Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 5

< January 4	January 6 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Merge to Sierra Leone Liberated Africans. Keilana^talk 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mammah family (Sierra Leone)

(AGAIN) No information to indicate significance in a biographical article. And therefore, the article is pointless Ranket (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It SAYS they are "prominant", isn't that good enough? Just kidding. Speedy Delete for lack of asserting notability. Pharmboy (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would expect a prominent family to have produced more evidence of their prominence than this. Fails to assert, still less prove, notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not that notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sierra Leone Liberated Africans: this is not a biographical article but a genealogical one. By the nature of the events surrounding the slave trade, information from reliable sources will be scarce; I think that the mentions in the obituaries linked from the article are sufficient for verifiability but not for notability, which is why I am suggesting merger rather than retention. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ceyockey. Perhaps an individual Mammah is notable, but their is insufficient notability for the whole family. Re-creare if some family member's have articles.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. If new evidence later on shows them to be more notable, then it can be recreated. I'm not quite sure if there is any notability, though, so I may change to weak delete. Firestorm (talk) 01:16, 7 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 --JForget 01:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Jefferson Blythe, Jr.

William Jefferson Blythe, Jr.'s sole claim to father is that he was President Bill Clinton's biological father. However, he died three months prior to Clinton's birth and played no part in his upbringing. Doesn't meet notability or WP:BIO criteria. Only reason it seems to be included is that he is Bill Clinton's father and notability is not inherited. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realise that your supposed to avoid that argument. I think that the subject of this article is actually quite notable, being the father of a world famous figure, so keep.--Phoenix -wiki 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [1] particularly the last subsection title Non valid general criteria. Being related to a notable person does not, by itself, make a person notable. I just went off the link included in that section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would you point out the section in WP:ATA that you have in mind, Phoenix-wiki? --Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he is referring to my linking of WP:NOTINHERITED and a misconception to what the section means. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: Both WP:BIO and WP:NOTE say: A person is presumed to be notable enough for a standalone article if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. So the question becomes is there significant third party coverage?

The Fathers of American Presidents - Jeff C. Young - 1997 (a complete chapter is devoted to him)
Several newspapers have conducted exhaustive investigations into Clinton's parentage (I will provide the list Monday) and that's how the four marriages were revealed. That of course reveals something about Clinton's character which is not discussed in the President Clinton article.
He is extensively discussed in Clinton's My Life (Bill Clinton autobiography) (including a tale of visiting the site where he was killed)

And of course there's the whole thing the father of a president is almost inherently notable -- especially when he's the namesake of the President and that he's buried next to the President's mother. Americasroof (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the immediate family of a head of state is notable, and this had sources for notability in any event. DGG (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I usually edit football articles but I don't want any Republican Party supporters hounding me. Using the flawed logic of delete, Chelsea Clinton would also have to be deleted. So would most of the British Royal family. The man has plenty of citations about him per Google. I didn't know about the book coverage, but that's more references. This is an example of horrible judgment, IMHO (and that's being kind because if it's not bad judgment then it is a bad faith nomination, which is even worse). Steelersruletheworld (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what politics has to do with this.. I also submitted the articles for several Bush relatives for deletion. You should also take a look at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and try to assume good faith. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay and not policy or guideline. The original afd nomination here was an attempt to wipe out articles on three relatives of Presidents in one fell swoop because it was more convenient than writing three afds. Please show your good faith and follow the wiki policy of one afd per article so that they can be discussed each on their own merits. Americasroof (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "one afd per article" is the Wikipedia policy, please explain why we have WP:BUNDLE. A polite request to separate a multiple is acceptable, but badgering the nominator for bad faith is not. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability does not perpetuate backwards through time to make an ancestor of a U.S. President notable. Blythe himself clearly fails to satisfy WP:N so his article should be redirected to the Clinton article. Some appropriate mention could be made there. Edison (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Americasroof. Rray (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the President's father, one talked about frequently by President Clinton, is noteworthy Rotovia (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG -Lciaccio (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the biological father of a head of state of the USA? Easy. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because, yes, to certain extend notability is inherited. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual notability is established by the lengthy Washington Post profile from 1993 in addition to sources mentioned by Americasroof. Multiple, independent, reliable sources can verify this article. "Notability is not inherited" is a straw man argument. Nobody is arguing for the notability of Dustin Diamond's father here. --JayHenry (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient material exists to write a decent article. I'd be surprised if any US president's father would fail WP:N; people are interested in this kind of information and have done the research to find it. Zagalejo^^^ 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets both WP:N and WP:BIO, and I'm not sure on what basis the nominator claims otherwise. A truly spurious nomination.--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is the father of an American president. That is notable enough to warrant an article. --Tocino 18:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not independently notable per WP:BIO, not enough significant coverage in secondary material that establishes independent notability.--Strothra (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? The Washington Post article and the chapter in The Fathers of American Presidents are both primarily about this man. Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 8 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 both. Keilana^talk 18:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Scullion

NN person and I suspect is probably an autobio. This google search (which subtracts WP, Amazon, Lulu, and book from the search) returns 559 G-hits, most seeming to be forum/blog postings and other people than the subject. The bundled book is also self-published, the more famous names said to be in the book are actually quotes from other published work by those famous names, not original content. Pigman☿ 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a non-notable book. this google search returns five hits:[reply]

It lacks coverage from reliable, third party sources though by the looks of this google search he's an author all right. I suggest keeping and cleaning up.--Phoenix -wiki 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I might suggest my google searches above instead? I refined them a little more than yours. The only parameter which might have been misapplied/bad was connecting "-book" with Sean Scullion's name search. It was intended to eliminate bookstores but could well have eliminated pertinent hits. Leaving the book parameter off results in 865 hits. Pigman☿ 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. I tried researching and sourcing these and they are not salvageable or appropriate for WP. I prodded both articles, but the author contested. The book is the first, self-published release by a new editor/author. We don't write about newly-released, self-published books by unknown authors. Reading through the g-search, I get the distinct impression there's more than one author by this name, so you have to use a more refined search. As I'm pretty certain both these articles are autobios, I think he would have added the other works if he had written them, rather than saying this is his first book, and his only other work being an article on a website. G hits on "Sean Scullion" plus Australia considerably narrows the field. There's a mention in a demo report from London on indymedia UK but, assuming its the same person, I don't think that's enough to source an article, and most of the others are message boards or WP mirrors. Same g-news search gets zero results, "Sean Scullion" plus author gets one g-news hit, but it seems unrelated. Seems like a well-intentioned person, and I have sympathy for the subject matter, but both are nn. (Also, the book needs to be searched on with the whole title, "Liber Malorum" + "Children Of The Apple" as "Liber Malorum" is a common phrase in other contexts.) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Just re-read the first sentence of Liber Malorum: "Liber Malorum - Children Of The Apple is the first book by the Australian fool and magician Sean Scullion." So, this seems to me to confirm that any other books by a "Sean Scullion" are by a different writer with the same name. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Hello editors - with all due respect, I have been wondering about this article that I added. The book "Liber Malorum - Children Of The Apple" is a large project containing original works from several authors, some of whom already have WP articles (e.g. Jaq D. Hawkins and Ramsey Dukes). I thought it appropriate to list their latest collaboration (Liber Malorum) on their WP entries which I have done in the bibliography sections of their entries. I also thought it appropriate to write a brief page about the book as I saw other similar books had entries although this is a new release (December 2007). It is published by a Brighton-UK publishing house PagAnarchy Press. Likewise, I felt it appropriate to add an entry for the author of this work but I can see the validity in the claim that some of the entry in unsubstantiated and could be cleaned up with verifiable facts. Chaosplanet (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that if you could show somehow that the contributions by the notable authors are original, editors would agree that the Liber Malorum article should be kept. Another ttroublesome charge is that the book is self-published - can we verify from reliable sources whether or not this is the case? Skomorokh ^incite 01:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the PagAnarchy Press website, there's a scan of the back cover claiming that the notable authors have contributed original material. Is that any use to WP? It seperates original content from 'cameos' lists the pre-published work including William Blake et al. http://www.paganarchy.net/back.php Chaosplanet (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I note the book is listed on lulu.com which is a print-on-demand publisher. This is typically a self-publishing press because the up-front publishing cost is minimal and no requirement for ordering any stock whatsoever. For as little as US$100.00, the book will have an ISBN, bar code and be listed on the major online bookstores: Amazon, Borders, and Barnes and Noble. Pigman☿ 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

link: The page for the book on Lulu.com. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question So, Chaos, are you saying that the original content in the book was written by the contributors in the top list, and that any content by the authors listed in the "cameos" section (William Blake, the Principia Discordia, Robert Anton Wilson, Hakim Bey, Timothy Leary, William J. Murray and Donald Tyson) consists only of quotes from pre-published works by those authors (as granted by free use restrictions governing the length that quotes can be before you have to get permission and pay the publishers a fee)? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

answer Actually, the copyright holders of Blake, Leary, Murray and Tyson granted free permission to reproduce. The Principia Discordia, and all Hakim Bey texts are in the public ___domain already so no permission is required to reproduce. The copyright holder of the Robert Anton Wilson text (from the Illuminatus Trilogy) charged a fee for permission to reproduce and this fee has been paid by PagAnarchy Press to the Copyright Clearance Centre. I went to the Liber Malorum booklaunch in London and am already a massive fan of this work, which is the reason for the initial article. However, I will understand if it is not yet deemed 'notable' and needs to be removed for now. Chaosplanet (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I have come across his pamphlet written for Dragon Environmental Network before. Have found a couple more references (particularly enjoyed the 'fairy-hugging' incident...) and added them to the article, but I'm not completely convinced they prove notability. Would suggest merging the Liber Malorum article into this one, if it is kept. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Arts and entertainment taskforce in WikiProject Biography has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Occult has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have found the author Sean Scullion's blog. It is at http://paganarchy.net/blogs/sean.php - I do not know if this will affect the decision as to whether or not to keep the pages up. I certainly think the book page should stay up even if the author page does not. Chaosplanet (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the blog posts again confirm that the author's only book is self-published. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:05, 9 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 deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chantelle Norris

Absolutely no notability, referred to as a 15 year old 'guy', then as a female from there on out, blah blah... Alloranleon (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7 - non notable person. Pages lik this are created all the time.--Phoenix -wiki 23:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE above - I'll keep that in mind in future. Thanks. :) Alloranleon (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I live in England and she's not well known to me! Utter rubbish that takes everyone's time up to tidy. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:46, 5 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. There was a clear consensus for deletion. The arguments for keeping were not sufficiently strong to overcome that consensus. There were three relevant sources, one of which was a directory-type entry, one a passing mention of a transaction and the other a statutory notice; insufficient in my view to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Country Club Mall

Non-notable mall in Maryland, fails WP:RS. At only 500K square feet (source), it falls short of super-regional status. Tagged for references since August with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:25, 5 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)} 23:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to fail to indicate why it is notable. Being "the largest shopping mall in Western Maryland west of Sideling Hill" just doesn't scream notability without something else, preferably cited. Pharmboy (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 3.937 kg Hammer. Edison (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable mall. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Relatively short article that can be improved. Has one reference already, and more can be added. Has some major anchor stores found at many notable malls. May not be read a lot, which is why it hasn't been improved, but length of article and amount of readership are not criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, nor are there any deadlines for improving an article. I am still looking for more information about the history of the mall, which should be included, and would provide more references. Sebwite (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key question is: What fact is being presented in the article that makes this mall 'notable' and not just another mall. If there isn't something that stands out and seperates it from just 'an ordinary mall', then it is just 'an ordinary mall', which is not notable by itself. 1000 citations about the mall existing doesn't assert any notability, so the number of references is meaningless until some notability is claimed. Pharmboy (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not mean fame or uniqueness. It is debateable what makes something notable, but it doesn't have to be different from any other of its type. One thing that all agree is required to be considered notable is that it has to be covered by reliable outside sources. See WP:Notability for more details.Sebwite (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to WP:Notability, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. which would disqualify chamber of commerce and similar entities, and only serves as the basics of the definiton. Notability can be fame or uniqueness, although I don't remember using those terms as how to define notability to begin with. My argument and reasoning still stands and conforms to policy: Something about the place must be different or at least special at the very least, just to make a claim of notability. Pharmboy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Presently, I am looking through the more than 17,000 Google hits on the mall to find notable information that can be used in the article. This is a time-consuming process, but I am sure I will find something. Already, I have found that the mall is a hub for the region's transit system. Though the chamber of commerce site is the one I listed that said it was the only mall within a certain distance, this is very likely written elsewhere as well.Sebwite (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment And if you find it, please bring it here. People who vote to 'delete' are supposed to do so after trying to see if it is notable, but that doesn't require fishing through all 17,000 ghits, just a good faith attempt. If something is found, added, cited and brought here, I would be happy to have a reason to reverse my opinion. My opinion to delete isn't because it is "this" mall, it is because it is any mall that hasn't established notability per policy. I don't think being the only mall in $x miles qualifies, but if there is something unique to being the hub (first electric train in the state, etc.) then it might squeak by, or perhaps something else that qualifies. Otherwise, every mall in the usa would be here, and Wikipedia is pretty set about not being a directory for all malls/businesses/etc. Pharmboy (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Has some major anchor stores found at many notable malls' is not a reason to keep or to establish notability. Generally the stores at a mall are something that is mentioned after notability is established. It is not the cause of notability except in rare cases and this is not one of those. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - but only just! In all good conscious I had to wait till Sebwite's additions. Being the only facillity in that radius (with Cite) is notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply put, there is no assertion of notability. Also fails WP:CORP. So this is just another run of the mill US mall. Waiting for someone to add notability does not mean we keep the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is nothing under WP:CORP that says this article does not qualify.Sebwite (talk) 16:18, 10 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 --JForget 01:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimited (Hilary Duff album)

It's a fan-made compilation distributed using the usual fileshare channels. Fails Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums_and_songs. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I'm getting a ton of ghits, and while it is weak via Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums_and_songs, it seems to have a lot of attention brought to it. I'm no fan of hers (quite the opposite) but she is quite notable, and sheer volume of references to this album that can be found counts for something. I haven't combed all the ghits for "Hilary Duff" Unlimited (as it brought back 280,000 ghits) but I find it hard to believe that nothing can be found, even if it isn't easy. Articles must be verifiable, not verified. Since this article was created just over a day aho, I think it needs more time to develop rather than be deleted. Pharmboy (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click through to the last page of results on Google to get the true figure. In this case, it's 645 - not all of them relevant (many of them just contain 'Hilary Duff' and the word 'unlimited' on the same page). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Something on google is borked, as it won't show past 726, even if you choose to see 'omitted results', multiple times. I understand what you are saying, but I am also seeing the album featured on Yahoo downloads and pretty mainstream places. I am not saying this meets policy by itself, I am just saying I think you rushed the nom a bit as there is a lot of talk out there about the album from mainstream sites (but the links I can get in 3 minutes don't wp:rs). Again, I have no use for Hilary Duff, but this just seems to have too much attention drawn to it to be not notable. If nothing else, this is one of the very few cases when WP:IAR might apply (justified by the quality of non-wp:rs coverage + the artist is unquestionably notable). I won't labor it, but I am hoping you see why I think this is more of a borderline case than the nomination itself may indicate. Pharmboy (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The speedy should have been honored. This isn't really even a non-notable album by a notable personality ... it's something fans put together with scotch tape and crayons. Fails notability requirements.Kww (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been speedily deleted. it is not techincally her album and alot of the info is false. The article is pretty much orphaned and not mentioned in her discog. or main article. --neonwhite user page talk 03:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless I can start adding my old mix-tapes to Wiki Rotovia (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a non-notable album. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a bootleg that fails notability requirements. There are occasions where bootleg releases might gain notability but this isn't one of those occasions. 23skidoo (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a fan-compilation and it doesnt meet notability criteria. It was also nominated for speedy deletion. Since it is a fan compilation album with no source/info on the internet, i guess it shd be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gprince007 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an album by hilary duff is notable, random collections of bootlegs online? not so much... --T-rex 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy per A7 - Fails notability criteria, not official at all. Unless somebody sues over copyvio, in which case it would be notable, WP doesn't need an article on it. Firestorm (talk) 01:27, 7 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. Keilana^talk 18:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Camp Lazlo

A list of secondary locations which mostly appear for a single episode. Mostly trivial material, non-verifiable, primary-sourced (in-universe). There's not much of a chance of third-party sources on many of these. The exception being the first three locations listed in the contents. Those, while still needing to be addressed, are where the show occurs. Yng varr 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable locations with no reliable, third party coverage. I think deletion is appropriate here.--Phoenix -wiki 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Strong Merge I agree with you on the fact that this article is mostly trivial material, however some locations such as Camp Kidney and Acorn Flats are considered notable enough for inclusion. I think we should either merge to Camp Lazlo or clean up the article per Wikipedia:Lists, both of which I am willing to do. Noah¢s (Talk) 02:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Cartoon Network has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merging the major locations like Camp Kidney, Acorn Flats and Prickly Pines makes some sense and it has been said by the nominator they'd be written into the parent article after deletion. The non-notable locations and lack of verifiable sources along with it being something of a exhaustive list makes it a good candidate for deletion. --treelo _talk 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT as a whole, and no real-world coverage. Major locations for the series should be covered in the parent article. If info from this article is merged there, redirect per GFDL. Collectonian (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 07:04, 10 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 in parent article and then delete. The main characters article could probably easily fit in the important characters from this list if it was cleaned up. As it is, no sources to prove notability, which means whether or not to keep hinges on whether it is governed by WP:SIZE concerns. As stated above, this could still be merged into the main list, and though still "only a guideline" I think most people would assume the bedrock to inclusion on Wikipedia is more important than the 32KB limit which does not apply to most modern browsers. David Fuchs^(talk) 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in Camp Lazlo

This is a list of single-episode characters, those one-shot types of characters who only serve to advance the plot elements for an individual episode. It's chock full of trivial, unverifiable material and original research, with no possibility of any third-party (or even second-party) sources. They're not only non-notable out-of-universe, they're non-notable in-universe. Yng varr 23:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an acceptable article and while it does have original research and trivia, I think it just needs to be cleaned up. Plus, if we merged some characters to List of characters in Camp Lazlo, it would make an already large article, larger. Besides we have minor characters articles for other television shows. Noah¢s (Talk) 02:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of minor characters from (sadly) major show. Too much information to merge, and per WP:NP it belongs here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 03:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak merge into List of characters in Camp Lazlo (the characters of little in-universe notability should be removed then per cleanup). Seeing how many "major" characters are already covered in the main list, the characters in the AfDed list can only be really minor, and notability is not established nor is it likely that it can be established. Wikipedia is not a fanguide to cover or even mention every trivial fictional element. – sgeureka ^t•c 03:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is clearly just part of main Camp Lazlo split due to WP:SIZE issues, and should be governed primarily by WP:NNC and not as an isolated article. Torc2 (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The name of the article is a bit misleading. The term "minor" implies a greater level of appearances than what actually occurs. When I consider a "minor" character, someone like Apu from the Simpsons comes to mind. Some of the characters listed in this article never even appear (Edward's mother, Lumpus' grandfather), they're merely mentioned once or twice. As much as the trivia has been addressed, they still continue to reappear (which I realize is not terms for deletion in itself, but in this regard, I'll argue otherwise). Yng varr 16:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia makes no such distinction, and I don't agree that "minor" has the threshold of significance you suggest. "Minor" characters can occur only a few times, or even just once. In any case, what you're arguing is article content, which isn't a good basis for an AfD. Torc2 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Cartoon Network has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing for deletion based on notability and reliable sources (or lack of). They have no note both in an in-universe context and out-of-universe context. The burden of proof gives further details: so far, there have been no arguments for keeping that have proven that these subjects have been covered by WP policies (WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS). If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Yng varr 10:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there has. This article only exists apart from the main Camp Lazlo article due to WP:SIZE restrictions. It's entirely appropriate for this subarticle to be primary sources since it's merely content for the main article. The content is covered by WP:NNC more than WP:N. Torc2 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NNC over-rides WP:N? WP:NNC still says [the] topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article (emp. mine). I'm not arguing for the size of the article, I'm arguing that references and sources for these characters do not exist. What about WP:SYNTH, for which this article also suffers (as a form of WP:OR)? The content is based solely on primary sources; and criticism of the subject is impossible without those sources. WP:SIZE is style guidelines, not policy; WP:N is policy. Finally, if one were to actually address the issues with List of characters in Camp Lazlo, then WP:SIZE may not be an issue (see the long-outstanding tags). Yng varr 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N doesn't address the issues created by WP:SIZE and the fact that a single article that is split due to size isn't the same thing as two distinct articles. (FWIW, WP:N is also a guideline, not a policy.) WP:SIZE and WP:N conflict in this regard, and the guidelines and terminology just haven't caught up to reality yet. It's a shortcoming that some editors are working to address . In the meantime, the reality of the situation is that it's ridiculous and crippling to pretend articles like this were ever intended to be totally independent from their main articles. These aren't "separate articles" - they're sub-articles; they're part of the main article that just exist on a different page. List of characters in Camp Lazlo, List of minor characters in Camp Lazlo, and List of Camp Lazlo episodes are all part of one article: Camp Lazlo - the fact that they are on different Wiki pages is just incidental. They're simply data that won't fit in the main article; that they're primary-source summaries is basically irrelevant. If there is superfluous information, it should be dealt with using guidelines that apply to article content, not article creation.Torc2 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor characters are just that, minor, and unnotable within the series, much less outside of it. List fails WP:FICT. Single episode characters are not necessary and should be covered in the appropriate episode summary. They need no mention elsewhere. Collectonian (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 23:20, 13 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. Stronger, multiple sources were introduced during AfD, although it still appears to be a magnet for vandalism. David Fuchs^(talk) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melon heads

Hoax article? Links and one reference all seem highly questionable. Cool story, though. Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to delete the melonhead article you may as well delete bigfoot, lochness monster, chupacabra, aliens. Just because it is not a world renowned myth doesn't make it less important or relevant. Most Ohioans are very familiar with this story and it would be shame to railroad it off of wiki. It is not a hoax entry, it is a vital part of Northeast Ohio's mythical heritage. Feel free to email your questions. per Mmoorhead1207@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.38.220 (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a local urban legend. I think it's fake, but it is somewhat important. Here's a few links on it.

http://deadohio.com/MelonHeads.htm

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:oZhsre-pE14J:www.forgottenoh.com/Counties/Lake/melonheads.html+site:www.forgottenoh.com+melon+heads&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

http://www.geocities.com/son_of_pauly/melonheads/melonhead.html

http://www.weirdus.com/stories/OH04.asp

http://creepycleveland.blogspot.com/search/label/melonheads

VinTheMetalhed (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those seems to be a reliable source, however. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're enough to establish the existence of the urban legend. And we can have articles about urban legends, as long as they're clearly presented as such. Zagalejo^^^ 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Weak Delete.~~ I agree with Zagalejo, in principle. However, the article still has to meet WP:NOTE and WP:RS criteria. A cursory bit of research on the book they provide is inconclusive as to the reliability of it as a source. And if this is a widespread legend, it must be reported in more than the local alternative rag. I'm positive that Ohio has a large-ish newspaper in that general area, as do Connecticut and Michigan. In the case of Connecticut, there certainly should be a bit of newsprint about it, since the story apparently dates back almost 150 years (or is it 50? The article is unclear)... And, honestly, if it's really as well-known as is claimed, I'm surprised Snopes hasn't heard of it... With more reliable sources, I'll gladly consider changing from Delete, as I tend to have a bit of an inclusionist bent... -- Lewellyn ^talk 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem citing a referenceable urban legend, no matter how oddball. However, unreliable internet sources about an alleged urban legend do not constitute an actual urban legend; they constitute an internet hoax that suggests an urban legend. There may be a root truth to the internet stuff, but the references aren't strong enough to back it up. Quite a bit of the information in the article isn't even backed up by the links and single reference. Another point: might be worthwhile to give the article history some scrutiny. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, this isn't an internet hoax pretending to be an urban legend. For one thing, the Melon Heads are briefly mentioned in this 2000 article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer. (I can access the whole article on Newsbank. It's just a sentence – "She will share the legend of the 'melonheads' that haunt Wisner Rd in Kirtland." – but it proves that it's an actual piece of Ohio folklore.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. ..but the article you mention is about a woman gives "Ghost walks," not about the actual urban legend. Did she acquire her information from the web as a way to bolster her program, or is she retelling an actual urban legend (did the chicken come before the egg?) Once again, reliability is a problem. ..--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? I don't know. I'll keep looking around, though. Zagalejo^^^ 00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not to be difficult, but are you able to find anything else substantial? A sentence in a newspaper article which appears to be lacking in verification of the legends they're discussing isn't really much "proof" of anything, other than someone apparently is paid to tell the story. It also seems to contradict the Wikipedia article slightly... Still looking for a reliable source, myself... -- Lewellyn ^talk 00:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only other things I've found so far are reviews of the Weird US books, which list the Melonhead stories as one of the highlights. I'm still digging around, though. Zagalejo^^^ 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The most substantial that I've found so far, myself, is this set of posts to the Creepy Cleveland blog. Certainly not RS material... -- Lewellyn ^talk 01:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pgagnon999. Ford MF (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be a bit more plain about my remarks RE: the article's history; you'll find that the article has attracted quite a bit of attention from unreg. users, some of whom have a history of vandalism or quasi-vandalism--Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I had noted that, as well as plenty of overt vandalism on the article. Also, in all of the unreliable information I'm finding, supposedly this Dr. Crowe operated simultaneously in Michigan and Ohio. I find this doubtful, and in line with an internet-legend which people are trying their hardest to turn viral. Also, I cannot even find any sources older than about 8 years, with no indication of the originator. I'm starting to suspect the story-teller from the Plain Dealer article... There's certainly a lot about these melon-heads on the web, but unfortunately, little of it's even slightly "reliable". And even less pre-dates this article... Due to the fact that there is nothing reliable, let alone from before this article's creation (nevermind the edit history...), I'm sticking to Delete... -- Lewellyn ^talk 01:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did find this Holland Sentinel article. It's partially sourced to Weird Michigan, but it also contains some original material. One of the locals quoted in the article notes that, in his day, the kids used to refer to the Melon Heads as "wobble heads"... So, that's something to search for. Zagalejo^^^ 01:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's more promising; seems marginally notable anyway. If the bunk and vandal-fiction is edited out of the article, there just might be a full paragraph based on what is actually sourceable.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Janeyvon (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)I live within 10 minutes of Kirtland, Ohio and we, as teenagers, did go melonhead hunting in the late 70's. I know teenagers still continue to this day, so it is an urban legend. But, the information I found on Wikipedia about Dr. Crow is new to me . . . we never had this much detail![reply]

Yes, it's highly educational and encyclopedic--Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I chopped out a lot of the BS, and included some newspaper refs. Zagalejo^^^ 06:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job :) I'll upgrade to ~~Weak Keep~~ based on your edits. However, the article should probably be locked down or closely monitored: it's a real kaka magnet.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I don't know about keeping the Kirtland Ohio section. The references for that section are way too sketchy. Revise to Weak Delete unless the references can be upgraded into something reliable. Alternately, you could just mention something about the original Michigan urban legends spreading via the Internet and Sterling Publications books. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did find a Plain Dealer article noting that the Ohio stories are popular on the Internet. So regardless of whether it's all a "fake" urban legend or a real one, we do have a reliable source saying that the stories exist and are circulating online. I think that should be good enough to save the article. Zagalejo^^^ 20:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I maintain my ~~weak delete~~, for now. We currently have 2 articles from the same publication (The Plain Dealer), Weird Michigan/US (and articles sourcing it), and the Free Times (which feels it is valid to source messageboard comments, so I'm dubious on the rest of the article). So, there's currently 1 reliable source, and 1 dubious source (unless someone can shed light on the reliability of the Sterling publications...) Policy tends to dictate "multiple" reliable sources... As I mentioned, I tend to have an inclusionist bent, but if an urban legend hasn't even caused a blip on the Snopes.com radar, then is Wikipedia really the place for it? -- Lewellyn ^talk 21:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that the Holland Sentinel article does contain some original material. I don't think we should worry too much about Snopes; there are any number of reasons why they haven't talked about the legend (it's too local in scope; nobody really takes it seriously enough for Snopes to research it; etc.) As for the Sterling Publications, I think they should be sufficient to document the existence of the myth. I own a couple books in the Weird... series, and am interested in these kinds of stories in general. I'll admit that the editors do take a light-hearted approach to their subjects, and aren't concerned with debunking the stories, but I've never known them to completely fabricate an urban legend. Zagalejo^^^ 22:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - RE the Free Times, I think it's fair to cite a message board in that context. The author is just giving an example of the kinds of stories that are going around. And he's not trying to present the stories as true; he clearly refers to it as a "myth". Zagalejo^^^ 22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Chardon, Ohio, library is fairly close to me, so within the week, I'll check with reference librarians to see if there are any published sources mentioning melonheads, including those not of a regional nature. At the very least, the text of this article should be merged into Chardon Township, Geauga County, Ohio (not Kirtland, Ohio, since the cemetery in question is in Chardon Township), although that would leave the text the legend as heard in other locations orphaned. As of now: weak keep. Mapsax (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An existing urban legend verifiable to several distinct sources. The primary grounds for inclusion on Wikipedia are verifiability and notability. The available sources confirm both of these. The truth of the urban legend is irrelevant (most urban legends are largely, if not totally, false), what is important is that they are a part of popular culture. If you were to delete an urban legend just because it's about something made up then you might as well delete all urban legends as well as most classical myths. - perfectblue (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contention isn't with the existence or hokey source of the urban legend, it's with the reliability of the sources that report the urban legend. I.e., is it an urban legened, or is it something invented by internet bloggers and a single publisher? Is it really an urban legend, and to what extent? For instance, using your example above, I could invent a bogus Greek myth, paste it on the net or publish it, and someone else could edit it into the Wiki article on Greek mythology, but that wouldn't make it a real Greek myth. So far, all but one of the Michigan references are sketchy at best, and all of the Ohio Melon heads references are equally sketchy. I'd like the legend to have a place here; its a fun story, but we are an encyclopedia. . .and we need good sources to maintain credibility as one. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This actually works both ways. Fakelore is just as valid on Wikipedia as [Folklore]]. If this is a hoax, a fake urban myth, then it appears to hav been widely distributed enough to be notable in itself and therefore sufficiently notable to be included. In this case, the only point of contention would be the entries framing. You'd need to WP:V it is as a web hoax. A local paper saying that it's fake would be sufficient to rate at least a reference that people thought that it was fake in the entry, and if it provided evidence to back it then I'd have no problem with the entry saying that it was a fake myth. My point however remains that if its a genuine myth then it's notable because of its coverage, and if its a fake myth it's still notable for the same reasons.

