< August 22	August 24 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cayuga Heights Elementary School[edit]

The article is about a local elementary school which has little content and does not explain why it is notable. Delete JForget 23:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if editors add notable facts about this school; otherwise, delete. NHRHS2010^Talk 01:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a directory of elementary schools Corpx 01:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This reads like an entry from a list of elementary schools in NY State, otherwise no content. No notability claimed, no notability found in a quick Google search. No citations. This could have been handled with a speedy or a prod, as I doubt it would have been contested, except maybe by the author (who attended the school). — Becksguy 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or combine into an article for the district, as with all such schools. A proposal to merge wouldn't have had to come here. DGG (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete asserts no notability. --Oscarthecat 07:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there isn't even anything to merge in this case. It serves through the fourth grade and is in Depew, NY- no assertion of anything, really. --ForbiddenWord 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to appropriate district or city. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Non-notability as a reason for deletion is limited to category-specific guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and WP:CORP (See WP:DP). Most of the arguments for deletion have to do with the current state of the article. Give editors an opportunity to add to and improve it. "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." (Again, see WP:DP). Valerius 03:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are we supposed to judge an article on if not its current state? Are we supposed to clairvoyantly extrapolate that reliable sources proving notability will be added? I think not. This article should not have been created in the first place if no sources lending notability exist to be used. And this isn't some brand-new stub that hasn't been given a chance to be sourced, it's been here since July 19th. Over a month isn't enough time to improve it and find at least one source? That's absurd. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP (at least temporarily). I agree with Valerius. If users have an issue with the content or presentation of content of an article, they should edit it themselves or request that the article's author do so, not simply delete it. If after a substantial period of time, the article hasn't been referenced/sourced, or other action taken to make it notable, then open it up for discussion about deleting it. (Sometimes, I think that wikipedians spend too much time deleting articles instead of trying to contribute positively to the article) --BaldDee 16:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought the consensus was that Secondary Schools were usually notable, but primary ones need to prove it. This article is so brief that it is hardly an article and does not show that it is not NN. Peterkingiron 17:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and Speedy delete as empty. Does anyone who proposes keeping believe that the single sentence asserts any form of notability? Vegaswikian 04:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to appropriate district or city. bbx 04:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT to those above (Vegaswikian, Peterkingiron, etc...): I'm not suggesting that the article (as written) suggests notability. I am only suggesting that the article's creator or other interested editors be give the chance to edit the article with referenced sources which may establish notability. If after a given peroid of time, the sources are not located and/or added, then it is appropriate to open up the discussion regarding deleting the article. BaldDee 12:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to BaldDee and Valerius. I agree with your philosophy about being too quick to delete without a chance for improvement. I think it's a systemic problem. In fact, I argued that exact same point here in the discussion on another article (please read it). The subject of this AfD is an extremely short entry (17 words) about an elementary school that just doesn't have any notability to find and include. At least I didn't find any. This is a non-notable vanity item, written by the author who attended the school, no more, no less. And it sat around for over a month without any change at all, so I think it had a chance, don't you? I will fight for articles that potentially can be improved. However, the discussion process is vital to a healthy Wikipedia, so bringing it up here was a good thing. Thanks. — Becksguy 19:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Depew, New York for the moment. Burntsauce 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Odds are its a long standing institution and should be covered. Mbisanz 02:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments for deletion are sketchy, at best; WP:CORP does not apply as it's not an organization, it's a program, and claims of no sources are patently untrue (look at the article). Neil ム 08:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SALERO[edit]

Apparently non-notable project. Fails WP:CORP and WP:N. — Coren ^(talk) 23:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. Per WP:JNN, "simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable". WP:CORP does not apply as SALERO is not a coporation or a non-profit org of any kind (it's a European Union program). The Ghits are mainly to participants at research organisations and professional associations such as IEEE. The program is relatively new so not a lot has been written about it yet. 715 Ghits in total and 39 hits in Google Scholar.[1] There is at least one scientific article about the program (W. Haas, G. Thallinger, P. Cano, C. Cullen, and T. Buerger: SALERO: Semantic Audiovisual Entertainment Reusable Objects. Proceedings of the first international conference on Semantics And digital Media Technology (SAMT), December 6-8, 2006, Athens, Greece.). Also the article was only created 10 hours ago so it's a bit premature to call for deletion. Dbromage [Talk] 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; WP:CORP begins "whether an organization (commercial or otherwise) is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article", it applies. You might want to actually read the guideline, the second paragraph takes great pains to verbosely describe what falls under the guideline. — Coren ^(talk) 00:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. SALERO is not an organization! It is not a company, charitable organization, educational institution, interest group, social club, partnership, proprietorship, religious denomination, sect, etc. It is a research program funded by the European Union. Dbromage [Talk] 00:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sources, fails WP:N generally. By the way, "not a lot has been written about it yet" is a long way of saying "non-notable". --Dhartung | Talk 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I just cited an independent source above - a scientific paper about the program. "Not a lot" means news coverage, however there it has been written about in scientific journals. Dbromage [Talk] 00:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single citation in a published journal is not sufficient to make the program notable. The EU funds many such programs, as do governments all over the world. Many get mentioned by someone somewhere, but few are notable in their own right. MarkinBoston 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are about 30 articles listed in Category:FP6 Projects. For most of them the structure of the content and the information presented are similar to what is available for SALERO. None of them is marked for deletion, for some additional information - like references - is requested. Shouldn't the same principles be applied to all articles (this does not mean that the others should also be marked for deletion:)?
  NB1: SALERO is not a program but a project funded partially by one of the research funding programs of the EC.
  NB2: As I am coordinating the project my views are of course biased.
  -- GeorgThallinger 02:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several of the Google Scholar sources are prominent ones, including the Modern Language Journal, Psicológica, and two sources published by the Cambridge University Press. So, there is evidence of notability from multiple sources. In addition, the only category-specific argument for non-notability (WP:DP) was based on a misunderstanding. The article can be improved through the sources found, and "if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (WP:DP). Valerius 03:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails notability criteria WP:CORP. Independent evidence of notability to come. --Gavin Collins 12:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As has already been pointed out, WP:CORP does not apply as SALERO is not an entity. Dbromage [Talk] 00:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @pple 03:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Unconditional[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/It's Unconditional

The stub article is about a song of a vocalist who does not have it's own article (it's only mentionned in the disambiguation page. Also, the song itself doesn't look to be very notable. There is no mention that it had charted and there is no source only external links to the website, lyrics, a review and MySpace. Delete per those elements JForget 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. --Alksub 00:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: CSD A7 does not currently apply to works of music, though there's been some discussion about expanding to include albums and singles (see related discussion). --Muchness 00:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I can't find any references to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. --Muchness 00:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC - A7 doesn't apply to songs. G iggy\^Talk 06:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. utcursch | talk 08:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D*Dog[edit]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D*Face Tyrenius 22:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable minor image from artist already in AfD. Even if the artist's article survives the AfD, I can think of any way this image is notable. Only non-blog reference is tangential in an interview for a barely reliable source. — Coren ^(talk) 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete, Source is reliable. The first sentence of the WP:RS says "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Reading further, we find that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight." Blogs are such a source, yes, but if we proceed, we can read that "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
- it is relevant to their notability;
- it is not contentious;
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources."
Granted, the article is "based on such sources" but we cannot judge it solely on that, because of the nature of the subject. D*Dog is a creation of a guerrilla artist. As such, his mode of expression and mediums he chooses to express in are subversive. Thus, mainstream sources will overlook his work to the extent possible. Because of this, the only sources that will talk about his work will be subversive as well (blogs, personal webpages, forums). In the context of a subversive art form, the only reliable sources will be those subversive as well. This phenomenon is very similar to the Do-It-Yourself punk ethic, which you can read about in the Punk article. These individuals, tired of having to conform to the established course for artists, choose to subvert and express themselves in "illegitimate" ways. This information should be on wikipedia, because it is a part of our history, even if the traditional historians disagree with it.In the interest of the common knowledge, this article should be allowed to live. --CespiT 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— CespiT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment if they choose to express themselves in ways that do not garner mention in "legitimate" media, then they choose to keep themselves out of Wikipedia. Such is their right, and we should respect them and not burden them with such bourgeoisie claptrap. So... 'Strong Delete. MarkinBoston 22:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep might be notable, but needs at least 3 WP:RS, which might include blogs. Bearian 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment MarkinBoston, I believe you have misinterpreted my argument. I said that the artist's "mode of expression and mediums he chooses to express in are subversive". This in does not mean that they choose to be kept out. On the contrary, it is the authors, creators, and moderators of "legitimate" media that prefer to exclude them. These artists simply choose a medium to express themselves that is more accessible and open to their entrance. Also, how can this be "bourgeoisie claptrap"? There is no intention of making money with entering this article into the Free Encyclopedia, far from it, the intention is simply allowing others to understand the phenomena that surround them easily and completely free. --CespiT 17:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But Wikipedia is not the place to make such a point. — Coren ^(talk) 00:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, - merge if the creator survives his AFD (doesn't look like it) -- Steve Hart 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best, merge to the artists' page if it survives its AFD. -- Whpq 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius 17:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D*lete. Sorry, the artist may be notable, but this piece? No. --UsaSatsui 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. Rehevkor 18:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandahl 04:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Escape from the underdark[edit]

This is a contested prod. Concern: "Fan-run persistent world with no referenced assertion of notability; suggest deletion per WP:N." The only secondary reference I can find is an interview on BioWare's official NWN website; I'm not convinced that this is sufficient to establish notability per WP:N/WP:WEB. An article on this subject was previously deleted as an expired prod (see [2]). --Muchness 22:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE and this is lacking notability from real world sources Corpx 01:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly notable, but I'm not seeing any proof. --UsaSatsui 03:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandahl 04:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Kimble[edit]

