blanked the page. I have restored it while this discussion continues. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only does the probe the depths of notability, it could now be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G7 as the original author blanked the page and few other editors have contributed substantially to the article. Pedro : Chat 10:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary (and yes I'd support the deletion of the other traffic circle/roundabout articles cited, too. Go ahead an nominate them). If there's some reason why the presence of roundabouts in Billings is notable, this can either be covered by a subsection of the article on the city or, if there's enough to write about and enough sources, maybe as part of an article on Billings' transportation infrastructure. 23skidoo (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and not necessary. Need I say more? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the Shiloh Road project were notable, it might deserve its own article, but I can't really get excited about a local road project. Delete this article, and let's not have a long distance runaround about this AFD. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost worthy of WP:DAFTing (probably not quite, though Elkman would probably consider it close to the edge of that page). Grutness...wha? 00:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- But I would like to see an article of the list of men with dyed red beards driving around Roundabouts in Billings, Montana, now that would be notabley worthy Stavros1 (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had better not! all the inclusionists would probably vote to keep it, then we'd be in a jam -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you try to calm down. No-one is saying that you do not love your city, every bit as much as any one of us loves the cities where we live. However, most of us would never consider that writing an article on the roundabouts within those cities would make for a worthwhile article. There are a tiny minority of roundabouts worldwide which are worthy of articles - a couple of them are pointed out by RHaworth above. The rest are unremarkable and non-notable, and ceratinly do not deserve articles. Neither to lists of such roundabouts. I would suggest you have a look at the official Wikipedia policy page WP:NOT, especially the sections "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Your article is covered by both of those headings. To many wikipedians, the title of such an article is somewhat ludicrous, hence the comparisons to other article titles which would make for eqully ludicrous articles. No-one is insulting you or your town, just pointing out how unencyclopedic the article is, and how far away from Wikipedia policy it would remain even if every roundabout in Billings were to be listed. Grutness...wha? 04:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Grutness.....I know but can we just delete the article and move on. I have better things to do and I bet everyone else here does. And I see others like the List of traffic circles in New Jersey and in DC. I don't know about those or what's being done but I could care less I suppose. But that's where I got the idea to start this article in the first place. The truth is I have not been employed (since 2005) or contributing anything in the real world right now. The world's a stage and we must play a part and I believe that. I didn't become a Wikipedian a year ago to argue with people or to create ludicrous articles. I fell like The Librarian is telling me I'm an idiot for writing this article when I see similar articles on here. If what I wrote is not up to certain standards for Wikipedia that's fine then, delete it, won't hurt my feeling but saying I'm an idiot for writing it does. This is a real human being behind this keyboard. I learn things much better visually than reading and that's in general, not just here. I'm beginning feel like the villain here and I'm not and I know no one said that but I feel that.--Wolfdog1 (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Can we all try and remember the spirit of WP:BITE and WP:AGF here and try and retain this editor. Wolfdog1 has not done anything wrong and we can just wrap this up without further frustration. Thanks. Pedro : Chat 11:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To spare Wolfdog1 further frustration, and given that the discussion here has not been materially added to recently, can I plead for someone with the admin buttons to close this AfD now? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will, though I generally try to avoid closing afds I've been party to. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War of Empires

Contested prod. "As web-based content with no assertion of importance, this could actually be a speedy deletion under criteria A7, but due to its history I am using a PROD instead. No assertion of notability (WP:N), no references (WP:V)"^[52] Hu12 (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, so it fails WP:V. TJ Spyke 09:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per origional prod--Hu12 (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 17:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability, none coming from a google search. Someone another 02:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unknown game, not notable. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 07:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:AFD is not a vote. The relevant discussion (and a keep vote for those who believe AFD is a vote) about whether or not this article can be improved to meet our standards is on the talk page. Kusma (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability, just a bunch of listings on, well, listings sites. --Stormie (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskaryya baruah

Does not meet notability guidelines at all. Does not signify importance. It is trying to predict the future, saying that he is an upcoming .... Metal Head (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity -Ravichandar 08:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information within the article is not verified by reliable sources and so the article is a violation of WP:BLP. The article shows no evidence that the subject is notable - it does not present any evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources. A Google search of Bhaskaryya baruah poet yields 8 results, none from reliable sources. Guest9999 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. Some good added sources establish notability . (non-admin closure) RMHED (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The World Egg Throwing Federation

"World famous in North Kesteven" probably sums up this sport. And clearly the author has a COI. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding several reliable sources; BBC news, Sports Illustrated and Seattle Times. I'll go about introducing those into the article. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MoP - good work. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MoP, it would be better if you can provide realiable sources that is required by wikipedia policies. Daniel ⁵¹²⁷ 05:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Moved article to World Egg Throwing Federation. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unusual? Yes. Qualified by reliable sources? Yes. Notable? Of course. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MoP's sources, notability is established. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Classic WP:HEY -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Reality Zone