At the end of the day, and in the very best of situations, this would still be an urban myth and nothing more. It doesn't need peer review reliability. Only a couple of sources that are sufficiently reliable enough to report on the contents of the myths, and pretty much any well urban legend book could so that. - perfectblue (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I agree with that. Even fakelore still needs to meet Wiki notability criterion, and I'm not sure that the Ohio Melon heads quite make it there. They may get there. . .in a few more years of viral transimission via the internet, an article about them might meet the notability criterion for a Melonhead article (or mention in an article) about internet hoxes or internet fakelore. But I'm not sure that Wikipedia should be one of the primary transmitters of marginal (at best) fakelore. The Melonheads should arrive at their own notability. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. And again, I don't know that there are even a "couple of sources that are sufficiently reliable." --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that most complaints (at least mine...) haven't been on the notability of legends; solely how reliable the sources are, and general notability of this particular legend. I'm upgrading to weak keep, based on the latest changes, and the offer by Mapsax to visit the local libraries. Even if Mapsax is told by the reference librarian, "Hah! I know the legend; it was brought here in 19XX by XYZ. Here's all of the documentation I have," there's still notability, as well as the sources likely being reliable. On the other hand, if the reference librarian is unfamiliar with the legend, I think we can safely assume that we've been had and remove at least the Ohio section. (Yes, I trust reference librarians to know of local legends; they get some mighty odd requests...) Mapsax, if the librarian confirms the myth and provides RS, can you ask her/him to point you to relevant images which could be used as fair use on Wikipedia? I suspect that you'll have access to things we'd never see otherwise... -- Lewellyn ^talk 10:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The research is held up a bit (Chardon happens to be the unofficial lake-effect snow capital of Ohio, and it just got hit), but I'll do my best. Full disclosure: I became interested in the legend in Ohio when I heard it, having just heard about it in Michigan -- not in the Holland area, but in southeast Berrien County, a little down the Lake Michigan shore. That reference, however, turns up nothing on the internet, and, both from memory and research today, locals seem not to agree even on the ___location, citing two cemeteries/churches with similar names, this one and this one. Just to muddy things up. :-) Mapsax (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Edit, put here to keep relevant comments together It looks like there is an instance of this in Berrien cited online here, but refers to yet another ___location, the shoreline dunes between Stevensville and Bridgman. Mapsax (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per WP:HEY. The article needs work, but the topic is notable and verifiable. The urban legend is described in several of the "Weird US" series of books: [2], [3], [4]... and here's a story about it in a local newspaper: [5]. I'm not digging deeper into this, but with finding those print-published non-web sources in just a few minutes, I'm convinced this is not a hoax and is WP:N & WP:V enough to keep the article. (If any editors of the article are reading this, you're welcome to make use of these references to improve the page.) --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up - I was asked by an editor to review the sources a bit more, because all three of the books found are by the same publisher. So I read the Holland Sentinel newspaper article in full, and it did seem like most of the info was from the book series; but there were also a few names of people relating stories that weren't from the book; it's hard to tell though. I searched a bit more and found another article, in the Cleveland Free Times, a weekly paper: [6]. That article doesn't mention the book, but the history is similar enough it seems like it could be from the book; on the other hand the paper also mentioned some other people who said they'd heard the stories. One of the papers asked the Lakewood Town Manager and the other paper spoke with the Kirtland Fire Chief who said he'd heard the stories when he was a teenager. If those are valid interviews -if those same interviewees are not named in the books, then that makes those newspaper stories independent and reliable for keeping the article. If it turns out that the books name the same individuals making the reports as the in the newspaper articles, then that might show that the sources are not independent. As far as I can tell so far, they seem independent, so I'll leave my "keep" comment. I'm open to changing that though, if more info is provided showing the sources are not independent. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lakewood Town Manager and the Kirtland Fire Chief are not named in Weird US or Weird Michigan. I'm not 100% sure about Weird Ohio, since I can't get a preview of the Melon Heads section with Google Books (but if I'm near a Barnes and Noble, I can probably check, because they always carry these titles). Zagalejo^^^ 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got a copy of Weird Ohio. The bad news: The four pages covering the subject look to lift text directly from the websites cited at the top of this article (what a surprise to see my own words, since I contributed to Forgotten Ohio). The good news: One of the sources, not listed above, is entitled "Solving the Melon Head Mystery", and is available here, in two pages. The author (Ryan Orvis) said on the second page that he "went to the library", and and since the cite appears to be recent, any research that he did probably would be the same that I would do on Monday, when the reference librarian today stated that the employee who would know the most about it would be in. I think that we have enough substance now! Anyone with more editing experience than I have want to go to it? :-) Mapsax (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the great research & debate that went into this discussion. After a recent negative experience with Wikipedia, all of this makes me feel right at home & hopeful about this medium :) As for the Melon heads, I no longer object to the article itself; my only beef (notability & reliability of sources) is with the Ohio melonheads section. That said, I rest my case: let community concensus move the article forward.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was originally highly unsourced, sloppy, full of apocrypha, and tended to refer to unsubstantiated urban legends as if they were fact or rumor. Now it has photographs, several reliable sources, is much better-organized, and is generally neat. In short, it's gone from being completely unencyclopedic to marginally encyclopedic, all thanks to this AfD. Thanks, Pgagnon999! -- Banazir (talk) 15:09, 3 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, Phoenix -wiki 23:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is now fully cited by sources that easily meet wp:rs. I still think it sounds pretty stupid, but at my age, lots of notable things sound pretty stupid. Especially rap ;) Pharmboy (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Keeping this seems to be an excellent indication of the nonsensical nature of our present notability rules. perhaps we should redefine N as really meaning actual importance, and then , field by field, define importance. Even the Plain Dealer sometimes covers absolute local trivia, but I dont see why this implies we should be follow every one of their errors. DGG (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, because of Weird US, it does have nationwide recognition among those interested in these kinds of things. Zagalejo^^^ 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to DGG I agree that the currently policies are a little vague, but this is better than policies that are so rigid that you can't apply common sense. I am probably 80% on the delete vote of AFDs it seems, but if something is truly on the borderline (ie: not spam/vanity/hoax), I think it is better to keep than delete. It is a 'complete' vs. 'overly broad' debate issue, I suppose. Pharmboy (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you do realize that what you say would effectively mean the end of most sports and music related entries and almost all TV related entries. Let me give you a case study: Football (US football, not soccer or rugby football). This sport is basically a US only game with no real international importance. It is followed by fewer that 50% of America's 300+ million population who in turn make up a fraction of the worlds 6+ billion population. The vast majority of international TV stations don't cover it, the vast majority of the world's population don't watch it. 9/10 people in the world proably couldn't even tell you which month the Superbowl was in, let alone who won it. Football barely even makes the headlines outside of the sports pages and it hasn't changed the world any. Therefore under your notability criteria all football entries including players, etc, would be removed from Wikipedia. Things can be notable and specialist at the same time. - perfectblue (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is pretty common in local paranormal circles, which is how it wound up in Weird U.S.. I think that its inclusion in the book should establish it as a real urban legend, not an internet hoax that was recently invented. BTW, here is the google books result, where the pages in Weird U.S. are visible: [7]69.221.152.25 (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you even consider deleting this article? The legend is found in many books in including "Weird Michigan" and there's even several local newspaper articles (at least in Michigan) about the story. Since Wikipedia is one of the biggest resources for information online, why not keep the stories on here for others to see? It just doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.250.194 (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: (restated). Regardless of whether Melon Heads are real, are folklore or are fakelore, they have clearly penetrated the popular consciousness of the region and which has survived "in the wild" for several years demonstrating that it has staying power, too. They are referenced multiple times across multiple sources which treat it as a myth or an urban legend rather than POV pushing it as being real. This checks all of the boxes for a notable and verifiable myth.

On the Hoax issue, it is actually irrelevant whether or not this started out as folklore or fakelore so long as any claims about its status are addressed using verifiable sources. Both folklore and fakelore are equally acceptable on Wikipedia so long as notability is demonstrated, which it has been via the array of different sources available.

On notability. Notability is relative, not absolute. If notability were absolute then practically nothing would be notable. There are 6+ billion people on this planet and asking for something to be notable to more than a handful of them (absolute notability) is frankly asking rather a lot. Micheal Jackson and the Beatles would squeeze through, and so would the War on Terror, but practically no American politician below the level of president would. In fact, using absolute notability, most Americans states would not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Melon heads are notable on the grounds that they have good coverage in the media and in urban myth circles. The myth has propagated and survived without a factual event behind it and it has spawned a pop culture belief of its own that exists independently of other urban myths (notability is its own, rather than one which is inherited from another myth). Take this myth and put it in its native environment, and it is notable. Therefore it is notable overall.

On the reliability issue of sources, I seriously have to ask why people are raising the red flag here? This is a myth being treated as a myth, there are no extraordinary claims being made so no extraordinary proof is required. A source simply needs to be reliable enough to report on the contents of the myth, not to verify the myth as being true to science or history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof but absurd claims require only proof that an absurd claim was made because they are only verifying that the claim was made, not that the claim is true.

Maybe if this was being put forward as science it would need a better source, but a myth being treated as a myth require only sources that are WP:RS as far as myths are concerned. - perfectblue (talk) 12:13, 12 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. Archtransit (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obadiah Newcomb Bush

Obadiah Bush is the great-great-grandfather of Bush 41 and great-great--great-grandfather of Bush 43, while James Smith Bush is the great-grandfather of Bush 43 and great-great-grandfather of Bush 43. Being related to a POTUS (or two) is not notable on it's own, so they need to be notable in some other way. Aside from his descendents, the article for Obadiah's only claim of possible is an unsupported claim that he was a "well-known abolitionist and VP of the American Anti-Slavery Society". James Bush's only other claim to fame is.. Well, nothing.

Both subjects seem to be included in Wikipedia because they are inherited to Presidents of the United States and notability is not inherited. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POINT OF ORDER: You Can Not Delete Three Unrelated Articles in One Nomination!!! Americasroof (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are all related by the fact that the only thing notable about them is that they are related in some manner to Presidents of the United States. However, if you'd prefer, I can move William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. off to his own AFD. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blythe definitely needs a separate entry. You shouldn't cut corners on afds. It will take you two minutes to properly nominate each article. Americasroof (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it was created properly.;) But as requested, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Jefferson Blythe, Jr.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. out of this debate. PLEASE SPLIT AFD's for Obadiah Newcomb Bush and James Smith Bush. They have separate issues and need to be discussed separately. (There's already a split vote). Americasroof (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obadiah, Keep James. Disclaimer: I have edited both articles. I was hoping that more evidence of Obadiah's notability might emerge in time, but he was apparently just locally prominent. James, on the other hand, was a published religious author of some note, a founder of a notable society, and an early pastor of an important US cathedral. He also (for some reason, information on that trip is limited) seemed to be a goodwill ambassador of sorts. --Dhartung | Talk 00:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Wolf's Head? I'm not sure James can be considered "a founder" as the article only says he "supported" the founding along with 300 other Yale students. It seems his involvement consists of attending the first meeting. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away from the topic for some time. There's hardly anything in the article about his books and they are probably his chief claim to fame. Fortunately Google Books is expanded considerably since the last time I did any research for this article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability does not propagate backwards through time to make notable the otherwise non-notable ancestors of U.S. presidents. Possible redirect to the article about the U.S. president and provide appropriate brief mention there. Edison (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison Rotovia (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability and verifiability have been established. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP James Smith Bush: WP:BIO says A person is presumed to be notable enough for a standalone article if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. So the question becomes are there reliable third party sources? The Grace Cathedral site has a photograph of Bush and mentions that Mark Twain satirized the selection process for the rector when Bush was selected. Other books have been discussed in which Bush is talked about. Policy says it does not matter whether we think he is notable, policy says are there third party published that they think he is notable. The third party sources have been established. He was the first of the Bushies at Yale, established a Bushie precedent of belonging to secret societies and his name helps tell the story of Grace Cathedral. Americasroof (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (for both) Notability doesn't transfer, but it sounds like this person indeed is discussed in multiple secondary sources. However, it would be nice if we could actually see them, to determine if they're merely trivial mentions. "He's related to Dubya, and he existed" isn't a sufficient mention TheBilly (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the sources I have used are available with either a NYT or Google login, both of which are free. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close this as overly bundled I started looking at the James Smith Bush article, it claims he has written three books, then it should be checked what sort of status they got- and then it is a lot of other things to sort out if he still should fail. It would take ages to check all three articles if they have this sorts of heavy claims to notability. Not to be offensive, but bundling of this sort should be reserved to easily checked types of articles, and then used only with big caution. The lack of fingerspitzgefühl here from the noms side makes me somewhat dizzy. Greswik (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment; given the apparent SNOW result on WJB, Jr, perhaps the other nominations should be withdrawn. DGG (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe prominent politicians' families should have articles. Now as for their great-great-great grandfathers, I believe that is pushing it. But this article has sufficient information on the subject and I don't believe there's any benefit to WP to delete all of this information. --Tocino 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep James Smith Bush possibly significant writer in his own right, subject of an article in the NYT. DGG (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Obadiah Newcomb Bush. vice president of the Anti-Slavery Society and being covered in books about GW Bush is sufficient. There is obvious popular and academic interest. DGG (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obadiah Keep James Not independently notable per WP:BIO. James is notable per publications. --Strothra (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Keep Per Strothra OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, marginally notable. Everyking (talk) 03:39, 10 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 I withdraw my nomination. The main reason that I thought this wasn't notable was because the provided sources (i.e. Urban Legends and Snopes) do not make something notable; I didn't have time to do some checking when I saw this. Non-admin closure. bwowen talk•contribs 18:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progesterex

This is a non-notable hoax. The circulation of a hoax email around the internet does not make it inherently notable; not even an MP asking someone about it makes it notable. For something to fulfill Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it needs credible third-party coverage, which this hoax does not have. bwowen talk•contribs 23:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: a search on the Internet shows a large number of third-party sites with articles on this hoax drug, which implies notability and verifiability. Mh29255 (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of credible third-party coverage here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This hoax has received press-coverage internationally, and is seemingly notable. Here are just a few samples of this I found using google news. I think the fact that a non-fact checking MP made such a big 'Oops' in asking the Home Secretary that question is also fairly notable - I'm sure it would have received plenty of press coverage at the time, at least in the UK. Tinkstar1985 10:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, decent coverage, notable hoax. Deiz talk 08:24, 8 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisara

Subject not seem to meet WP:WEB. It was cited as a reference in "a French well-known road magazine", but did that referencing contain non-trivial coverage about Wikisara we could use to write this article? I see no news results. W.marsh 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just this side of a G7 actually. Almost no notability asserted, nor are there any significant Google hits present. Utterly fails WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to fail WP:WEB.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Highways has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally proposed deletion using {{prod}} for basically the same purpose - it's a completely unreferenced copy of the French Wikipedia article that was added the day before. -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons explained in the discussion page. Route Nostalgie is a reference for the history of French roads although it is not available online and Wikisara seems to have no equivalent for French roads.--Logos36 (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am just afraid that no "road expert" can judge about the relevance of Wikisara's article.--Logos36 (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. Reviewing the talk discussion page, there is apparently a mention of the website in a French magazine, but the actual citation is not provided so it is impossible to check if it's extensive, if it's independent, if it's noteworthy, or if it's just as a footnote. As is, delete, though no prejudice against recreation if the reference is indeed worthwhile. WLU (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article dedicated to Wikisara in Route Nostalgie is quite similar to the one I have written. Of course, it is more detailed and there are pictures... According to a French contributor of Wikipedia, the website has also been mentionned in another car magazine but unfortunately he can't find the reference.--Logos36 (talk) 12:39, 10 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 --JForget 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myami Kurosaki

I believe this is a hoax; the citations don't check out (the theme song to Gundam Seed was sung by Tahaki Nami); repeatedly recreated with different information (birthplace changes from Florida to Korea). If the result is deletion, I'd like the closing admin to SALT this (I still can't figure out how my protection of the page failed). Accounting4Taste:talk 22:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. The burden of providing reliable sources lies with the person who creates the article. There needs to be a link to a reliable source showing that she really had hit singles. Should such reliable sources be found and notability can be demonstrated, then the article can be recreated. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as hoax. Article falsely claims this alleged 12 year old is Nami Tamaki, who is older and has more than one song out. Edward321 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Biography (A&E Taskforce) has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article should bare the burden of providing reliable outside sources. I couldn't find any on my search. TGreenburgPR (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:38, 7 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. Archtransit (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madiun Stadium

Move to AfD - not a hoax. A search of Madium Stadion reveals a number of solid links Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, for instance, this link Photo of Soccer Stadion Madium Indonesia

The syntax in this nomination is odd... care to clarify? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - looks like it had a db template and was moved here when that was removed. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This was my first AfD from a PROD, so I might have got some things wrong. Thanks for bearing with me! Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm convinced of the existence of a football stadium in Madiun; there's plenty of evidence for it on the web. I think it deserves an article. However, because this was created by a known vandal who likes to insert nonsense, we can't be sure of the information written here, and we're better off with it deleted. Once we take out everything that might be false we're left with just a few words. Mostlyharmless (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given the numerous hoax articles and vandalism this user and his numerous sock puppets have added to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vitrox92), the evidence presented to support the existence of Madiun Stadium will need to be very high. A page on a photo sharing site is not sufficient reliable source for articles created by bona fide users, let alone low-life sock puppeters. (Caniago (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Regardless of other articles, there is plenty of evidence of the existence of this stadium. A search of "Stadion Wilis Madiun", the common name in Indonesian (although perhaps not suitable for a page title) turns up a lot of hits referring to games played there, including; the provincial government [8], Tempo (one of Indonesia's largest newspapers)[9]. I'd say they're not in on any hoax. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That being so, even if the stadium exists it would be better to create the article from scratch rather than rely on any infoformation the user has added to the article which may or may not be correct. (Caniago (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, I tend to agree with you. I've notified the Indonesia wikiproject, and if there's no comment within the next few days on the verifiability of the information in the article, it would probably be better demolished and started again. The style of vandalism enagaged in; adding half truths and plausible information, means we can't trust anything from this user. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Look at the picture. Does it really look like a stadium that can hold 40000 spectators? Unless the stands that we can't see are as big as the ones at the Nou Camp I would suggest not. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:54, 6 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, without prejudice to recreation based on reliable sources.--Kubigula (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gelora Bung Tomo

Evidence found that the page may not be a hoax My Indonesian isn't great, but I've dug around and found a couple of Indonesian language sources, and one english language, demonstrating plans to build Gelora Bung Tomo Stadium. See Skyscraper city thread, with attached Indonesian language newspaper article, Surya Online article Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're intrested in translations of the articles, this tool may be of assistance Toggletext. Cheers, Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm fairly certain of the existence of plans to build this stadium; there's enough evidence for it on the web. I think it deserves an article. However, because this was created by a known vandal who likes to insert nonsense, we can't be sure of the information written here, and we're better off with it deleted. Once we take out everything that might be false we're left with just a few words. Mostlyharmless (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given the numerous hoax articles and vandalism this user and his numerous sock puppets have added to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vitrox92), the evidence presented to support the existence of Gelora Bung Tomo will need to be very high. A post or two on a discussion forum is not sufficient reliable source for articles created by bona fide users, let alone low-life sock puppeters. (Caniago (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. If a stadium on this scale was being planned I'm sure it would turn up in a Google news archive search. If we were to believe this editor Indonesia would be totally covered by airports and stadia by now. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:55, 6 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 speedied. —Animum (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corey J

No assertion of notability; its only contributor (sans myself) is Littlecoreyj, so it's also a COI. —Animum (talk) 22:33, 5 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. David Fuchs^(talk) 00:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zillah Bell Contemporary Art

Article was tagged for speedy with suggestion no indication of notability. Given links to other notable artists who have exhibited there I feel this article requires more discussion in an open forum if deletion is to occur. --VS ^talk 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added the speedy tag. I can't find any evidence that this local, commercial gallery is notable. The only coverage I can find in secondary sources (per WP:ORG) are two exhibition reviews on the BBC North Yorkshire website: [10], [11]. This limited coverage in the local media is not sufficient to justify a wiki article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I suggest we keep it as a stub, if you look at the early (2005) version of the article on the Saatchi Gallery, which is a great article on a contemporary art gallery now, you will find the information on it and references to it in 2005, were originally not much better than the Zillah Bell gallery stub is now. It just needs development ..just because it is not a London based gallery, that doesnt mean it isnt 'notable' - keep in mind the artists who have exhibited there and you will begin to see its importance in promoting Art and fostering new talent .. keep an open mind Pamela Gardiner (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Yorkshire has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a reasonable amount of coverage in the local paper [12] as well as an article in the regional paper the Yorkshire Post.[13] I think these, combined with the BBC exhibition reviews, show enough to coverage to fulfil the nility criteria in WP:ORG. --Kaly99 (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as seems to be notable as it is a listed building and has independant references. Though, if kept, I would line up article title and lead sentence. Keith D (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there appears to be enough sources to indicate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:27, 8 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. David Fuchs^(talk) 00:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jetman (video game)

This article fails WP:WEB. Specifically #2 on WP:WEB. It shouldn't matter if it's part of Facebook. If it is noteworthy because it is part of Facebook, then I can think of plenty of other Facebook flash games that would need an article based on this logic. Jon Ace ^T ^C 22:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jetman has over a quarter of a million daily active users[14] on facebook. This game hasen't even been around for a year and it already has had that much support. The "I can think of other games that don't have an article" part is not a reason because these are different games with a different fan base. There could just be people who don't want to spend time to get an article together. But in all seriousness, the game hasn't been around long enough to win any awards. It just came out last August. Tavix (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"These are different games with a different fan base" So? If Game A has X amount of players and Game B has Y amount of players and Y is greater than or equal to X then how is Game A more noteworthy than Game B? Just because some fans of Jetman decided to create a page on Wikipedia doesn't make it notable. Jon Ace ^T ^C 05:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the multiple reliable secondary sources needs to satisfy WP:WEB, the one that is there looks OK (just OK), but a web search the other day didn't turn up any other sauces. Someone another (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks reliable sources to establish notability --- Whpq (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable Facebook application. Was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jetman (facebook), but does not appear to be G4 material. --Core desat 11:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not meet other standards, but to say it's a "non-notable Facebook application" is patently false. Nearly THREE MILLION people have it currently installed and who knows how many more have tried it. The daily usage is almost double that of Counter-Strike, a game whose popularity (and notability) is indisputable. Look at the page for Crysis: does it get a huge entry because it's released by Microsoft? Jetman has 20x more players than Crysis, yet because it's an indie release isn't "notable." To say, as someone else did, that "the number of people using something doesn't make it inherently notable" is ridiculous. Almost every medium measures "notability" by usage statistics, at least in part. Think newspapers: if one citizen has a heart attack one day, it won't even get a blip. If 250,000 citizens all have a heart attack on the same day, it's immediately notable -- and newsworthy. Methinks some of you don't quite comprehend how incredible (if not important) it is that 3 million people have this game. That it isn't backed by a mega-coporation with a PR department and placement in Best Buy does not mean it isn't "notable." So... UNDELETE POR FAVOR. Pariah23 (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. This game is one of the most popular Facebook applications today. I would say Keep per WP:POTENTIAL and WP:N but on the other hand facebook applications hardly have enough history and dynamicism to warrant its own article, so maybe Merge and Redirect would be more appropriate. Billscottbob (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POTENTIAL is an essay and isn't a policy or guideline (besides, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). This was deleted before with nearly unanimous consensus, and it's only been a month. The number of people using something doesn't make it inherently notable. --Core desat 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the decision is to delete, perhaps a redirect to Jetman (character) or Lunar Jetman might be appropriate? Tevildo (talk) 01:31, 12 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) 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome FitzGerald

Non-notable author. All books are self-published through iUniverse. Original author, Distortionpro, created this entry and made no other edits to Wikipedia. Possible autobiography/promotional article. IrishGuy ^talk 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed. This author is non-notable. Xdenizen (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable because his books are self-published. Bláthnaid 12:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography modified because of observed personal and defamatory language not appropriate to Wikipedia standards. As to being not-notable - this is a border line case. I am aware of several published articles and interviews with the subject, and have seen his books for sale at regional book stores. I don't vote either way on not-notable, and as a new editor here I don't expect my opinion to have much weight in any case, but original articles and modifications certainly were inappropriate.--Darnacmucols (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 01:34, 11 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, ~~nominator~~ User:Philippe nuked article just as AfD opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freefaller

Article tagged for speedy deletion and contested. Views now sort from editors at large. --VS ^talk 22:09, 5 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) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Law Online

No notability, no future development, and article is a stub that cannot be easily expanded with new content. Gront (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. It sat there for three years without asserting notability. -- Menti fisto 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds of Notability. No hits on Gamespot, Game Rankings, Rotten Tomatoes or Neoseeker. There is a hit on IgN. However, there are no significant coverage: no reviews, no cheats, no Faqs and no news.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find any significant reviews or other coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 22:33, 8 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) 05:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arms Reach

Article tagged for speedy delete and contested. Views sought from editors at large. --VS ^talk 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - Way to painful to try and decipher without some general fix's - now done Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - only the 'list their influences' section contains valid bluelinks! I can see nothing that suggests notability in the Article. If some was provided, I could be swayd. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still barely even asserts notability. No secondary sources...and from the looks of the article, there probably aren't any. --Smashville^BONK! 16:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 17:02, 9 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 --JForget 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of car companies that do not make FWD models

no incoming links, a short list that that has barely any clarification on what qualifies. Could be expanded as is, but I think articles which list FWD, RWD, AWD, etc cars would be better than a list of companies that DON'T have these types of cars. The359 (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator entirely. Xdenizen (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Put it into the same category as the list of companies that don't make pretzels. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have enough trouble maintaining lists of things that happened - the last thing we need is to start making lists of things that didn't happen! SteveBaker (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really needed --— Typ932^{T | C} 23:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an entirely unnecessary list. If retained, rename expanding abbreviation. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Unnecessary list. Should have list of companies that *do* have FWD if anything. --skew-t (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. No need for this confuse list. And no need for lists of FWD/AWD/RWD models. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as humanly possible and salt the earth as well. Bad memories associated with this...thing. Tried long ago to save the entry of an apparent troll, which in turn got me nothing but grief. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:28, 7 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 --JForget 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. S. Wenocur

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Delete per WP:BIO. Deletion log [15] shows this article has been deleted four times previously, and there appears to be no further assertion of notability. Only 61 Google hits [16], 127 on Google Scholar [17]. Judging by recent hostile edit summaries by creator and removal of (IMV) justified notability tags, this looks to be a tendentious re-creation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF. Wenocur satisfies all six criteria most obviously the fact that she has published works that are widely cited by other academics in the field. Previous deletion is not grounds for deleting this article, and neither are hostile edit summaries. The creator is knowledgeable in the relevant field, but is not an experienced Wikipedian. He has been frustrated in trying to create an article about an academic who is certainly notable in her field and had a moment of bad judgement in an edit summary. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator is ... not an experienced Wikipedian. He has ... had a moment of bad judgement in an edit summary.