"Also ran" US senate candidate, only primary sourced, no other proven notoriety, fails WP:BIO for politicians SkierRMH 22:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amusing (1996, promised to pose nude in Playgirl), sometimes quotable candidate, but falls short of WP:BIO. Other accomplishment is as a non-notable businessman (owned a pager company at one point). --Dhartung | Talk 00:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just running for senate does not make one notable Corpx 01:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SkierRMH. Salt? -- Jeandré, 2007-08-25t21:35z —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:35, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edumarket game[edit]

No evidence of this term's use outside this one paper. There may be a WP:COI; see author's username. Alksub 22:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You guys pretty much said it all. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usage in one (or even a few) papers does not make a term notable. 69.116.62.33 23:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Brandon97 20:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MasterCard. MastCell ^Talk 23:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MYplash[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:N. No significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nv8200p (talk • contribs) 22:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MasterCard and rewrite with secondary sources. MYPlash was the subject of some non-trivial press coverage when it launched in 2005 (e.g., FOXNews, E!, UPI, The Denver Post), though many of the articles were puff pieces. It also received passing coverage in The New York Times as part of a larger trend in teenage shopping [3]. --Muchness 00:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While this is notable now, I really do not think this advertising technique has much "historic notability" Corpx 01:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Extremely (at least commercially) notable — Ian Lee (Talk) 00:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources to support your discussion. -Nv8200p talk 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not much published after release so there are no sources, but you'll just have to trust me. It was a huge success. — Ian Lee (Talk) 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then your claim fails WP:V. -Nv8200p talk 14:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non admin closure. ~ Wikihermit 22:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyaku Shiki[edit]

Delete. List of fictional weapons in Gundam universe. Information such as the fact that it has a "Minovsky type ultracompact fusion reactor, output rated at 2015 kW" belongs in another wiki, but not in wikipedia. No real-world content from reliable sources either. Oscarthecat 21:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to the appropriate series article. But really, I think you might want to try working with some people since this is but one of many many articles. There is a WP:GUNDAM you should try. FrozenPurpleCube 22:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC) FrozenPurpleCube 22:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki WP is not a guide for the show and this weapon is lacking significant coverage from independent sources Corpx 01:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is one of the more prominent mecha in the series. If there is a well-developed List article, merging would also be an option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs) 01:05, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Keep Has major role in two series and also notable enough to appear in over 20 non-Sunrise's video games (though only 19 can be cited now). L-Zwei 05:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not an alternative to cleanup, and the need for cleanup is not grounds for deletion. Kyaa the Catlord 05:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reason as Kyaa, and anything to do with Char Aznable is notable enough to be kept. Cleanup and an image or two would be good.--Dante 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to do with a work of fiction is not inherently notable. Notability must be provided by significant coverage through reliable sources Corpx 07:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 17:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cosmic Era vehicles and aircraft[edit]

Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), specifically "Articles about topics within a fictional universe are notable if they provide sufficient real-world information in well organized units." Article falls into same category as the example of "List of Star Destroyers" cited on the WP:FICT page, which is deemed non-notable Oscarthecat 21:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See the existing AFD's. FrozenPurpleCube 21:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the page is relatively new. Authors of the page can easily add real-world interest to it. Let 'em have some time to do so. No need to chop. It's good reference material on Gundam. The Transhumanist 00:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree. We can see if the article becomes more effecient over time. However, if the article fails to grow, it'll soon be back in the AfDs. TheInfinityZero 16:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like List of cars in a video game is not appropriate for WP, neither should a list of vehicles on a TV show. Fails WP:FICT Corpx 01:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much more important, especially since a list of vehicles in a video-game only circles to its videogame, while a list about the vehicles of an ENTIRE ENORMOUS FRANCHISE like gundam is would be useful. ~ Kind Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.122.85 (talk) 23:21, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

See WP:USEFUL Being useful is not a reason to keep Corpx 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per the other AfDs started by this user. Jtrainor 12:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to Speedy Keep - See WP:Speedy Keep Corpx 16:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject being fictional is not grounds for deletion, see Doctor Watson, light saber, Andorian, Acme Corporation, etc. Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 22:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wouldn't it be better to have a list article summarizing each of these vehicles rather than have a separate article for each one? The details should probably be toned down a bit though. --Polaron | Talk 01:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There used to be, but people kept trying to mass-AfD them. The result of those was consensus for a 'list of' article. Jtrainor 21:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Not much doubt about the two children, whose only claim to fame is being (way down) in the line of succession to the British throne. A bit more doubt for the mother, who is not only one higher in the line of succession :), but also made some gossip headlines in her day, and has been apparently the "rear of the year" in 1989. All in all, not enough to warrant an article (following the spirit of not an indiscriminate collection, point 5, and following the consensus here). Fram 12:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Ogilvy, Zenouska Mowatt, and Christian Mowatt[edit]

[Sorry the last set of links won't work. And the template immediately above seems tamper/delete-resistant. -- Hoary 13:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Marina Ogilvy, Zenouska Mowatt, Christian Mowatt: nn.

Marina Ogilvy is "a composer for film and television"; no compositions, film titles, or television programs are listed, and no references are given. She's related to people.

Zenouska Mowatt "insists on leading the life of a normal young lady of her age" (17). She's related to people: her mum is Marina and her dad is Paul Mowatt (whose AfD appears to have been frozen by some "agent"). And that's all, it seems.

Christian Mowatt is 14. He's related to people. (Marina and Paul again.) And that's all, it seems.

If I understand correctly, if the British queen and thirty-six other people in line for the throne were all blown away -- by the combination of (a) bird flu and (b) a 1990s-Hollywood style asteroid? -- then Marina, Zenouska or Christian would become queen or king; but unless/until such a combination of disasters were to happen (and may god save our gracious queen!), their royal connections mean squat. And if it did happen, then my guess is that even readers of the Daily Mail would be too concerned about other matters to worry about whom Mr Brown's successor would be having regular chats with over cups of tea.

Wikipedia is not a collection of genealogical entries and instead bios must be about people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. Zenouska and Christian appear to have none whatever. Marina's is that she was five months' pregnant when she got married. Crikey, if this were 1927, we'd all be flabbergasted, I'm sure; but in 1990 we weren't, even though one or two desperate gossip columnists might have managed to wring a "story" out of it. -- Hoary 13:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think Christian and Zenouska are particularly encyclopaedic. The only reason I'd give for keeping them is this:

Preceded byChristian Mowatt Line of succession to the British Throne Succeeded byThe Earl of Harewood

The Earl of Harewood is notable. And Princess Alexandra is notable. And I don't like breaking chains. I'm not sure if I'm being a bit silly here. ElinorD (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Zenouska is high in the order of succession. She also is taking the controversial stand of distancing herself from the Royal Family. Keep her (and of course the others) availible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.97.196 (talk) 20:10, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Harewood is indeed notable. He has achieved a lot, for which he fully deserves an article. If any of these Mowatts were shown to have achieved one tenth as much, I wouldn't have sent their articles to AfD. ¶ After number ten or so -- oh, all right, even twenty (though I'd say five) -- this "chain" is mere royaltycruft. -- Hoary 13:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% committed to my position (note that I haven't said "keep"). I realise that Princess Alexandra is 33rd in line to the throne, and the Earl of Harewood is 40th, so I'm not vehemently insisting on keeping a chain unbroken because of six borderline-notable people. But I would feel that it would be a pity to get rid of a one-paragraph article about a not-very notable person who was fourteenth on a particular list, if 1&ndash13 and 15–50 were all notable with proper articles, and if each of those articles had one of those boxes at the bottom! I'm not claiming that I'm right or that I'm logical. It's just how I'd feel. This may be different because there are six borderline-notable links in the chain. They're not completely non-notable, and because they're borderline (in my view) and because I don't like breaking the chain, I'm slightly inclining towards a weak keep. ElinorD (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If my reason is idiotic (which perhaps it is), I'm sure the closing admin will discount it. And that won't break my heart. :-) ElinorD (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to parents' articles and redirect. These names are valid enough as search terms and the redirect won't break the chain in the succession box (or can be modified so that it does not). --Dhartung | Talk 16:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in sections in the parents' articles. Add the info box to the section and use a section link inside the box. - Richfife 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
m & rd to Line of succession to the British throne. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect to Line of succession to the British throne. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck double !vote to assist closing admin. --Dhartung | Talk 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SFGiants, clearly the relationship of any of these to their parents is greater than to the line of succession. That is, there is little point to expanding their entries in the latter, and good reason to do it in the former. --Dhartung | Talk 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TerriersFan, what complexity is there that requires more thoroughness? How or where is thoroughness lacking? Hoary 05:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Line of succession to the British throne. That's their only claim to notability, and quite frankly the ex-husband/father isn't the most notable person either. If they were closer to the top, then I might advocate keeping them, but I doubt all 30-some-odd relatives ahead of them are all going to kick off or refuse the crown in the event a successor is needed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) As soon as you point out their sole putative claim to notability, you seem to agree with me that it's no claim to notability at all. But Line of succession to the British throne does have a certain humor value, presumably unintended. (Long live Queen Ethel!) (2) Perhaps it's about time some crowbar from on high freed ex-hubby/dad's AfD from its "temporary" state. -- Hoary 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Red link the lads and/or lasses Ah, I've changed my mind, due to events unforeseen at the time, and now agree with Hoary that these should be deleted. If Hoary is not voting for delete, he should follow my lead, and he knows why, as the articles should be red linked to oblivion. KP Botany 06:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having nominated the three for deletion, I'd thought that my delete vote would be obvious, but KP Botany suggests otherwise immediately above. (Perhaps this comment will itself now be deleted, because one's not supposed to vote twice -- but then AfD isn't a vote, right?) Though I wouldn't much mind if they were redirected somewhere instead. -- Hoary 06:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd start the AfD on the deletion of your comments right away, except that I think it's beneath me, at least the one I'd have to AfD. Seriously, it's a bit clearly if you explicitly state your preferences in bold. KP Botany 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced biographies of non-notable living people. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as they are Royalty, even if you are a complete republican, the British Royal family is per se notable. Marina Oglivy has always been fodder for the tabloid press on Fleet Street, and has a bit part in Kitty Kelly's book on The Windsors, so there must be 100's of soucres for her. Merge her childrens' articles into hers. Bearian 17:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How are they royalty? They appear to be related to royalty, but then I believe I'm related to Ivor Novello and for all I know you may be related to Keith Richards or Einstein. That mum has always been fodder for the redtops suggests the House of Hilton rather than that of Windsor, but anyway let's see some specifics; hundreds of sources (for what events or non-events?) would indeed be amusing, but just two or three would suffice for the short term. -- Hoary 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are high enough in the order of succession to be of wide interest, whether that is right or not. People will want to look them up, and appropriately sourced articles can be written about them, so we should cover them. Brandon97 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any evidence for the assertion that they're of wide interest? (I for one hadn't heard of them till I saw the links from Paul Mowatt, and I hadn't heard of him till I noticed a link to his article.) -- Hoary 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Post the appropriate sources, 2 or 3 qualified references for each, and I will personally write the article and sink Hoary's ship, Brandon. KP Botany 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whereupon I shall likely drown. Your comment thus constitutes a death threat. I waive my right to have you blocked for your verbal terrorism, but I do wonder who's next in the line of succession to me. ("The Hoary is dead. Long live the Hoary!") -- Hoary 00:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listmakers and boxmakers want a separate article for every item on their list. This is the mark of directory-thinking, a step below dictionary-thinking. The question of whether all royalty is encyclopedia-worthy aside, the idea that these folks are royalty is... unspeakably benighted. --Wetman 05:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I remember, some years ago, that Marina did hit the headlines in the British press by sitting on a throne dressed as a punk rocker with a fake crown and some corgis saying how her family did not understand her and disaproved of her husband. Without the fake crown that is pretty normal stuff for any young girl getting married. (most family's have to endure at least one stroppy teenager) Howerever, she and her offspring could be mentioned very briefly in her mother's page. Her divorced husband was nothing before the mariage and he has returned to obscurity - no need for him other than a name to explain the offspring's surname. Giano 10:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect It seems pretty clear that none of Marina Ogilvy, Zenouska Mowatt and Christian Mowatt are notable outside of the line of succession and that substantive articles cannot be written about them at this time. I would support merging the contents (or some of the contents) and redirecting to Princess Alexandra and Angus Ogilvy. --Malcolmxl5 20:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these thinnest of watery broth bios. These people are not notable. If calamity strikes, and those ahead of them in line to the throne are snuffed out, I promise to devote all my energies to (co)writing their WP articles... until then, I can't imagine why anyone should bother. Pinkville 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, very obscure.. seems to me that these articles have just been made for the sake of making an article, notability be damned. DeusExMachina 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 18:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