Can't verify notability claims, doesn't seem to be notable. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching Google doesn't bring up any reliable sources. Gsearch Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect not really needed in this case. Wizardman 23:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God Needles George

Not notable and unreferenced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the LOE. This page is poorly written, full of OR and violates NPOV. Single episode is not notable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choncordia

verifiability is not found any ware on this page, Also I do not think this topic is worthy of a wiki page Max ╦╩ (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination was incomplete, but is now properly listed. No opinion on deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any info on this to get it passed WP:N or WP:RS. Also looks to have a small amount of POV thrown in there. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/redirect to List of fairy tale characters in Shrek#Big Bad Wolf. Action to be taken by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bad Wolf (Shrek)

Non-notable Shrek character that is just plot repetition of its appearances in the movies and video games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of fairy tale characters in Shrek. JuJube (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, then delete per above. Malinaccier (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge then delete" is not a valid recommendation. One contraindicates the other, due to GFDL attribution continuation requirements. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Some discussion that does not relate to the article under consideration.

I think you're being pedantic, you know very well what they mean. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a responsibility to have assumed I was acting in good faith when I relisted this debate and made my comment. I do not belive that you have access to the thoughts on the inside of my brain, so when you find yourself synthesizing this data because you think you will need to comment on it, how about try asking me? Here is what I do know: they said "merge then delete", which implies that these two actions will in-fact be taken, and in that order, if their recommendation is acted upon. The "merge" part implies take content from this article, and place that content into the alternate target page. Once this is done, per the GFDL licensing requirements, the old page may not be deleted, because that page's contribution history contains the attribution which is required under GFDL. "Pedantic" means childish (not to be confused with child-like), and implies exhibiting behavior such as tantrums that are inappropriate for an adult. I believe that you do not understand how to use this term properly, so I would recommend that you restrict the language of your comments to those terms that you do understand, and in-general you should restrict your comments themselves to the subject of the debate, not those who are participating in it. Also the relist template specifically states that new comments should be placed below the template, so in the future please do not add comments above the relist template. Thanks in advance for your cooperation, and happy editing. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that throughout AFDs recommendations for "merge & delete" and "redirect & delete" and several other variations are rather common. However, as you pointed out we need to keep page histories, so the pages are not really deleted. As i'm sure you realised, I think that you're nitpicking by pointing this out, thus me calling your behaviour "pedantic". If you were really concerned about this very minor issue you would say the same thing to everyone who does this, but you don't. Moreover, your boorish tl;dr defence of your antics is even more irritating. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right that these recommendations are very frequently made. But if you review the AFD instructions, it specifically says not to make them. Now if you review the delrevs for the past 5 days, you will see a plethora of frivolous delrevs where people are very upset that a "delete" outcome was not decided, even though numerous people put Something and delete as their bolded recommendation summary, but the admin closed the debate as a flavor of keep. I felt obligated to point out to this user (and others who might come along and agree with him/ her) that the recommendation is actually invalid and can not be honored. I feel quite justified in doing so, and also in responding to anyone who makes a personal attack in an AFD, such as you did when you called me pedantic. Even if I was being pedantic, you are not supposed to comment on it in an AfD. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, in hindsight, i would also probably also consider it a personal attack, even though you were being pedantic. I apologise, and hope we can work together just as well as we can argue on any future occasions we happen to bang into each other, cheers -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The section stating that there was a conservative uproar over the character looks like it's legitimate and notable. [53] [54] [55]. Torc2 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of fairy tale characters in Shrek#Big Bad Wolf. There are no sources cited in the article, so there is nothing to merge. The Big Bad Wolf section of the List of fairy tale characters article should mention the controversy that Torc2 cited. However, two trivial mentions and a forum discussion do not establish the notability of this character separate from the films.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Insufficient independent notability. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - per FreeKresge - TheProf07 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Christian media. Keeper | 76 18:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian newspapers

This seems to be no more than a dictionary definition of a newspaper (the article that was the source of much of the text here) that covers Christian topics or from a Christian POV. I don't see the encyclopedic value of keeping this as an article. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christian media WP:NOT... per nom. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Christian media makes a lot of sense. — brighterorange (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Christian media. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Merge into Christian media unless significant expansion is done. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian media. There is nothing to merge! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Christian media (which isn't in much better shape than this), without prejudice toward re-creation. The subject is probably notable enough for its own article, but the author has gone about this in a very odd way — essentialy taking a dictdef and adding "Christian" to it, along with a short list of examples. That won't work, and this article would likely be a speedy-delete candidate if a specific criterion applied to this category. (If this argument looks familiar, I also used it forWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian software.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I just completed a major rewrite of Christian media, which I think will cover most of our issues. I'll put the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit on this case to help with refs and such. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, since the christian media article doesn't discuss software. Wizardman 23:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian software