The creator has been here since September 2006 [18] and should be well aware of the requirement not to make severe breaches of WP:CIVIL by attacking an editor on grounds of age [19] [20] . The personal attacks including this and this are well deserving of a block in themselves. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Legrand has been here as long as you say he has, but he has accumulated fewer than 400 edits in that time. That's what I meant by not experienced. I agree that his remarks toward Immortal Goddezz are inappropriate and have told him so. However that doesn't bear on the notability of Wenocur, who has had at least one of her articles cited in 69 related articles, thereby clearly satisfying criterion 3 at WP:PROF. Steven J. Anderson (talk 02:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So what if the creator should be blocked? That has no relevance to this discussion. This discussion is about whether this article should be deleted. Whether to block a user should be discussed elsewhere, not here. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Lquilter (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment (std disclaim) ISI WoS h-index=1 (three cited papers, only paper cited more than once: 46 citations), it looks to me like google scholar puts her h-index at 2. I don't see any ground for notability based on that, compare an h-indexof 1 or 2 to the curve here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- H-index is not a criterion for notability where academics are concerned. What is a criterion is number 3 at WP:PROF:
  The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature
  by this criterion, Wenocur clearly passes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven J. Anderson (talk • contribs) 14:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I agree that a low h-index in itself is not absolute proof of lacking notability (although generally it is a good indication), one very high impact paper indeed suffices. However, I don't see that beig the case here. One paper with 46 citations is not really exceptional. What is this "significant and well-known academic work"? --Crusio (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some special Vapnik-Chervonenkis classes RS Wenocur, RM Dudley - Discrete Mathematics, 1981 Cited by 69 - Related Articles - Web Search) Among the sixty-nine works citing the Wenocur-Dudley paper is the following: Estimation of the Stapes-Bone Thickness in Stapedotomy Surgical Procedure Using a Machine-Learning Technique (1999) VG Kaburlasos, V Petridis, PN Brett, DA Baker - Information Technology in Biomedicine, IEEE Transactions on, 1999 - ieeexplore.ieee.org, as noted in the article. I believe most academics in this field would call this a very strong showing. Also please remember that WP:PROF is explicit in stating that "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable." --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A single paper doesn't impress me as notable unless it's a citation classic (over a hundred citations) at the very least Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete & salt nothing in this, the umpteenth re-creation of this article, demonstrates passing any of the six criteria in WP:PROF, or that she is more notable than the average professor. Nor can I find any evidence of extensive coverage of "R. S. Wenocur" as a subject in reliable secondary sources per WP:N. Enough already. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability hasn't been established using reliable sources. Previous deletion and subsequent incarnations have not managed to adequately source this, and despite my efforts with this article I have been unable to find reliable and verifiable sources. Basically everything that Pete.Hurd has said. Additionally Salt this and previous reincarnations (Roberta S. Wenocur, Roberta Wenocur). --ImmortalGoddezz 04:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note It seems that at least one previous AfDs for this subject has included Checkuser-confirmed abusive sockpuppetry by the article's creator. see also User:Oberst/MathStatWoman Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of MathStatWoman. Further, an admin with access to previously deleted versions might want to check to see if this falls under CSD:G4 Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't look substantially identical to the deleted version to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks (no mention of her apparent prowess with a microwave in the old version either?). The version at User:DGG/sandboxuserified#Roberta_S._Wenocur mentions co-authored papers with Erdős, can that be verified? Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Odd, I just noticed that User:Alfred Legrand‎ created this version of this article, and Sweet Muenster Cheese, and the (now deleted) Harvest Moon Cocktail. The article Sweet Muenster cheese was created by User:Samuel Kotz and the very first version of the article includes "The Classic Sweet Muenster Cheese Melt, invented by R. S. Wenocur to accompany Harvest Moon Cocktails [...]". Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppetry by a user who has not edited here since May has nothing to do with Wenocur's notability --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assuming they aren't just editing under a different username... Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - see more at the AN/I thread, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alfred_Legrand:_Disruption_and_sockpuppetry, and suspected sockpuppetry case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MathStatWoman. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A biographical article should contain the world's impression of the person, not the person's impression of themself. It is best when they can be written entirely out of reliable sources. I took a look through the four items in the reference section to see how much biographical info I could find there. ~~(Have to discount the third item, a Drexel link, because she is actually not included in the list). Consider now the other three items, and~~ See what article we could write *using no other information.* Here's a sketch of what we could write:
Roberta S. Wenocur was the co-author with Richard Dudley, in 1981, of a widely cited paper about VC classes. [Here insert a small explanation of what those are]. She received her doctorate from Temple University under Janos Galambos in 1979, for work on return periods related to order statistics. [Here insert a very short description of what those are]. She has worked as a faculty member at Drexel University and University of Pennsylvania.
That's all. Wide citation of one paper is good; that tells us about the world's appreciation of her work. Getting a PhD in mathematics from a major university is good. Being on a math faculty is good. Now the short paragraph I provided (above) is giving credit for all three of those achievements. I don't believe this is enough info for a meaningful article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - she's listed in the drexel link 'Wenocur, Roberta S. - Asst. Professor, Mathematics' Additionally the abstract is to show her participation in the University of Pennsylvania; not provide information on the abstract itself or else in the article it would mention the abstract. Just thought I'd clarify.. not even sure why since I'm voting delete. --ImmortalGoddezz 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing my mistake. I updated the paragraph to include what you found, and deleted some of my previous words to make the result easier to read. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question What would make you think that this article contains Wenocur's impression of herself? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When an article resembles a resume, we tend to assume it is sourced from the author herself. What is most helpful is to get some form of outside commentary on the author's work, prizes, citation counts, journal editorships etc. Reaching the level of full professor, since the standards are rigorous, is a form of outside commentary. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for Wenocur's work, prizes, and citation counts are already mentioned in the article, particularly "Some special Vapnik-Chervonenkis classes" which is cited in 69 other related articles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

when an article resembles an academic resume, I assume it reflects the basic objective facts of someone's career. When it resembles a press release, then it's another matter. the question, is on the notability of the career. What usually makes academic notable is the academic work they do, not their personal life. citations are one very relevant measure, though there is no fixed cutoff. I saved the previous version of the article because it seemed to be that the AfDs showed some sort of subtext that I did not quite understand. DGG (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article establishes no notability. A similar article could be written for any former assistant professor in mathematics 29 years after their Ph.D. The article does not make it clear what her current position is [21]: is she still in academia for example? This is a serious omission. The discussion of mathematical contributions - a list of topics - is inadequate and uninformative. The career is equally poorly described. Was the Ph.D. from Temple University? What was the position at the University of Pennsylvania? It does not seem appropriate to encourage academic BLP's for such undistinguished careers. Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon.com gives more information for "RS Wenocur" than WP. She writes in one of her reviews, "As a probabilist and statistician, with a Ph.D., having worked at universities, as a consultant, and in industry for approximately forty years, I had previously employed Fourier Analysis only as a tool, not having studied the subject as a discipline unto itself." Mathsci (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment. The WP page seems to have been copied and pasted from the self-written biography here [22]. This CV provides considerably more detail, but is not neutrally written and reads like an advertisement for services on offer, which include "homework help" and "mentoring and tutoring of child prodigies" [23]. I do not understand at all Steven J. Anderson's completely disproportionate and unhelpful promotion of this article: is he at all familiar with the academic world? Wenocur's extremely slender and unimpressive mathematical output according to Mathscinet comes to a total of 6 articles with a total page length of 40 pages. It is disruptive of User:Alfred Legrand, whoever he/she is, and Steven J. Anderson to misrepresent this academically humdrum career. Mathsci (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to make of Steven J. Anderson. Perhaps a better understanding of the relationship between User:MathStatWoman and User:Ksingh20/User:MxM Peace would shed some light (topics best discussed elsewhere). Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. If her contribution to Vapnik-Chervonenkis theory is sufficiently notable, it should be mentioned in the articles about that theory, but we don't have enough here for a biographical article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark. User:Alfred Legrand has suggested that the BLP for David Eppstein should be listed for deletion here [24]. Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He or she is welcome to take it to AfD; I won't interfere. But he or she should pay attention to WP:POINT. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : This is RS Wenocur. Enough of this, please. I did not post my own article, ever. It was an employee of mine, it seems. Do not punish him. We share seven computers, a server, a LAN, and are not sockpuppets. If you want my bio off of Wikipedia, fine, so be it. But do not label Dr. Legrand as a sockpuppet, if he was the one to create the article. His reputation is at stake. Thank you. RDSW (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Curious that you have an employee-employer relation, share equipment, but he claims not to even know you. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, he claims not to know User:MathStatWoman, the user he's been accused of being a sockpuppet of. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So despite the connections between User:MathStatWoman and RDSW mentioned in the sockpuppetry case, and despite Alfred Legrand being an employee of RDSW, RDSW and MathStatWoman are different people and Alfred does not know MSW? And I guess despite having an article created by Alfred Legrand and despite the similarity of names, Alfred Small is yet a different person? I need a flow chart or a Venn diagram to make sense of this, I guess. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - PS for anyone else trying to untangle this: I found this web genealogy that indicates that someone with the maiden name of Roberta Small and with children named Wenocur has a brother named Alfred Small. Why one of RDSW's employees would be interested in creating an article about her brother, I'm not sure. But using sockpuppets within an AfD is a serious accusation that bears further investigation, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - FWIW Another web geneology, showing the same: Roberta Small, sister to Alfred Small and mother of children bearing the last name Wenocur. Reasons for believing that these genealogies are the same Roberta Wenocur include the fact that they list her husband as "Brian Wenocur", which when googled generates very few hits, one of the only ones in english is this one listing Brian Wenocur with a business address in Wayne,_Pennsylvania, right next door to Philadelphia. They also list her daughter's name, which if googled, which generates a mere two hits, the genealogy and a classmates.com page for a highschool in Ardmore, Pennsylvania. MathStatWoman has made a number of (odd) edits to the Ardmore, Pennsylvania article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - insufficient notability. A singe well-cited paper with two authors and it is unknown who is the major contributor. Independent verification required. `'Míkka >t 05:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Excellent researcher in many fields. Notable. H Wilf (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — H Wilf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Acalamari 20:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Brilliant work. Extremely notable Woman in Mathematics. 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRKPinsky (talk • contribs)
- — MRKPinsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Acalamari 20:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Highly notable. Just look at Google Scholar. As Fields Medal Winner, I know her personally, and she is notable, for sure More than just one paper, and many accomplishments. CharlieFeff. (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — CharlieFeff. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Acalamari 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Clever work in order stats. See books. Wrote chapters in many books JanosGalomb (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — JanosGalomb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: we serious researchers think Wikipedia is not very good math resource, but we got together to support colleague who is clever and worth noting. We do not usually do Wikipedia, since it is poor source and full of advertising and incorrect information, but this is enough, you make very good researcher look bad, so we must speak out now JanosGalomb (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've sent e-mails to Charles Fefferman, Herbert Wilf, Janos Galambos, and Mark Pinsky asking if they had written the comments above (which one may reasonably assume they did, from their usernames etc.). I have thusfar received one reply, in which the respondent said nice things about Wenocur, but go on to say they know nothing about the WP edits. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP At mathematics dinners, we scoff at WIkipedia, we laugh at its content. I know this researcher -- notable for sure. No, I do not edit Wikipedia often because it is unreliable and arbitrary. Sites about my own work are not well kept. Give her a break before she dies. Simon,Jms (talk)
- — Simon,Jms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
STRONG KEEP Great woman in mathematics. And I was never a sockpuppet whatever you think. MathStatWoman (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing irrelevant comments: Many serious researchers ignore Wikipedia, until you try a smear campaign like this. MathStatWoman (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, the tags have been restored by another user. I have no opinion either way in this AfD, but please don't remove the tags again. Thank you. Acalamari 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Very notable mathematician. Books, many articles, hundreds of citations, just look on google and google scholar. 40 year old family business, and more. I am not a sockpuppet either, just as not is ImmoralGoddezz whose boyfriend uses her computer. Alfred Legrand (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry as evident above. Subject isn't notable enough as academic.NawlinWiki (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We each have our own opinions, we are not ASKED TO DO ANYTHING. Just pick and choose what opinions the admins want? Alfred Legrand (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that tag was put in, as were the {{spa}} tags, was because of the likely meatpuppety/sockpuppetry in this AfD, as there are "keeps" from new accounts with no edits to any other page except this one. Acalamari 22:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and obvious puppetry above. -Djsasso (talk) 22:24, 9 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 with Acting workshop. Canley (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy workshop

Acting workshop is the basic main kind of workshop in the arts. I merged as much as I felt fit in the article, but may add more. Comedy workshop does not include and sources or citations. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is obviously notable. Lacking sources and citation is a valid reason for an unreferenced tag, but it's not a valid reason for deletion. Sources could easily be found for this topic. Rray (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the main reason I am requesting deletion for this one is that it is a variation of an Acting workshop. I don't feel we need articles for both. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 21:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge might make sense, but an AfD isn't the place for that. Rray (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Acting workshop. Is certainly notable. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 21:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, merge - with Acting workshop Xdenizen (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Acting workshop ---CWY2190^T^C 01:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:39, 6 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. --Angelo (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appleby Frodingham F.C.

I beleive that this club plays below level 10 (level 6) of the notabily threshold and have not appeared at a higher level of football or have a had cup success e.g. reached the 1st round of the FA cup Sunder land 06 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - article says they played in the Northern Counties East Football League which is level 9 and 10. Peanut4 (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Club has played in Northern Counties East Football League Premier Division (Step 5) in the past.[25] пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FCHD implies there are two distinct clubs of this name, the earlier of which played in the Northern Counties East Football League Premier Division, though the article makes no reference to any break in continuity. The current incarnation of the club seems not to have played at a notable level. Struway2 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the history section on the club's official website. [26]. It implies the club moved to Winterton Rangers, and a new one was reformed. Not sure whether to stick or twist. Peanut4 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And according to Winterton's official website [27] they themselves were disbanded in 1985. Peanut4 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Winterton Rangers disbanded in 1985, and re-entered the NCEFL (coincidentally) the year after Appleby F. left it, according to their website. But Appleby F.'s website claims all the honours of the original club, so on grounds of verifiability over (possibly) truth, I don't see how one can argue against them being the same club. In which case,

Keep per Number 57. Struway2 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the current club would lack the notability, the previous club of the same name merits keeping for their Midland League and Northern Counties East League spells. - fchd (talk) 17:36, 8 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 claim to notability. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misfit6

Was submitted as Speedy/Band but the original author decided to remove the tag so here we are. They are a 'virtual band' that has yet to release anything. clear wp:band failure. I would still ask for a SPEEDY DELETE as it still applies. Pharmboy (talk) 20:16, 5 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 withdraw Rowan Joffe's BAFTA awards and nominations make him notable, while Nathalie Lunghi's starring role in new ITV1 drama also makes her notable. Egdirf (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Lunghi

A very short article which does not assert her notability. Although her parents are well established actors in their own right, her imdb entry only has three credits Egdirf (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because, again, it is a very short article and the actor has only a handful of credits]:

Keep Although these are short articles, I believe both these actors are noteworthy, and the information on them will expand over time. I will happily do this, but would need to do some research on the subject first. For now though, I will point out that Rowan Joffe in particular has received nominstions snd awards for his work as a director; while Nathalie Lunghi has had roles in some notable films. On top of this, they have notable parents - Roland Joffe and Cherie Lunghi in Nathalie Lunghi's case, and Rowan Joffe and Jane Lapotaire in Rowan Joffe's case. Paul20070 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for Rowan due to BAFTA awards and nominations. Delete Nathalie, notability is not inherited, and her roles are much too small. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rowan Joffé, Delete Nathalie Lunghi The former's award nominations and press coverage (both recent and in the past) suggest he will go on to affirm and increase his notability. The latter is, I'm afraid, merely a name in a credits list (for the time being—things can change). --Popplewick (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rowan Joffe and Redirect Nathalie Lunghi to Cherie Lunghi. Then mention something about Nathalie in her mother's article. Something along the lines of "Cherie's daughter, Nathalie, is also an actress. Her roles include . . ." Seems a fair enough solution to me. Brochco (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, I see Nathalie does have a mention there, but more could be made of it in the way I have suggested. Brochco (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that's a good compromise. I'd support that. Paul20070 (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can see this point but disagree. I found the existence of this article useful simply so as to find out whether Nathalie Lunghi is related to Cherie Lunghi or whether the unusual surname was just a coincidence. So I think this article should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browne-Windsor (talk • contribs) 09:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Which is one of the reasons I created the article in the first place. I'm actually in favour of it being kept, but feel a redirect is preferable to a delete. The article can always be reprised as her career progresses and more information on her becomes available. Paul20070 (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this the same Nathalie Lunghi as the one about to star in The Palace, an ITV series due to start on Monday? (And if so, does that have a bearing on this discussion?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KittyRainbow (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There can't be two women with the same name - as Lunghi is an unusual name, so I hope so. I actually feel quite bad about nominating this article for deletion. It was done in a rash moment, and as a response to comments made on the afd discussion for Natasha Collins. Am I allowed to withdraw the afd nomination? Egdirf (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think withdrawing is allowed? I've seen other people do it, anyway. -- KittyRainbow (talk) (remembering to sign this time) 23:55, 12 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. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Severna Park Mall

Small regional shopping mall with no claim of meeting WP:Notability in article. Fabrictramp (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found this and this rather easily, as well a couple of decent-looking references on Google News -- all behind paywalls, of course. That's not a whole lot, but it could be enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have rewritten the article and added the two sources. Like I said, it's not a whole lot, but it's a start. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good work on the rewrite. Unfortunately, both of the sources added are from the website of the company managing the mall, so don't establish notability. :( --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. The newspaper sources on Google News might, however, if Google will let me read them (or if someone with full Google News access can help out here). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this property previously went by "Severna Park Marketplace" [28] which may skew search results. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I said that backwards, but you get the picture. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:12, 6 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)} 20:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of news results [29] that seem non-trivial... there are plenty of sources here. --W.marsh 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is only a stub now, and does have some references. Stub status is not grounds for deletion. Sebwite (talk) 00:34, 8 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 withdraw. Looking at the discussion, I realise I should probably have listed these separately, so I'll withdraw the debate and let someone do this. Egdirf (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine James

A very short article about a porn star. There is very little other information available apart from the links given, and these are sketchy. I don't personally have an opinion on this, but feel a discussion on the matter is appropriate. Egdirf (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Keep Samantha Sterlyng per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Sterlyng. Delete the rest. Keep Elen Cole per coverage here. Delete the rest. Epbr123 (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Samantha Sterlyng went to AfD six weeks ago (discussion - no consensus but additional material found). A bulk nomination of porn stars is questionable. They should be checked individually. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. These are articles about substantially different people who only have a profession (porn actress) in common and as Gene93k says, should be done separately. To translate this into a mainstream perspective, imagine putting Gloria Stuart, Renee Zellweger and Laura Vandervoort in the same AFD because they're all actresses. Tabercil (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better if he had done them separately, but that is not a good reason to keep them all. Epbr123 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel that a violating the deletion guideline isn't sufficient reason for opposition? If deleted, improperly listing this as a multi-article AfD is a legitimate reason for opening a deletion review on procedural grounds. Since the review would most likely result in overturning deletion, it seems like a good reason to me. Horrorshowj (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be best if this was withdrawn and individual AfDs started. However, I don't agree with voting to keep articles based on procedural reasons. If this AfD is closed as keep all, it will make it difficult to renominate these articles again individually in the near future without the outcome being swayed by this AfD. If the nomination isn't withdrawn, I am confident that the closer will be able to wade through the mess to decide which articles should be deleted; but this will be harder if procedural votes are thrown in. Epbr123 (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Samantha Sterlyng per Epbr123, but delete the rest who are almost certainly non-notable. I agree that these nominations should have been carried out seperately. For example Josephine James has been featured on BustyBritain.com (I think) among a large number of other non-notable similar actresses. Which is not to say that a particular porn site cannot feature a mixture of notable and non-notable actresses, because Busty.pl features the notable Ewa Sonnet who has a music career and is something of a celebrity in Poland, maybe even their equivalent of Lucy Pinder, but it also features the non-notable Aneta Buena, Bea Flora, Wanessa Lilio, etcetera. Although Maria Swan has also appeared on busty.pl, but let's not get too off-topic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These two links seem to suggest that Elen Cole is Rhianydd Jones, a Miss UK finalist. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-76570078.html http://www.highbeam.com/Search.aspx?q=%22elen+cole%22+publication%3a%5b%22The+Mirror+(London+England)%22%5d Vinh1313 (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all All are notable. Rhianydd Jones was a host on Supermarket Sweep, so if she is Elen Cole, that makes her notable enough for a keep. Elen Cole and Josephine James (Jo Hadfield) are listed on IMDB. Stephanie Bews was one of the leading British models of her genre during her career. And as for Samantha Sterlyng, we've been here before. Were these articles just nominated for deletion simply because someone wanted to take the moral high ground? Citybest (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being on IMDB is certainly not an indicator of notability. There's wide consensus for this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this nomination may have been inspired by a comment on another discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Collins. The nominator has also started an AFD for other articles mentioned in the same comment. --Popplewick (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw the discussion, which is why I wondered. Whatever happened to the idea of freedom of speech? It's not like the articles are pornographic in themselves, they are merely about actresses who star in porn films Citybest (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anyone remember Rhianydd Jones's role on Supermarket Sweep? No? Well I do. She was one of several women who assisted in 'the Big Sweep', basically a timed trolley dash where the contestants also had to build up tins, etc, to score points. It was her job to oversee that this task was done properly. And, together with another girl - whose name I think was Rezi if my memory serves me correctly - she read out the viewers' question, the two taking it in turns for this 'important' task on alternate shows. You know the one, Guess The Item. "Here's the item with some of the letters missing. If you think you know what it is. . ." Hardly notable, is she? Doesn't even warrant an entry on the IMDB's Supermarket Sweep page. So delete her. In fact, delete the lot. None of them are really that notable. 81.151.20.96 (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC){{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]
Keep Multi-article AfD's have to concern subjects with a substantial common connection. The mere fact that they are 4 of the several thousand active or retired porn actresses is an incredibly weak connection and insufficient for a group nomination. I reserve comment on how I'd vote if they were listed separately. Horrorshowj (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of whether they have been listed together, they don't cut the mustard - that is, they are not notable enough to be deserving of their own articles. Or are we in the process of dumbing down this great encyclopedna? 217.43.197.163 (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC){{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]
Delete All as non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Samantha Sterlyng, I expanded that article a bit. No opinion on the others, but I agree with the other people saying nominating these 4 unrelated articles at once was a bad idea. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated these four articles together because all are very short, and a google search suggested to me that many of them were not particularly significant. In hindsight, I may have nominated the Samantha Sterlyng article separately because of the previous debate on the subject (which failed to reach a consensus), but not the others. There is very little information about them on the web, and they are unlikely to ever be expanded beyond their current length. Egdirf (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We know you acted in good faith when you batched the nominations, so I hope you don't take the criticism personally. It is best to nominate articles seperately, unless they're very similar. Just one source can be enough to save an article from deletion, so it's hard to be totally sure an article should be deleted after quick Google search. Epbr123 (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't worry. I haven't taken it personally. Thanks for the advice, by the way. I'll keep it in mind for future reference. Egdirf (talk) 23:49, 11 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. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin's Magic

This is the second nomination for this article, which was last debated in January 2006. It is still as poor an article as it was then, abliet with the advertising removed, and all the notional bits "asserting" its notability. One of the reasons it was kept last time was 75k GHits - well, its got a catalogue which is sold by other retailers, so hence 75k GHits. I can't find any WP:RS sources beyond multiple listing on Amazon, Play.com and other retail points which are reselling its catalogue Trident13 (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems pretty well-known in the UK, and one source calls it the largest magic supplies company in the world. I added some refs to the article, but there's more out there. Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be notable. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 21:45, 5 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 position of Sheriff of Gloucester is, as the official website says, purely ceremonial. Witts role as a local councillor is also insufficient for notability. However, he is also a local author. Taking all these together and there is a case for notability. The consensus, though, is clearly that this doesn't add up to enough and it is not my role as closer to substitute my judgement for that of the Community. I would have no objection to recreation if further and better sources can be provided. TerriersFan (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Witts

I believe this individual, a local politician in England, does not meet the criteria for Notability. His notability rests on being one of 35 current local councillors for Gloucester, and on being one of 257 past Sheriffs of Gloucester. I don't believe any of his peers or rivals have articles. Behind The Wall Of Sleep (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't lived in Gloucester for some years, but when I did, the sheriffs were really not well known except to the most dedicated followers of local politics. The press coverage of this individual is all local. Regular editors of the article Gloucester seem to have felt the subject was non-notable when a link to Chris Witts was added to that article: see here and here. William Avery (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not a county sheriff--the English country sheriffs tho not as notable now as historically might well all be considered sufficiently notable for an article. Rather the town sheriff; historical figures in this role may have been significant. The present-day ones don;t seem to be,[30] unless there is something special to say about one more than is said here. DGG (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree county sheriffs are slightly more notable. We do have an article on High Sheriff and a redlink for the current High Sheriff of Gloucestershire; only two historic High Sheriffs of Gloucestershire have articles (Percival Marling, Stephen Mitchell (MP)), neither of which actually mention their position as High Sheriff so I assume it isn't a significant factor in their notability. As far as I can see Wikipedia doesn't cover town sheriffs at all, which I think speaks volumes. Behind The Wall Of Sleep (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:46, 7 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 --JForget 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Unbirthing Fetishism

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This article was PROD-nominated after a prior PROD-dePROD cycle (see diff between PROD-nominated versions). The most recent PROD nominator stated "No reliable sources on this, so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incredibly non-notable, no references, and chock full of original research to boot. The article states, It is an extremely uncommon fetishism. I'm all for fetishes, but not everything that someone can imagine needs a wikipedia article. bikeable (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even though "has been discussed on the internet for several decades" (several???) and there are no reliable references on the internet for it. Must be a conspiracy ;) Pharmboy (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Bikeable Xdenizen (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Considering the fate of even the ostensible parent topic "unbirthing" was a poorly sourced subsection in the vaguely-related vorarephilia article, it is clear that even the most generous approach to reliable sources would still be unable to support this. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources in the least.-- danntm ^T _C 22:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Bikeable --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've actually heard of this obscure fetish, but it's full of original research and not verifiable to reliable sources. Unbirthing is just a redirect to vorarephilia. One thing we must do here though once the AfD is over is add this to WP:DAFT.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Stick your head up a vagina? More likely to have your head stuck up your own ass. Edison (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please. [[Guest9999 (talk) 15:04, 8 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morlun

An article which is based on a non-notable comic character which has no real world significance and no reliable sources. It is written completely in-universe style, unencyclopedic, it fails WP:FICT. Blueanode (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (or reduce to a stub). Articles on comic book characters aren't exempt from the basic pillars of Wikipedia any more than any other article, and this one fails several of them. Terraxos (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there are a lot of non-notable comic character articles, Morlun was a fairly significant character in Spider-Man during JMS's tenure. It could use a bit of clean-up (it wouldn't be too hard to make a section detailing criticism and reception from reviews) but I don't agree with deletion just yet. (BTW, I noticed how ~~none~~ of the contributors to the article have been notified about this.)--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that, turns out one user was notified by a bot. Fair is fair.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is also fair to note that the whole point of watchlists is for people to watch articles of interest to them. It's a bit much to require an AfDer to notify everyone who has contributed to an article, and a bit odd to bring this up (especially inaccurately) on the AfD page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but as it says, "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." It took me all of five seconds to notify two users involved in the article. At the very least the creator of the article should be notified. (BTW, I don't see how I was inaccurate in pointing it out; I saw that the the nominator didn't notify anyone, and upon checking what links to this page, saw that only a bot had notified a user.)--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, most of the problems identified in the nomination can be solved via our editing policy rather than our deletion policy. Since WP:FICT is not a test, nor is it a policy, it isn't the be all and end all of this debate, which should be closed in line with the consensus generated, with respect to policy. I suggest interested parties look for independent sourcing from which to add real world content. Hiding T 13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hiding's reasoning, or at least Redirect into an appropriate article, say Ezekiel (comics). BOZ (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article needs to be modified to have an out-of-universe perspective, I believe this character to be notable. "The Other" storyline generated a lot of buzz and it shouldn't be that hard to find reliable sources to add to the article. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the ratinale of User:Hiding, character reflects a key transition in the 21st century represention of Spider-Man (particularly the Other storyline). -66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep the character is notable to the Spider-Man universe. I agree it needs editing though. --Maestro25 (talk) 08:52, 8 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 --JForget 01:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Graves (poker player)

Very short article about a one-time poker winner; fails notability guidelines –Dream out loud (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep If he won a WSOP braclet, that is notable. He also claims 3/4 million in total winnings, which is more than I make in a few years, so that is notable (sorta). You may be accidently underplaying the accomplishments. Pharmboy (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The length of an article is completely irrelevant to an AfD discussion. Having won a WSOP bracelet is evidence of notability. Rray (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The length of an article is relevant if it fails to establish the subject's notability. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you have won a WSOP braclet, you are automatically notable. It isn't like they give those away in boxes of Cracker Jacks. Pharmboy (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article plainly states his notability and even references it, so your comment really makes no sense. 2005 (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a ridiculous nomination as the player has won a WSOP bracelet---the gold standard notability in the poker world. The player will forever be recognized in the poker world as a world champion. Heck, this should be snowballed. Balloonman (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notice given to wikiproject poker related to this afd

I'm not trying to say that this player isn't notable in real life, but this article doesn't meet notability guidelines by stating that the player is notable. The three-sentence long article gave me the impression that he won a single poker tournament. If you want this article kept, it should be expanded with more references added, which elaborates on the player's notability. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't meet notability guidelines. Subjects of articles do. Yes, the article should be expanded, but there is no time limit for when that has to take place. And being a stub isn't a valid deletion reason. The consensus here will decide whether or not the article will be kept, and the length of the article isn't a factor, since it's not a valid reason for deletion. Rray (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rray is 100% correct. The nom's reasoning only can lead to the conclusion that the article should be improved. Needing improvement can not be used as a reason to delete. Pharmboy (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a person is notable in real life, doesn't it stand to reason that s/he is notable enough for an article?Balloonman (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No valid reason given for nomination. (We don't delete stubs because they are stubs!) 2005 (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When nominating an article for deletion for notability reasons, good faith and good practice is to do a minimal amount of research to make sure that the subject is really non-notable. -- Masterzora (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep clearly notable even if he doesn't accomplish anything else in the field of poker, Michael Graves was the winner at the 38th annual 2007 World Series of Poker (WSOP) in the $1,000 buy-in w/rebuys event (no-limit Texas hold'em), this alone makes him notable, which due to the growth of poker popularity (in magazines, the Internet primetime television coverage on a major sporting network (ESPN)) as well as many of their major poker events, particularly the WSOP, which has been widely regarded worldwide as the most notable of all Poker tournament series, for that reason Graves' 1st place prize of over $740,000 in the event he won exceeds the prize winnings of the ($10,000 buy-in) WSOP Main Event Champions in each of the years from 1970 to 1988, along with the cash he was also awarded a World Series of Poker bracelet something that few poker players have at all even quite a few season poker professionals. in general there are many notable so to speak one-hit wonders if that is all he turns out to be, I respectfully request that the nominator reconsider his nomination. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 13:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nod... winning a single WSOP event is the equivalent to having a one hit wonder or winning a single golf/tennis Major or winning a single Oscar. If he never does another thing, he will still be notable in the poker realm.Balloonman (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per several above. Greswik (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep See above, would it help if someone put the stub notice on it?--Tucson Indigo (talk) 03:07, 7 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. Fram (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Fuenzalida

This article was previously nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mimi_Fuenzalida), the result was No consensus, default to keep. Subsequently, it has been confirmed that the creator of the article, who also voted, was misrepresenting them self. They are a sock of the company that is the subject of a COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. They did not identify the affiliation during the vote and made numerous false allegations in their comment.