José Manuel Mójica Legarre[edit]

This is a biography of a living Spanish writer, author of two books about history of cooking (published at a regional level) and one novel. While the article style is a bit clumsily enthusiastic about Mr Legarre and lacks sources, my main concern is that it does not seem to fulfill the conditions of Wikipedia:Notability (people) ; I strongly doubt that Mr Legarre may "have been the subject of published secondary sources", he has not received "significant recognized awards or honors" and none of his books "has won significant critical attention". The same page has been simultaneously created on :fr and :es Wikipedias, and a similar deletion request is currently discussed on :fr (see fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/José Manuel Mójica Legarre) French Tourist 18:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not sure I know enough to say this with certainity, but all I can find about him are Spanish pages that mention the name in passing and are not specifically about him. At this point, I don't think he is notable enough to keep. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep J.M. Mójica's book La gastronomía en tiempos de San Francisco Javier is a reference in Spain concerning the gastronomy during the 16th century. It has been presented in several important spanish newspapers. Same success for his most recent book, La llama frente al huracán. SalomonCeb 19:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment FWIW, at this point the more sophisticated discussion at frWP [4] is evenly divided. The page at esWP [5] has not yet been challenged. DGG (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete as per nom does not appear notable. Harlowraman 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 22:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SalomonCeb Brandon97 21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 against re-creation if reliable third-party sources can be found to establish notability. — TKD::Talk 04:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Pirate's Isle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Return to Pirate's Isle

Speedied (A7) by Anetode while I was removing the speedy tag! I have no opinion on the matter, except to say that the game's designer may be sufficiently well known for this game to be notable. (although the article should demonstrate this) Pascal.Tesson 21:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this game significant in and of itself? How many copies did it sell? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, although the sales numbers are not that relevant for games of the early 80's. But is this game somehow considered significant historically or in the career of Scott Adams (game designer)? Pascal.Tesson 21:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pascal.Tesson 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: are there any reliable sources that discuss this game? None are cited in the article. Can any be found? Jakew 22:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources giving coverage/reviews are found Corpx 01:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whilst Scott Adams is certainly notable, I can't find any coverage of this game. I don't think there were any magazines dedicated to the Texas Instruments platform, so best bet for a review is some of the older issues of C&VG (but I'm speaking from a UK perspective here) Doesn't appear to have been ported to any other platforms. If The sequel gets some decent coverage, can be merged into a potential article for that. Marasmusine 09:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. Fin©™ 10:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Christina Brown[edit]

Comment: Very interesting. I've been observing this Wikipedia for some time now, and I find it fascinating the level of open hostility shown to people like the one being discussed here. I am what you might call a professional in the film business. However, the arrogance and outright glee with with these kinds of deletions are pursued is something I find very disturbing. My own profile on this system will never see deletion, so I will never have to weather the nasty, condescending commentary I see routinely directed toward non-notable artists, i.e., people who are swimming against all odds to achieve their goals. I'm told that a large majority of Wikipedia is composed of computer programmers and/or academics who are generally white middle-class men. You gentlemen could do with a course on diplomacy, ambassadorship, and humility. The way things read now, regardless of your counter-claims, most of you delight in seeing others fail Wikipedia. Perhaps you feel powerful as result. I am here to tell you that you are anything but powerful sitting behind a computer and using harsh terminology against people you've never met. In fact, cheers to the "non-notables" who struggle out in the real world: May all of you Wikipedians enjoy maintaining their profiles once they achieve their dreams, because for most of you it's as close as you'll ever come to anything resembling "accomplishment". Wikipedia, if you wish to be perceived as something other than a cult/haven for the disenfranchised and angry nerd, please work (hard) on issues of diplomacy and ambassadorship. Oh, did I already say that? ICanSeeTheWarnerBrosTowerFromHere 07:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC) — ICanSeeTheWarnerBrosTowerFromHere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Investment banking, closed per snowball clause. G iggy\^Talk 07:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Investment bankers[edit]

Concept is highly redundant to investment banking. Attempted redirect was reversed, so rather than edit war I'm bringing it here. Blueboy 96 20:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, of course. Article is of very low quality, there's probably little worthy of merging but the author should feel free to try. Eleland 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect to Investment banking. If there is anything worth salvaging merge into the article. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, merge anything useful into other articles (section by section) and Redirect. There is a lot of material there but it reads like an essay and would need a MASSIVE amount of copy editing to make it encyclopedic. I find it amusing that it refers to Chairman of the Federal Reserve as a copycat article. Dbromage [Talk] 03:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to point out that list of investment bankers, to which this redirected, seems to have been improperly deleted under CSD G7. Improperly, in that the request was from an IP number editor, who claimed to have written substantially all that article, when the edit history hardly supported that. This is a side-issue, naturally. But content in the area of investment banking is simply lost to the site by these deletions. There is no diff shown for the proposition that a redirect for this page; so I'd like to hear more about what is going on here. Charles Matthews 07:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed. We can call it a procedural close in the sense it was never opened correctly to begin with; the nominator did not intend this to be a deletion discussion and seems to misunderstand the purposes of WP:AFD. The existence of this discussion has no bearing, in terms of timing or otherwise, to any possible subsequent deletion discussion started on this article (so no speedy closing any actual deletion nomninations becauise this one was only x weeks ago). Neil ム 11:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies over the film Sicko[edit]

This is a procedural nomination in the sense that I created the article and want to keep it. I made a mistake in letting a group of editors at the Sicko article vote to merge it into that article when, in fact, an AfD discussion is the appropriate venue. (From what I've seen in Wikipedia guidelines, mergers are appropriate for small articles, whereas this one is almost 20KB long and merger essentially amounts to deletion.) I just resurrected the article now in order to have this AfD discussion.

REASONS TO KEEP: Wikipedia has numerous articles on controversies. (see Category:Controversies which has 57 articles and eight subcategories; also see another controversy article about a Moore movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy). This one is notable in that nearly every magazine, newspaper or other organ of opinion in the United States has commented on the movie -- outside of film reviews, which have also commented on controversial aspects of the movie. I don't think there can be any doubt that the subject is notable. This is not a POV fork in any sense: The article painstakingly presents Moore's POV as well as a range of others on various points and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines about presenting different points of view. Responsible sources are used (New York Times, New Republic, National Review, American Prospect, etc, etc, etc,). If anyone in this discussion calls this article a POV fork, they'd damn well better be prepared to say why or I'm going to accuse them of not reading it. (See Wikipedia:Content forking section "What content/POV forking is not". From the "Articles whose subject is a POV" subsection:

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other other appropriate points of view.

Commentators are all over the map when it comes to the movie, and the article reflects various shades of opinion as well as points where a good number of commentators are in consensus.