Non-notable Tavix (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christian media or simply delete. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~This makes sense. Redirect to Christian media.~~ 99.230.152.143 (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't even know if the article is addressing its own subject. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gives a brief dict def of the subject then talks about Software in general. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian media. I removed the "License" and "Ethics and rights for software users" sections because they said nothing specific to Christian software. There was nothing left. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Christian media (which isn't in much better shape than this), without prejudice toward re-creation. The subject is probably notable enough for its own article, but the author has gone about this in a very odd way — essentialy taking a dictdef and adding "Christian" to it, along with a short list of examples. That won't work, and this article would likely be a speedy-delete candidate if a specific criterion applied to this category. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to Christian media. This article is just a self-explanatory dicdef of Christian + software. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Defining "Christian software" as "a collection of Christian computer programs" is... less than helpful. I don't see much point in an article here unless there's something significant which defines "Christian software" beyond being software associated with a Christian-related topic (like Bible-reading programs and the like). Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jesus saves...? Lugnuts (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and Allah semi-protects? Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to Christian media as per comments of Metropolitan90. Merenta (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to media 130.220.153.173 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is clearly non-notable. I can see no logic in redirecting to Christian media as that article does not involve software. Tim Ross·^talk 18:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. GreenGourd (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Fairways

Non-notable organization. Originally tagged as non-notable, no references, and reading like a news release. Original author removed these tags without addressing the warnings at all. Only a handful of relevant Google hits, most from the organization's web site or its PR firm. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn - fails WP:RS. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). RMHED (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Appears to be a non-notable organization. I can't find any independent references about the organization; only sources mention the organization in passing. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems like it's notable enough to not be deleted. There are secondary sources, and they appear to quote NIRS reports or NIRS opinions, which implies that they are a notable organization. The article could use some work, but I don't think it should be deleted. Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News has a lot of hits, many of which could be useful as references for the article. See http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Nuclear+Information+and+Resource+Service%22 --Eastmain (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I got the impression that this site was merely a publisher of press releases, which don't constitute reliable sources. I see the sources listed below in which staff members were quoted, but I was looking for actual articles about the organization, of which I could find none. Dchall1 (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NIRS gets quite a bit of media coverage, and has often been referred to in New York Times articles (see, for example, here and here) and NIRS has quite a few publications of its own (list). NIRS is also listed as an information resource by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (here). Johnfos (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NIRS has been quoted in every major U.S. newspaper (and many foreign ones), has appeared on CBS news, Al Jazeera news, CNN, C-Span, BBC, and many local TV and radio outlets. i agree the wording needs to be changed to eliminate weasel words. Paxuscalta (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BUT READ MY COMMENT. The nomination is certainly understandable. Just recently an article on an anti-nuclear organization that I made got deleted. If it's built with internal material (which this article does reek of) then it should be deleted. The subject matter here, however, is big enough that secondary sources can be produced. Practically, the one I just added should suffice. Still, more work with sources can improve this article a lot. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panchayat Feminism at the gram panchayath in kerala

Original research/synthesised essay. Article's creator is one of the authors listed in the references section. WebHamster01:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accountability mechanisms in local governments in Kerala. --WebHamster02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though I did look at the article, just a glance at the title would've been convincing enough -- this is definitely an essay, most likely a COI as well. At the very least, it can be userfied. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an essay and possible synthesis and OR. Gillyweed (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and Ten Pound Hammer. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Violates WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is NOT AN ADVOCACY.-Ravichandar 07:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasoning as its (now departed) sister articles: somebody's copy-pasted homework. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete 2 of 3. Deletion of 2015 & 2019 is clearly supported. I won't delete 2013, however, as there seems to be one secondary source cited there and less of a consensus to delete. Feel free to open a 2013-specific AfD. — Scientizzle 23:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Southeast Asian Games

Way too far in the future yet; no reliable info to be seen for something that's still 7 years away. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Also listing two related articles:[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling for 2015 site:olympic.org.my gave exactly zero hits. If there are not any announced plans of any kind, it is crystalballing. If I had found ONE reference to preparations at their official site, I would have voted keep. Pharmboy (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - too far into the future to warrant an article yet. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. This is ~~serious~~ crystal-balling. Suggest re-creating the articles when the events take place, or are about to take place (though that'll be a while coming). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2015 and 2019 articles, with no prejudice to recreation closer to the time. The 2013 one is probably close enough that substantial information could be forthcoming soon, though it's borderline. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Delete. WP:CRYSTAL on 2015 and 2019. Preparations are not even being done yet. Starczamora (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Politicians need to be elected to something to be notable and the level of the appointment is also relevant. This individual does not current meet the criteria for inclusion but this can be reviewed in the event that he is elected to something. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Khouri

person not notable - as a politician, never nominated to represent party in election Mayumashu (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Though I must say that article is remarkably NPOV for one of these candidate bio articles. So let's delete it but I hope that the author(s) stay to work on other articles. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed. Candidate is now seeking new office. Also, still retains official position with local Party as 'Potential Nomination Contestant' in case of unforeseen circumstances rendering Candidate incapable of seeking office. This title remains until official writ is dropped for the 40th Canadian General Election. My suggestion is to keep. Rest assured that the main author will stay on to work on other articles.--Chillin841 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that he's still a potential candidate and that he is seeking party office. Nothing is set in stone but, in general, we haven't included candidates for parliament unless they are otherwise notable like, say, Lewis Mackenzie or something happens in the election which makes them notable, like Kevin Potvin or David Oliver. Usually they go on lists like Liberal Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine general election, 2016