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with one appearance on a television show. None of the movies she has been in appear notable.

COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —BlueAzure (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has been a supporting actress in the films and televion shows she has appeared in, no more. This is not enough to meet WP:BIO criteria. On a side note, WP:COI problems are not grounds for deletion. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. COI problems are relevant when they account for the existence of the article in the first place. This appears to be actor management using Wikipedia to promote new talent, not an encyclopedia entry, and I don't see enough here for notability. -Lciaccio (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was created as part of a batch, generated in COI fashion apparently by people working for Metaphor Entertainment. The reference list seems to only include such websites as IMDB.com, inbaseline.com and ginfo.pl which can't be considered reliable sources because they allow user submission of data. There don't seem to be any sourced comments on her work from which a proper biographical entry could be written. EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she still has time to become notable, while at present she doesn't seem to be. Pundit|utter 00:50, 11 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 --JForget 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heptalogy

This is an article about a nonce word formed on a predictable numeric system with almost no precedent in published material. It contains a dictionary definition and a list compiled by original research, neither of which is encyclopedic. No evidence the term "heptalogy" has been applied to any of these works before. Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not the study of snakes (hepatology), but a made-up word for 7 things, analogous to trilogy for three things. As Lo2u points out, there's no indication that this is a common term. In addition, the realities of publishing make it unlikely that anyone pre-plans a seven piece "heptalogy" as they might a trilogy; at best, it could be said that some successful writers followed "quit while you're ahead" after seven bestsellers. The idea of Police Academy as an epic saga is... interesting... but there's no real continuity to those films. Having read the Chronicles of Narnia, I can safely say the same thing about that (compare "The Magician's Nephew" to Lion/Witch/Wardrobe). Mandsford (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think Wikipedia should be used to try to establish neologisms like "heptalogy". (I would be more sympathetic to a page listing series that have seven members. After all there are plenty of slightly whimsical listing pages around.) Grafen (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete as nn neologism. (To Grafen: you mean like List of film heptalogies?) Clarityfiend (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what's going to be nominated next....Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pentalogy if I have my way! --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 14:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert to category: If folks believe this to be a legitimate term ... it has a meaning derived from prefix and suffix unlike some nonce words (e.g. quark) ... and that having seven works in a series is a useful categorical distinction, then create Category:Heptalogies as following from precedent of Category:Trilogies (it looks like noone has ventured into tetralogy or duology territory yet). But, if you're not feeling like making more categories for breakfast ... send this to the bottom of the sea. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: neologism, original research... Octology? No way! Zerokitsune (talk) 03:49, 7 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. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 16:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airside

I placed notab and sources tags on this article in September - no additions since. Seems to be a small local design company with few GHits Trident13 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My quick search netted me no reliable sources to verify notability. Unless such sources can be provided, article fails WP:V. As a side note to the nom, it might be easier to PROD such articles. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Deakin+Airside indicates sources are available. Addhoc (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I found this without too much effort. The company might meet notability guidelines. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Possibly should be expanded in the band article section of its owner and merged there, as a stand alone company it's not that noteworthy.Awotter (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lemon Jelly - it is not notable enough for a separate article, as only one brief mention in the Guardian does not provide enough reliable sources, but can be well substantiated to exist as a section on its co-founder's band article. --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 13:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, and possibly merge later. Addhoc (talk) 14:27, 14 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 G11. jj137 ^♠ 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adroit designs & print

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Adroit designs & print

I placed a notab and sources tag on this article in September 2007 - still no new information added. Appears to be a small local company, with few GHits Trident13 (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no sources, no assertion of notability. Article was longer until promotional language removed. Only thing in Google News Archive is PR reports of printing contracts. --Dhartung | Talk 17:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Looks like spam. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Copyrighted info: http://www.meltedmedia.co.uk/index.asp?section=portfolio&type=websites&page=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohmpandya (talk • contribs) 02:12, 10 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 under WP:CSD#G1 JIP | Talk 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boston sport city of america

OR and POV filled essay. I would say its also a borderline G1 or A1 by the poor quality incoherent writing but I don't believe essays are covered under CSD. Mr Senseless (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. (I've tagged it as such.) --Hnsampat (talk) 17:47, 5 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. Marasmusine (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lineflyer

Yet Another Flash Game. This appears to be a modification of another flash game. I'd basically call this non-notable. There are plenty of ghits, but they're all just links to flash sites and so forth.As written, the article pretty much sounds like an attack on this particular hack. Yng varr 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nn. -- Menti fisto 17:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fails WP:WEB. Trying to ride a more successful Flash game's coattails, but notability doesn't transfer like that (e.g. we don't have a trillion articles about Sonic fan-games) TheBilly (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Line Rider <eleland/talkedits> 17:06, 9 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hedvig Malina

The primary reason for deletion is non-notability of the subject. The only notable act is an involvement in a case that was reported mainly in Slovak and Hungarian media and briefly in some other countries. Therefore, the article is not a biography but an article about the case the subject is involved in, which fails notability guidelines per WP:BIO1E.
The case is already reported in the article '2006 Slovak-Hungarian diplomatic affairs'.
Moreover, the article is highly inaccurate, uses almost entirely a single Hungarian source. After I tried to correct the article, mainly move it to the correct name Hedviga Malinová and put up tags I found appropriate, it has been guarded (vandalized) by 2 editors: Hobartimus (talk · contribs) and Squash Racket (talk · contribs). Their bias can be easily seen in their comments, for example, at my talk page and in their contributions.
Their attitudes toward the case and overall reasons why and how to write articles are illustrated in the off-topic debate at Talk:Hedvig Malina. The debate also illustrates that the article is not a biography but a hub for editors who want to push a specific POV and link unrelated cases and topics.--Svetovid (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I would kindly ask you to remove all degrading comments on me and Hobartimus, then we can continue. Thank you in advance. Squash Racket (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notable political case. // Gargaj (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you confirmed that case is (maybe) notable; the person on its own is not and actually supported my reasons for deletion.--Svetovid (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In other words, we might as well move the article to "Hedvig Malina case" and you'd be happy? It's more about the case than the person already. (= Weak argument.) // Gargaj (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you confirmed what I said.--Svetovid (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If it's about the fact that it's about the case rather than the person, yes. But then, so is Rodney King. In a funny turn, however, you just confirmed the notability of the article. // Gargaj (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't confirm anything. That's what guidelines and policies and their interpretations are for.
        Anyway, why not just expand the 2006 Slovak-Hungarian diplomatic affairs article, which also does not look very notable at the moment?--Svetovid (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure that this nomination is coming from the best angle. Perhaps the article should go towards one of the mediation options instead of AfD. matt91486 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Give reasons for keep please. Deletion "processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy."--Svetovid (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I gave a reason. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement that the content belongs, it's perfectly notable. This debate belongs in mediation or arbitration, not AfD. matt91486 (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Eminently notable, received wide media coverage. Article is very well sourced for a young article, other sources are also plentiful can easily be added if requested, so sourcing will not be a problem. Hobartimus (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Eminently notable, received wide media coverage." Any sources to back that up? BTW, a wide media coverage in Slovakia and Hungary do not make it notable in English Wikipedia.
  "other sources are also plentiful can easily be added if requested" - When I requested other sources you removed the tag. Where are the sources then?
  "sourcing will not be a problem." - "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball."--Svetovid (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no rule that says a topic must have received coverage in English-language sources. In any case, there are a number of English sources right here). Zagalejo^^^ 21:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Svetovid, Google shows an incredible number of sources, if you want to request sources on the talk page or via using templates, I'll be happy to add them, just point out the sentence(s) that need extra sources. Hobartimus (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - 16 reports from Hungarian media (that are repeating) in English is not "an incredible number of sources." I did request more sources to show notability some days ago and you removed the tag without explanation, so playing the good side now is a cheap trick.--Svetovid (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read more carefully. I never said that all the sources are in English. The article stands at 21 sources now, not bad for a young article. If you request more, point out the sentence or the specific part of the article you think is under-sourced.Hobartimus (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nomination for deletion seems to have more to do with some ongoing dispute between editors. From an outsiders perspective the article seems quite notable and should have a place in the 'pedia. Xdenizen (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't say why it seems notable. Again, this is not a head count.--Svetovid (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I read the article, considered the arguments advanced by those before me and I agree with them. The article is notable. I have to say I object to your somewhat aggressive style in this AfD. Your continual suggestions that "this is not a head count" imply that those who disagree with you are not acting in good faith. We are. You proposed deletion and we have expressed our views on the matter. I would also add that, like some others, I question your good faith in making this nomination in the first place. I suspect you're trying to export a content dispute to AfD. Xdenizen (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject meets WP:BIO and this is not the appropriate venue for content disputes. Furthermore, comments such as this [31] question whether or not this nom was made in good faith. RFerreira (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the history of the article and Hobartimus' contributions to find out why I called him a troll. Do you think that removing tags and reverting valid edits is 'in good faith', especially when others and I have seen him doing it many times before?--Svetovid (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Robert Fico, Prime Minister of Slovakia is under prosecution now for abuse of power because of his behavior in the early period of the investigation. The Prime Minister also counts as non-notable? There were months in 2006 when you could hardly open a Hungarian newspaper without having to read the extensive coverage of that case. As you can read in the article, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives asked the Slovak Prime Minister for a fair process. We may move the article to Hedvig Malina case, but then propose a similar move regarding the Rodney King case too as Gargaj pointed out above. Squash Racket (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Human rights has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a politically motivated AfD...Balloonman (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - perhaps rename "Hedvig Malina case" (but then do the same with Rodney King [adding: or perhaps more appropriately, given the "it may have happened but it wasn't racist" motif: rename Stephen Lawrence]. As other contributors have indicated, there is quite extensive coverage, including coverage-of-the-coverage, and some degree of international concern (both in US and EU). POV does need some work as the article stands. I'm trying VERY hard to assume good faith and not go for "speedy keep". --Paularblaster (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This article is relevant, but needs substantial revision. My problems with the article are following:
- It only cites 8 sources, 7 of them are of hungarian origin, only 1 is of slovak origin and there is no foreign "neutral" source. (Repeated sources from the same newspaper can only be counted as one, because it is the opinion of one group of people, probably one author, only.) By this, it probably violates WP:NPOV. Additional slovak and/or foreign sources should be added and until then, the article should be tagged as POV and requiring citations.
- Most of the sources are written in magyar language, so it is not possible to verify (for most Wikipedia users), whether the cited information is really authentic. [Adding: Therefore, the references should be modified to be compliant with WP:V, more precisely WP:RSUE]
- The article violates WP:BIO1E. It is not a biography (WP:BIO), but only the description of a single event. Therefore, it should be changed to an event description, as WP:BIO1E demands. (And the same is true for Rodney King, because "his" page is dedicated to the one event. Nevertheless, the Rodney King page contains much more biographical information than the Hedvig Malina page.) The introduction on the Hedvig Malina page is definitely not an introduction to a biography: "Hedvig Malina is an ethnic Hungarian student from Horné Mýto, Slovakia, who was allegedly beaten by Slovakian nationalists ...".
- The cause is still not closed, there are several court processes and investigations in progress, so the article probably violates WP:NOT#NEWS. At least, claims like "15 months after the beating" or "the ones who committed the hate crime" should be reformulated carefully to keep neutral point of view, journalistic objectivity and presumption of innocence for all involved persons and subjects.
- The page uses a mutilated version of the person's real name, which is Hedviga Malinová. (The name "Hedviga Malinová" is, among other sources, used at the page of SMK, the political party representing the hungarian minority in Slovakia: [[32]])147.175.98.213 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP tries to insert a renaming process too. Available English language sources refer to her by the original, Hungarian name (Hedvig Malina). The Slovakized version of her name is only used in Slovakia, even by a Hungarian party in the public due to constant pressure by the Slovak authorities. We are talking about a large minority in a member of the European Union, where minority rights should be respected, so I think we can keep the name Hedvig Malina here. Especially in this case. Squash Racket (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, "what is her official/real name?", not "what is her hungarian name?" You write, that "Available English language sources refer to her by the original, Hungarian name (Hedvig Malina)." But the only two English language sources cited by the Hedvig Malina article use the name "Hedviga Malinová". Please, give us the sources you are writing about. If possible, sources, which are not just translation of .hu articles.
You write about slovakization, but changing the original name to hungarian equivalent could be called magyarization. Please, stop using this kind of argumentation, as it might be offensive to both sides.
Not using the 'ová' suffix becomes accepted in Slovakia and it is very easy to remove the -ova suffix from official documents for an ethnic Hungarian ([33]), so I really don't see a reason why they would use a wrong name. I doubt, that the "pressure by the Slovak authorities" would persuade the representatives of Magyars in Slovakia to use a wrong name. Especially when SMK is doing a strong opposition against the slovak government in this cause.
Anyway, the name is the least important problem of the article. I don't think it is worth the attention it gets.147.175.98.213 (talk) 11:49, 10 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. east.718 at 17:07, January 13, 2008

Marta McGonagle

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with a number of small roles roles in television shows. Only one of films she appeared in seems to be somewhat notable, Believe In Me was given a limited theatrical release.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —BlueAzure (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only film she performed in that has its own Wikipedia article is Believe in Me, which received a limited release in theaters in 2007. Yahoo Movies indicates that the film earned about $208,000 at the box office. The ongoing concern about COI-creation of multiple articles by people apparently connected with Metaphor Entertainment casts a shadow on this article as well. WP:BIO asks for significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions, a standard that does not seem to be met here. None of the three newspaper reviews of this film found by Metacritic include any judgment of McGonagle's performance, so there is no way to write up her movie career out of what has appeared in reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Ed. -Lciaccio (talk) 17:13, 7 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. east.718 at 17:07, January 13, 2008

Protege (N.C.Simko Project)

Notability is asserted (after the CSD tag) but I don't think his project, or the artist himself, is really notable. No reviews by anyone, besides this article google doesn't have anything on the artist (and obviously nothing on 'protege' since it's a common word and this is not that popular). It's an article created by the artist himself too which obviously violates COI -- Menti fisto 17:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, vanity spam. Google returns only two hits both from LiveJournal which indicates secondary sources do not exist. Googling the artist's name alone only returns about 50 hits. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student artist, NN. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 7 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. east.718 at 17:07, January 13, 2008

Kevin T. McCarthy

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with a number of small roles. Co-writer of 9 minute short film, that won awards from film festivals Wikipedia doesn’t have articles about.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —BlueAzure (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Playing "Drunk Guy #1" does not a notable actor make. -Lciaccio (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this is part of a Currently Active COI case, isn't it premature/inflamatory to AFD it at this time? Shouldn't the COI be resolved prior to any further actions? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. If the article fails notability, it deserves to be deleted, regardless of the COI dispute outcome. Mooting that dispute is a boon, not a cost. -Lciaccio (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reading through the COI case, it does in fact seem to be resolved (even though it hasn't been marked as such). Minor, serial one part actor. Only notability seems to be alumi with Jon Voigt, Susan Saradon, Chris Saradon, Ed McMahon and Peter Bosco? I dont think that counts as WP:N. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:48, 8 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 --JForget 01:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Havidol

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This went through a PROD-cycle in April 2007 and was re-tagged for PROD-deletion (diff between PROD-nominated versions). The latest PROD nominator stated "Very limited notability demonstrated, doesn't sound like it needs its own article." Personally, I do believe it has sufficient notability for retention in Wikipedia. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Five individual editors who have made substantial edits to the article have been notified via template of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, notable enough that I'd heard of the campaign (though couldn't recall the name.) Article could do with expansion, more links etc but certainly deserves to stay. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for now. It it got 137 hits on Wikipedia last month; which suggests over one and a half thousand views a year (for stats see:http://stats.grok.se/en/200712/Havidol). There is also three spoofed Havidol adverts on youtube. I am not sure if they escape the no copyrighted film link WP policy, which I think was meant to apply to TV and feature films -so maybe their links can go on. See:http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Havidol&search=Search Personally, I would prefer to see it as part of an article on Medical Satire though; then have this as a redirect to the new article. It would put Havitol in clearer context. Medical satire has a long history and therefore has potential for an interesting article, but if this article goes, so does all the links on the talk page. Then there is also the amusing work of James Gillray who often satirised medical matters (and are out of copyright now so could be included in such an article). For some of these examples see: http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/11/ouch.html--Aspro (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kim Dent-Brown I recall this campaign too. Xdenizen (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Havidol article is notable on a number of fronts. It is a social satire on the excesses of Madison Avenue and the drug industry to sell prescription medications. It is also a popular culture phenomenon much like the Pet Rock, the Hula hoop, the Cabbage Patch Kids, and Frisbee, all of which became more popular than expected. It is also an example of Pop art following in the heritage of Campbell's Soup Cans by Andy Warhol. I added some text in the article to provide a rationale for the article being notable. The article still needs additional work. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added three citations and additional information to help bring the article into compliance.--Dan Dassow (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made some significant updates to the Havidol article that I believe addresses the concerns about notability. Please review the current article to see whether you believe this will be sufficient to save the article from deletion.--Dan Dassow (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't imagine anyone now in good faith arguing for deletion here. Can we close this per WP:SNOW? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. For the reasons above. Moncrief (talk) 17:36, 7 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, I highly recommend for this article to be merged somewhere though, especially in the should be article of Women in the American Civil War. Secret ^account 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Burns (US Civil War soldier)

We'll try this again. Non-notable, no references except a brief mention in a couple books. The previous version that survived AfD had several comments that Mary Burns was notable, but no one spoke up for this person. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - As in Very Weak. I added a couple links (one of which is probably not WP:R enough, granted) to the article so others can use them (and back-reference them through their references). The "woman who dressed as a man in order to serve her country" is a significant situation itself (I said significant, not notable), and I think that this article and others like it could have potential. I'd like to see this end, ideally, in a "no consensus" for the time being and, if the article isn't improved within 3-6 months, then PROD or AfD it out then. There could be potential here; that's really all I'm saying. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think it would be a shame to lose this information- someone whose name is still known after all this time... Perhaps there would be an appropriate merge target? Something like Missouri Militia Cavalry or Women in the American Civil War? J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Timeline of women in 19th century warfare. This is so minor (she never fought) and the sources are so brief that I'm reluctant to have a whole article. There's a point at which this is undue weight and I think this is definitely it. As the sources show there were many more significant instances of disguised women soldiers who actually fought. --Dhartung | Talk 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query -- How is this undue weight? Undue weight really talks about weight of information within a particular article; information tending to be given undue weight in a way that creates a non-neutral POV. Concerns about a more notable topic not yet being included while less notable topics are included are not undue weight -- in some instances they're systemic bias, but not in the way you're suggesting, I think. --Lquilter (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could be considered UNDUE because there are 42 people listed in Category:Female wartime crossdressers and anothe 6 in Category:Female wartime crossdressers in the American Civil War. How many individual articles of two sentences do we need for this subject? Shouldn't this encyclopedia stick to Notable people? This woman didn't even make it to fight but was discovered before the company left! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That doesn't really work for me; it just seems like a straight WP:N argument. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I think. --Lquilter (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that this woman was notable enough to be included in Timeline of women in 19th century warfare, which presently only includes women who actually took part in fighting. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see 2 secondary sources. That's the heart of WP:N.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You realize she's mentioned in one sentence in each of those sources? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1 sentence in each is enough to keep a stub around. There is no lack of server space. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, Notability requires "significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I agree with Satyr about the notability and one-sentence-ness, I do feel the need to point out that the bar for notability is set really low. When Wikipedia routinely keeps pages like Fuzzy dice, Cooties, Fish of Oklahoma (a list!), Dibs, Vorpal, and stubs like Victory Boulevard (Los Angeles) and Carolina Renaissance Festival, and empty pages like 32 AH (and series...at least fill them!), I can see where a one-sentence by two-reference "article" could be seen as a legitimate keep. As for the inclusion or exclusion in the timeline article, that is a list not of women who are notable, but of women with Wikipedia articles. Notice that every line links somewhere? The reason she's not listed there isn't (necessarily) a lack of notability, but that nobody's added her since she got her own article. Anyway, I stand by my "vote" of VERY WEAK Keep, but absolutely agree that this is not enough currently to keep around; I just would like to see someone improve it drastically (and if not, PROD it in a few months). VigilancePrime (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless someone can save this with improvement. Greswik (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I copied the article content from the preceding AFD, but won't be able to do anything with it -- not my bailiwick, no sources, etc. However, I will note that any historical figure of 150 years who has survived by name in a few list-type sources is likely sourced elsewhere, and especially given the reams of scholarship on the US Civil War -- really, rivers of ink have been spilled on this -- I would imagine the article could ultimately be sourced. There's no deadline, and so my inclination would be to keep this one tagged, add it to relevant wikiprojects, and hang in there. There's no deadline and no compelling reason to delete it -- no BLP issues, no vanity concerns, no spam concerns, no vandalism or troll-magnet issues. --Lquilter (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Lquilter said in a lucid and eloquent manner what I try and fail to say in my unlucid, uneloquent way. No compelling reason to delete, and there probably are / ought to be some sources out there. {{Expand}} and other tags could garner attention and help of others. That's why I think keep is warranted (though weak). VigilancePrime (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~. Weak keep. Having looked into it, I find that the article already cites a source ~~that in its turn cites 5 contemporary newspaper reports and a history book from 1911 (Ethel Alice Hurn, Wisconsin Women in the War)~~. There’s slightly more detail in DeAnne Blanton and Lauren M. Cook’s They Fought Like Demons: Women Soldiers in the American Civil War (LSU Press, 2002). ISBN 0807128066, page 31 and page 124. She clearly meets “multiple sources over time”. That she’s notable only for being sent to prison for ~~enlisting illegally~~ "masquerading as a man" is a problem, but my own feeling is that one-off notability still being “noted” over 100 years later is quite sufficient for our purposes. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this research! It makes *FD discussions much better when folks have done research on the issue at hand. --Lquilter (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't thank me - I've made rather a bloomer. The footnote in question actually covers a discussion of two different women discovered before seeing combat, and only the last of the references is to Mary Burns. I've reworked the article and I think it's now about as full as it's ever going to be. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 03:35, 10 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 merged and redirected (by User:Buspar) to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Non-admin closure, yada yada. Zetawoof_(ζ) 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul presidential campaign developments, 2008

This article was split off from Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 and is yet another unnecessary Ron Paul page. The contents could have been contained in the parent article with some editing but are instead bloated with crufty accounts of radio appearances and Meetup.com activities. See earlier AfDs Ron Paul Revolution (AfD discussion) and List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances (AfD discussion). Delete, do not merge. Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even former candidate presidential pages (such as Tom Tancredo) have campaign development sections. Deletion without a merger is clearly inappropriate as it flies in the face of current Wiki formatting standards. The closing admin should make note of this attempt to bootstrap the improper deletion of an article section (campaign developments) with this AfD, which pertains only to whether the section should exist as a separate subarticle. Buspar (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't with the section. The problem is with this redundant article. All campaign articles should have a "campaign developments" section but not a separate "campaign developments" article.--S TX 06:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (hence my merge vote). However, several editors, such as tqbf, are arguing that if the AfD here results in deletion then that means the campaign developments section from the main presidential article should also be permanently removed. My statement is that the closing admin should note whether this bootstrapping is appropriate or not. I argue it isn't; I'm glad you agree. Buspar (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is WP:FANCRUFT all the way. Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 has more than everything that's needed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One campaign article is enough, no need for daughter articles. If the Clinton and Obama and Romney and Huckabee and all the other editors can manage it, so too can the Ron Paul editors. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violation of WP:NOT#NEWS --Hnsampat (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not one to support fancruft, but this appears to be a well cited account of notable events. I think it satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements and should be kept. Pilotbob (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- of course much of the content is notable; notability isn't the issue, sprawl is. Instead of editing Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 --- which would require that RP supporters remove such important content as "how many World of Warcraft users have named their characters after Ron Paul" and "which community college professors have endorsed Ron Paul" and "where can the enlightened Wikipedia reader go to find the discussion forum for the Hotties-4-Ron-Paul calendar" --- RP content has instead metastasized into many other articles across the WP. Here's another interesting metric: we are now 5 days in to 2008, and the "2008 developments" article has eighteen paragraphs. This is the dictdef of undue weight, which is why these articles consistently die in AfD. --- tqbf 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per tqbf, Wasted Time R, etc al. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. However, I would note that most of the content of this article consists of descriptions of activities which took place in 2007, which explains why it has 18 paragraphs by January 5. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 21:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as WP:Fancruft Xdenizen (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This was split off due to size reasons in the parent. Since those have been handled, this should be reintegrated into the main article where it belongs (I've already done so, per the earlier merge discussion). Contents are wholly notable, given the general formatting of every other presidential article, which lists major developments. Buspar (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content that can't possibly make sense without continuous updates (such as a "list of 2008 events" that ends at January 5th) is inherently unencyclopedic: you're writing a newpaper (or worse, an almanac), not an encyclopedia article. I think everyone working in good faith here realizes that even if Jupiter aligns with Pluto and Paul is elected, virtually all of this content will be jettisoned. Let's take it, and the notion that Wikipedia should carry up-to-the-moment news of campaigns, and kill it off while it's easy. --- tqbf 23:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Campaign developments is a standard part of a presidential article. Without it, the article isn't even about the campaign! Read the other candidate pages (ex. Duncan Hunter and Rudy Giuliani) and you'll see that including a section of this type is a matter of proper formatting and content. You're basically arguing that the core of the article - the official campaign - is unencyclopedic, and that's just silly. The content has already been merged and culled for redundancy. Removing it from the main article would clearly be contrary to the purposes of writing an article about the campaign. Buspar (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Crufty and not worthy of a separate article. After coming in 5th in Wyoming, I hope we can assume that there will be no more campaign developments for him in 2008. Or should we keep the article around until he drops out in New Hampshire? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki is not a crystal ball and neither are you. Votes should be based on historical value, which is not impacted even if Ron Paul were to drop out tomorrow. Buspar (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Terraxos (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who created this article readded to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 the text from this article here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to delete it. :) Terraxos (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment, I think editors should also be aware that the article Ron Paul presidential debates, 2008 also exists and that perhaps it too should be brought to AFD.--S TX 04:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) It has been merged. --S TX 04:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant.--S TX 04:39, 6 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. Secret ^account 15:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Forbes

This article fails WP:NOT#PLOT, since it is almost entirely plot summary and character history without real-world context or importance, and WP:FICT, since reliable secondary sources are not provided to establish notability. Google returns only non-WP:RS fansites and unrelated hits, which indicates that this article likely cannot pass notability guidelines no matter what. I both tagged the article and raised my concerns on the talk page a month and a half ago and it has not been improved so I am bringing it to AFD. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the guidelines of WP:FICT into List of Adventures in Odyssey characters: I'm not finding anything that supports her notability, though if anything appears before the end of this AfD, the article of course should be kept. Add to this a hearty "thank you" to the nom for following the process and tagging and waiting first, before bringing it here. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Adventures in Odyssey characters. No notability or real world significance asserted; Wikipedia is not a fansite. Eusebeus (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:V. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 14:43, 14 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 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brien Perry