There is a small criticisms section in the Sicko article, but the subject of criticism/controversy deserves much more space in its own article because (a) health insurance is said to be either the top or one of the very top domestic issues in the presidential campaign; (b) Sicko has brought the issue to millions of Americans and others, far more than any opinion article, magazine piece, TV special or other media piece, and the movie is widely expected to influence the debate; (c) the movie is by Michael Moore, who can be expected to be in the middle of controversies in the future just as he's been in the past, and the article about this controversy is likely to be of lasting interest at least as long as other controversy articles in Wikipedia; (d) the movie is likely to be the source of just about all the knowledge many foreigners have (and many Americans have) of the U.S. and other healthcare systems. Even if this article is considered a "criticism of" article, that subject itself is of proven notability, given the attention paid by numerous reliable sources, as cited in the article; (e) controversy over the movie has generated more reliable sourcing than on most political controversies covered in Category:Political controversies.

BACKGROUND: The Sicko article has been the subject of constant, mindbogglingly long disputes over content, and I believe a number of editors are, surprise, surprise, pushing POV. The early, lengthy discussion on the talk page were mis-archived (does someone know how to fix that?) but the most relevant discussion about the article appears in the Talk:Sicko "Neutrality" section at 24 June 2007 (the merger discussion follows) and at the talk page for this article. Noroton 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Noroton 20:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. —Noroton 20:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "criticisms" spinouts are standard practice for length issues, of course we must be mindful of POV forks but as long as the title isn't inherently POV that's not an AfD issue. In future please limit the length of your nominations (and consider revising it now). Eleland 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I just can't do that. This length is unusual, but I expect this to be controversial, and then I'd have to say it all anyway. Best to get it all together, I think. I really do sincerely apologize for the inconvenience, and if I thought I could do it another way, I would. Noroton 21:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it can't be incorporated in the main article, then it should be accorded one of it's own. No doubt, the films by Mr. Moore are highly controversial and a subpage may be needed to do more than just a standard movie review.--MONGO 21:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim, merge & delete - As per agreement. We have already been through this on Sicko talk. The consensus was that criticisms be trimmed and merged with the main page. User:Noroton refuses to accept the decision. [6] smb 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment - Reasons (a) (b) One cannot justify a lengthy criticism page on the basis that said film is igniting a policy debate. It has already been suggested to Noroton that perhaps this warrants a Debate over United States healthcare policy in the 2008 election article or a Sicko and the United States healthcare policy debate article. Not a criticism article. (c) Nor can one serious adduce Michael Moore -- his previous work, and his future work! -- as de facto justification for a criticism page on Sicko; the implicit assumption being Moore is controversial by design and he always will be. Well, perhaps, but then we already have a Michael Moore controversies page. (d) This is POV pushing of the worst possible kind. Noroton is openly concerned that "foreigners" might watch Sicko and get the wrong impression about US health-care. Presumably people need a handy rebuttal page to set them straight. (e) This is the only argument we should be concerned about. Is there enough pointed criticism of the subject matter to justify a criticism page about the subject matter? Please resist attempts to use Sicko as a platform to advocate or discredit a wider ideological point. smb 05:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the article's written in an NPOV way, then it might be just as much a "handy rebuttal page" to the film's critics as well as to those who defend it. In fact, an NPOV article would kinda tend to do both in part, and if you actually read the thing, you'll find it's got both the pro and the con in it. The article isn't about policy, it's about the movie, and there's a lot of information out there about Moore's methods and his arguments. Smb is determined to think that presenting criticism is necessarily going to result in an article that's anti-Moore. By presenting the defenses made against the criticisms and the positive reactions that are also part of the controversy, I think I've shown that the subject is not inherently biased. I think Moore's movie is important and WP:Notable enough, as shown by all the attention it received, that it deserves two articles so that it can be adequately covered on pages that are not too long. Noroton 06:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Back as of now, article is in violation of WP:SYNTH, because it is taking individual issues and putting them all together under the broad topic. Corpx 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about the reaction to the documentary as a work of opinion journalism (all documentaries are journalism). Documentary movies are also works of art, and that's covered in the main article (although we could potentially move the reviewers' reactions into this controversies article and call it something like "Response to the film Sicko"). As opinion journalism it needs to present its case well and be accurate. (How else would you judge opinion journalism?) If this were such a synthesis, then there wouldn't be so many magazine and newspaper articles that cover the exact same areas that the article does. It fits together well and it's not original research. Noroton 06:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the practical way of dealing with it, and the customary one. I don;'t see how it can possibly violate synth, any more than any other article content in any article would. DGG (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can nominate a page for deletion in order to keep it. This is not a court, and the decision here does not prevent editors from coming to a consensus about merging an article. Go back to the talk page; AfD does not prevent editors from implementing a merge. Cool Hand Luke 05:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as this isn't even an AfD but some misguided attempt to...I don't know. Whatever it is, it belongs in that article's Talk page. --ElKevbo 09:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Catchpole 09:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstate merge. POV fork, syth, gaming the system. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was early closing, delete per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome 19:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Believe the Bible to be the Word of God[edit]

No evidence that this book is in any way notable. Prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, no sourcing, no verfication. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe WP:NOTE to be the word of God and He says Delete. Eleland 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the prophet above, and the fact that half of the article is blatant advertising from the author. Non-neutral, clear COI. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hersfold. Jakew —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:26, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
Delete per JodyB. Dbromage [Talk] 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smite with brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven as patently failing notability criteria and as probably being COI. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bearian 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Beorhtric 11:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Coppertwig 19:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability provided, or any supporting cites. -- The Anome 19:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American social and political scientists[edit]

This is a third-order list, including only people meeting three criteria. Going in this direction would lead to way too many lists. Not currently policy, but see WP:OLIST for further discussion. Matchups 20:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should be in a category instead.--JForget 23:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCAT - "Non-notable intersections by religion" Corpx 01:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree. Being American, being Jewish, and being a scientist has very little to do with one another. TheInfinityZero 16:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. --Coppertwig 19:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. — TKD::Talk 03:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Vítor Freitas Souza[edit]

Youth players are not notable as per WP:BIO and WikiProject Football standars —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 20:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Delete all per nom - Not playing at the highest level + failing WP:N Corpx 01:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Have not played in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 08:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Yes, all appear to be youth players who have not yet played in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 20:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - as failing WP:BIO. TerriersFan 23:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to create a suitable redirect, if you want. — TKD::Talk 04:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Financial Organizer[edit]

The lack of sources is a problem, and the article appears to be an advertisement for a non-notable product. Prod removed by creator without comment. FisherQueen (Talk) 20:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question any more suitable article to redirect this to? FrozenPurpleCube 00:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless somebody cares to cite everything said in there. As of now, it looks to be completely WP:OR Corpx 01:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, or redirect to Financial planning if necessary. Bearian 17:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no evidence of notability. --Coppertwig 19:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a product brochure.Mbisanz 02:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. — TKD::Talk 04:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josimar Rosado da Silva Tavares[edit]

Youth players are not notable as per WP:BIO and WikiProject Football standars —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Delete per nom - Not playing at the highest professional level Corpx 01:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have not played a game in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 08:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, delete. None have played in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 20:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recreate when elevated to Manchester Group29 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - as youth players failing WP:BIO. TerriersFan 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was close DS 14:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Pup Named Scooby-Doo: The Motion Picture[edit]

This page is a hoax. The references say nothing about the article. The movie poster is made up by the page originator. NrDg 19:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. re: the poster (the uploader even says so in the edit summary!) The article can be recreated if there really is such a movie. Right now, there are zero non-Wikipedia Google hits. The Wall Street Journal link shows "Scooby Doo prequel" in an infobox, listed as in development. And the "Official Site" has zero mention of this movie. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may or may not be in production, but as of now, it appears to be purely speculation. Neranei (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax/WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The poster has an AOL Time Warner company in the BRH corner. AOLTW hasn't existed since 2004. Pure hoax. Nate 21:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Dbromage [Talk] 23:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy based issue centers around whether a restaurant that has won a single minor award in its home town, and is (or has been) popular locally, is notable for Wikipedia inclusion purposes.

Non-policy based points raised: 1/ "Cincinnatians would understand immedietely why it was included" - fails WP:OR, 2/ "it gives broader coverage of our regional dish" - this is a reason to have an article on the regional dish, not on a restaurant that offers it, 3/ "the most notable 'cook', of the defining cuisine, of a large and notable city, in the English-speaking world" - notability of the city does not mean notability of a specialist restaurant within it, 4/ "makes 'the best' dish according to the locals" - a strong claim which is insufficiently evidenced as of 2007, and falls foul of WP:OR and WP:RS.

The main policy based points raised concern notability (WP:N), and also the concern that this article is better suited to a restaurant guide (WP:NOT). These are also in the majority of policy based points. I concur. One award is not notable, the restaurant is not notable, or the area in which it is notable is too restricted to support notability for Wikipedia policy purposes.

Even if there were a few more sources, such as a more recent award, this is likely to fall foul of WP:N in a second way, as a non-notable cross- or sub- categorization. In general, articles of the form "the most notable cook of cuisine X in town/city Y" are not usually considered notable per se, and much less so on the low level of evidence of significant notability presented in the article and this AFD.

I concur with the "delete" view, which is also in the majority of those raising policy-based concerns. Stripped to its basics, the article makes insufficient claim to notability and probably breaches WP:NOT. Media awards for "best local eateries" are common, and often say little by themselves. Winning one such newspaper award in 2000, in one sub-sub category (food → chili → non-chain), simply doesn't make it notable, even in a big city.