Contested PROD. This is way too soon to create even a stub on this topic. Delete without prejudice against recreation around 2014. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defense against Deletion Regarding you tag on Philippine general election, 2016. You know what...In the Southeast Asian Games articles there is one which is scheduled to commence for 2015 - 2015 Southeast Asian Games - so it is safe to assume that 8 years is not that far in the future for you to put a deletion tag on the said article. Since there is another article which is not subjected to deletion but has the same grievance to the article, it is unfair to delete mine if the other articles survive. Thanks... --vivafilipinas talk 05:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
motion to revoke well I'll give in. Let me file my motion to revoke my last argument/position about the discussion. I'm now in favor of deleting the so-called premature article. Thank You!

--vivafilipinas talk 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument basically boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we already have an article about the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. But this is a completely different matter. Preparations are taking place now. When it comes to elections, we have no idea what the issues are going to be that far down the road (except for the usual stuff), let alone who the candidates will be. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too premature. Also, what if the Philippine Constitution got changed in the next eight years and the rules for holding elections got changed? Then this article won't be valid anymore. Not unlike the Olympics where there already is a definite date and time (and, more importantly, where some people are already working to make this happen). Something like the next scheduled elections (in 2010) is a bit safer...unless, of course, Gloria Arroyo or her cohorts change the constitution and does something different =P --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In this case, WP:CRYSTAL is persuasive - it is too soon. I would recommend a notation under the nation's main article that elections are held on such-and-such a schedule, and - by that schedule - elections will be held in 2012, 2016, and so on. That's about the extent of it, as there is no reliable information about this election as an election - just confirming its existance does not provide enough reliable information to create an article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the rather um... unpredictability of Philippine politics, I think we are still not sure if an election will happen 2016. I think we should limit the election articles up to 2010 for now since it is usually talked about here these days. I also agree with the nom, preparations for the 2016 hasn't started yet.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing here yet. Punkmorten (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per WP:CRYSTAL. Starczamora (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A textbook example of WP:CRYSTAL. By the way, anyone notice the article actually is about the election in 2013, not 2016? 23skidoo (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I agree it's just too soon for this article. Considering that the article is written for 2013 elections, not 2016 as the title says, 2012 or later would be a more suitable time to re-create this article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Cheers, L A X 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Punkmorten (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bollweevils (band)

:The Bollweevils (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Delete - A punk band that isn't really very notable per WP:MUSIC. Notability is hinging on one of the members being associated with another semi-notable group, releasing a couple of non-notable records on a non-notable label (even by the very liberal standards we generally apply to small indy punk & metal labels). But errr, have a look at the article, and judge for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Librarian (talk • contribs)

Speedy Keep due to improvements to article by Punkmortem i'm withdrawing nom, goodwork all. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes a few too many claims to be an A7 in my opinion, but just having another member of a (marginally) notable band isn't quite enough here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. Notability is now established per multiple releases on a notable label. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets criterion 5 as Dr. Strange Records is a fairly notable indie label, in addition to (the claims of) meeting criteria 4 and 6. I improved the article. Punkmorten (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And move to The Bollweevils. No parenthesis necessary. Punkmorten (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BAND on the basis of releases IMO. --Michig (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnston PhysX Engine