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with a number of small roles in television shows. None of the movies he has been in appear notable.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —BlueAzure (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I know it's a tough decision when he played such unforgettable characters as "Pledge #4" and "Director of Sound Waves", but you have to draw the line somewhere. (However, he does look rather fetching in that striped dress.) Clarityfiend (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Like Clarityfiend I'm reluctant to dispose of the nameless paramedic from the Bold and the Beautiful, but what can you do? Xdenizen (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His IMDB Pro score shows that he is notable in the entertainment industry. He's had several significant roles (i.e. April Moon), as well as guest roles on many others (i.e. JAG, Friends). I will add some of the references I found. TGreenburgPR (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. How is April Moon notable? It doesn't have its own article (nor do any of Perry's films) and its stars don't appear to be anyone recognizable. (Their own latest credits appear to be one-off TV appearances and other small films. -Lciaccio (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list of minor roles, and unable to find any articles / reviews about him to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Negative): This is just Vanispamcruftisement, IMHO ... the only "references" are links to show that the subject was in the cast of one or more episodes of a TV show ... an IMDb listing and a MySpace page are not Reliable sources ... see also: Elle Travis and Lindsay MacFarland, which are themselves up for deletion ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear indication that he has played a significant role in any notable film, as required by our WP:BIO criteria. I looked in Metacritic for 'Trapped in Perfection', which is listed as either a 2006 or 2007 release, but did not find it there. Googled for "Trapped in perfection" "Brien Perry" and could not find any published reviews. If you go to http://movies.toptenreviews.com it ranks Perry as 131,000th out of 170,000 actors, though I'm not sure what this ranking was based on (apparent celebrity?).EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 10 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. east.718 at 17:06, January 13, 2008

Cassandra Braden

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with a number of small roles in television shows. None of the movies she has been in appear notable.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This isn't IMDb. (What the heck is Organizational Behavior?) Clarityfiend (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —BlueAzure (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor actress, fails WP:BIO. The WP:COI, of course, is deplorable. Wikipedia is not Metaphor Entertainment's free web host; put up your headshots on your own dime. (As for the degree, I would call that social science for business majors.) --Dhartung | Talk 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor roles and unable to find any reviews or articles about her -- Whpq (talk) 00:38, 9 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. Importance is asserted, but not shown through reliable sources. Pastordavid (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Baldry

AfDs for this article:

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: In my opinion, this is a speedy deletion candidate. However, my opinion is secondary to consensus, which appears not to support this. Found as a PROD-nominated deletion; the PROD nominator stated "None notable person. Article has already been flagged for non-notability since April 2007." If deleted, I would suggest salting to prevent spurious re-creation. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. No assertion of notability through multiple secondary sources (or any sources cited whatsoever, for that matter). Can't be speedied since it (spuriously) survived a previous AfD, but it obviously fails to explain his importance TheBilly (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article does assert importance, when it says that he was the host of a television show and a presenter on another. matt91486 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His TV presenting roles have been on very minor shows with small audiences. The main problem is that having attempted to find some, there appears to be no significant secondary coverage whatsoever, which is essential if he is to have an article here.--Michig (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Quizmania earned ITV over £1.2million during the first two weeks of transmission on ITV1." That's a quote from the article on one of his programs, which was sourced from the London Times. That's hardly trivial coverage of the program, so I don't think you can argue that it was a "very minor" show. matt91486 (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's about £100,000 per day, and if every viewer phoned in several times each time they watched the show, that could be about 30,000 viewers per show (each show running for a few hours), which makes it a very minor show. The Quizmania article includes this claim about the £1.2 million but doesn't provide a source, so it can hardly be relied on. In any case, it doesn't make Baldry notable.--Michig (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Television Game Shows has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - certainly the person has notability, but not enough for it's own article. I'd merge into Quizmania. Google News Search came up with nothing, and a general Google search pointed to very little...even his IMDB profile has very little information. If IMDB has very little, I don't see how it can possibly qualify for an article here. (Note: I'm not using that as a standard for including in the encyclopedia, I'm just pointing out that there's very little information out there on the guy.) --Son (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, clearly does not meet criteria for inclusion of WP:BIO.Teleomatic (talk) 00:33, 11 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, although users are certainly free to discuss merge. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uka Uka

Unnotable video game character with no real-world significance. Article is almost entirely game plot regurgitation, Original research "supported" by a glut of game quotes. Tagged as such and suggested merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Tagging was labeled vandalism. On closer inspect, the list of character covers this one adequately enough, so merge is probably not needed anyway. Collectonian (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable character. Plot summary is way to long, the sections that refer to character development are unsourced. All sources used are primary sources. I doubt there are any reliables 3rd party sources to sources this article. Ridernyc (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is not "non-notable", never has been and never will be. He easily fulfills the criteria set-out. Plus you're insisting we delete something a simple edit would fix. CBFan (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if it can be fixed with a simple edit stop fighting with everyone and fix it. Ridernyc (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We did that, and Collectonian blatantly deleted it. Realisticly, if you want to delete Uka Uka's article so badly, then you'd have to delete EVERYONE else's articles except Crash's and possibly Cortex's, because otherwise it promotes biasey. And don't say that, it's uncivil and not very professional. CBFan (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a diff to backup your unfounded accusation that I deleted your attempts to provide REAL-WORLD notability. Collectonian (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will, ONCE you post proof of REAL-WORLD notability for any OTHER fictional character. You're clearly being biased. CBFan (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, CBFan. Collectonian, darling, no offence but do you have some sort of pathological grudge against fictional characters who have not been heard of by every human being on the face of the planet? Saying that Uka Uka is a non-notable fictional character is preposterous, he's a major antagonist from a well-known and successful game series which has had quite a bit of merchandise. There is no original research because all the statements in the article are backed up with quotes from the game series to support them. There are references, citations and external links and all the allusions made to Uka Uka's personality are drawn from a variety of information provided by the games themselves and the production notes. None of this is original research at all. Furthermore the references to the plot all describe Uka Uka's role in the games and his effect on the storyline. It also contains a short section on his character's creation and a long and very interesting section on his personality. If you're going to delete the article on Uka Uka you might as well delete Ganon as well. Not that that would be such a bad thing. --Illustrious One (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that CBFan has canvassed other users to "save" this article, including: User talk:Freqrexy, User talk:Illustrious One‎, and User talk:Cat's Tuxedo‎. Collectonian (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that I never did anything of the sort, and that Collectonian is telling lies about me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBFan (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He most certainly is not. You are canvassing, which is inappropriate. In addition removing others' comments is extremely inappropriate. I suggest you desist. I (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you are beating a dead horse, because we've already made a compromise. CBFan (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. As the nominator, I still stand by this AfD, and I stand by my ANI report of your behavior in this whole affair. My recent edits on the remaining articles is simply finishing the plan I had started before this mess started, per your implication that you would not block it, and an attempt to do what was unable to be done here. Collectonian (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, as I told you, I am no longer interested in continuing this silly affair now that we've made a compromise. I'm now for merging, not keeping. CBFan (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Collectonian (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any secondary sources that establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). If this character has real-world notability, could you please provide evidence of such? The article needs more out-of-universe information—it currently has only two paragraphs of real-world content at a glance, and even this is filled with unsourced speculation ("It is thereby possible that Uka Uka's (and Aku Aku's) voice is computer-generated") and generic text that fluffs up the paragraph, such as "a number of different concept designs were conceived...before the final design was decided on", which could be said about any video game character, really. Problems like this are typically associated with non-notable characters, which I suspect this might be. Pagra shtak 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to provide proof, not only as to why you want only Uka Uka deleted, but also as to why you don't want every fictional character who has an article deleted. Uka Uka is a video game character. He is not a real character. He exists in a video game universe. You have a very poor argument on your behalf, which, as far as I can make out, is "He is a video game character so he can't have an article". And, as I've said before, and as many Crash fans will agree with, Uka Uka has appeared in 10 games, 4 of which were canon, so he is easily notable. CBFan (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, did I ever say I want the article deleted? Please don't put words in my mouth, it's incredibly rude. Secondly, the burden of proof lies in the other direction—it falls upon the supporters of the article to prove notability. All I did was ask for someone to provide evidence of notability, as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), but I have yet to see it. That the character has been in 10 games does not show notability, as the games are not secondary sources. Pagra shtak 20:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a simple case of mistaken identity, there's no need to flip. Besides, we've reached a workable agreement. CBFan (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the above reasons. Pagra shtak 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Compromise already sussed out between myself and Collectionian, there is no longer any need for this as far as I'm concerned. CBFan
For God's sake, what are you nutters on? This is a brilliant article about a notable character from a notable computer game and you've got it in for him. If you're going to delete the Uka Uka article you're going to have to delete the Crash article, the Cortex article, the Coco article and all those other Crash Bandicoot articles. It would be the most ridiculous genodice since all the Fictional villains categories were deleted. --Illustrious One (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is why we're merging them. Not Crash's article...his is staying. And before anyon says anything, I didn't even tell him anything concerning that one. CBFan (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I think most people would agree that this article doesn't deserve to be merged. Uka Uka warrents an article of his own. --Illustrious One (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought it was already compromised several weeks ago that only various notable characters would end up getting articles. With Uka Uka appearing in four canon games and 6 spin-offs, that warrants more than enough information to build an article based on him when matched up to other characters. But if a merge has to happen, then that means another line would have to be drawn concerning which Crash characters would have their own articles and which would not. Freqrexy (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe there is enough real world information available to satisfy the relevant guidelines (WP:FICT, WP:GAMECRUFT). User:Krator (t c) 16:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The motion is passed. Keep. --Illustrious One (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no it hasn't. I don't see a clear consensus here; therefore, please allow this discussion to remain open so consensus may be reached. Terraxos (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I jumped to concusions. --Illustrious One (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, though, I personally support a Keep. Terraxos (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, consensus seems to be towards merge and not keep. Pagra shtak 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about X? Thin boy 00 @988, i.e. 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki, This is a canonical example of gamecruft which would be an excellent featured article on a dedicated CB wiki but which has no place here. Defenders aren't covering themselves in glory by acting like five-year-olds while defending it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd agree with the Illustrious One that this boarders on a personal attack. I agree that some of those arguing for keep aren't on the best of behavior, but grouping all "defenders" as "five-year-olds" is a rather broad brush. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cunningham, kindly refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. --Illustrious One (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am relisting this, as the original listing has somehow been deleted from the December 27 log. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Now if there's one game that I haven't played in a long time, it's Crash Bandicoot 3. Jeez. Brings back memories.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge as above; there's some nice out-of-universe information here (voice actors, sketches, etc) but I would strip most of the in-game stuff; the Characteristics section, In-game history etc, as we are an encyclopedia and not a gaming wiki. There's not enough notability presented to warrant its own article - and by notability I mean the usual "independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage." Marasmusine (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Marasmusine's solution, if not past experience showed me that it is usually just a small plot summary that is merged, while all the nice out-of-universe information is left out or put together in a "out of universe information" section at the top of the list article. The theory behind merges is that sometimes information is better presented in a large article (note my mergism userbox). I don't think that is the case here: the information on Uka Uka (which we all agree has some place in Wikipedia) is better presented in its own article. User:Krator (t c) 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection I agree. --Illustrious One (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a major character in a major series. Further the article is really quite strong, I'd hate to see it go. Any merge involves a LOT of material. Also, as a bit of trivia, 14,500 ghits on an English-only search... Hobit (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't address the concerns of the nominator—namely the lack of real-world notability and over-reliance on plot repetition. Pagra shtak 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, a major character from a major series is notable. On the plot, I'm not too worried, WP:PLOT's major task is insuring that we don't end up with Readers Digest summaries here (see WP:PLOT talk page). I don't think this is that or anything close to it. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. It is not sufficient to say "major character from a major series". You must show why this particular character is notable in the real world—not within the game series—and back it up with reliable secondary sources. If the character is indeed notable, this should be an easy task. Pagra shtak 16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. If the base article is too long, spilling out makes sense. It's the base article that matters for notability, the rest is just organization. WP:NOTPAPER
WP:NOTPAPER is not a catch-all to add fancruft. There's a CB wiki on Wikia which would be a thousand times better to develop this articl on than WP is. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see latest draft of WP:FICT (in talk). General view is that spilling out can make sense if it helps the article. While not binding (hey, WP:FICT isn't either) it shows the direction of consensus. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be added in the series game characters article, not have a article of its own. Ihsbislns (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Ihsbislns[reply]

Keep. Sufficiently notable. Needs rewriting as per WP:WAF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 5 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, Rudget . 14:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable, secondary sources do not appear to exist to establish notability. The article is also mostly WP:NOT#PLOT without real-world context, so there is little content to merge elsewhere. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aku Aku or delete, not notable on its own. I find it funny over two-thirds of the "references" are from the game. JIP | Talk 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still stuck trying to kill this boss, eh? There seem to be enough references out there to demonstrate that the world has noticed this character. Google Books, Google News. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ok, when I searched, the news coverage mostly referred to a notable sailing boat. From your searches, there does appear to be significant news coverage. Addhoc (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant news coverage and other sources provided by various people above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:20, 5 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.

r

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 04:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Gettin' Green Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Raw Gettin' Green Entertainment

Contested PROD for lack of sources and questionable notability. I ran a google search and although there were lots of GHITS, the only link that was actually related to this subject was its Wikipedia article. NN record label that hasn't had a single release yet, fails WP:MUSIC. Also wondering if its a hoax as I can't find anything (even an official website) on it. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom Mr Senseless (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure what the nom Googled to get "lots of ghits" - "Raw Gettin' Green Entertainment" returns only this article; searching for "Raw Gettin' Green" returns only 7 (one of which is this article), and the only one of relevance is a Myspace page. Oli Filth^(talk) 17:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely zero sources. Not even any unreliable ones. -- Whpq (talk) 00:40, 9 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 concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs of Oklahoma

Indiscriminate list of songs whose only common bond is that they mention Oklahoma or have it in the title somewhere. None of these songs have any other common bond, so this list violates WP:NOT#DIR, not to mention the utter lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Life, Liberty, Property (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#DIR. Even following some of the songs that had articles found Oklahoma connections to be unsourced. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge to Music of Oklahoma. Most of these, admittedly, aren't notable. We all know "O-klahoma" from the musical, and "Okie From Muskogee" and Fastball's "Sooner or Later", but you don't HAVE to put in everything. Mandsford (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As random list of info Mbisanz (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just barely, since List of songs about California and List of songs about Alabama both of which show that this article could be better. However the name would need to be changed to List of songs about Oklahoma, since it is not clear what we are to make of the definition of "of" here, as Clinton might have put it. Lobojo (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Smithsonian Institution classifies its collection of music Americana by state ([http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives/d5300nh1.htm here), and if it's good enough for the Smithsonian it's good enough for Wikipedia. The list is not indiscriminate at all. It's criterion for inclusion is that a song is about the state of Oklahoma, or geographical locations therein. That's a rather distinct and small amount of music. Oklahoma is a rather out of the way place that people do not think of often. Residents are keenly aware of songs that are about their state, and it helps define the culture of the state internally and to the outside world. Hence, it is an encyclopedic and notable subject. There is a similar article, Music of Oklahoma, but that is different. Both issues are important - the indigenous music, and also what musicians nationwide say about Oklahoma. Becuase there is very little in the state by way of a music industry, most songs get sung about Oklahoma by expatriates and transplants, not in Oklahoma. Wikidemo (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If wikipedia listed all the songs already, then listing by such sub-classification might be OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have to start somewhere, remember wikipedia is incomplete! Lobojo (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too much original research, too many entries are not notable (do not have their own articles). The intersection of song and state is too random. If the content was notable, then it could be merged to Oklahoma, but it's not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 5 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, Rudget . 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Music of Oklahoma, per Mansford. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Lobojo and Wikidemo. The list is discriminate -- the common bond is that all the songs are about a specific place. Including a song with "Oklahoma" or "Okie" in its title or lyrics is not original research -- it is primary information where the song is the source (similar to a plot summary taken from a film). Bláthnaid 14:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lobojo, Wikidemo and Blathnaid. Circeus (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list. Addhoc (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Addhoc. D.M.N. (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No criterion, NOT#INFO. Cool Hand Luke 00:23, 6 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 all. Subject satisfies WP:BAND as indicated by discussion below and expansion of article. The same guideline indicates that notability is generally considered inherent in official releases by a notable artist, which means that the album articles are kept as well. Given that the album articles are currently nothing more than track listing, however, they may be merged into the main article (space permitting) as outlined in WP:MERGE, but any such discussions should be started only after there has been an opportunity to verify the available non-English sources. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moi Caprice (band)

After looking for sources, I haven't found any reason to believe they're notable - and the band don't even have an All Music Guide biography.[34] The article has been deleted once before in March 2007.[35] I'm also nominating these related articles:

Funeral 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite absolutely nothing that I can find in an American publication, there is sufficient coverage in international music sources. They topped the alternative chart in Denmark in 1997 and have toured internationally, meeting the notability standards. I'll try to flesh out the article somewhat. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a few things, largely from English-language Vietnamese sources. This band was apparently nominated for several Danish Music Awards, and may have won once, but an editor who speaks Danish is likely going to be needed to navigate the DMA website. Best I could do on short notice. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Has been nominated for major Danish awards. Definitely notable. --Peter Andersen (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Bláthnaid 17:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, the sources added are sufficient to establish notability. This is proof that lack of an AMG profile doesn't necessarily equal non-notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable from sources provided. Chubbles (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:08, 7 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. Bduke (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian hardcore punk & metalcore bands

The list is full of non-notable bands and it's only for Christian bands in minor subgenres of heavy metal and punk, it's hardly essential. And its content is already covered in Category:Christian hardcore and Category:Christian metal groups. Funeral 14:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep An obvious target of spam for non-notable bands as any band list would be, but about half the links are blue so I'd say keep but clean it up TheBilly (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These are small subgenres within rock music. And these subgenres are already covered in other lists - List of Christian punk bands and the list of Christian metal bands, as well as the better-suited-for-this-kind-of-thing categories I mentioned above. And hardcore punk and metalcore are different styles of music, making this list is like making a List of Christian pop rock and death metal groups. This list just isn't useful or needed. Funeral 14:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My assumption was that the two were thrown together in the same list because there's so little in each, and because they're not entirely unrelated. Christian music isn't exactly known for being "exxxxtreme", and since this is a list and not an article, there isn't a strict requirement on this sort of precise categorization. Even if I thought there should be, that would only lead me to argue for a split, not a delete. As far as the "minor subgenres" argument goes: So? If there's agreement that the subgenre actually exists and is active, then let's write about it and classify using it TheBilly (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Christian music isn't exactly known for being 'exxxxtreme'" - Sorry, but can you clarify that statement for me please? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Funeral 15:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Funeral. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is better off at List of Christian punk bands and List of Christian metal bands respectively, and if those lists become too long (too long with bluelinks, that is- the redlinks have to go anyway) then they can be split off to more specific genres as appropriate at the time. However, as Funeral says, this is a pretty stupid list anyway, as hardcore punk and metalcore are distinct. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the lists can be merged into other lists as appropriate. One comment on nominator's rationale: a list is not a substitute for a category and vice versa, per WP:CLS. --Lquilter (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that other lists exist that essentially make this redundant. --neonwhite user page talk 03:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable intersection of subgenres. Terraxos (talk) 01:06, 14 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/Keep. Addhoc (talk · contribs) has cleaned up this article and added references. There's no consensus to delete here, and the recent improvements give clear cause to keep this article around, in my opinion. Further information below has clarified the prior issues with copyright that do not seem to matter with the current version of the article. — Scientizzle 17:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Page

AfDs for this article:

This article has already been through a deletion review once already, with delete being the result. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Page.

It has since been recreated in the exact same form by User:Eskog. See Sue Page.

Consequently, I did the obvious thing and inserted a speedy delete tag inside the article. However, within minutes this was removed by User:Random832. In doing so, Random832 failed to follow through the proper process of challenging a speedy deletion. Random832 offered only a vague explanation for this action in the edit summary.

I submit that this article remains a very poorly written piece about a non-notable person and should therefore be deleted. Dlw22 (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given that the previous result was a speedy delete, I don't think it's eligible for WP:CSD#G4 speedy deletion as recreation of deleted material. And ESkog's undeletion on 2 January states in the log that permission for copying http://www.nrudrh.edu.au/index.php?pageid=2233&siteid=246 was received. So I think we should discuss this on its merits as an article rather than trying to use either of those issues as shortcuts. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will debate merits below, but the page has "Copyright © 2006 Northern Rivers University Department of Rural Health" on the bottom, does permission to use come as an irrevokable official form? IANAL, but it looks to me like more is required than the subject's own permission. The source is clearly copyrighted, makes me nervous. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Name makes it hard to find much via google (too common) but she looks vaguely notable, but I couldn't find anything sufficient. Might be out there. Currently it's a big resume. Hobit (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think she fails WP:PROF, a stronger case may exist via being Past President of the Rural Doctors Association, and/or unelected offical, but what newsish coverage I could trawl on-line was pretty tangential, [36] [37]. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although not notable as an academic, President Rural Doctors Association Australia seems sufficiently notable as a nationwide office. DGG (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The previous deletion result was to delete the article as a copyright violation, so G4 clearly doesn't apply. I can confirm that we have permission to present this information, but will make no comment for or against its encyclopedic merits. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Sue Page was the first (and only) female President of the Rural Doctors Association of Australia - the rural version of the Australian Medical Association (AMA)
She has made a huge contribution to Australia's Rural Medial Community specifically in relation to the Medical Indemnity Industry review but also had a significant impact negotiating the introduction of bulk billing incentives for rural communities and of rural nurse item numbers
She has regularly presented the Financial Review conferences
She is a notable Australian and a legend
I am suprised you could find much there is heaps on a very quick google search
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Dr+Sue+Page&btnG=Search&meta=
Cheers Rural Watch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rural Watch (talk • contribs) 09:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment as the admin who declined speedy deletion (thanks for notifying me!) - Just to clarify, User:Eskog did not repost the article, he undeleted it, on receipt of verified copyright permission via OTRS. (that said, it does need some clean-up work.) —Random832 19:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with cleanup. A copy of her resume isn't a good article, but I am satisified that she meets WP:N. A google news search of "Sue Page" +rural shows a long string of articles including inerviews of her. -- Whpq (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet even the most basic criteria of WP:BIO. Being an "immediate Past President of the Rural Doctors Association" does not make one notable by itself - the rest is simply a CV. Teleomatic (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 14:54, 14 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. Bduke (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prasco Laboratories

Manufacturer of generic drugs that fails to meet WP:ORG. No adequate assertion of notability, no sources of any sort. Originating editor appears to have conflict of interest, judging by username. Speedy tag removed by third editor (not originating author) hence bringing to AfD. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant efforts by Rudget and Serpent's Choice, well done folks. I think if the article had looked like this originally (and not been originated by an obvious COI editor) I'd never have AfD'd it. However I'm still ambivalent about whether, even with the resuscitation efforts, there is life in the casualty. I guess that makes me a Neutral now with a request to a closing admin to pretty much decide on first principles with reference to WP:ORG. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I think. The article as it stands is an advertising piece. But as to the validity of the topic, I'm uncertain. There are quite a few articles about Prasco, but mostly in pay-to-publish industry periodicals, which I cannot imagine being considered an independent source. There is a little bit of reporting on a lawsuit filed against Prasco concerning certain aspects of a sodium sulfacetamide patent[38], but that seems to me to be the sort of thing that every pharma company has to deal with. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Spurred by Rudget's efforts to clean up the article and my own affinity for pulling things back from the brink, I've done all that I could to clean this up and source it appropriately. The real question for other AFD participants and the closing administrator is going to be whether or not enough of these sources are truly independent of Prasco. I'm not privy to the intricacies of the pharmaceutical industry or business reporting. I suspect that some or all of these publications are pay-to-play, and that their "articles" are in fact just re-distributed press releases. Business Courier of Cincinnati might be a legitimate enough source to run with, however (although, for them, this is local business coverage). YMMV. I've done all I can. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, currently it is a good candidate for AFD per all the concerns raised in the nomination. But I see that there are quite a few g-hits 1, 2 & 3 - so I'll try and see what I can do.Rudget . 17:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to clean it up, but I fear it may still be deleted. Rudget . 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep PharmaMarketLetter is not pay to publish. given that it costs £595 a year, it's a edited industry newsletter. The table of contents [39] shows it does not publish only positive information. That's an independent source,. I havent evaluated whether what is said there about them is notable. DGG (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article asserts notability and seems neutral so I see not reason to delete. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:29, 8 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 Withdrawn by Nominator see bellow, non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Go-Getter (film)

Non-notable film that fails WP:MOVIE's standards for inclusion. While I did find some reviews [40],[41], they all contained no critical commentary and thus fail WP:MOVIE's standards for acceptable sources. Withdrawn See bellow TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep stars numerous well known actors (Joe Pesci, Zooey Deschanel), has an imdb page and was shown at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival. Yeah, that's pretty notable. Reviewed in Variety, which is a notable source. It doesn't have to be "talked about in length", just reviewed. Doc Strange (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing per review in Variety found by Doc Strange. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:30, 5 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of recent automobile models by type

Delete. "Recent" is subjective. Doczilla (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes it is, and the list doesn't serve a valid encyclopedic purpose. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is encyclopedic, but it's also already covered by the category Lists of automobiles, and even defining "recent" as "current" won't change that. Mandsford (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all above Doc Strange (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla and Mandsford. The article is subjective and redundant due to "Lists of automobiles". 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ditto Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Subjetive and redundant, failed copy of List of automobiles. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think this list is covered by Lists of automobiles, it is (should be) part of that parent list. At least, we could move it to the WikiProject:Automobiles, right? I find it useful to look for similar and related cars. The Spanish-language Wikipedia has a similar list but classified as an appendix rather than an article. -- NaBUru38 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request clarification. I think I've missed something, but I see nothing in Lists of automobiles that remotley resembles this list, the closest I can find is Car classification, which of course only lists a few examples, and Category:Car classifications, and lists and categories are not mutually exclusive, so can someone tell me where this article is duplicated in list form as seems to be being asserted above? MickMacNee (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the I have significantly edited the List of automobiles article mentioned above, the version I found and refered to above is this one. MickMacNee (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but Rename or Merge. The list is an extensive piece of information and should not be deleted. I have a problem with the words "current" and "recent", but we should change the words instead of deleting the whole article. Perhaps, it could be merged with Car classification.147.175.98.213 (talk) 00:29, 10 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. I will also move to P. O. Box 1142. Any further merging is an editorial choice, to be made on the article talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Brotherhood of P. O. Box 1142

Unsupported by citation, and right now contains insufficient information for verification. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to verify the article. STORMTRACKER 94 12:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The second google hit for "Brotherhood of P. O. Box 1142" is an article from The Washington Post [42]. Searching for some of the phrases in the article brings up sources like [43] and [44]. Also an article from Germany [45]. Bláthnaid 13:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added 2 sources to the article. Bláthnaid 14:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the MSNBC article you linked refers to them as the "brotherhood of P. O. Box 1142", and it doesn't capitalize their name as a formal designation. Those sources establish that there's something significant about "P. O. Box 1142" connected to the military, but they are trivial mentions in establishing the claim of a group with that specific name TheBilly (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a problem with this specific name -- that is why I did a google search for different phrases from the article. The NPS and Süddeutsche Zeitung articles use just the phrase "P. O. Box 1142", and the Congressional record calls them "P.O. Box 1142"/"Post Office Box 1142," so perhaps P. O. Box 1142 would be a better title. Bláthnaid 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but rename unless reputable secondary sources are found which call them by this name as an official designation. The linked MSNBC article, as explained above, does not capitalize "brotherhood" indicating that they're not using it as part of this group's nickname TheBilly (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to P. O. Box 1142 with a redirect from Post Office Box 1142. This is a distinct era from the history of Fort Hunt itself. We have the NPS and even a Congressional resolution. There is a second P.O. Box that was used as well and both should probably be in the same article even if they had separate duties. --Dhartung | Talk 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Move - the Brotherhood bit seems "after the fact" & Merge as per Dhartung Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Move to P. O. Box 1142 per Dhartung. It is the subject of secondary reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of thinking of a merge to Fort Hunt Park, since the park's history encompasses the history of P. O. Box 1142, but the move per Dhartung would also work. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:06, 7 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 per nominator's request, in order for him to re-list them separately. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Gustav II Adolf