Pleasant Ridge Chili[edit]

The article fails to establish notability in compliance with WP:N. The first 'award' is a passing mention with no criteria as to how the 'award' was determined and the second 'award' referred to a different restaurant with the source a review containing nothing that marks the restaurant out from any other. Delete. TerriersFan 19:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as not passing WP:CORP. I can easily be swayed to keep, however, if some info is added regarding how it is important to the culture of Cincinnati and the development of Cincinnati chili. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to keep per recent edits by User:Mind meal. youngamerican (wtf?) 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the award. No news coverage found outside Cincinnati. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per only local coverage. I do not think we should have articles on restaurants who win local awards Corpx 01:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has won an award and is locally very well known. Cincinnatians would understand immedietely why it was included, and it gives broader coverage of our regional dish. This article is better referenced than most, and it established notability by two unaffiliated, reliable publishing sources in our city. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. Meets the primary criteron of inclusion, as both sources are newspapers. The criterion says nothing about local coverage being not good enough. (Mind meal 02:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Local awards are not sufficient for notability here or elsewhere--only significant awards are taken into account. This is especially true since such awards, especially awards can be subdivided indefinitely, for example this article's: " Best of Cincinnati "Best Chili (Non-Chain)" award, while Skyline Chili won the "Best Chili (Chain)" award" They could now do it by neighborhoods, or new and long-established, or Texan vs Mexican, and so on. A local establishment can be notable, but not on evidence like this. DGG (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite all arguments against, the article meets all criterion for inclusion. It has multiple reliable secondary sources; not advertising, self-published, or press releases. Not sure if people are using the guidelines at all here to determine inclusion criterion; seems not. Also don't know where the "local awards" are worthless idea comes from; especially given that both were awards given from reliable publishers in the city of Cincinnati (population 330,000). Should be included to expand coverage on Cincinnati chili also, a distinct regional dish. This isn't "Bill and Bob's Hamburger Shack", as this restauraunt is one of a finite group of restaurants in Cincinnati that serves our regionally distinct dish. I'm not sure why two articles by the Cincinnati Enquirer don't meet the secondary source requirement (owned by the Gannett Company, published since 1840; largest circulation in Greater Cincinnati); CiN Weekly, also cited, is published by them. Doesn't make any sense to me, aside from a systematic bias toward small business, in the face of reliable third party publishing. (Mind meal 05:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. A minor local award isn't enough to sustain notability. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this is the most notable "cook", of the defining cuisine, of a large and notable city, in the English-speaking world. Although I can't stomach the stuff, this place makes "the best" dish according to the locals. It's well-sourced, too. Bearian 18:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Being a native Cincinnatian, I know that there is only one location, so this restaurant is clearly not notable. WP:ILIKEIT is not cause to keep. - Gilliam 03:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see WP:ILIKEIT at play here, as Mind meal has added sources to show how this specific restaurant has played a part in the culture and development of Cincinnati chili, an important American regional dish and a critical component of the cultural life of Cincinnati, a major city in the US. Also, only having one location need not automatically exclude inclusion in WP, as long as that one location is somehow notable, as I feel Mind meal has shown. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notabilty beyond its neighborhood. This article is better off in a restaurant guide, where it will be more useful. --Gavin Collins 12:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Where in the standards of notability does it require notability to be "beyond its neighborhood"? Given the sources (and the reasons that Mind meal states), it seems to fit all requirements of WP:N, i.e. multiple independent sources, etc. It doesn't matter if there's only one location either. Where's the requirement in WP:N for there being more than one? Seems to be a lot of WP:IDONTKNOWIT going on here. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to AltLaw. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AltLaw.org[edit]

Duplicates AltLaw page, qualifies for speedy delete Ronnotel 19:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try a redirect. FrozenPurpleCube 19:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes - when I originally proposed AfD, I believed we were going to want to move AltLaw to AltLaw.org. That is no longer the case so I will redirect. Please disregard this AfD request as it is now moot. Ronnotel 19:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 independent, reliable secondary sources. MastCell ^Talk 23:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Enterprises[edit]

Contested prod. In its current form, this article is simply an advertisement; thus I say delete. The Evil Spartan 19:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless article can be heavily rewritten, and assert some kind of notability. Oli Filth 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep article in a sad state, but organization is subject of at least some nontrivial coverage from reliable published sources [7] [8]. Eleland 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - It fails WP:COI, WP:RS, potentially WP:ORG, and maybe WP:SPAM, but if you can accurately add references and take the spammy side out I say keep it. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Premature. I removed the worst of the spam, still needs work. Could be notable, I would like to see a list of universities and an answer to whether or not they are officially affiliated with them. WP:COI subject, but the article is only a week old so I say give it some time. -- Steve Hart 00:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Kerkmans[edit]

Doesn't appear notable enough. He's a beer buyer for a hotel chain. He's done some brewing and some home brew judging. The article doesn't assert any notability. Google search result: [9] SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources giving him significant coverage are found Corpx 01:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Hooperbloob 04:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nihiltres^(t.l) 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 3 vehicles[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. This content is already written in an encyclopedic manner at Halo 3. --- RockMFR 18:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.--JForget 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not game guide Corpx 01:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that a "Vehicles in the Halo Universe" article might be useful if properly written and sourced, but this article violates so many policies that they're almost not worth listing. Rwhealey 02:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the game is notable, so is the role of vehicles in the gameplay, but the individual vehicles are not and any info should be in the main article as a paragraph, not a list. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, moved to wikia:Halo and delete per nom. Carlosguitar 00:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 04:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Hunter[edit]

Completely lacking in reliable third party sources, this article fails WP:BLP, and appears to be of a promotional nature (read: spam) as well. Suggest deletion. Burntsauce 18:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found to assert notability Corpx 01:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not just sourceless, but the claims to notability are extremely thin to begin with. Delete. --Calton | Talk 07:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. --Coppertwig 19:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to lack of reliable sources to establish notability. For the record, as far as I can tell, there was never an AfD regarding this subject, just infractions of CSD A7 and G12, so the content was not subject to speedy deletion as a re-creation of material deleted by an XfD discussion. — TKD::Talk 04:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schatar Taylor[edit]

This article has been deleted before under different page names, and the character does not pass WP:BIO Gamer83 18:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this is a non-notable person. If the page is a true recreation post AfD, then speedy, WP:CSD#G4. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reality show contestants who do not win are nonnotable. Speedy if it's a recreation, per Flyguy.--Sethacus 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - Has not done anything notable outside the show Corpx 01:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete She has had more credits than just Flavor of Love and Flavor of Love Girls: Charm School. She has had many academic and singing achievements as well. There is enough information and credits about her to sustain the article. Besides, I worked really hard on it. :D ~Drew
- Comment None of which is sourced at all......And how hard you worked on the page is totally irrelevant.Gamer83 19:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AFD from 6 days ago was ignored for some reason....Gamer83 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignored how? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 5 days has passed and no deletion decision was made my an Admin? Gamer83 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More like will be gotten to, eventually. There are quite a few unclosed AFDs on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 23. This is almost like starting the clock over (a relist). --Dhartung | Talk 19:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 04:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New 80s Musik[edit]

Non-notable album. Alksub 18:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The artist himself doesn't seem to have an article based on the disamibguation page. I will nominated a song that has an article for deletion too.--JForget 23:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC -- Steve Hart 00:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 04:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coosner[edit]

No indication of notability. Alksub 18:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is found Corpx 01:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A link to the rules of the game does not seem to establish notability. The creators of the game do not currently have encyclopedia entries, but if they're found to be notable perhaps the game could be mentioned on their pages. --Pixelface 15:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Barack Obama. There was obviously no consensus at all to delete here, so the only decision was whether this should be kept as a separate article or merged. Given how short this article is and weighing the opinions below, I see a strong case for a merge at this point based on the strength of the arguments advocating that. The content can always be broken back out in the future if there is enough content and notability to merit a full article.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My.BarackObama.com[edit]

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Blatant advertising and canvassing. An article advertising a website that's sole purpose is to garner support for a candidate in the 2008 presidential election. WebHamster 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and oppose merging. Abides fully by WP:WEB. Read the (many) references at the article. It was a first-of-its kind use of online social networking by a political candidate, and is a part of a notable trend (source: NY Times) toward online social networking. This article is not an advertisement, I created it after seeing this mainstream media coverage which came out today from Reuters. Also, participants in this discussion have ignored my comments about WP:WEB, and two editors have prevented me from providing the three notability criteria here on the page through edit warring. Italia^vivi 16:48, 27 August 2007(UTC)