Contested prod. Non notable software (rendering engine). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PhysX, though I'm willing to consider that such a redirect could be implausible - in which case deletion would be better. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking back on this now, I agree with the lower two posters that there's nothing that matches this page to PhysX. My apologies on suggesting the redirect. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PhysX I agree with the above poster, although I would like to add that this article also requires cleanup and linking if it survives. ― LADY GALAXY 05:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The articles creator was actively expanding the article when I took this to AfD, but unfortunately, he was also removing AfD notices. After being warned, he got blocked, so that may have stopped the developement of the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfair The articles creator is unable to go onto wikipedia because of the ban, but I am one of the fellow creators of the Johnston and it has no relation to PhysX in anyway. It is not a redirect, if the name is the problem, we will change it. User: xXxTehxXx 14:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that the editor was making useful contributions but cannot now and the nom was involved in an edit war (on the right side of it if such a thing can happen) I'd suggest the nom withdraw the AfD for now and bring it back in a few weeks. Beyond that, I don't know enough about the topic to have a clue. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not implying bad faith on the part of the nom. I merely think that there is a chance this is a notable topic and we should take the time to figure it out. Also WP:BITE might apply here. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit startled by this. I do recognise that you say you don't think I was acting in bad faith, do you believe placing back an AfD tag is edit warring? And do you think that for putting it back, when he kept removing it, which resulted in the users block (he should be long unblocked now, by the way), I should withdraw my nom? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that "Johnston PhysX Engine" refers to the same topic described by the PhysX article, and since this article appears to refer to a product that doesn't exist yet, it also runs afoul of WP:CBALL. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Particularly for things like software, if they're notable, they should be on the web. A Google search for "Johnston PhysX Engine" brings up only four pages, all four traceable back to this Wikipedia article (i.e. either Wikipedia or wikirage). In effect, not a single Google hit. Not notable. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per reasons mentioned above. Earth bending master 01:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search found less than one page of results, and all were from Wikipedia/mirrors of Wikipedia. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirect by yours truly. Content was already merged into Blog, so a redirect would've been the way to go. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slog (blog)

I merged slog (blog) into the main Blog article under types of blogs Fanofranz (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kirby characters. We don't delete articles after merging, due to copyrights issue. - PeaceNT (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waddle Dee

AfDs for this article:

This is a non-notable article that has already been merged as the result of a discussion. It has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Waddle Dee is a crucial character to the game. Tavix (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely irrelevant per WP:N (articles need reliable sources), so this should be discounted until Tavix updates his rational. TTN (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N. May very well be crucial to the game (I disagree) but that in itself does not establish notability. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. I don't even think it's that crucial to the game. More like a filler character. Either way, failing WP:N is enough.Metal Head (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If it is already merged than just redirect. --Sin Harvest (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to repeat myself [56] but the same can be said for this: If text has been merged then we have to keep this article, but redirect it. However, the point stands, what is here should not be here in this form. The character is appropriately summed up in the list article, and additional plot summary seems to be excessive without real-world context. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#PLOT, and WP:FICT. No secondary sources, no real-world context. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Delete arguments rather weak, plus action on articles probably shouldn't be taken in the midst of an arbcom case. Wizardman 17:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whispy Woods

AfDs for this article:

This is a non-notable article that has already been merged as the result of a discussion. It has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously discussed at the end of October 2007, and the outcome was keep. So there is at least one reason for it to exist. I'm unclear whether you are arguing for deletion or for the article to remain as a redirect. Catchpole (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide Doc Strange (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not violate Wikipedia is not a game guide. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#GUIDE does not apply to this article. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kracko. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a gameguide, especially not a non-notable one.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#GUIDE does not apply to this article. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete/merge/redirect If text has been merged then we have to keep this article, but redirect it. However, the point stands, what is here should not be here in this form. The character is appropriately summed up in the list article, and additional plot summary seems to be excessive without real-world context. -- Ned Scott 07:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prima Kirby 64 Guide (ISBN 0761530150) is a reliable source that Starblind mentioned in the previous AfD. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#GUIDE. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a guide. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#GUIDE does not apply to this article. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Administrator Starblind's Keep vote on the first nomination. Hasn't even been three months since this was put to rest and now it's up on the chop block again. Easier to destroy than to create. WP:NOT#GUIDE doesn't even apply to this article, but deletionists are trudging through the list so fast that they don't even take the time to look into the actual subject at hand, leading to completely bunk deletion votes. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was it doesn't matter what i close it, TTN will just redirect it anyway. So redirect to Characters in the Kirby video game series. Wizardman 17:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyna Blade (Kirby)

AfDs for this article:

This is a non-notable article that has already been merged as the result of a discussion. It has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has a reason to exist per the previous discussion. At the very least it should be a redirect. Catchpole (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kracko. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does that apply to a single minor character of a series? You may be able to pull it off with some major character, but nowhere would you be able to find an argument capable of keeping every minor character of a series without following policies or guidelines. TTN (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it applies. It is unsourced at the moment, but if it is merged, the article it will be merged into will also be unsourced, so, merging will not solve that problem. And when the guideline WP:FICT states that articles can be treated as a section of a parent article, I think it should be a separate article, as it is quite long. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The target list is accordingly tagged, and it actually has potential to become something. It is possible to type one thousand KB worth of information for even the most minor character if one were to try hard enough. The actual length has nothing to do with it unless the article has real world information from reliable sources. And again, that splitting only applies to lists. TTN (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I'll tag the Dyna Blade article. It also has that potential. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not at this point in time. You're free to try to prove me wrong, but unlike a general list of characters that encompasses the characters of close to twenty games and five other pieces of media, it does not come close to even looking like it has potential. TTN (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A general list certainly may have more potential than this article, but I still disagree that this article doesn't have potential. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you show how this one minor character has more potential than tens of thousands of other characters that are just as unlikely to receive coverage, the claim is absolutely baseless and has no merit at all. TTN (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has as much potential as any other recurring characters. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just randomly talk about potential without a base. The base would be a character with real world information. Just blindly claiming that it has some sort of undefined potential does not help you. TTN (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply saying that I did not have to show that this character had more potential than others. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article kept you do have to show that reliable sources providing real world context exist, which is true for all articles about fictional characters. "No sources but keep it for this reason" is an unacceptable argument. Jay32183 (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources out there, I'm quite sure (which is what I mean by "potential"). Yes, I do know about reliable sources, etc. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not potential. Potential is "here are the sources, I just need time to add them to the article." You're guessing that there are sources. You need to provide sources or your argument is meaningless. "Sources are out there, somewhere" is not an acceptable reason to keep an article. It is the responsibility of those wishing to add, restore, or retain material to provide sources. Jay32183 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of this. I'm sick of these tiresome pointless arguments. Yes, I think the article has potential for good sources, and I think it's just bizarre that you are telling me that I am misusing the word "potential." I'm sure at any major library there are many books on Nintendo and video games. I hate the immediatist attitude that so many Wikipedians have. It's incredibly harmful. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced information is more harmful than not including something. Read and understand WP:V and WP:OR before claiming an article should be kept based on its sources. Sources are required immediately. If you don't have a source for your information, then you don't add it. Jay32183 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsourced information is more harmful than not including something." Fine, we disagree. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't disagree, that implies this is a matter of opinion. You are factually incorrect to claim that "sources are out there, but I'm not actually going to look for any" is a meaningful argument in an AFD. You actually need to never present the argument again. No sources means no adding, no restoring, and no retaining. Until you find sources there won't be a meaningful argument to keep this article. Jay32183 (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of opinion. At any major library there will almost certainly be books that describe it. Enough of your little lectures. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only books on video games that you'll currently find analyze the video games of the 80s and their current impact today. To claim that a very minor character will be covered is simply ridiculous. Feel free to actually prove us wrong, though. TTN (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability is shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nomination withdrawn. Bduke (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic Racing Team

~~This team never ran. Fails to meet notability standards. D-Day (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)~~ I choose to cancel this Afd after some research from Smashville proved me wrong. --D-Day (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, happened 15 years ago, even 3 years ago would not be notable. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If all professional athletes are notable, then wouldn't teams be notable? This was a NASCAR-initiated attempt at diversity that eventually ended up in Mexico City being added to the Busch schedule. That it failed doesn't make it any less notable. And contrary to the nom (and his edits to the article) - the team did run. [57]. I don't know about the faith of the edit, but I think it's a little odd to put in incorrect information and then nominate it for AfD based on said info. --Smashville^BONK! 02:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the team really never did run, at least according to the cited sources. The article cited by User:Smashville above was written before the event at Atlanta which subsequently (according to the first reference in the Wikipedia article) got rained out. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The team did run. The references in the article refer to results of previous races. --Smashville^BONK! 05:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The team did run, but one DNQ does not constitute notability. --D-Day (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's more than a DNQ. [58][59] --Smashville^BONK! 07:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, they did run. Good work. --D-Day (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        However...I'm not opposed to a merge if there is an appropriate article to merge into...it is a little funny that the "Hispanic Racing Team" ran races with a white guy from Kentucky... --Smashville^BONK! 17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW). Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Lupus Research

No references, no assertion of notability. Reads like advertising, and is the creator's only contribution. Biruitorul (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Lots of sources for information out there. [60], [61], [62]. Just needs to be cleaned up and rewritten a bit. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banerji Protocol of Treatment

Spam for a specific style of homeopathy. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Merkinsmum 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising Mayalld (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete clearly just advertising. Tim Ross·^talk 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is probably the best that can be said at the moment. Unless the article is strengthened further, there is likely to be another debate in the future. It has some breathing space for now. Tyrenius (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omer cordell