ADMIN REQUEST: I would like to withdraw this Afd and renominate individually. There are civility and process issues stemming from the bundling of these articles. Note also the issues with separating without closing as noted here: [46] Charles 15:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository. Also unprecedented, we are much more likely to include a person's ancestry rather than their descendants on Wikipedia. Also violates WP:OR and is not properly sourced ("various" being a word used). The article is not an encyclopedic topic and many of the descendants are not notable. If the fact that the King has descendants is notable then it belongs in his article. Charles 12:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the ancestry of the Swedish kings already exists at Family tree of Swedish monarchs. It is not customary or particularly encyclopedic to dedicate a page to every line of descent from different ruling houses to the current ruling house. Charles 12:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator, send information to user space if necessary. Charles 12:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: list of descendants of Kennedy family Suedois (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laniers, Livingstons, Longworths Suedois (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kennedy family is almost entirely notable. Indeed, everyone on that list (almost, except for two or so grandchildren) has a notable parent with an article, as opposed to generations of non-notable descendants of royalty. The Kennedy family tree has an arguable case for being merged, but given its size and specific nature, it is really a branch or continuation of a single article. Charles 12:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the two articles proposed to be deleted by this request are too much of separate matters to be handled as one bundle. I say the nominations are improper when made in this way. Suedois (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above, User:Charles alleges to be "nominating here "Pedigree of Swedish monarchs"...because it is "RELATED" with the other delproposed page. What is the "relation" which would entitle to bundle these into one proposal? Suedois (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of Descendants of Gustav II Adolf. Descent from the said king is historically notable. In genealogies, it is nature of the things that not all there are personally notable, the prominence of a genealogy comes from presenting genealogical relations between notable persons. And, Wikipedia has other articles extant, being listing of descendants of some person. It is in no way unprecedented in Wikipedia. It is not OR, being basically based on information published in Gustav Elgenstierna, Ättartavlor I-IX. Suedois (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please show where non-notable descendants of an individual warrant an article on Wikipedia. Charles 12:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several descendants of Gustav II Adolf are notable. It is just that Sweden is under-represented in the field of biographies in this Wikipedia. Deletion of a genealogy from where links to such prominent persons easily start, has moreover the unsavory effect of discouraging to make biographies of those persons. Suedois (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, which ones? These people are "misrepresented" because they are not notable. That is why their ancestry is not encyclopedic. Charles 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of this very page reveals, who has been the user who has done his utmost to misrepresent things. Suedois (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of the pedigree. Everyone sees that the "article" Family tree of Swedish monarchs, being basically just a repository and display of a png file, is NOT updatable, not editable, not getting corrected, etc. When genealogies are presented here, as article, they should be easily editable. Thus, the argument actually is contrariwise: if something is deleted, it is that one which is just practically home of only some pngs. And, the topic is certainly encyclopedic, it is shown already by the delete-proposers underlying admission that one family tree will not get deleted. Suedois (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ancestry article for deletion is not encyclopedic. The other article can be changed from PNG to utilize Wikipedia's family tree code. Charles 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suedois (talk • contribs) <--- Now out of context because of Suedois' reversions and changes. Charles 14:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must say it is a sadly mistaken view. We are here to determine encyclopedicity of a topic, not which of two articles is currently less or more encyclopedic. It should be obvious that they should be merged, and the entire deletion proposal is improper. Suedois (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: They should not be merged, the family tree of the kings should be converted to text from PNG; the descent ("pedigree") from the individual houses should be deleted. That is what was meant. The article holding the PNG image is not up for deletion. Charles 13:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descents of British monarchs from various dynasties is an example of another article of this kind. It is notable and encyclopedic information presented. To know how some monarchs of a country were related with another line of monarchs of the same country. It sems to be so that if an article has something to do with British royals, it will not get deleted, and deletionists choose similar articles related to OTHER countries as their targets. A wikipedia policy prohibits/discourages Anglo-centrism in this Wikipedia, which is basically intended for bthe entire world. Suedois (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe the Wikipedia etiquette of properly formatting and indenting talk page posts. Elizabeth's page is basically a list of descents from one monarch to another, as opposed to long lists of intervening ancestors of non-Swedish houses, etc. Additional descents are from predecessor kingdoms. The "pedigree" is actually very much unlike the Elizabeth page while the Family tree of Swedish monarchs is more like it (and is not up for deletion). The Family tree of Swedish monarchs should be changed to the format used in Elizabeth's page. Charles 14:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Elizabeth page has information which is analogous with the information on the pedigree page, one is British, one Swedish. Both have intervening generations occasionally in neighboring countries. See carefuly the Flanders route connecting Elizabeth's Norman ancestry with Alfred. Etc etc. It looks to me that User:Charles is using this AfD as vehicle to try to have such format deleted whgich he wants deleted, while he admits that the topic is encyclopedic. Readers may drwa their conclusions about the possible bad-faithness of the proposal. Suedois (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charles appears to be claiming above that Merovingians and Carolingians were British dynasties - or at least that lineage is "non-British" ancestors or intervening generations. And, some rulers of Kievan Rus and Novgorod apparently are acceptable to British monarchs family tree, while they should be kept from the tree of monarchs of neighboring Sweden, or at least it looks Charles is desiring such. But seemingly British monarchs enjoy some privileges, compared to monarchs of other countries. Suedois (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "The family tree of Swedish monarchs should be changed to the format used in Elizabeth's page", writes Charles above. I see that this delete proposal springs from the proposer's format preferences. Apparently this is the correct place to ponder the editorial question what format would be better in presenting lineages of consecutive dynasties ruling one country. And apparently that editorial question, preference of format, has clear significance in what gets deleted. As opposed to combining information of both articles and merging them. Suedois (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The two articles, Descendants of Gustav II Adolf and Family tree of Swedish monarchs, are dissimilar enough that there should be separate Afd discussions about each one. While they are both genealogical, there are major formatting differences between them. Some of the reasons for deleting apply only to one and not to the other. It is inappropriate to bundle them together. If there were separate Afd discussions, I might vote differently (based on the discussion). Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:57, 5 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, bad faith nomination. Core desat 15:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persianate society

Ontologically racist and unexceptable concept Polysynaptic (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. "Persianate" is a commonly used terminology for the ones who influenced by Persian culture. E104421 (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad faith nomination by User:Polysynaptic who has been pushing for Pan-Turkist propaganda in various articles (including the creation of alternative articles to already existing ones! See here and compare to the original article.). "Persianate" is a legitimate word in Eglish and it is common in scholastic literature. See this entry in Google-Books. Instead of deleting well-sourced articles, someone should watch this user's moves in Wikipedia which includes POV editing (for example in al-Farabi) and deletion of scholastic sources (such as in Great Seljuq Empire).

Strong keep Nothing wrong, has many sources and is also a legitimate word in the English language. STORMTRACKER 94 12:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, bad-faith nomination. --Lambiam 12:37, 5 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. Secret ^account 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Evans

AfDs for this article:

(Note: the prior AfD (which resulted in deletion) was not as to the same Russell Evans.) This Pastor Russell Evans doesn't seem notable enough independent of his ministry. Delete and redirect to Planetshakers. --Nlu (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 12:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Nlu. STORMTRACKER 94 12:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, as he doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable by himself. Lankiveil (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete but don't redirect - not sufficiently notableand not an uncommon name as per previous AfD for another person.--Matilda ^talk 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Redirecting would mean that, if and when another Russell Evans warrants his own article, whoever creates that article will be on notice to create a disambiguation page and/or at least use {{dablink}}. --Nlu (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Matilda. Orderinchaos 08:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - trivial media coverage Addhoc (talk) 15:01, 14 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 demonstrated notability of subject and further expansion of article. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 08:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Peters

This songwriter/skateboarder simply doesn't sound notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I must say I'm baffled by this nomination. Duane Peters appears to be plenty notable as both a skateboarder and a musician, with a wealth of coverage turned up within the first few pages of a Google search. The article needs refs adding, which I will do.--Michig (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable skateborder and musician. Also has reliable sources. STORMTRACKER 94 12:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a cursory search easily turns up articles about him. -- Whpq (talk) 00:52, 9 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 improvement Reputable sources added. Nom withdrawn. PeaceNT (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maths Class

Was a speedy delete, but that was when the article was empty. It was expanded. There are claims to notability but I'm convinced that right now this band fails WP:MUSIC. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "Maths Class like to refer to themselves as post: ironic, self-destructive, dada, alternative, disco, passport, office, swot, indie, pop, art, eagle, forty-two, en, apple, core." Uh-huh. Fail WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. Probably sufficient independent coverage for notability despite the lack of record releases. The AFD is incomplete, by the way - the article itself has not been tagged. The sentence quoted above by Lankiveil has been removed as it had been copied from another site. Article was brought to AFD within 40 minutes of the original author requesting more time to improve the article, which seems unnecessary haste.--Michig (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC) More coverage added - I feel this meets notability criteria now.--Michig (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was the failure of my WP:TW tool again. I have corrected this. This is clearly not a simple AfD, as there has been coverage in the media, so they're not just a self-published MySpace band. Having said that, I don't think they meet WP:MUSIC just yet.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Almost there, but still needs more time. Will probally be notable enough in a few months. STORMTRACKER 94 12:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This article will be notable once the group release some work, there just amateurs at the moment though. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Michig, that there is enough coverage from notable indie rock sources (like Drowned in Sound and This is Fake DIY) And the fact the page was brought to AFD so quickly. Band also toured with notable acts and got a write-up by the BBC (who are as notable as things come) Doc Strange (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn. I've re-read WP:MUSIC and this group quite easily meets criterion #1.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:07, 6 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Oehlkers Wright

Elizabeth Oehlkers Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Notability of subject unclear. Article was tagged for improvement, but none was forthcoming. Prod was contested with stated reason "The authors which were translated by Mrs. Wright (Zafer Senocak, Zehra Cirak and Ernst Peter Fischer) have their articles in the German WP without any complaints and thus they are relevant. Mrs. Wright herself is relevant - her translations do not come out at any dubious Vanity-publishers." I do not know whether or not these authors are notable, but if they are, I do not think that this automatically confers notability on their translator. I have taken this to AfD to obtain a consensus from the community. Crusio (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Notability (people) mentions Additional criteria. Below the headline Creative professionals I read: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating". Elizabeth Oehlkers Wright is not only married with Pulitzer Price winner Franz Wright, together with him she translated a poetry book of Valzhyna Mort. A special kind of co-creating are these bilingual readings with de:Zafer Şenocak, whose poems she translated, see article on the website of the PEN American Center: [47]. In Germany Zafer Şenocak is notable after getting the de:Adelbert-von-Chamisso-Preis in 1988. In addition to that (see below headline Any Biography in Wikipedia:Notability (people)) she received some awards and fellowships. --T.G. (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: being married to a Pulitzer Prize winner does not seem to me to make somebody notable of themselves. Zafer Şenocak is notable, but does that automatically make anyone who translates his works notable, too? --Crusio (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per T.G. matt91486 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Asserts sufficient notablity. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The translator of works of notable authors is not necessarily notable. Some few people will be, but there is no reason to think she is one of them. The references given are all for the notability of he various primary authors.DGG (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a published translator is as notable as, if not more, than being a published author. Being married to and coauthor with a Pulitzer Prize winner also adds to notability. Given that we have the sources, I see no reason not to keep the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

being married to a pulitzer prize winner is not notability in the least. Neither is being a coauthor. She has to be judged by her own work. We need at least reviews of her translations DGG (talk)

I agree. I also fail to see how a transloator can be as notable as the original author, or even more so??? --Crusio (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Waley is more notable than many of the people he translated. Constance Garnett is more notable than Alexandr Ostrovsky. If you're commenting on my statement, I did not say that a published translator is more notable than the authors she translates; I said that mere fact of being a published translator is more notable than that of being a published author.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I now understand the distinction you are making in your statement about translators being more notable than authors. I'll have to mull that one over...--Crusio (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is there any evidence of that here? Garret also translated Dostoevsky and Anton Chekhov. Waley translated some of the greatest works of chinese literature. their translations were classics for many decades, and played a major part is establishing the english readership of the national literatures involved. Is there any evidence of that here? DGG (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I can see. --Crusio (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : - more important than to be married to a Pulitzer Prize winner seems to me the fact that she was chosen for a NEA fellowship in 2003 after having already won the ALTA Student Award in 1996. --ulli purwin (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but preferably as a merge and redirect to Franz Wright. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: I hope this additional information in the article increases the notability. --T.G. (talk) 00:48, 9 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 Trancers. GlassCobra 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Deth

Non-notable character of an only semi-notable series of films. No need for this. JuJube (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fictional character with no notability outside the movies he appears in (which seem to be mostly straight-to-video type films). Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. Some potential sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Colonel Warden. STORMTRACKER 94 12:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. The search results provided by Colonel Warden are mostly about the series and do not appear to dedicate significant coverage to the character himself. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main character in a series of several movies. Edward321 (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note anonymous user (likely the creator logged out) removed the AfD notice. JuJube (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - trivial media coverage Addhoc (talk) 15:02, 14 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, Xymmax (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (not much to merge, as far as I can tell) to the first film's article, Trancers. This page is basically just a plot recap of each movie in the series, which are covered perfectly well on the pages for those movies. — Scientizzle 17:06, 14 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. east.718 at 17:05, January 13, 2008

Alex Rain

Non-notable fictional character in barely notable film. JuJube (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fictional character with no notability outside the movie he appears in. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:43, 5 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. Canley (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse Ginger

Non-notable fictional characters in film series. There is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pahoota. JuJube (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fictional character with no notability outside the movies she appears in. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Gwernol 11:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note anonymous user (likely the creator logged out) removed the AfD tag from Brick Bardo. JuJube (talk) 11:20, 13 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. PeaceNT (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pahoota

Non-notable fictional ___location in a film. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search turned up nothing to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and User:Doctorfluffy. JIP | Talk 17:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS to establish notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:41, 5 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. PeaceNT (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of power plants

Article is an essay, it is inherently not intended to be informative, but argumentative which Wikipedia policies state is clearly not acceptable. For where this information should go (and is) see Energy development and possibly Power station. Energy development clearly contains a list of pros and cons for every power source. Article status is currently that even a basic treatment of major power sources is not present, and 90% of it is simply a placeholder waiting for someone to write it. It will be better for Wikipedia for us to deal with it now and be done with it. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, incomplete OR essay. Not suitable. I particularly like how the contents of the "Current world electricity generation" are limited to the United States, I guess the energy needs and importance of the rest of the world is negligible though. Lankiveil (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as an essay that is redundant with the better written Energy development article. --Hnsampat (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP, OR essay. Doc Strange (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the USA is the only nation listed under "Current world electricity generation" is NOT due to any belief that the USA is the only nation worth listing but that the other nations have not yet been entered. It so happens that the information on the USA is the easiest to find and enter, as the US Department of Energy site happens to be in the English language, while most of the rest of the world tends to use a different language. Since the author happens to be a US citizen, it makes sense that the USA would be best represented, do you ding someone from Russia from posting only info on Russia? Fanra (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanra, WP:AFD is not the Information Gestapo (to semi-paraphrase "Dilbert"). It's not that we're arguing against your points and we disagree, it's that the article is an essay and it violates WP:NOT, especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. I suggest you read WP:NOT. Doc Strange (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fraction of someone's essay. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Completely rewrite. The article heading is important and relevant, but the article itself is not writing about the subject in the heading. I have the suspection, that someone is trying to (mis)use Wikipedia editors to complete his school essay.147.175.98.213 (talk) 23:36, 9 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. Secret ^account 15:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Devourer

non--notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Speedy? Xdenizen (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately there is no speedy criteria for this type of stuff. I really think we need a speedy for non-notable fictional subjects. I'm also getting ready to send the author to AN/I since he keeps creating these articles and totally ignoring the fact they are getting sent straight to AFD. I have had problems with him in the past when he was creating character articles for this series. Ridernyc (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - shouldn't this be dealt with as a multiple article deletion with Category:Monster Allergy episodes? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is the editor keeps creating new articles as fast as people can nominate them. Ridernyc (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Monster Allergy. Episode has no notability on its own, and fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability, fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICTION and is an excessively lengthy plot summary that seems to border on being a derivative work. Collectonian (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.—Collectonian (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - trivial media coverage Addhoc (talk) 15:05, 14 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 both. Secret ^account 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aldebaran Robotics

Contested CSD with tenuous notability claims. Keilana_(recall) 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following article is being bundled as it relates to a project-in-progress by Aldebaran Robotics, included per discussion below

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 07:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. A quick Google search (for "Aldebaran Robotics") seems to indicate that plenty of sources can be found, but I am unsure of how reliable they are, and therefore whether it passes WP:N's criteria for presumed notability. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest also including NAO (Aldebaran Robotics) in this nomination. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lifebaka for including this article alongside this in the nomination. — E ^talk 01:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on 2nd article nom: ~~I disagree with bundling~~ NAO (Aldebaran Robotics) with Aldebaran Robotics. There are very few humanoid robot projects that have gotten past the design stage. It is not unreasonable to consider the fruits of a company's labors to be notable even if the company itself is not in such a case. An analogous case would be a chemical compound that eventually became a drug, but it originated at a now defunct company which went out of business after licensing the compound to another company which completed development of the therapeutic. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on my comment: it does appear that the NAO remains in the design phase - my apologies. For a design-phase project, this type of bundling is quite ok. I will add the AFD template to the article momentarily. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not establish notability and fails WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It does not fail WP:CORP, as there seem to be many 3rd party articles. Also, according to this, as well as the article, the NAO robot has been chosen to replace AIBO in the RoboCup competition, whcih seems pretty notable to me. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those links you have provided appear to be to blog entries, which are generally not considered reliable sources. However, the author of two is 'Donald Melanson' who is a freelance journalist ... but I wouldn't consider him to be at the top of his trade, so to speak, based on his LinkedIn profile if the two are one and the same people. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:13, 2 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, Stormie (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Google and the company website provide multiple secondary sources. True, they tend to be news or blog reports, but as blogs go, they are serious blogs, by reputable contributors, as seems common in such industries. Seems a sufficient demonstration of notability for a toy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If, as per Pavel & Evan below, all the sources relate to an “initial marketing campaign”, and as I can’t find actual sales data or non-insider consumer reviews, for example, then it is not sufficiently notable, and, as per WP:N, should be merged (preferably) or deleted (if there is no suitable target). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Aibo replacement by Nao: The transition from Aibo to Nao is announced here (standard platform site linked to the official robocup site - refer to the left menu, "RoboCupSoccer" part) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.84.92 (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Initial marketing campaign does not make a company notable. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldn't consider them being endorsed by a notable third party (RoboCup, in this case) to be an "initial marketing campaign." --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Fails WP:CORP, WP:V and WP:RS. In the future this might be a notable company and product but right now it is simply not cutting it. Recreation if the above points is provide should be acceptable. 06:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs)
Keep. The RoboCup selection adds significant notoriety. Also, the company just secured €5 mil in funding for development of the NAO and rollout on 2008. http://www.silicon.fr/fr/news/2008/01/11/france___le_robot_nao_touche_le_jackpot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.61.89 (talk) 02:37, 12 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 nonsense/hoax, likely g10 attack, WP:SNOW, WP:BOLLOCKS. NawlinWiki (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trey pelton

Unsourced, likely hoax. slakr^\ talk / 07:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utter WP:BOLLOCKS. Possibly an attack page directed at a real "Trey K. Pelton"? Lankiveil (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Speedy perhaps? I'll use my wikisense and call this teh 1337 h04x. Xdenizen (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsourced biography. I agree with Lankiveil that this may be an attack page, given that "Pelton" is not exactly a likely surname for a Japanese person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:13, 5 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. Sourcing is a major concern which wasn't met, being a bit actor isn't a mention of notabilt per WP:BIO, Secret ^account 15:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Unger

Non-notable child actor. Has appeared in a few bit parts and "relativly (sic) minor roles". Google has IMDB and a few other directories, but nothing that really asserts notability. Lankiveil (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, speedy was declined, so bringing it here. Lankiveil (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 06:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the role of "Prince Charming" in the live action feature film "JACK AND THE BEANSTALK" seems notable. JERRY ^talk _contribs 07:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Winner iPOP Soap Scene Division 4M, Winner iPOP Swimsuit Divison 4M, 1st Runner Up: Star of the Year, 1st Runner Up: Model of the Year, Top Ten Commercial, Top Ten Fashion Print, Top Ten Runway, Signed with Trilogy Talent and Osbrink Agency, Booked International Commercial for Legoland, Appeared in a national KFC commercial, Has a role in the "National Treasure II" with Nicolas Cage, Recently did an episode of SCRUBS, Did episodes of Desperate Housewives and Cold Case. JERRY ^talk _contribs 07:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The live action movie, which is so notable it doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia or even mentioned at Jack and the Beanstalk, has a bare bones entry at IMDb (basically just the cast listing, which is not always reliable since they have had BS cast listings before) and IMDb even lists movies that are just rumored, is not listed at Box Office Mojo [48] or The Numbers [49]. In fact, the ONLY site online where I can see any mention of a live action JATB is IMDb. Everything else this kid has done are nothing more than bit roles and non-notable stuff. TJ Spyke 08:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why not? WP:CHANCE and all that. Xdenizen (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, no proof of notability. So it fails WP:V and WP:N. TJ Spyke 08:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not (yet) notable. No prejudice to recreation if and when he falls within our notabilitiy constraints - unfortunately, he does not yet fall within those constraints. Good luck, kid, and don't let Hollyweird kill ya. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: you call it article? i'm not. It's small, unwikified, etc. QVFD --Drhlajos (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not deletion criteria. Your comment will be discounted by a discerning admin on closing this discussion. Please have a read over WP:AFD. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry :) i'm a bit confused beetwen UNC and WP. then I still must say, that the article is about a not really notable person, and still unverified. so i still say delete per nom --Drhlajos (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TJ above. Failing to win a bunch of awards, doing a couple of bit parts and commercials, and supposedly appearing in a small part in a live-action movie which hasn't been released yet and may or may not actually exist, does not equate to notability. Also fails WP:V, because there are no non-trivial sources about the subject. MichelleG (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This article needs to be re-written, but this actor is notable. Usually an IMDB Pro score below 50,000 is a reputable actor. When I looked up Billy Unger's score, it is in the top 6,000s. Very notable "named" roles, including a short recurring on Desperate Housewives. For the film National Treasure: Book of Secrets his role is listed as "Charles Gates" (perhaps playing a son of Nicolas Cage's character "Ben Gates"?). I'm going to help out with citing sources, but I'll need other fellow Wikipedians to help clean this up. Definitely worth keeping once it's in the proper format. TGreenburgPR (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can help by providing notability, then that's perfect. IMDB, as a whole, is considered unreliable though - and that said, I'm not sure how Pro helps out in this case,. Furthermore, I'm not sure "reputable" would help, and playing the son of a fictional character isn't really worth much unto itself - if the character in question (in the NT2 example you give) is notable as far as a cast character, that might have some weight to it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 15:18, 14 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. Bduke (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert David Steele

The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:BIO. I do not think that being the "second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence" (a claim which has been uncited since February 2007) makes Mr Steele automatically notable and the other positions he's held look even less notable. The article is not sourced or cited - all the links appear to be examples of Mr Steele's work rather than about him. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. His public service career isn't what makes him notable, it's his more recent career as a private expert. He's been profiled in the WaPo a couple of times, quoted about FISA, even testified before Congress. Most everything substantial and independent about him, though, is behind paywalls. --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability.ALR (talk)

08:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - This man is notable because he is the source for the assertion that 95% of our military and diplomatic intelligence is already open knowledge. In other words, this implies that we are wasting 95% of our intelligence money, and that we should embed our truly sensitive intelligence in secret web sites that refer to open source URL's, thus allowing sensitive information to be twenty times more compressed. That is why he has been promulgating this fact in the intelligence community. It's part of the conundrum: he has the information, it's truly open, but if that free information is already part of an intelligence database (the already open 95%) then it is tarred with the 'secret brush'. But that is futile; it is like stamping a law of physics 'secret'. If it is a law of physics, then someone is going to discover it anyway, stamp or no stamp. The implication is that our intelligence community could be an order of magnitude more effective, if their efforts were refactored. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add any reliable sources about him making that claim and it having a significant impact to the article? --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In covert intelligence circles, he is famous for his promotion of Open Source Intelligence. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment can you please add a citation to the article which proves that? --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-publisherd author - -see [50]DGG (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That in itself is not a reason for deletion. Some academics choose to self-publish since it can be easier and more lucrative. Some widely used textbooks get published this way. Samsara noadmin (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OSI and related topics warrant openness, not exclusivity. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How does that impact on the notability of this person? --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what others have said, he gets quoted as a Google critic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GzA9Xu_oEo (NB is an academic production, watch the credits). Samsara noadmin (talk) 19:03, 13 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. jj137 ^♠ 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full Bad Girls: Extra Time Plot Discription

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place for plot summaries and episode guides. Most of this content has been copied and pasted from List of Bad Girls Extra Time episodes, which is where it really should be. Lankiveil (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 07:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mentions it's a plot description in the title (albeit misspelled). That shoots it the foot right there per WP:NOT. 20:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Doc Strange (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (Full Bad Girls: Extra Time Cast, List of Bad Girls Extra Time episodes/List of Bad Girls: Extra Time episodes as well). I can't find any evidence that "Bad Girls: Extra Time" exists as anything but an unremarkable set of 10-15 minute YouTube clips. Shawis (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with all the articles noted above. Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:31, 10 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! 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lungbutter

non-notable neologism, AND a non-notable collection of punk rock bands. No reliable sources for any of them. Lankiveil (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a considerable number of articles about bands and musical trends. I think it is notable that there is a trend in the naming of bands with the exact same name. The wiki entry does not tread on any copyrights, nor is it a vanity page. If anything it serves to make the bands sharing the same name aware of each other. I have also tried to include references to other articles and sources. Calaveras6 (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So please explain how this does not contravene our Wikipedia:No original research policy, by citing sources where these data have already been synthesized in this way. Uncle G (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eww like Delete man - as per nom. Xdenizen (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, refers to more than one thing, none of which appear notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article reads as confusing, but that's not why. Nothing in here is either notable or not a dicdef for a slang term for mucus. Remove that content, and you have...well, nothing. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Canadian Lungbutter band did release an album nationally, so that might warrant an article on them to be retained, though if this occurs I would seek out confirmation that they disbanded "after the death of their drummer" as this fact needs to be sourced under WP:BLP, especially if said musician is not actually dead... 23skidoo (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were the case, we could probably make the article about the band in question, just have to make sure it doesn't run afoul of WP:MUSIC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:36, 7 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. Secret ^account 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Virtue

Subject is non-notable operator of a non-notable Anglican web forum. The creation of the article was the only contribution of Ptay1 fishhead64 (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Xdenizen (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable outside of a fringe group of ultraconservative Anglicans. Lankiveil (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, this article is non notable, and should not have an article of it's own. Does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Polarbear97 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. Virtue is, unfortuately, notorious bacause of the volume (in both senses) of his commentary on current events in the controversies swirling around the Anglican Communion. As a 'liberal' Anglican I wish he'd go away, but he won't. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, given that Virtue is of importance in the current Anglican war. Perhaps he should be replaced by an article on his website. However, given that the nominator is a Anglican priest in North America, it's impossible for me to believe that this nomination is in good faith, since I cannot believe such a cleric is unaware of Virtue or his influence within the matter. Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you are incapable of believing my good faith in the matter, especially since I have been a contributor to improving and extending the article in question. I was prompted to nominate it based on the banner applied to it concerning notability, and the realisation that most Anglicans with whom I raise Virtue's name have no idea who he is. fishhead64 (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that using "most Anglicans" as a test for, well, much of the material on Anglicanism is a useful test. And I suspect that a substantial proportion of those who are trying to follow this particular issue are aware of David Virtue and his role in the matter. I apologize for the phrase "good faith", but it does seem strange to me that Virtue should be put up for deletion by someone who is surely aware of him. Mangoe (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I had never heard of him before but several blogs have mentioned him in passing. I doubt he is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Still his article is kind of interesting. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 15:20, 14 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Sales

Not totally happy to Speedy this article. It seems to me that the original editor is seeking the opinion of more experienced editors and the article could be made non-spam (by removal of one link) and tidied up with help. Appreciate other views by editors - I do not cast any personal opinion to keep or delete. --VS ^talk 05:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see encyclopaedic merit in this article. Xdenizen (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Give this article a chance, it's what the creater has asked for. Horse sales are often notable events in themselves, so an article encompassing the concept seems worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This is just a pile of original research, but if people honestly feel that it has encyclopedic merit and clean it up I could change my mind.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (see below) I just fed 'horse sales' into google books and came up with 659 results - they're a unique selling environment doubtless awash with different norms and terminology, seems like a perfectly suitable encyclopedia topic. There's money in it which means there's interest in it which means there are secondary sources. 12 results from google news, including these two [51] [52] which hint at some of the topics which could fall under this article's remit. C'mon, if there's not a good article in there somewhere I'll eat my shoes. Someone another (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus it's not just a recent thing, in developed countries horses have shifted from a beast of burden to a species kept for riding, there's the question of horses' roles in less developed countries, how they're bought and sold and the values placed upon them. Those kind of sources will be locked away in books, journals and other sources which will take time to research. They're a very important aspect of agriculture and industry from ages past and account for millions of dollars/pounds/bottle caps worth of sales every year. I'm really struggling to see how sources aren't available for this when we have sourced articles about dog vs. misc animal fights (including monkeys!?) on the encyclopedia. Someone another (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Abstain Enthusiasm for what an article could be and the actual facts are two separate things as Uncle G has pointed out, the above posts do not reflect what I should and would like to bring to AFD discussions so kindly ignore them. Someone another (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in its current state, the article is an advice page (and so would violate WP:NOT#HOWTO, rather than an encyclopaedic article about a specific subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oli Filth (talk • contribs) 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has merit... but it could stand a lot of improvement, but doesn't need to be deleted. Give it some time to improve. --Charitwo ^talk 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in order to allow time for improvement. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Counting Google hits isn't research. Actually reading the things that Google comes up with is research. Doing so in this case reveals the problem. Most of the things that Someone another's search is finding are talking about horse sales, i.e. the transactions where horses are sold, as occurs both privately and at livestock markets.
In contrast, a "Horse Sale" as this article is envisaging it, is some sort of general umbrella concept being inferred to cover all of the livestock and horse markets, rodeos, and meets that happen to have "Horse Sale" in their titles, such as the Miles City Bucking Horse Sale. The article doesn't even discuss that concept in any great depth. But that's because it's really a platform for the external link.
We could have an article on the buying and selling of horses, i.e. horse trading. But this isn't it, and it isn't even the start of such an article. We could have an article on livestock markets. There are enough of them around the world. But this isn't a start to that, either. This, despite the disclaimer, is an advertisement masquerading as an article, with several external links to some company called "GuessStables", that was created by an editor named GuessStables (talk · contribs). Most of this article as it currently stands is in fact covering territory that we already have properly covered, without the narrow focus on one company and the horses that it breeds and sells, in horse breeding.
The editors above say "give the article a chance". I say let's not keep blatant advertising. We already have an article on horse breeding. We can write about livestock markets, horse markets, horse dealers, horse traders, and the horse trade at our leisure. But we don't need any of this content in order to do so, and we shouldn't be keeping an advertisement around while we wait for the redlinks to be recoloured. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Original Author: 01/06/08 (UTC) 2:06:00am (CST/CDT)
- - I am the orignal author, and I had the fore-thought that this debate would commence due to the mixture of Commerical and 'pure' Informational content disposed in this entry. I appreciate the 'general' tone that with some work the article has merit for inclusion. That is the point I tried to get across. I simply did not wish to waste a large amount of time and effort creating a very large entry if it was going to be ultimately deleted; I'm sure you can understand. --- Furthermore, with this topic Commercial content and Research of informational topics will have to be married. There are numerous other wiki articles that are compromised of both. Even some that are purely Commercial (although the company written about is at the mercy of those who browse and contribute or take away from the content on that page) -- Which makes the whole process fair.