Links to all 3 of them are repeated several times on this page, none of them have been edited or removed. One man's edit war is another's correction of procedure. WebHamster 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Italiavivi, your accusations against participants [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and some of your edits [17][18][19][20] during this discussion are closely resembling an attempt at WP:POINT. Please refrain from this behavior. Also do not remove valid comments of others[21]. These are all forms of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and are inappropriate. thank you--Hu12 18:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that I have been WP:STALKed from unrelated content disputes is not disruptive editing. Endroit has used this discussion to accuse me of "obsession" with Barack Obama in another content dispute, and I am unapologetic in pointing out his activity. It is funny that Leuko is free to move my comments to the Talk page, but when I apply the same standard to others' comments it is "disruptive" and flogged on the Main (not Talk) page by you. You yourself have tried to pre-empt this AfD by removing MyBO mentions from other Wikipedia articles[22][23]; who's disrupting WP:POINT and WP:NOT#CRYSTAL BALL here? Italia^vivi 18:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another attack, how predictable. Nevertheless, large Large chunks of unnecessary policy text are not appropriate on the main page, that is why it was moved to the talk page. Plenty of links to the appropriate policies exist, as I'm confident those participating have read and understood before commenting. Your lack faith and respect towards your fellow editors and the consensus process is disappointing. Why, under any circumstances, would you feel it necessary to Insult everyone by stating "People who are participating on AfD's need to be force fed WP:N and WP:WEB."[24]? Seems you have quite the plan on How to make personal attacks on Wikipedia and get away with it right on your user page. You are sliding down a very slippery slope--Hu12 19:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My User page ("What I learned from Wikipedia") is an observation of other users' tactics, such as yours. Someone who has tried to pre-empt AfDs by wiping out mentions of an article elsewhere on Wikipedia[25][26] has no place lecturing anyone about disregard for the consensus process. Italia^vivi 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming a link to an article that went straight to afd within a half hour of its creation, does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion required for that list. Sorry. If you hadn't WP:SPAM'd the link, I wouldn't have found its AFD, thanks.--Hu12 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. --Alksub 18:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see nothing inherently spammy about the article. It's supported by multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't really understand the canvassing allegation. -Chunky Rice 18:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As-if this person actually needs free advertising. Burntsauce 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or Merge. It is referenced several times by traditional media sources so seems to meet the notability criteria, but the article could be merged into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 if push comes to shove. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge as per Bobblehead. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 18:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Having followed the discussion and pondered my stance, the more it seems to me that we should merge this worthwhile content into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 11:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge If this article is about the use of online social networking in political campaigns, then change the article name and focus on that. Otherwise, it appears to be an advertisement for a website which violates WP:SPAM. Jogurney 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article's composition is clearly not an advertisement for the website. The specific website -- My.BarackObama.com -- has been by that name discussed in multiple third-party, reliable, mainstream sources. Italia^vivi 18:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can tell, the reliable sources have discussed the trend of using online social networking as a campaign tool. I don't think the individual networking sites are notable or important enough to warrant their own articles. I would support a single article on the topic and it can reference the individual networking sites that are being used. I can't see the justification for setting up individual articles for each - it seems to border on advertising to me. Best regards. Jogurney 18:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In its Page One business piece "BO, U R So Gr8," the Wall Street Journal discusses MyBO and only MyBO. Same with the CNet article. The Reuters piece overwhelmingly highlights MyBO. Italia^vivi 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe I'm misreading it, but the WSJ article clearly refers to multiple websites (Edwards' site gets significant coverage). Sorry, I don't agree with you. Jogurney 19:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Added support for merge per Metropolitan90. Jogurney 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Chunky Rice: notable by citations Tvoz |talk 19:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Barack Obama (or to United States presidential election, 2008), while trimming the contents as much as possible. There's no need to have a separate article on this. See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Endroit 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)(Changing vote, see below)--Endroit 20:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To the closing administrator, User:Endroit has followed me here from another content dispute (WP:STALK) in which we disagree to make a point [27]. He is of course entitled to participate wherever he likes, but his participation and vote should be weighed with that in mind. Italia^vivi 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italiavivi, please discuss the topic at hand, and can you please lay off on your personal attacks? Can anybody give me an example of a similar article about any website, which only covers a single candidate in an election? Please give me examples.--Endroit 23:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that is relevant. The webiste is notable, per Wikipedia's notability criteria. It's written in an NPOV manner. There's no reason to delete it. -Chunky Rice 23:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a first-of-its-kind candidate web site wouldn't have other examples of Wikipedia. Endroit is well aware of this, Chunky. See this content dispute for why Endroit has followed me here. He is a partisan Republican who is trying to sandbag an unrelated content dispute with claims I am "obsessed" with Sen. Obama because I created this new article. Italia^vivi 23:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am here on my independent awareness. And I am entitled to my opinion here, which is: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising any single candidate for an upcoming election.--Endroit 23:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asserting that it lacks notability or that the article is not written in a neutral manner? Because otherwise, I don't see how you can cite WP:SOAP for this article. -Chunky Rice 23:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As unpleasant as that is, I actually agree with Endroit that there's really no need to drag it in here. The article is capable of standing purely based on its own merits. Whether Endroit has some sort of agenda is irrelevant as to the strength of the arguments presented. Right now, I would say that the keep argument is much stronger, and consensus seems to concur. -Chunky Rice 23:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It isn't a first of it's kind. It's just a variation on a theme. It's just a social networking website that's been fine tuned for the adoration of one person, sort of MySpace Lite. WebHamster 23:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it is first or a varaiation, it's notable, given the media coverage. -Chunky Rice 23:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a "MySpace Lite" which has been the subject of considerable independent, third-party, reliable discussion in multiple high-profile mainstream media sources. No one has argued that it is not a social networking site like MySpace; such is clearly stated in the article's introduction. Italia^vivi 23:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it would have garnered any attention if it wasn't for the subject matter, it certainly wan't for the technology. It's the candidate who is notable, not the website.WebHamster 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website is notable because of the coverage of the website. That's how notability works on Wikipedia. Our personal opinions as to whether or not there should have been coverage is irrelevant. -Chunky Rice 00:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editors of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and CNet all seem to disagree with your assessment. The involvement of Chris Hughes alone has drawn specific attention to MyBO the site, distinct from Barack Obama the candidate. Whether or not you consider the coverage warranted is irrelevant. Italia^vivi 00:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can also see this as an opening for all candidates to flood WP with all manner of advertising. It's a slippery slope. (ps, I'm running out of colons!)WebHamster 00:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Un-indent) I do see where you're coming from (there was a recently deleted self-referential article solely on Kucinich.us), but I consider the flood of reliable sources on this particular site enough to stem off the possibility of slope-slipping. So long as we stick to WP:RS and WP:N, adverts won't be a problem, I don't think. Italia^vivi 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is notable for the United States presidential election, 2008 in general, because the cited sources talk about the other candidates as well. However, I believe it is wrong to single out Barack Obama and to write an article about Barack alone based on these sources, due to WP:NPOV concerns. Perhaps, if you changed the title to Social networking websites in the 2008 US Presidential election and expand the scope, it would be OK.--Endroit 00:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Social networking websites in the 2008 US Presidential election (or something similar) and expand the scope to include other candidates, per what I just suggested.--Endroit 00:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC). If that cannot be done, then Merge per others.--Endroit 20:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd concur with that, it covers the notability angle and will allow WP to be impartial (implicitly or explicitly). WebHamster 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like an original research magnet to me. I oppose this novel article idea. Italia^vivi 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV concerns linger with the current title (and coverage).--Endroit 00:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endroit, what is POV about the way this piece is written? The piece is not "about Barack", it is about a ground-breaking website, and it is written in a neutral manner. I am still in agreement with Chunky Rice's comments. Tvoz |talk 00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopedia article, it gives undue weight to a single website My.BarackObama.com. In real life the independent cited sources consider this to be a phenomenom in the 2008 elections, one started by My.BarackObama.com, but imitated by other candidates to different degrees. The cited articles talk about the other candidates objectively. Why doesn't Wikipedia do so as well?--Endroit 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify: Are you alleging that this article has any problems lacking accordance with WP:WEB whatsoever?

Delete or ~~Redirect~~ Merge to Barack Obama. WP:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Should be at most be a section on the Barack Obama. Sadly only Notable as a result of Barack Obama's election run. Short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. I see no evidence predating 2007 that long term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated for Notability.--Hu12 02:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources range from February 2007 (when the site went online) to present. That's six months of streaming coverage, hardly a "short burst." If half a year is not evidence of long-term coverage, I wonder what your definition of "long-term" is, and how anything with less than half a year's coverage could be included in the encyclopedia. 75.23.42.170 02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd go for at least 6 months... after the presidential election when the press feeding frenzy is over. At the moment the press are looking for all sorts of angles on candidates. This I believe is the reason for the press interest in the web site. This sort of media attention is hardly an indicator ot notability, I'd say notoriety is a more accurate term. WebHamster 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Notability concept should be distinct from "fame". Barack Obama seems to be the notable subject of the articles, not My.BarackObama.com. What news there is, does seem to be mainly trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. A sub domain of a 2008 presidential campaign website, with trivial mentions is expected, but fails WP:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary--Hu12 02:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would counter that the Wall Street Journal article is clearly discussing the website and those involved in its implementation, not Sen. Obama himself. Also, would you please cease underlining so much of your text? It is becoming an distraction. Italia^vivi 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fine example of the subject not being about "My.BarackObama.com. Chris Hughes (founder of Facebook Inc), is the subject of the article, "How a young tech entrepreneur...". Facebook is mentioned 19 times as opposed to My.BarackObama.com which has trivial mentions only 3 times. A clear imbalance. As WebHamster stated the press is only looking for angles. --Hu12 03:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Although this article does have some citations to news coverage, the text of this article is only 5 sentences long and could easily be merged into the main campaign article. The web site is not that notable outside the context of the campaign. Keep in mind that Www.kucinich.us was just deleted and salted a couple of days ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.kucinich.us, which is not exactly a favorable precedent. --Metropolitan90 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the Kucinich.us article above. Kucinich.us was an entirely self-referential article (based on its own content), and had no discussion in the media. Italia^vivi 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Leuko 05:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a really good reason to have an article on everybody's campaign website? Anything worth mentioning can be mentioned in the campaign article. --B 06:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "an article on everybody's campaign site," it is an article on a social networking site used by a campaign which has met WP:WEB's notability guidelines in every way. These are the most mainstream of mainstream sources -- NY Times, Reuters, Wall Street Journal. "Articles on everybody's web sites" won't appear because they will fail WP:N and WP:WEB. And greetings from the Talk:Fred Thompson content dispute which you are involved in with me, B. Italia^vivi 14:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. Everyking 08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Metropolitan90. --ElKevbo 08:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Metropolitan90. Thin Arthur 08:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding Metropolitan90's point Merging is better than deleting, but that it is presently only 5 sentences long should not be a reason for that action now - it is clearly identified as a stub, and as such editors should be given an opportunity to expand it. Tvoz |talk 00:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge One article per candidate is quite sufficient. Wikipedia should avoid becoming just another tool in political campaigns. Beorhtric 11:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has never only had "one article per candidate." Please assume good faith instead of implying that other editors are using Wikipedia as a campaign tool. Italia^vivi 14:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you presume that the accusation is that you are using it as a tool? Please use your own repeated mantra "assume good faith". The website itself is a tool in the campaign, as such any mentions of it or references to it are also tools to the same end. WebHamster 14:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to make accusations of bad faith back and forth on this - there are actually facts we can look at: the substance of Beorhtric's comment is not consistent with the reality of Wikipedia - just about all of the major candidates have multiple forked off articles, so I don't follow the logic of that "merge" position. Tvoz |talk 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tvoz. A reminder per WP:AGF. Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack.--Hu12 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable and well made short article. Turtlescrubber 16:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Existence and coverage is not the same as notability. Vegaswikian 04:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and I must be reading different versions of WP:N. Italia^vivi 05:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons noted above. --David Shankbone 20:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple independent reliable sources Will ^(talk) 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Metro90. Giving this web phenomena its own article is a fine example of undue weight. (goes and makes a profile) Kyaa the Catlord 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking over the article (and trying to fix it up some), I think it should be merged to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Unlikely ever to develop into a featured article, undue weight, notability concerns, etc. all good arguments. Merge to the campaign article until section is too large to handle there. Then split into its own article. No need to get ahead of ourselves. We have plenty of time to split it back out if needed later. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The website isn't particularly notable, but it's highly relevant to Obama, who is most assuredly notable. The content of the website article could easily become part of the "Presidential campaign" section on Obama's article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into campaign article per the merge suggestions above. Friday (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into campaign article, for the reasons others have described above. This one seems pretty clear. —ptk✰fgs 22:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; sources establish notability for this website. Some of them could also be used to establish notability for social networking sites for other candidates. I see no reason why we can't have neutrally worded pages discussing each of these websites, as well as a general article discussing the use of social networking sites in political campaigns. This article complies with all Wikipedia guidelines; there's no reason to delete or merge it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into campaign article or keep. It's very short, and there's really not much to be said about it (it could even be reworded and be shorter, with the same amount of info). It's interesting, but I don't really see the concept expanding to a point where you can say anything more about it. I would not oppose keeping the article independent, but from an organizational standpoint, regardless of notability, I'd merge the topic. -- Ned Scott 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the notability of the website if wholly derivative of the candidacy of Barack Obama, like a prior candidates 1-800 phone number that also got press. Carlossuarez46 00:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The subject of several of the references is the broader campaign, or the entire web domain (barackobama.com, not the my. subdomain). Several editors have made excellent merge arguments, with which I wholeheartedly concur. UnitedStatesian 16:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasSpeedily deleted (G4) by user:Jaranda. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Aurora (Flavor of Love)[edit]