Bio written by an spa. Is he notable? (His website appears to have shut down.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish you could have waited a bit, the article isn't even a day old. I just stumbled on this AFD and I am trying to fix the article, for grins and giggles. It appears he may be notable, but I am digging up info to add to the article, so I would say give me 30 minutes to see. Pharmboy (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long winded Keep I did some fixes on the article (never saw or heard of him before today, not my best work). Band-aids, really (no pun intended). I find many images of these bands listed with him as photographer, and links showing he does shoot album covers, and it appears the article is accurate enough. There is a lot more that could go into the article, but the nut of it is that he shoots for very famous people. Here are some examples: http://www.rockdetector.com/officialbio,2517.sm and http://www.guitariste.com/interviews/devin-townsend.html (note the copyright and his name under the images) Now, that said, the question begs: is he notable enough? He has 400+ ghits (not impressive by itself) but it seems he is certainly known and respected in the industry. I would venture a guess and say he passes the threshold of notability, based on my quick crash course in his work. Maybe barely passes, but that is the best I can muster in short order. The article needs a lot of work, which obviously isn't a reason to delete (and not why you nom'ed it, of course). I am hoping someone with some actual experience with Omer's work can pipe in and offer better clarity on the issue. If not, I gave my best good faith attempt at establishing the notability, that's all I can do. Pharmboy (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on SPA/Single Purpose Account I didn't see any POV, vanity or spam issues with the article, so I am giving the benefit of the doubt via our beloved good faith policy, as the article didn't give any reason not to. Pharmboy (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete He may have taken photos of some known bands, but there's nothing to show that his work is notable enough for an article. Clubmarx (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what policy specifically does it now fail, and which way? An interview was just added and other stuff still exists to be added to the article. Pharmboy (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Perhaps the interview saves it, but there's only one; if others can be found this could be a keep. The fact that someone is well-known and respected in their industry does not in itself equal notability if the person has not been written about. There are people in many businesses--rare coin dealers, world-class reed instrument repair specialists, forensic technicians--who are well-known, even legendary in their own fields but have not been the subject of any books or articles. Most of the Omer Cordell Ghits are credits only, which (if I understand the WP criteria correctly) do not count as notability. Ewulp (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added new citations for his work with Korg, MTv, plus cites for a book his photography was featured in and a media company. There are more to be made, just don't have time to fill them all in now. I still say this meets notability, even if barely. Pharmboy (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like it's noteable enough. True about him not being THAT knows but it seems like there's a lot of respect for him in the industry as far as who he is and who he's shot. Plus he seems to have two sites www.seventhframe.com and omercordell.com, the 2nd doesn't work. Maybe someone can try contacting him by email and see? I saw some high profile bands on his site. Again, should UST pass though. Good enough I say - left by user 66.183.92.231— 66.183.92.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I've done a bit of a clean-up of the page. Being in semi-regular contact with Omer, I've seen his recent photography of the mountains of the Southern Andes, and would say that his article (if given a chance to flourish) will come to show that he will be notable in the future not merely for his work with musicians. ComaDivine (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creating work for, or used by, notable musicians or companies is not notability in its self since notability is not transferable. Yes, somebody shoots these pictures, but working in your field does not rise above the trivial. There seems to be allot of mixed up comments re:notabilty since we seem to have crystal ball statements about him and claims that he is a notable artist? business? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I've known his work for years now and he's well known in his phylosophy for shooting film. He's talked about frequently when the film subject rises. Keep.— 154.20.95.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. same editing pattern as 66.183.92.231 above — Scientizzle 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Ricardo

Contested prod; removed by creator. Googling yields 103 hits, none of which have to do with the subject. Article claims notability but provides no sources; fails WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Franchesca_Deleroso. Likely hoax, not notable even if not. Pharmboy (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - together with the Franchesca Deleroso entry, which is also up for AfD. Kids playing around. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously not notable. --Funper (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with the article on her friend, I have had no luck finding any sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franchesca Deleroso

Contested prod; removed by user without explanation. Reads like a WP:HOAX. Googling for either name listed - "Franchesca Deleroso" or "Franchesca Marcoshi Deleroso" yields zero hits. Article makes claims of notability, but provides no sources to back it up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; clearly a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Based on the content of the article, I am betting CSD:A7 applies. The article claims "best known for creating a play called Wonders in Your Mind with stars Marques Morango and Amelia Ricardo" but Marques Morango turns up nothing as well, and Amelia Ricardo turns up an AFD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amelia_Ricardo. Um, that means above I guess. Just saw that. Pharmboy (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per Pharmboy. —dima /talk/ 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; likely hoax. -- Dougie WII (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both this and the companion best-friend piece. Kids playing around. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I could find no sources on Google. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Al-Ahwaz

Improperly sourced article used to advocate Arab nationalist propaganda. User who created article admits to being an Arab nationalist. "Al-Ahwaz" is not a legally recognized name for the region being described. Wikipedia does not exist to further nationalist propaganda. We've been through this before many times. Khorshid (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above stated reason. This region does NOT exsist. PKF8586 —Preceding comment was added at 20:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above stated reason. Khorshid (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali doostzadeh (talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought OR wasnt allowed here.--Zereshk (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes I think the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia.The "Al-Ahwaz" group itself is an imaginary entity itself, and it's flag is more prone for deletion than that unknown name.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talk • contribs) 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is that your excuse?? that it is not legally recobnized??

Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopedia is to show the truth, both truth, you cant deny the fact that their are organizations trying to work for independance of the Ahwaz, and they have chosen this flag for them, and an article needs to be made to explain what the flag means...

and i am an arab nationalist, it is not a bad thing being an Arab, its actually pretty natural ;)

as for you my friend, your nationalism of being a persian is threatening Wikipedia, by deleting articles that you think are "imaginary".

the Ahwaz region is similar to other territories in the World that are trying to claim a free state for themselves, pretty much like Kosovo trying to gain independance, and serbia disapproving, but the Irani style is to just delete the name from the History...

these links prove that their is a liberation front calling for a free Ahwaz...

[alahwaz.org]
[www.alkarkha.com]
[63]
[64]

other Links in Wikipedia created to inform the reader of the Ahwaz:

Ahwazi Democratic Popular Front

the Ahwaz region articles have been vandalised by the previous members calling for a speedy deletion, removing categories in its articles...

[65]

they have also called for the speedy deletion for several articles that show the truth about Ahwaz's liberation movement...

i, along with the Arab World Wiki Project denounce the act, and call for Wikipedia to see the truth in this, and find that these persians are making Wikipedia into a political forum debate, which is something im pretty sure wikipedia is not...

thank you --Arab League User (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-existent region name = non-existent flag therefore that should equate to a non-existent Wikipedia article. --WebHamster18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It exists here [66] and here [67], so why not on Wikipedia?--Conjoiner (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic entry, original reserach, no sources, non-existent region name only used by fringe political advocacy groups. --07fan (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons above. Earth bending master 01:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasons and as part of a walled garden, see the related CfD. ThuranX (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only if its main article (National Liberation Movement of Ahwaz) gets deleted. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this article needs to be kept, since articles such as Falg of Kurdistan and Flag of Assyria exist. It is basically just an article about a regional or whatever flag.By the way, what was the flag of Al-Ahwaz state before the 1920's? when it was an independent state?--Aziz1005 (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was never an independent state. It was recognized as part of Persia. And no there are 65000 flags on that flag site, and Wikipedia can not have an article on each one, specially if the flag is fake. Kurdistan flag is flying is northern Kurdistan right now and is very different. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The flag of Ahwaz appears in an article by UNPO (Unrepresented Nations & Peoples Organization) an International Organization based in Netherlands[68].Heja Helweda (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.UNPO is not related to United Nations and it's an unofficial Human rights organization that membership of it is possible for every group that pays the membership fee. Then appearance of Ahwazi flag in an article by UNPO does not show its importance (compare with League of Secessionist States.)--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I even doubt about the main article (National Liberation Movement of Ahwaz) notability.--Larno Man (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the user likes to post fictional things he should maybe work on some sort of fictional wiki. Nokhodi (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom, fictional.Farmanesh (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete . There is no flag of Ahwaz, because Ahvaz has no flag and in addition the panArabists themselves do not agree about their fictional flags. while there are undeniable separatist movements in the Iranian province of Khuzistan aiming to ethnically cleanse the province from its Persian, Luri, Bakhtiari and Qashqai Turkic residence and to deliver it as a Arab homeland to the Arabs, these articles are partisan. They fail to describe the external ties of the separatists, and the extent of support under population. In addition they do not show that all these oragnizations are different names of the same and they only refer to their own pan-Arabist propaganda websites as "sources". Waht is more disturbing is that they call the province Khuzistan as Al-Ahwaz, while Ahvaz is only the name of its capital and the region has never been called as such by any one else than the pan-Arabists.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All countries nowaday consider themselves as Arab nations are not real Arab. They are only Arabic speakers and writers! They belong to variety of ethnic groups who forced to speak and write in Arabic language and it would be interesting to note that Umayyid and Abbasid dynasties stressed their Arabization due to political and not Islamic reasons. Khuzestan is historically part of Elam which with its capital Susa is one of the world oldest recorded civilizations, well known to be Iranian. Considering the social demography of Khuzestan province nowaday in Iran it is hard to claim it as an Arabic land. Farhoudk (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarnjit

Short Article and is non-notable Thebluesharpdude (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G4 as a substantial recreation of material deleted following deletion discussion with no changes to address concerns for which the article was previously deleted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar legends

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable and No developer Thebluesharpdude (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. Completely unreferenced and unverifiable. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could be wrong as I'm quite inexperienced with wiki, but I think I'm right in saying you can only speedy it if the article is pretty much the same as previously deleted version - without access to the old one, we can't check this. As for being unreferenced, see my comment below (before I thought of responding here). Skip1337 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Unverifiable, deleted before. Lurker (said · done) 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whoah dude. Don't bogart that, pass it over, I'm on the Wikipedia, man. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it looks to be as if the article was only created today, in which case the creator is probably planning to add more to it shortly. Give it a couple of weeks, then if nothing has been added suggest it for deletion again. Skip1337 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Note prior AfD history, this appears to have been a recurrent issue. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ah, maybe I'm wrong then! Ignore my previous keep, I'll sit on the fence for this one and let more experienced wikipedians sort it out. Skip1337 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popple (band)

Non-Notable band Thebluesharpdude (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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