-- I think the topic is necessary and would only add to the already enormous volume Wikipedia encompasses. I, being the original author, am simply one person, with one approach at adding information. These articles take a life of their own from others in the 'field(s)' at hand. It would morph, given the chance, into something completely different than even I can imagine at the moment.

-- No, this is not an attempt to get 'www.GuessStables.com' free advertisement. It is listed other places, and Wikipedia isn't necessary, nor would it be the barometer for the companies Success or Failure, given the factors.

--I propose the article is not 'marked for speedy deletion' as I can then continue adding to the content without being worried of impending deletion. I also full well intend on taking hints/tips and advice from everyone who cares to contribute to make the entry worthy, and a community effort.

I will check back soon to see what comments have aspired, but even with the tone (somewhat in the favor of giving it a chance overall) it is marked for 'speedy deletion'. Hopefully we can change that so it will have a fighting chance. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuessStables (talk • contribs)
Keep Unconventionally written but not spam--has the makings of a reasonable article. DGG (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - cleanup and move to Horse sales. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still Marked for Deletion? - I am antsy to proceed with the article and take heed the suggestions made to complete it for a reasonable entry in the Wikipedia, that can be tweaked, and added to buy others as need be. (How the process works I gather) -- However, as I've mentioned before I do not wish to pursue the endeavor on an article that is currently marked for deletion. Can I get an affirmation of a yay or nay to continue and not be deleted, ... say if I follow the following 'guidelines' relating to the article? Again, I appreciate all of your gracious feedback.

GuessStables (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GuessStables you are entitled to proceed with the article whilst it is up for discussion as to whether it should be deleted. Changes to the article may in fact sway those suggesting delete. If I can be bold - you should not sit on your hands but start your process of tweaking now as it appears from my perspective that the article is likely to be kept. However as the admin who moved this from a speedy delete to AfD I will await another admin to close the discussion. --VS ^talk 20:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Uncle G notes, there's a place for an article on the phenomenon of horse sales, or of livestock trade in general. In fact, there's a surprising lack of articles on these topics. However, this isn't a useful start for such an article. An article on any of these topics would have to start with some serious research on at least one of several things:
- Historical: What is the historical background of horse sales? What are the oldest ones known? How have they changed over time?
- Contemporary: What are some current examples of horse sales? Where do they tend to occur? What different kinds are there? Who attends them? What animals are sold?
- Cultural: How do horse sales differ in various countries? Do they have special significance to any religious or cultural groups? Does anyone object to their existence - if so, who and why?
The current article answers none of these questions. At best, it's a few basic directions to someone who's interested in buying a Tennessee Walking Horse. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Needs renaming to Horse sales in line with Wikipedia house style. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author - I will print this page and take everything into consideration . The article suggestion isn't deleted "yet". You make a good point that it "At best it's a few basic directions to someone who's interested in buying a Tennessee Walking Horse." -- That is exactly what it is. That is a side business I am involved in, so I have first hand experience in such. To broaden this topic would require the work of others in their respective specialized fields, Thoroughbreds, Palmino's, etc etc. -- There are several ways to go I suppose. Find another article on Horse Sales and add in a description under a heading of 'Tennessee Walking Horses' that links into detail a page about how to purchase such a specific horse, what to look for, and so forth.
Sort of the purpose of this article. In my opinion articles should be kept to a minimum where people don't have to scroll down 20 pages of content, but moreso can click and shoot to what area they are interested in. However, there is no "Horse Sales" entry (that I am aware of), so that would be hard to 'add to', if you get what I mean. -- Given this is an encyclopedia, I think every possible subject anyone can think of big or small belongs in it. It is all encompassing, the more information it possess's the more powerful it is. (As long as that information is accurate, clear and concise. It may not be the most interesting topic, but alot of encylopedic topics aren't. What is interesting to Joe, might be boring to Betty and so forth. -- Anyhow, given the current climate and somewhat 'disinterest' in the topic at hand, I am no longer going to *fight* for its non-deletion. Though I still remain of the opinion such information should exist in an encyclopedia, and deleting an attempt that is more of a 'sub-category' to a larger category that merely doesn't yet exist,.. Is counter productive. But be that as it may, I still love Wiki.

GuessStables (talk) 14:06, 9 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 Deleted by User:Jmlk17. Non-admin closure.. Lankiveil (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schwab band

Article has quite a long history and only recently was tagged for speedy delete. I would prefer to see editors views through an AfD process before possible deletion. --VS ^talk 05:51, 5 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. east.718 at 17:04, January 13, 2008

Luxxury

Article was tagged for speedy by another editor. Speedy contested. I am passing on to AfD for discussion. --VS ^talk 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC, no assertion of notability. Mr Senseless (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Slight assertion of notability (one good magazine review, soundtrack to a commercial), but it's probably not enough to get them within WP:BAND. Maybe in a year or two? Tevildo (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged for speedy, but this is borderline enough that I agree that AFD is the better way to go. Doesn't seem to pass wp:band and yes, maybe in a year or two it will, as Tevildo points out. Pharmboy (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep suggested - I added 3 more links to verifiable/notable aspects to the article: a full page article in Billboard magazine, a link to an article in BigStereo, and a link to RCRDLBL. WP:BAND states "It is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" (emphasis mine), and there are in fact several WP:BAND criteria met now: significant independent press, International touring, known indie labels, multiple links to other WP subjects etc. Butterscotch79 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I just removed several links on the article. Myspace and blogs are not reliable sources under wp:rs, and two of the links were from the band's own website, so I removed one of those. Pharmboy (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment One of the links you removed was a clip of the Billboard piece, which I'd provided as evidence of the "Notable" contention (Billboard.com site requires a paid subscription and the article cannot be linked to directly). I've left it out of the article but believe it should still be considered verifiable support. Also RCRD LBL is, in fact, a record label which is an offshoot of Downtown Records) (Gnarls Barkley's label), so I think that link should be allowed. Its a new kind of blog/label hybrid, to be sure, but they pay artists an advance, own the masters etc like any other label.Butterscotch79 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Also, I just found yet another article about Luxxury from a national magazine, XLR8R, but it too is a clip on the band's Myspace, and is not directly linkable on the magazine's independent site. I won't link to it as clearly it won't pass muster under wp:rs, however I would submit that its yet another bit of proof of the overall Notability criteria being met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterscotch79 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmboy - I understood from your talk page that you prefer for discussion to take place here (hopefully I've understood you correctly, apologies if I have not!): Thanks for your comments, I was wondering if you had any more suggestions about what concretely you feel is lacking. Again, I feel as though the entry more than meets the requirements of the Notability criteria, so any specific thoughts you have that I can address tangibly would be appreciated! Butterscotch79 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first problem I saw was all the releases for 2008, when 2008 hadn't even started yet. That is always a red flag. Second, all it needs is some citation showing they have an album released on some label that everyone has heard of, and some wp:rs article where someone that isn't affiliated with the band is talking about them. Not a blog, but a real cite. That is my sole criteria, as I interpret wp:band, which is a pretty lax reading of the policy. Pharmboy (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin (when that time arrives) - please see Talk:Luxxury where Butterscotch79 has listed a number of points s/he says shows the article has passed "Notability Criteria for Musicians and Ensembles". --VS ^talk 02:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. While the Billboard article is a great start, the criterion is "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". If and when the group meets notability (which does seem likely to happen), the article can be re-created. Precious Roy (talk) 22:06, 9 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 withdrawn by nominator, without dissention. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discos Fuentes

Contested PROD, about a Colombian record label. No assertion of notability, completely fails WP:V and WP:RS due to a lack of independent sources other than its official website. Mr Senseless (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Well sourced now. I submitted this to AfD as after the PROD was removed it wasn't edited at all for the majority of the day. A {{unsourced}} tag would have been much more appropriate. I'm well aware that AfD is not cleanup (and that's the last time I submit an AfD when I'm tired and aren't feeling like running on the fly research), and I apologize for wasting your time on this one. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to have quite the history. Plenty of Google News results. This and this seem like good sources too; many of them assert notability in many ways. I'd add them, but I'm about to go to bed. Good night, Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Even a cursory Google search demonstrates clear notability.--Michig (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Asserts historical importantance. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:58, 5 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. Bduke (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. V's Private Hell

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dr. V's Private Hell

Does not appear to be a notable public access television programme. There is some discussion of it on blogs and the like, but nothing I can find coming from a reliable source. Lankiveil (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I can't find any reliable source for this either. Shame, it sounds rather cool. Oh well. Xdenizen (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to indicate that this is any more notable than hundreds of other community access programs. NawlinWiki (talk) 07:20, 5 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Items in Super Mario Bros.

The article is a sprawling list with no weight information wise. The info it does offer is trivial and in-universe. This article cleary crosses the Game-Guide line by providing information on all power-ups and items in the Mario series. This should be deleted as was Zelda items and Metriod items (which was redirected).→041744 04:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Lankiveil (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, I agree with LonelyBeacon. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. These lack real world notability independent from the game, too.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup The article as is needs cleanup. It needs to remove the glut of random one-shot items and keep the ones that have appeared in multiple games (like Starman, whose main article was previously deleted, IIRC). JuJube (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Zelda items had "reappearing items" such as arrows and bombs, but it was still deleted in ordanace with the policy, this sould be too. Overal the article is just to trivia, if it just had "reappearing items" it would still be too short, trival and in-universe.→041744 14:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The debate you linked to says "No consensus". A lot of zelda's items are indistinct, normal objects like "bomb", "slingshot", "boomerang", but some of its items that are distinct are included in this list - Musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series - and a whole page for the Master Sword. If there's a lot to write about on a topic that spans many works in the same "universe", then it usually deserves its own article, and there are countless examples of this principle being upheld - just pick your fandom and browse around. Thanks for bringing up Zelda; it strengthens the case for Mario TheBilly (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was an AfD for Starman here that closed with the result "Merge to Mario (series)"; that was never done, and perhaps rightfully so since that article wasn't the appropriate place for it. If there are separate articles for the Mushroom and Fire Flower, the Starman should definitely have one too. JuJube (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - Since single-handedly reviving the video game industry 20 years ago, Mario has had a profound impact on it. There are plenty of significant things to write on its signature items, as some of them have become a deep part of gaming culture. The current page is of low quality (and a lot of it should probably be completely removed) but it has lots of potential, so deleting it would be just as justified as purging all the stubs on Wikipedia. Poor quality is not a grounds for deletion. Cleanup, improve, keep TheBilly (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is of poor quality but that is not my grounds for it's deletion. True mario is an important part of gaming, but an intire article for just the items seems trivial, Zelda items and Metriod items were also deleted on these grounds. Also, as others have pointed out, the article fails sevral wikipedia policies and guidlines.→041744 22:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there maybe one or two items that could conceivably have their own article that have perhaps made a cultural impact (I'm thinking of the Mushroom, which I see already has an article), otherwise this is indiscriminate information. Marasmusine (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save and edit - It doesn't have to be a game guide in order for us to put up information (god forbid). How is it vandalism? Anyways give informtion a chance, you might like it. Mario is big enough a legacy for us to be able to say the word: Super Mushroom on Wikipedia and come out alive. If you can't keep the page can we at least add each seperte list of items to each corresponding page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.215.219 (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you misunderstand. No one is calling this article vandalism. At issue is whether or not this article meets the standards applied to all articles for inclusion here. The two key policies at issue are at WP:N and WP:V. That is, the articles has to be notable (which some elements may be, but this notability must be verifiable in legitimate, independent sources. Failure to meet these criteria is grounds for deletion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 03:41, 10 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. I am going to be WP:BOLD and redirect this page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Elementary School (Mt. Juliet, Tennessee)

Non-notable primary school. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest: The guy who made this is the school's assistant principal. It should be determined whether the school is notable, or not, but since the guy who helps run the place hasn't established notability, it probably isn't notable. In this case, it should be deleted. Normally, however, we would give it a few days for someone to establish notability, seeing as it was written very recently. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 04:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too little time - I agree. This AfD is occurring too soon. A quick search didn't turn up much besides directory listing, mentions in real estate guides, etc, but there may be more. These articles need to be given some time to establish notability before they are deleted. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are supposed to establish notablility when they are first created. TJ Spyke 06:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party sources, no claim of notablity, COI. TJ Spyke 06:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sources which assert the notability of this school. Lankiveil (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
KeepAll schools are notable. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not exactly... believe me, I give schools more chance than most people would like, but only high schools have special provision under policy. Not elementary schools. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mt. Juliet, Tennessee # Education, since the school is a major part of this town of 12,000+ Mandsford (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now This one was moved to AfD 6 minutes after created. I personally doubt this one will have enough notability, but who knows? The standard for notability isn't the article, it's if it is notable and sources are likely to be found. There hasn't been enough time to figure that out. Also WP:BITE applies here. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep such quick AfDs are discouraged right on the WP:AFD page. Give it time. Noroton (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't like AfDs this quick, but there does seem to be COI. I'm conflicted. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Mt. Juliet, Tennessee. There is no assertion of notability in the article and consensus on previous AfDs is that all elementary schools are not notable. Likewise discussions on school notability criteria is not currently supporting keeping articles like this. Even if a stub, notability needs to be asserted. The amount of time between nomination and creation is not an issue and clearly not a reason to keep! Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Mt. Juliet article per above. Also agree with notion that, while it may not espouse the highest level of AGF, time between creation and nomination should not be an issue here. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 06:55, 10 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 below and withdrawn nomination. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 08:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Sire

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the author has written a large number of books as cited in the article, all of which are easily found doing an Internet search. Further, the article cites several references. Notability of the author appears asserted. WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment the article (which is very short) is a minimally re-written cut-and-past from here. I think there's been enough re-arranging of sentences for it not to be a copy vio, but invite others to check. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this individual seems notable enough. Not sure about the copy-vio however, perhaps wiser minds might advise. Xdenizen (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this article because he's an important author on worldviews - The Universe Next Door is in it's 4th Edition. Certainly the article needs cleaning up (and I'm too busy to do this at present) . Sire seems to have 6k GHits and 55 hits in google books. NBeale (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being the author of a widely used textbook does satisfy WP:PROF. I've cleaned up the article and made the notability assertion more prominent. Nomination withdrawn. Jfire (talk) 02:06, 6 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. PeaceNT (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlq

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could this article be expanded, or is it destined to forever remain a dictionary entry? If it is, then merge into Barbershop music, export into Wiktionary, or both. If this article has potential, don't do either. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add sentence to Quartet instead. Redirect the term to Quartet if necessary. Non-notable word and, as noted, this is Wikipedia, not Wictionary. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]
Delete, another place this could be mentioned is in Barbershop music (which doesn't look to be in the best shape). I doubt this will ever be more than a dicdef, unfortunately. Lankiveil (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, too uncommon term to have its own article. JIP | Talk 17:56, 5 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. WP:BLP & WP:NOT#NEWS. PeaceNT (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay R. Grodner

Doesn't meet notability standards -- in the truest sense, a petty criminal; I suspect this is a WP:COATRACK for some sort of political agenda which I don't fully understand. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vandalism described as a "violent" crime? Why do these things always have such an air of defensiveness? This is a blog cause celebre that has received limited coverage even locally, and fails WP:BLP1E as well as any kind of basic significance test. --Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable petty criminal. Lankiveil (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Minor thug. Xdenizen (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This case has made a dent in the public lexicon. The cultural effect alone should merit this article STAYING in the Wikipedia -- Wayagrrrl — Wayagrrrl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
KEEP! Mr. Grodner has made himself famous, and should be able to take whatever criticism that might result from his actions! http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/keyedcar.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.71.3.6 (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Why would you delete this page on Grodner? Because he's a anti war lawyer? Deleting this would be typical left wing fascist censorship, so typical of Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.113.11 (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - multiple secondary sources including article in the chicago tribune. appears to meet notability requirements. Warfieldian (talk) 11:53, 10 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 --JForget 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Senate Delegations

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Also, the table is completely unwieldy and fairly unreadable and is filled with redlinks. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose/keep: There are tables with similar content at the federal level. I agree that the table is terribly unwieldly and unreadable. However, the data could be better composed and thereby retain the article in a different format.—Markles 04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Information is notable, verifiable, and useful...just not well-organized visually. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorta keep The info seems proper, ~~but it would be nice if someone with more skills then me could put it into a more screen friendly format~~.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Dhartung if that's how the table looks typically, i don't want to encourage a reckless reformat.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have these lists for US House and Senate seats, so it seems useful to have them at the state level, too. It's a useful way to organize encyclopedia articles... you can learn about the political history of a state by seeing who was in office and when. No need to delete stuff just to save space, we have plenty of kilobytes. --W.marsh 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course this is a directory -- to properly notable Wikipedia articles. The redlinks need to be turned blue, that's all (all of them pass WP:BIO automatically). The table is unwieldy but follows the format of the state-by-state congressional tables. Compare United_States_Congressional_Delegations_from_California#1933_-_present for the largest example. I'm not happy with the side-scrolling but I think it makes more sense than breaking it up. --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOT#DIR isn't as persuasive when the article in question is a notable set of notable individuals. Maxa megalon 2000 06:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dhartung Xdenizen (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; usually graphical depiction of who served where and when. Lankiveil (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD isn't cleanup. Perfectly legitimate list. LaMenta3 (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On a side note, I think that the format of the table is quite ingenious and perfectly easy to read. The only problem is that it scrolls to the side of the screen quite badly. Perhaps if the X and Y axes of the table were swapped and multiple tables were made along somewhat arbitrary temporal divisions, then that might fix that problem. Just a thought... LaMenta3 (talk) 10:33, 5 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 --JForget 02:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Caged Fran

Prod was removed by an anonymous user without comment. I suspect that this article is a hoax. A google search returns 0 results. The supposed author does exist, however, a quick perusal of his books finds no mention of The Caged Fran. Also, the article reveals the plotline of the book even though the book won't be released for another month, which makes me suspect that the author of this article made it up. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, either a hoax or major crystalb--nah, it's gotta be a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A search on the Internet gives zero hits for this book title. Further, a search on http://www.jimbenton.com and Amazon revealed that there is a new book by Jim Benton that is supposed to be released in March, 2008 not February and that the new book's title is "Never Underestimate Your Dumbness" not "The Caged Fran". Mh29255 (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a hoax, I can't find any confirmation for this either. Lankiveil (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Hoax and WP:Crystal perhaps? Xdenizen (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just per failing WP:V, badly.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Even if it isn't a hoax, it would be deleted as crystal-balling. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. Zero ghits is also very damning. Doc Strange (talk) 20:53, 5 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 redirected to album, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight (Sara Evans song)

Non-notable single, which missed the top 40 of the charts Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that even though this song didn't reach the country top 40, it provides information about the song such as writers, producers, etc. There are also many other songs that have had less success than this song that are articles. I have also included a critic's opinion on the song. NickDCXfan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Restless (Sara Evans album). A song that missed Top 40 (even if by only one space) isn't very likely to have any more verifiable information than this page already contains. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect i think the nominee could have been bold and redirected it without an afd. --neonwhite user page talk 03:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 05:04, 10 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. PeaceNT (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2008 Extreme Championship Wrestling results

Unneeded list, articles for 2006 and 2007 results have already been deleted. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If other sports have pages for what has gone on during their season, why shouldn't wrestling get a page for its results?--Crazy4metallica (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when has professional wrestling been a sport? Delete per nominator, there's already too much wrestlingcruft on Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 17:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You just want this deleted because you are clearly biased against wrestling. I don't go looking for pages about subjects I don't like to delete.--Crazy4metallica (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NOT#IINFO. It's not so much whether wrestling is a sport or not (and frankly JIP, this is not the place to dig up that argument again), it's that individual episodes of a wrestling show are more akin to individual games in other sports. Should we have an article that lists the individual results of all 1,230 games being played in the current NHL season? To use a TV example (since wrestling tends to be just as much a drama as an athletic spectacle), should we have an article that lists (in detail) what happened in each episode of Naruto or House? Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information and simply listing results of a TV show happens to be that. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see anything wrong with keeping this article. As long as it's accurate and sources. iMatthew (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per NeoChaosX. D.M.N. (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Cruft. Nikki311 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bleek25 (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we have a reason? D.M.N. (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers, L A X 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 20:20, 6 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 --JForget 02:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Crowther

Prod removed by WP:SPA. Non-notable org, so non-notable person. 28 Ghits for "Tom Crowther" mma. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixed Martial Arts World Fighting Championship. Shawis (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flush non-notable as per nom. Xdenizen (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to establish the notability of this individual using using the first two pages of a Google search.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 22:02, 7 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. Bduke (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Martial Arts World Fighting Championship

Prod removed by WP:SPA. Non-notable org. 8 Ghits for "Mixed Martial Arts World Fighting Championship". 13 for "Mixed Martial Arts World Fighting Championships". See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Crowther. Shawis (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is poorly written and this federation is totally unknown to me (and to my friend, google). Established in 2006, still has some time to grow to notability. Pundit|utter 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising for a tournament promotion company. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 22:01, 7 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. Guess it was a language issue after all. W.marsh 03:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lotru-Ciunget Dam

Was tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax, essentially, but this is not obviously incorrect. I don't know much about Romania, but I do point out there are no Google web results for this dam outside of Wikipedia mirrors [53] and nothing on a book or news search. Still, there could be a language barrier or some other problem here. At this point I see nothing proving this dam exists, though. W.marsh 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and consider renaming). Problem seems to be with the word "dam"--omit it and a fair amount pops up[54]/[55]. Shawis (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, it exists and is clearly a notable feature. Nick mallory (talk) 03:44, 5 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 Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. — Scientizzle 17:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DS Pokémon Diamond & Pearl Super Music Collection

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nintendo DS Pokémon Diamond & Pearl Super Music Collection

This seems to be an non-notable soundtrack, while the game is definitely notable, its soundtrack has received little coverage from third party sources. Marlith 01:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think merge with the game's page, for all three Pokemon soundtracks. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 02:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason this can't be included in the article. There isn't really anything to merge, as there is only a short paragraph and an unencyclopedic list. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Fangz of Blood 15:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - non-notable soundtrack. Addhoc (talk) 15:35, 14 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. east.718 at 17:01, January 13, 2008

GBA Pokémon Firered & Leafgreen Music Super Complete

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/GBA Pokémon Firered & Leafgreen Music Super Complete

This seems to be an non notable soundtrack, while the game is definitely notable, its soundtrack is not. Marlith 01:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason thi can't be included in the article. There isn't really anything to merge, as there is only a short paragraph and an encyclopedic list. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:37, 8 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. east.718 at 17:01, January 13, 2008

GBA Pokémon Ruby & Sapphire Music Super Complete

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/GBA Pokémon Ruby & Sapphire Music Super Complete

This article seems to be on a non-notable soundtrack. While the game is definitely notable, its soundtrack is not. Marlith 01:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer nom not notable Alexfusco⁵ 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason thi can't be included in the article. There isn't really anything to merge, as there is only a short paragraph and an encyclopedic list. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:37, 8 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. PeaceNT (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginative Sex

Article was speedily deleted by JzG and overturned on deletion review. The current draft reflects a version that was re-written and is substantially different than the version deleted, but some notability concerns may remain. Procedural nomination, so I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As far as I can tell, this is being nominated for deletion on purely technicalistic-formalistic grounds, since it was revived through "Deletion Review", after having been unilaterally speedily-deleted without any process. But the article has been revised to respond to the some of the speedily-deleting admin's objections (insofar as those were understood), and the article can easily be further improved in future by someone who has access to the proper source materials (which I unfortunately haven't had access to, or I would have tried to improve the article long ago). I'm not sure why we should be having a deletion discussion at this time, unless there's someone here who actually wants the article to be deleted. AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. With regard to notability, this is not only a book by somewhat controversial author John Norman, but it was also a kind of pioneering early BDSM manual, published about 15 years before the term "BDSM" itself was even invented. Since it was distributed through normal science fiction paperback distribution channels, and sold in mainstream bookshops in the science-fiction section, it was sold in many places where sex books usually weren't... The introduction to the republished 1996 edition by influential BDSMer Pat Califia apparently establishes the significance of the book in its original 1974 context, but I don't have access to it... AnonMoos (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This information should probably be in the article. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A kind soul just sent me a scan of the Pat Califia introduction, so I'll be incorporating references to that right away... AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For what reasons? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination doesn't provide any reasons - it's just "procedural". It appears that the nominator has not in fact followed the process per Before nominating an AfD. The process in this case should be to dismiss the nomination with a Speedy Keep. As for the book, I consider it adequately notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it is common and established procedure for an article overturned at deletion review. Lankiveil (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Neither source provided appears to be reliable and the first does not appear to address the book - being a tangential essay. There is no reason why this content can't be covered in the John Norman article if proper reliable sources can be found for it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is of non-obvious notability, but after reading the article I'm fairly convinced that it did have significance within the history of BDSM and whatnot. The references are so-so but probably sufficient. Given the author has his own article as well, I see nothing out of the ordinary about keeping this article. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently notable within its genre. DGG (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but as it was already cleaned up during DRV, why are we here anyway? --Reinoutr (talk) 20:17, 6 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 the school district. (non-admin closure). RMHED (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wenonah Elementary

The only reason I declined speedy on this one was that it wasn't eligible for A7. There's no assertion of notability...and, while not a reason for deletion, if you look at the history, it's quite a mess...JetLover keeps having to remove spam off the page. Smashville^BONK! 01:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Not to mention an account under the name "Wenonah article" appeared and within 10 minutes, undid our edits to remove the spam, and then put the "retired" userbox on his page. Quite obvious sock of User:5dsddddd. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect Whoever makes all these school articles, stop! SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes I the author of the article say its really just a waste of time. The article was edited by a sock named "Wenonah article" which I 5dsdddddd created. The article those not fit any criteria and is useless. I was just trying to contribute. I am sorry for the big waste of time I created. Thank you, 5dsddddd (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Find school district, and redirect there. If none can be found, delete. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to district. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to district per WP:SCL. TerriersFan (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable (middle schools do not warrant their own page typically per WikiPrecedent) and direct page to district page. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to district. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to district article: Sachem School District. Mh29255 (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete until someone starts to create an article. Not enough here Victuallers (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to district per WP:SCL Noroton (talk) 22:46, 6 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 --JForget 02:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil 5: Wii

Not a crystal ball. No reliable sources to substantiate the claims. Also, even if a Wii version was made, it doesn't deserve its own article and any Wii content should go to the main article. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough info on this available yet for it to be notable. --Beloved Freak 01:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wii version doesn't deserve own article, plus no sources saying there is an Wii version. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, hoax. While I have seen lots or people saying they hope a Wii version happens, I have not seen any reports that there actually will be one. TJ Spyke 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or redirect per nom. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, essentially WP:CRYSTAL. Lankiveil (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreation when there is some indication from somewhere that the game will actually be made. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete A) it's bollocks, b) if it is ever released it will be covered in Resident Evil 5, unless games are completely different builds they always share an article and c) even if it was both released and a completely different build there's no guarantee it would be called RE5: Wii. Kill it. Someone another (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Snowball Delete unverified; WP:CRYSTAL. If the game is called "RE:5 Wii" it should be a section in the main RE5 article. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 16:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Nothing about this article is true, Nintendo can not update the graphics to current machines, RE:5 is not coming out in 2008, and their is no Wii version at all.Deathawk (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)_[reply]
Delete - WP:HOAX, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:25, 6 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. PeaceNT (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger garth