This article has already been deleted multiple times. See here for discussion [28]. On top of this, the contestant fails WP:BIO. Gamer83 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and SALT - Larissa Aurora was protected due to recreation and so should this based on previous AFD Corpx 18:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold Mathematics resolves the Primes Enigma and Riemann Hypothesis.[edit]

Pseudomathematics and original research. Deprodded by author. Alksub 17:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like an essay to me, unless somebody can prove otherwise Corpx 18:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from the article: "Being relatively new, there is no readily available fund of sources and references for directly verifying it, although it is now circulating in the world of human thought and so is an element of human culture." But feel free to come back when a fund becomes readily available. You probably don't want to know what's circulating in my world of human thought right now either. Mandsford 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smacks of OR and unsupported by reliable sources. Zero relevant hits in Google Scholar. Dbromage [Talk] 23:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources for content, apparently original research. The Primes Enigma & Riemann's Hypothesis: Resolved by Threshold Mathematics was deleted 4 days before this was created. PrimeHunter 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although it makes for an enthralling, don't-believe-my-eyes, "cosmic" reading, obviously delete per all of the above. Isn't there a museum for such rare gems? --Goochelaar 11:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither Physics Today nor Wikipedia publishes original research. Sorry. Bearian 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unadulterated speculation. Now if it were entitled "Voodoo mathematics" I'd have to rethink my position … ;^> DavidCBryant 23:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, at best. Paul August ☎ 03:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NEO. According to SPA author, Threshold Pilot, a company named "Pathway Initiatives Ltd." holds the copyright to the "Threshold" idea; I don't believe one can copyright mathematical theories, so it appears to be more of a "mathematical philosophy" (i.e., speculation). Askari Mark (Talk) 05:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If any source even remotely "NPOV" says the Riemann hypothesis has been resolved, it would be on the front page of every newspaper. Michael Hardy 02:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: I don't see the usual boilerplate "current event" notice at Riemann hypothesis. Hence....
Delete as I just explained in the "Comment" and "PS" above. Michael Hardy 02:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
propose to speedy close as DELETE per strong agreement that article is essentially an essay and original research (to which I too strongly agree). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 12:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 04:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auctionplayer[edit]

Non-notable ebay software company, whose only google hits seem to be a glutton of self-promotional spam: [29]. The Evil Spartan 17:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:ADS. Web rankings don't indicate notability if all hits are spam. shoeofdeath 20:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB due to lack of sources per criteria #1. Self-promotion doesn't count. Italia^vivi 19:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 04:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Harrington[edit]

This article fails WP:BLP due to a lack of reliable third party sources, and in its present form reads like an over-glorified resume of sorts. Suggest deletion due to non-notability and potential vanity. Burntsauce 17:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as there is nothing negative asserted, it does not fail BLP; as the positive information is unsourced, it does need some references. It would seem that notable things are asserted , os it would be worth a try by people who know about "Circe" and similar open-source projects. DGG (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN! (Somebody had to say it.) He's the creator of the now-defunct WP:BJAODN, and according to the article, he's done some other interesting activities. I say keep as notable. Shalom ^Hello 18:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doing something on wiki does not make you notable. Just ask Larry Sanger. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO due to a lack of reliable, independent sources about the person. Being "interesting" is immaterial (WP:ILIKEIT) if the subject hasn't received any type of third party coverage. Creating the now-defunct BJAODN doesn't make you notable beyond the bounds of Wikipedia either, sorry. RFerreira 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and RFerreira. Requires reliable, third-party sources to assert notability, which are lacking. Xihr 02:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:OUTCOMES and WP:SNOW, consensus has proven time and time again that any village, city, town, etc. is inherently notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andavadoaka[edit]

non-notable fishing village in remote location of Madagascar; article makes only half-hearted assertion of notability. It was created by someone connected to the non-profit organization that, the article asserts, is based there, yet the organization itself doesn't even have a page. This article seems like a way for the organization to get itself on wikipedia without having to create a clearly COI article about itself, and to plug it as an ecotourism destination. I know some people think that any location on earth is inherently notable and deserving an article, so I figured I'd bring it here for discussion. Apollo58 17:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the argument that any location on earth is inherently notable and merits an article. That is the existing precedent. If this wasn't a real place, that might merit something else, but I'll at least need some argument as to it not being recognized by the gov't. FrozenPurpleCube 17:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a bit strong to call that a "precedent"? In my opinion it's not a precedent but rather a rationale that some people use, while another set of users believe exactly the opposite. I certainly have seen enough AfDs close with little discussion or interest and then get used as a "precedent" a week later. -Apollo58 17:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there are literally dozens of cases where it's been used over the course of several years. That's not a weak precedent at all. FrozenPurpleCube 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, do we really know this is an officially recognized place? There aren't any citations independant of the (arguably) spam site of the people who created the article. The only google hits are the same article, mirrors of it, and mirrors of wikipedia. Is this location just a neighborhood of a larger town? Is it nothing but a collection of huts that this NPO is choosing to call a village, perhaps for political purposes? I don't know, and neither will anybody judging from the content of the article. Given that situation, does that change the relation of this article to WP:OUTCOMES?-Apollo58 18:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to make an effort to find out whether or not this locale has official recognition by anyone. That would be a valid argument for deletion. However, the onus of doing that is up to you. FrozenPurpleCube 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that it is a hoax, on the contrary it gets far too many mentions for that. According to [30] (and several other websites) the village has a population of 1200, so it's not "a collection of huts that this NPO is choosing to call a village". Hut 8.5 18:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Madagascar government says it has a population of 1,100. [31] --Oakshade 18:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, villages are inherently notable, regardless of size, and this precedent is longstanding. Some spammy material could be removed though. Hut 8.5 17:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a real village that people live and work in. It is inherently notable. That's why WP:OUTCOMES (a successor to WP:AFDP, the "P" standing for "precedent) has always kept population centers. --Oakshade 18:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, villages such as there are inherently notable and worthy of encyclopedic note. Burntsauce 18:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, which will have to do until there is a formal guideline regarding notability of human settlements. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 04:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special Needs Advocates for Understanding[edit]

Non-profit for supporting special needs children and their families. Wonderful goals, but fails notability for organizations. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 16:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources giving significant coverage are found Corpx 18:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable not-for-profit. Reads like an advertisement. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to list of GURPS books. This appears to be the outcome acceptable to most participants in this discussion. Later recommendations to keep have not found material other than user-submitted reviews or have not argued why this individual book is notable; bear in mind that notability is not inherited. — TKD::Talk 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Technomancer[edit]

This article fails to establish the book's Notability, and serves only a spammy advertorial. --Gavin Collins 16:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a published book by a major publisher for a notable game system. Concerns about advertorial nature are best suited with cleanup, not deletion. Or consider a redirect to List of GURPS books. Even if you argue that not all individual GURPS books are notable, it's hardly unreasonable to say that listing them isn't valid as the RPG system is quite notable. FrozenPurpleCube 16:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK - in lacking coverage from "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent" Corpx 18:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you feel about a redirect? FrozenPurpleCube 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that's fine too. Looks like most of the books with articles in List of GURPS Books fall in this same category Corpx 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GURPS books until non-trivial sources can be found to substantiate this article. I'm sure they're out there, but I'm not seeing them. Burntsauce 18:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it probably doesn't help that the book was originally printed in 1998, so existing contemporary reviews in the relevant magazines may not be on the Internet very much. FrozenPurpleCube 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I believe this subject is notable, but that doesn't excuse us from keeping with our verifiability standards. Redirects make good placeholders until said sources turn up. Burntsauce 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I agree with you, and I'm willing to go with a redirect pending further improvement. FrozenPurpleCube 18:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book must have been reviewed in hobby publications at the time of printing, given the notability of the publisher and parent RPG, but I can't find anything online. Until someone can locate them and use them to support an independent article, a redirect seems acceptable. -Chunky Rice 21:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FrozenPurpleCube and per at least some reviews (in spite of it not being very recent) at RPGnet website: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Goochelaar 11:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They look like user submitted reviews Corpx 15:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GURPS books - not notable per WP:BK but worth a mention there. Percy Snoodle 15:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm turning into a parrot:- GURPs is a significant RPG system and its world books a great gaming resources.KTo288 19:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of GURPS books is my opinion, too - there are lots of GURPS books, many of which are only interesting to a handful of hard-core gamers - and Technomancer is one of them. WeepingElf 16:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FrozenPurpleCube couldnt be better put --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symphonies by number[edit]