This article asserts some notability of the subject but I can't find any reliable sources in order to verify any notability and so it fails WP:BIO. Couldn't find any links on google unrelated to wikipedia, and there's no entry for him on the Internet Movie Database. Wondered if his name was a misspelling but it's the same on his official site. Beloved Freak 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keeep Asserts notablity. Article is new, and definately needs to be sourced, cleaned up, etc. Id rather keep and tag.LessThanClippers (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but how can we verify notability without reliable sources? I have looked for some but can't find any. --Beloved Freak 02:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And..., honestly, none of the assertions in this article check out. For example, if the subject did co-present or appear with Heather Locklear on Saturday Night Live in 2006, it would have been most certainly be reported in various entertainment news websites; this is definitely a case where Gooogle hits matter and there aren't any. There are obvious factual errors: #41 in VH1's Top 100 Greatest Teen Stars is Jennie Garth. This does seem like a hoax. Although there are a few mentions off-wiki, none are in what could be called reliable sources and are questionable, to say the least. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Flowerpotman. No reliable sources, just a Myspace page and an "official" site which is under construction and has zero content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources. The fact that he doesn't even have an IMDB page would strongly indicate to me that he's not notable. Lankiveil (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as not verifiable and not notable. --Lockley (talk) 07:00, 5 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. Bduke (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly (Radio DJ)

Procedural nomination Moosato Cowabata (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reason of nomination is unsourced and notability issues has not been met. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep as no reason for deletion has been presented. Looks like a nn bio, but that's the nominator's job to mention, not mine. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reason for deletion was added and is valid. I can find nothing but artist self-created websites and references (such as youtube channel, myspace profile, and websites for free distribution of a band's music). Burden of proof of secondary source mention is required to keep the article. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Jfire (talk) 18:07, 8 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 current article that has a mixed Italian / English title, add the found sources to Red onion that already has a section named 'Red onion of Tropea' and create proper redirects at Red onion of Tropea and Cipolla rossa di Tropea with no prejudice against a future expansion if warranted.--10:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Tikiwont (talk)

Cipolla Rossa of Tropea

Notability and cleanup issues has not been met since May 2007 Moosato Cowabata (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Delete It deserves to be deleted. Although I think it could potentially be a legitimate article, for now it is not even close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMD80 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a page torn out of a cookery book. The subject is notable, but this article is not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the subject is notable then the article should be kept and cleaned up, not deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Malleus. --Folantin (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've just spent a few minutes with Google and found out a couple of interesting facts which I've added with references to establish notability. That's what we should be doing, not deleting the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 6 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 WP:SNOW (and, I guess, WP:HEY). I think the consensus to keep is quite obvious now, especially now that the article has been rewritten and sourced. This is also a good example of why brand new articles shouldn't usually be brought to AfD (although I'm sure the nom was indeed acting in good faith). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pecatonica High School (Wisconsin)

Substub, no assertion of notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, no assertion of notability (which means it qualifies for speedy deletion, but some admins are reluctant to do so for school articles for some unknown reason). Article is just one sentence. So it faills WP:V and WP:N. Also, schools are NOT automatically notable and there is no guideline or policy that says they are (since most high school AFDs have someone claiming this). TJ Spyke 01:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that I don't think most schools deserve an article (and get annoyed when people incorrectly say that high schools are automatically notable), but this one has been expanded and sourced with notable claims. I would like to point out that articles should state why the subject is notable as soon as it is created (so nominating an article for deletion the same day it's created is acceptable). Also, "most schools articles are kept so this one should too" is not a good enough reason to vote Keep. TJ Spyke 06:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nominating the same day as created seems like a bad plan in general unless it's a clear speedy case (IMO). Discuss/tag first, then nominate. This isn't a race. Hobit (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: asserts notability. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Which part? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was moved to make room for a dab, and relevant afd links updated. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Delete per nom – Zedla (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- ~~While the article has improved in response to the AFD, I'm troubled by many of the similarities in added content from the cited sources.~~ Zedla (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't that a clean-up problem and not a reason for deletion? Hobit (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While high schools are usually kept, some just don't assert notability. 01:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Keep. Nice job! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The school asserts notability now. The article was all of 90 minutes old when it went to AfD. An editor is currently working to improve it. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, which assertion in the article did you think was notable? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically just the award. It is a form of recognition, and we should let the article be expanded. Remember, we don't currently have a notability guideline for schools, just a proposal. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this one has been cleaned up considerably since the nom, which by the way is extremely bad faith by Anetode to nominate only an hour and a half after the article was created. Chris (クリス) (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nothing but crap upon creation, it should have been speedied. Jerry has been gracious enough to clean it up, but without this nomination having been brought to his attention, we would still be left with a useless substub. You want bad faith? Check out CAT:CSD sometime. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other positive, productive methods to bring poor quality articles to the attention of editors. AfD is for deleting or keeping, not improving. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that nominating a poor quality article on a non-notable subject was a positive and productive method of maintaining Wikipedia standards. If I saw a prospect for creating a decent article on Pecatonica High, I would have filled out the stub myself, or at least tagged it for improvement. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to say that nominating for AfD is not a positive and productive method of maintaining Wikipedia standards. As I said, AfD is for discussion of deleting and subtracting is occasionally a positive thing. My reply was intended to focus on just that an article ought not to be brought to AfD to be given attention. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a contributor to this article, I'd like to point out that this article has been listed for quite some time on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools/US/Wisconsin, and identified by others as a notable school lacking an article. 90 minutes is simply not enough time to do the required research to determine independantly if there are sources to assert notability. Future comments on this AFD should be based on the improved article, not previous comments. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was identified as an entry in an unannotated list. As of right now, the claims for notability include: 1) a one-time non-notable award created as a public relations maneuver by the superintendent; 2) participation as one of a few dozen schools in a state-wide environmental initiative; 3) participation as one of 28 schools whose teachers received training in a DNR workshop; and 4) an alumni who played in the minor leagues. I'm sorry, but you're grasping at straws here. I don't see one compelling reference to this school's importance, uniqueness, or notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have to be unique nor important to be notable. The only requirement for notability is the subject has received non-trivial mention in published independant sources. As to whether the superintendant created the award as a ploy, I can not claim to have the inside information that you allude to. Please provide a reference for that statement. Of the hundreds of schools in Wisconsin, this was one of less than a dozen to receive such an award. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The awards were created in 2005 (and only given out that year) by the superintendent to honor the community garden, the Oconto Falls Performing Arts Center, the Annual Veterans' Day Program, a couple of cities, several school districts, etc. It was a bulk affirmation that is neither notable nor independent of the Wisconsin public school system. In all of the sources you used to compile info about this school, I've yet to see a non-trivial mention of this school or an explanation of its notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]

Comment: According to the notability guidelines for schools, "High schools/secondary schools are regarded as notable unless encyclopaedic material is not available." I think the amount of data on this school is more than enough to merit an article. Plus, for what it's worth, we're not running a paper encyclopedia here. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 02:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can amass a rather large amount of data from various directories about any number of non-notable topics. And there is indeed a dearth of encyclopedic, or even secondary source, coverage of this school. Most of Jerry's information is compiled from primary sources that cover numerous schools (i.e., no "non-trivial coverage"). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you arguing against me or policy? Because from what you just said, it seems like according to policy, this school is notable. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 03:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Please re-read my previous comment as it directly challenges the assertion that this article meets WP:N or WP:RS. There is insufficient unique coverage from independent sources to justify any claim of notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your post. I may have to agree with you about the information about the awards. But we seem to be disagreeing on what qualifies as "encyclopedic material." According to Wiki, if it has enc. material, it is notable. But according to you, the encyclopedic material has to be of notability, which I see as using the word in the definition, or circular reasoning. No, it hasn't been listed in secondary sources, but that doesn't mean that information on it isn't encyclopedic. encyclopedic (according to wiktionary) is "having a comprehensive scope, especially of information or knowledge." SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 03:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I interpret the school notability guideline #2 as saying, "If it's a high school, and there's real detailed info on it, like more than its address and number of students, then it deserves an article." Which I think is very reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMD80 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fair interpretation. TerriersFan (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(De-indent, I wrote this reply to your original comment, but it applies equally to the edit.) I was using "encyclopedic" in the context of Wikipedia editorial policies, meaning article content that meets our inclusion and sourcing standards. Not to get too much further into semantics, but the definition you quote from wiktionary is synonymous with "indiscriminate", so that's when the circle breaks. The information added by Jerry may be useful in rounding out the school's coverage if there was a solid basis for asserting notability, but I don't see it providing such a basis by itself. Just as information on special training and accreditation should be mentioned in someone's biography for the sake of completeness, that information is not a substitute for any notable achievements or non-trivial coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely didn't mean indiscriminate info, I'm sorry if there was confusion, but I still disagree-- You said that encyclopedic meant "article content that meets our inclusion and sourcing standards." The policy basically specifies that for the article to meet our standards of inclusion, it must be a high school and be encyclopedic. Substituting your definition of encyclopedic, we can complete the policy by saying, "For the article to meet our standards of inclusion and sourcing, it must be a high school and meet our incluion and sourcing standards." This is using the word in the definition. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right... Well, I'm always one for redundancy. The basic problem with the article, abstaining from any use of the word "encyclopedic", is that it doesn't identify Pecatonia High as an interesting, unique school that has received substantial independent coverage. There's a bit of a problem with nominations like this, since any crap article (and sorry, but it was utter crap) gets listed on the school-related afd list, whereupon a well-meaning editor comes along to fill the article out. The problem is that this editor is often of the mind that school's are automatically notable and that any info found on the school, even if it is primary source promotional fluff, means that it is notable. Other editors who comment on the deletion discussion take a brief look at the article, see proper formatting, some text, and outside ref links, and make the assumption that a certain mass of verifiable info equates to a claim of notability. If you take a critical look at the assertions and sourcing, I don't think that any claim currently presented in the Pecatonica High article makes the school independently notable. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not disparage other editors' views and their review of the article. Despite views being different, it is just as likely that they have read the article carefully and done additional research into the subject as much as you have. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not convinced that all editors who offered their opinion have done their research, I don't want to single out or criticize any user. Views on the issue of school notability differ widely and I'm sorry if you felt disparaged by my remarks. The problem I wanted to bring up was one of uneven standards. For every school article valiantly rescued by efforts of editors who watchlist school-related afds, I've seen dozens of school articles in irreparable states of mediocrity. Many such articles will never improve and are subject to constant vandalism from their students. A consensus for keeping all school articles, or for accepting liberal notions of notability, will, in my view, result in spotty overall coverage. A minority of articles would meet Wikipedia quality standards and the majority would become either bare to the point of being tantamount to directory entries or filled with unverified info accidentally left over when reverting vandalism. However I want to make it clear that I did not nominate or comment here in bad faith, my primary concern remains with the merits of Pecatonia High and the available coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]

I suppose we disagree. The article, 1½ hours old, when nominated, was definitely a poor stub but it did say the subject was a high school and gave its ___location. That, in my experience, is usually enough for others to expand and publicly-funded schools generally get significant coverage in reliable sources. If there are terrible school articles out there, then there should be a place to list them for repair and release those interested in school articles from AfD rescue to work there instead. If all we were concerned about was the chance of vandalism, then many good articles would have been deleted out of fear. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anetode, I don't know why you keep suggesting the subject of an article has to be unique to be notable. We would have a very small encyclopedia indeed, if this criteria became policy. And now you have added interesting. I find THAT interesting. The editors who have commented here did not say I glanced at it for a few seconds and it has the same sillhouette as a good school article, so let's keep it. They all say the same thing... the article is more than a simple list, and it is a high school,and Jimbo has said here that if it exists, it is a high school, and it has more than just a listing format entry, then it should be kept. You see there is actual guidance on these things. Nobody said it has to be unique, nobody said it has to be interesting, nobody said important... just had to have content, encyclopedic content, if you will, and can be proven to exist. These awards prove it exists.... be they boring, common, and unimportant or what-have-you. It is a high school. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry, I take issue with the coverage used in your cleanup. I don't think that referencing a one-time award distributed as a promotional gesture by the superintendent qualifies as using independent coverage to establishes notability. The same goes for the other assertions made in the article. I would appreciate if you would care to comment on the criticisms enumerated above. This is not meant as a personal criticism, I am quite impressed by your willingness to improve an article. Please note that I am familiar with the guidance offered for school articles, both from Jimbo and the content policies. The guidance doesn't point to a clear consensus to keep all school articles, nor to a special exception from meeting the general standards of notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you do not approve of the recently added content. While I agree that this content does not define notability for the school, I do maintain that it provides a certain fullness, a certain roundedness, and the certain je ne sais quoi that an article has to have to be more than a mere listing. While the WP:SCL is not de jure (has not been officially ratified), it has the effect of being in force, de facto, in that over and over again articles get nominated for deletion, and the same outcome prevails. High school articles are almost invariably kept. They are the kind of institutions that have a place of importance in their communities that certainly means that sources will be found for them. One only has to look. It is a matter of convenience to assume that high school articles are notable, in order to avoid all this wasted time. We collectively write thousands of words about how 50 words need to be deleted, and to what end? A this article survived AFD banner on a talk page. Nearly every single time. The bright lines provided by WP:SCHOOL are convenient, and they are very much in effect, ratified or not, in daily AFD discussions. This AFD is yet more proof. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, while you agree that the current coverage does not define notability for the school, you maintain that it is proof for keeping all school articles? I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with an approach which dictates that all schools are notable on the grounds of convenience. Although I do sympathize with your observation that all parties have wasted much, much more time discussing this school than could possibly be seen as productive. Frankly, I don't think that messy AfD discussions are too high of a price to pay for preventing the existence of articles on non-notable schools. That position ignores the attendant difficulties of maintaining a worldwide directory of school-related articles and demanding consistent breadth, quality, and protection from vandalism. Nonetheless it is clear that there is a determined contingent of editors bent on preserving such articles through afd test cases. Since my assessment of this article appears to be the minority view and since many participants apparently have their minds made up on the whole school issue, I am going go find a more productive way to use my time. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this issue. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that another de facto policy, "Jimbo is always right" is backed up by a quote (linked above) which might as well be written for this very dispute. Regardless of which-policy-can-be-interpreted-this-or-that-way, Jimbo clearly says that "It is a reasonable thing to do... to relax and accomodate" the article in question. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De-indent for a quick note: As I recall, Jimbo recently made another statement on school articles, one less favorable of the live and let live approach. Of course neither statement should be used as an excuse not to think for yourself. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, pur-lease. We thought for ourselves for a long time, and now were showing that other people, who matter a lot, think like we do. I'm not interested in turning this into an ad hominem argument. I think we should stop, agree to disagree, and let somebody come and decide this. Both parties seem to have exhausted their points and it's getting late. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 05:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article contains sufficient information about the high school to assert notability. Mh29255 (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - encyclopaedic page and plenty of sources available for further expansion. We delete pages where notability cannot be established not those, as here, which are plainly notable and where the article is being developed. TerriersFan (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Verifiable, NPOV, high school. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just being a high school doesn't mean anything. High schools don't get any special treatment. TJ Spyke 06:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability established. And if I may observe, if an article is 90 minutes old and you don't think notability has been established yet, that's when you tag it for notability and give the editor(s) a chance to, yanno, finish creating the thing before bringing it directly to AfD. Let the process work. Give the editors time without jogging their elbows. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now a properly referenced notable high school. (Thanks Jerry and anyone else who worked to improve the article).--Cube lurker (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Quasirandom, including the sentiment expressed. Maxa megalon 2000 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established. Further:

One should only bring things to AfD that you don't believe can establish notability.
One should tag articles for notability before you bring them to AfD and wait a while.
Unless it's a speedy case, I don't see the justification of ever bringing an article for deletion that's 90 minutes old.

Hobit (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it meets WP:N. The nominator should know by now that AfD is the last, not the first option to take when there are others available. ~~WP:BITE also applies to the nominator's actions.~~ Wikipedia favors consensus, so actions that simply rile other editors, especially when the outcome is almost certain, are discouraged. If you want to find older school articles to nominate, go to the Category:High schools in the United States or Category:Middle schools in the United States or Category:Elementary schools in the United States and you'll find plenty of older articles in the various state subcategories. Was this nomination a deliberate attempt to provoke editors' ire? I don't know, but the nominator isn't being helpful. Noroton (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, WP:BITE doesn't apply. This does, from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD page, you know, the main page for AFD:

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Noroton (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense at your insinuations. I think you are confusing vigorous disagreement with disruption and I assure you that it was not my goal to annoy editors or put forth a frivolous nomination. Condescending to users for having the gall to nominate an article they don't see as meeting WP:N is not helpful either. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a classic example of why it's wrong to nominate an article that's not obvious spam or vandalism within two hours of its creation (it actually got a speedy tag WITHIN ONE MINUTE of its creation) without doing proper research (see WP:OSTRICH) and giving time for an article to improve, a violation of Wikipedia:Editing policy. --Oakshade (talk) 20:54, 5 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. Bduke (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PBOC Motorsports Club

Nominated for afd for failing to address notability issues tagged since May 2007 Moosato Cowabata (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 (club). Seems to be just a car club for people who own a particular flavor of car, so logically, any such person can join. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Willirennen (talk) 00:10, 10 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, nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tubman Elementary School

~~Substub, no assertion of notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdraw nomination, the cleaned up version offers a decent historical account of the school and the national recognition of its principal's accomplishments offered substantial independent coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it doesn't make any assertion of notability.Pnswmr (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 01:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 01:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Keep: Another one of these, "We should have given them the time of day first" instances. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 04:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: at the present time, there is no assertion of notability regarding this particular elementary school. A search on the Internet about the school failed to demonstrate that it has received any significant honors or awards other than its principal (not the school itself) in 2004. Further, there does not appear to be any notability about the school's building(s), alumni or programs. If notability can be demonstrated, I am willing to change my vote to keep. Mh29255 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article has been sufficiently improved to assert the notability of the school. Mh29255 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - good work by DoubleBlue already has found the multiple sources to establish notability on top of the Principal being awarded and the Laura Bush reception. Last but not least there is an unusually large number of sources from which the page can be further expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, and completely referenced to reliable sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:33, 5 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. Most of the concerns of the delete side should be discussed in talk Secret ^account 15:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depression and natural therapies

WP:POVFORK from the Clinical Depression article. Discussions in both article agreed that this was an inappropriate fork, however a discussion on merging relevant info into the Clinical Depression, resulted in no consensus because the CD article is already fairly long and already covers the topic in Clinical depression#Other methods of treatment. Only link to this article is from Antidepressant as a see also. Collectonian (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the above mentioned section of Clinical Depression. Doesn't need its own article. --Beloved Freak 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain and keep separate. If the two articles are merged it would create an article of more than 80k in length with over 110 references -- too much for readers. We simply don't need to say everything in one article. And we can't afford to lose important sourced content through deletion. Johnfos (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain and keep separate. First of all this is absolutely not a POV fork. The original creator of the article stated right up front that he just wanted to put a few documented natural therapies for depression in their own article. Exercising POV would be in deleting this article, because, as one can see from the references, there are good scientific studies backing up these treatments as legitimate and not any POV. The article should be separate because these are alternative but legitimate treatments for depression, not what depression is itself like in the main article, and as one can see, some people with an agenda would like to delete them. 30,000 to 40,000 people in the U.S. and about 1 million people worldwide kill themselves each year as a result of depression. This article could definitely save lives, so let's keep it. --WriterHound (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the information was neutral and accurate, it would be helpful, however this article is not. It pushed an anti-medication view, and it is unlikely this article could "save lives." The article has several extremely fringe theories and a lot of is poorly sourced. The coffee section, for example, is sourced from a single "prospective" study, not a full study or clinical trial. The study also looked a very specific group of women aged 34 to 59 and it does not specifically look at people diagnosed with clinical depression. The way the article is written and reinterprets this source falls squarely under original research. Collectonian (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless any of these 'therapies' can be shown to be effective by proper peer reviewed medical trials. At present the article merely asserts that various substances treat this complaint and this is highly misleading as there's nothing to prove they work. Nick mallory (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment They don't have to work to be notable. We have articles on snake oil, mesmerism and unicorns, because they are notable. Any "extensive coverage" by "reliable (secondary) sources" ought to establish notability for a topic. After all, imagine there was an influential, scientifically rigorous empirical debunking of a "natural therapy", that's no less relevant to an encyclopedia than a double-blind study demonstrating effectiveness. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there'd be no objection to me writing 'there is no evidence that this substance has any effectiveness for this complaint' after each instance then? The secondary sources should be proper medical journals and sources, otherwise they have no value - just as blogs or other self published sources have no value for references on other topics. Encyclopedias shouldn't be in the business of pushing misleading medical information. Lots of drugs are derived from 'natural' substances, something either works or it doesn't, it's either medicine or it isn't. The 'cures' discussed here will have test results and discussions in medical journals if they're legitimate, if they don't then they're not. This natural therapy stuff is just bogus snake oil salesmanship. There are a few sources given here for Reiki for instance, and while I'm happy to concede that can have a placebo effect (especially for something like depression) there's no way that this is medicine. Nick mallory (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's totally appropriate, probably necessary even, for the Scientific Point of View to be presented (double plus if supported by WP:RS), I'm just saying that if the SPOV is "this is bunk", that's not grounds for deletion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick's objection is not only irrelevant but it is baseless as the article already contains references to papers in medical journals. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the sections are referenced from peer reviewed journals. Just because a journal is about the topic of science, or what one purports to be science, does not make the reference a peer reviewed (and hence truly a scientific) journal. Given the nature of the article, I would think that is important in terms of meeting WP:V. Otherwise, it becomes a claim that could be answered in any published source including TV Guide or People. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are reaching in an unscientific way. The article references plenty of appropriate and respectable sources, not the TV Guide or People. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed they were .... only that TV Guide and People were also not peer reviewed, as it appears some (not all, some) of the references here are - again to emphasize, my concern is not with every source). In a scientific article, the sources should come primarily from peer reviewed sources, as those are the standard works used to support scientific findings. If this is not a scientific article, then appropriate notices should be placed in appropriate places as to not confuse people who might be led to thinking this was scientifically supported. I think that is all Nick was saying. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and if necessary relocate good information. Much of the article should be in individual pages, such as Acupuncture, Amino Acids, Coffee, Inositol, and Reiki. This is a clear POV fork and I feel it was written for a particular POV as well, evidenced by subtle POV statements such as "drug companies have responded with a vast arsenal of antidepressant medications" and "they nevertheless may have a contribution to make". VigilancePrime (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm with Nick mallory. If this article does survive this review, there needs to be unambiguous warnings in the article when non-peer reviewed sources are not being used as sources. It needs to be clear that these views are not endorsed by the mainstream scientific community. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see the biggest problem here is the use of the word "natural": S-Adenosyl methionine is "natural", how about Mesembrine, Inositol... a more accurate title for this article as it stands would be DIY therapies for depression. Much of this article replicates Clinical_Depression#Other_methods_of_treatment, if the argument for maintaining this article separate is hat merging it back into Clinical_Depression makes it too long, then why leave the Other_methods_of_treatment section in there. This article could use a lot of work, but it's not irredeemably bad, or hopelessly biased. I'm leaning towards endorsing a merge of properly sourced material back into Clinical_Depression, or merging this and Clinical_Depression#Other_methods_of_treatment into some article with a better criterion for inclusion than "natural". Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nick m. Xdenizen (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Textbook POV fork, borderline WP:SPAM (especially in the "herbal" sections). Tevildo (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly distinct and notable and there are many sources, e.g. Google Books which returns hundreds of hits including books with titles such as Healing Depression Naturally, User's Guide to Natural Remedies for Depression , Understanding Depression - Natural Solutions That Really Work and The Instinct to Heal: Curing Stress, Anxiety, and Depression Without Drugs. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough here for an article. Will need careful sourcing and watching. The title may need adjustment, per Pete.Hurd, though i do not immediately see what is the best one. DGG (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the above criticisms could be met by editing the text. Eg, the section on coffee was not originally part of the article; if it doesn't come up to scratch, improve or delete that section. You don't delete a whole article because one section isn't up to scratch.

Some of the above comments betray plenty of prejudice, eg the statement that these therapies are "snake oil". This is very much a POV which is very biased. Someone said that these treatments are not medicine, but something doesn't have to be medicine to be worth writing about. Remember, the point of an article is not to prove a subject, but simply to tell people about it.

Sardaka (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - However, in an article that is using a scientific definition as its basis, one would expect what follows to be scientific in nature. That is not wholly true with every part of this article. The term "snake oil" is not a put down, in as much as it is applied to something that purports to be one thing, and is in fact not. This article starts with a scientific definition, and then goes into a mixture of scientific and non-scientific claims, without differentiating. All I and others are proposing is: if it survives deletion, the non-scientific parts either get scientific references, or get warnings that they are not supported by the scientific community. I don't think there's anything POV about that. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the result, don't merge anything into the main article. If the bunk is needed on WP keep it separate. Also rename it to something as "Folk therapies of depression", "natural" is merely marketing buzzword here. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the word "natural" is not a marketing buzzword. Natural therapies is a perfectly well accepted expression in common use as a way of distinguishing these therapies from more conventional medicine that is increasingly technological in nature. To talk about natural therapies in connection with depression is merely to say that we are examining the non-technological therapies and how they may relate to depression.

However, if enough people object to the word "natural", we could instead call them complementary therapies, which I have found is widely accepted.

Sardaka (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Clinical Depression. This article lacks proper sourcing for many of the allegations it contains. Further, the provided references do not, largely, give a good showing of the scientific basis for the remedies. Even more to the point, perhaps, Clinical depression already covers the various treatment methods for depression, whether "natural" or otherwise. A separate article for some subset of treatments is confusing, at best. If some of the specific remedies mentioned in this article are not in Clinical Depression, and if they can be justified with good sources, that is where they should go. Anything else should be deleted.Tim Ross 23:34, 13 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 a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Story Mode Federation

Non-notable "wrestling federation". No sources and no assertion of notability, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —-- bulletproof ^3:16 01:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The general consensus is that while the concept of the e-Fed (basically people roleplaying wrestling) is notable, individual ones are not. TJ Spyke 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Agree wholeheartedly with TJ Spyke. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nikki311 04:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"MacGyver lol". Delete, non-notable. Lankiveil (talk) 05:40, 5 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. There is nothing really to merge anywhere.Bduke (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers in Tokyo

Unencyclopedic in scope and title. Circeus (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory Macy's 123 review me 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as empty. This is just a very short personal list of some pretty flowers you can see in one Japanese city. It conveys nothing of any encyclopedic value. andy (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as part of splitting out Tourism in Tokyo following a recent AfD. A laudable goal, but I think an incorrect method -- as is, there's not enough context for a full article. I suggest merging this into List of parks and gardens in Tokyo, another fork from this road, which lists most of these sites. Including flowers and viewing seasons is reasonable information for public parks, especially given its cultural significance. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm the one who did the splitting of the Tourism in Tokyo article (after having previously nominated it for deletion). I've been lurking around here deciding how to vote for the past couple days, and I think Quasirandom has convinced me that this is worth merging. I'm not sure how culturally important flowers in Tokyo are, but it seems likely that they're not so unimportant they would be a detriment to the parks and gardens article. (According to the Festivals in Tokyo article, for instance, there are wisteria and azalea festivals, and the shrines around which these festivals center are the locations mentioned in the flowers article.) I think that List of parks and gardens in Tokyo should be moved to Parks and gardens in Tokyo, and this redirected and merged there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to go ahead and merge the information now, along with the merge. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I mean, along with that proposed move. I shouldn't be allowed near a keyboard late at night. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless (and probably largely incomplete) list --T-rex 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of parks and gardens in Tokyo per Quasirandom and Calliopejen1. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge, work is worth saving thus. Chris (クリス) (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless and unencyclopedic information.Andres rojas22 (talk) 22:38, 10 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 --Canley (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned

AfDs for this article:

I doubt the notability of the webcomic; the only external source is an interview with Joystiq which is viewable on the comic's site anyway. For full disclosure, I have read the comic. Will ^(talk) 19:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerned. The comic has also been in PC Gamer, PCZone and Computer Gaming World, which are three well-established magazines. Of course, citing that may be an issue; I'll dig around for web-borne citations. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sidebar seems a bit wonky. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be helped. It's generated by the Special:Prefixindex function, so any page that begins with Concerned and has been up for AfD will be listed. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Very, very notable. Keep per Master of Puppets and the last nomination. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 17:04, 8 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 --JForget 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry (characters)

Given that all this information is readily available at Tom and Jerry, and this can only end in fancruft, "is this article really necessary?" FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The main article has much more comprehensive information. Tevildo (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It provides no useful information that can't be found in Tom and Jerry. It appears to be a POV fork of the other article in that much emphasis is placed on the acedemy awards won and the tone of the article is genrally advertisement-like. Delete.--Phoenix -wiki 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to the main article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. •97198 talk 14:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Merge any independent, verifiable information. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - merge if needed --T-rex 00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps merge. Agree with what was written above.147.175.98.213 (talk) 00:13, 10 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.