Possile marginal A3 speedy or even A1 speedy (who's symphonies? Everyone's, I think, but it does not say.). But in general, I just don't see the point of this. It only serves to hold the one template. Most of the incoming links are from pages that already have the same template, so it's redundant to them. Just does not appear useful to me. TexasAndroid 16:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not only is it redundant but it's an illogical and counterintuitive way to list anything, it's like listing national capitals in order of their countries' GDPs. --Apollo58 18:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No list content. --Alksub 18:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Listcruft, but indexed. Bearian 18:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Apollo58. The articles it links to are valid disambiguation pages; it is not. --Coppertwig 19:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 00:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uzel Holding[edit]

Tractor manufacturer. Article keeps getting re-created here or at Uzel Corporation. Clearly written by someone with a COI. Unsalvageable spam / non-notable company / just needs cleanup? -- RHaworth 15:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Keep and clean up. Turkey's leading tractor-maker, international customer base, multiple subsidiaries outside Turkey. --Dhartung | Talk 16:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the article is written rather bad and it feels like an ad. The problem is: Uzel is notable. I work in John Deeres AG-Division and Uzel most definitely rings a bell. As stated above: Turkey's leading tractor-maker. 1redrun ^Talk 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and cleanup. Needs serious revision but seems notable enough to have its own article. bwowen talk•contribs 14:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deniz^T_C 18:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

\ماشین سوزن[edit]

nonsense Gfzh 15:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, expired translation request with no apparent interest in salvaging it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terribly Arabic. Delete per nom. Big top 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
USERFY somewhere and Delete - I do not think foreign language articles should be allowed to stay "up" while translation requests are being processed. Corpx 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm almost certain this is Persian. The title says "Point machine or point lock". Look at the creator's other edits to see where his interests lie. The link directs to a German company which makes rail points. Possible WP:COI. I doubt if there's anything worth translating here. --Folantin 18:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can we possibly know that it's not libelous until someone who knows Arabic or Persian reviews it? (Both languages use just about the same alphabet/script, don't they?) It could be anything, including gibberish. Isn't there some kind of speedy-delete rule about non-English postings? Noroton 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was. Now, it's only speedy if it's already in another Wikipedia's language, apparently. --UsaSatsui 04:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs translation, but it is possible to contain WP:OR. Carlosguitar 21:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 13:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hey, when did criteria A-2 change, anyways? --UsaSatsui 04:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT This article is up for translation and if anyone took the time to read the box on the article's page, you would see that any article that has not been translated in two weeks is up for deletion. Considering it has not been two weeks yet (it is closer to a week), then I think this discussion is premature. Postcard Cathy 12:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in Persian. It contains a few short definitions of terms related to rail points plus an external link to a manufacturer of said points. There is nothing here of any value to translate. --Folantin 12:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Folantin. It says it will be listed for deletion if not translated in two weeks; it doesn't say it can't be listed earlier. --Coppertwig 20:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - articles in Arabic script have no place in the English-language WP. Alternatively, transfer it to its own language WP. I not ethe two following items were speedy-ed. I think my vote should be Speedy delete for this too. Peterkingiron 18:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nonsense - Note that there is no criterion for speedying for not being in english, unless the article is at that language's WP. On the other hand nonsense, coyvio, etc, criteria apply regardless of language. - Nabla 17:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

گولبوليوم[edit]

nonsense Gfzh 14:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, give it a little more time for the translation request. I have no clue what it says so I cannot speak on the value of this article itself, but it should be given the benefit of the doubt. Once the translation request is expired, if no one has fixed it, then it can be deleted. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is already under a time-limited translation request. This nomination is premature. --Dhartung | Talk 15:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terribly Arabic. Delete per nom. Big top 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
USERFY somewhere and Delete - I do not think foreign language articles should be allowed to stay "up" while translation requests are being processed. Corpx 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can we possibly know that it's not libelous until someone who knows Arabic reviews it? It could be anything, including gibberish. Isn't there some kind of speedy-delete rule about non-English postings? Noroton 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

الأحماض التي يمكن ربطها معاً بمختلف الإرتباطات لتكوين سلسل بروتينية. مكونات 'لسلسلة حماض الامينية والتتابع الذي تترتب فيه تلك الاحماض على طوللسلسلة يحدد كيفية التفاف السلسلة في هيئة ثلاثية الابعاد وربما ترتبط بسلاسل أخرى.Mandsford 22:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Noroton. I don't know whether this is Arabic, Farsi, or something else, but neither the Arabic nor Farsi Wikipedia has any article by this name. Furthermore, the article is only one sentence long, so if it gets deleted we won't lose much. I disagree with the idea that a foreign language article placed on the English Wikipedia is entitled to remain for 14 days before being deleted, while an English-language article can be speedied in minutes, or go to WP:PROD or WP:AFD and be deleted within 5 days. Foreign language articles should be deleteable speedily or within 5 days too. --Metropolitan90 03:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Translation (?) Persian. Provisional and very hesitant translation: "Gulbulium is one of the rarest elements which exists in the galaxy. It was first discovered by Gijoolzade in the month of Aban in the (solar) year 1304". News to me. Speedy delete as nonsense (Iranians make up things in school one day too). --Folantin 07:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unverifiable. — The Storm Surfer 21:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be nonsense. --UsaSatsui 04:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on Folatin's translation, speedily if possible. Apparently it can't be speedied because it is not in English...? If so, that policy looks like an invitation to vandals to prevent speedies by use of unicode gibberish. Leibniz 12:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nonsense - Note that there is no criterion for speedying for not being in english, unless the article is at that language's WP. On the other hand nonsense, coyvio, etc, criteria apply regardless of language. - Nabla 17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

گيجولزاده[edit]

nonsense Gfzh 14:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, give it a little more time for the translation request. I have no clue what it says so I cannot speak on the value of this article itself, but it should be given the benefit of the doubt. Once the translation request is expired, if no one has fixed it, then it can be deleted. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is already under a time-limited translation request. This nomination is premature. --Dhartung | Talk 15:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gfzh - there's a reason why the translation tag exist- and a translation tag does not translate into a delete tag.--danielfolsom 16:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
USERFY somewhere and Delete - I do not think foreign language articles should be allowed to stay "up" while translation requests are being processed. Corpx 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title of the article is the name of the creator User:Gijoolzade. I can't be bothered to revive my language skills enough to translate the rest but that should be enough to sow suspicion (name gets precisely 1 Google hit, viz. the WP user page itself). I doubt if there's anything to save here. --Folantin 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can we possibly know that it's not libelous until someone who knows Arabic reviews it? It could be anything, including gibberish. Isn't there some kind of speedy-delete rule about non-English postings? Noroton 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They can be speedily deleted only if they already exist on another Wikimedia project. (In this case, ar.wikipedia.org) The Arabic Wikipedia has no such article. Gracenotes^T § 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same applies for the Persian Wikipedia (the language is mentioned below). If the alphabet isn't Latin, it's likely I can't identify it :) Gracenotes^T § 08:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Noroton. I disagree with the idea that a foreign language article placed on the English Wikipedia is entitled to remain for 14 days before being deleted, while an English-language article can be speedied in minutes, or go to WP:PROD or WP:AFD and be deleted within 5 days. Foreign language articles should be deleteable speedily or within 5 days too. --Metropolitan90 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update Definitely Persian. It's saying that Gijoolzade was the discoverer of the element gulbulium (!). --Folantin 07:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if Folantin is correct (and I have no reason to doubt him!) This could then even fall under CSD A1 as patent nonsense. Pedro | Chat 07:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt at translation "Gijoolzade: doctor and discoverer of the element gulbulium. Gijoolzade took a great deal of effort to make this discovery and afterwards because of the discovery he received a prize [not sure of the details of the award but it possibly involves a “big rose”]". Now we have a translation of sorts can we speedy delete this dreck along with its fellow article on "gulbulium"? --Folantin 11:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 13:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be nonsense. --UsaSatsui 04:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 keeps were awaiting a translation that never came, but German appears to be unencyclopedic with a possibility of copyvio admixture. Carlossuarez46 00:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dabak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dabak

nonsense Gfzh 14:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, give it a little more time for the translation request. I have no clue what it says so I cannot speak on the value of this article itself, but it should be given the benefit of the doubt. Once the translation request is expired, if no one has fixed it, then it can be deleted. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I competent german, you not competent german, article german nonsense
- translate german nonsense to english nonsense then delete? silly you?
- Gfzh 15:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, not silly me, I am not suggesting it be translated into English only to be deleted. What I said was give it the usual 2 weeks on WP:PNT. If no one translates it by then, at that point it can be deleted. For what it's worth the short discussion on [[37]] indicates this has some kind of Turkish history content which may or may not be salvageable, but that's not for me to determine as I cannot read it. That's why we wait 2 weeks to see if the volunteer translators will pick it up - if not we can assume it is not worthy of keeping and delete it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm sure there's many Germans on the English Wikipedia that are fluent in both English and German and can translate. Google translate isn't accurate enough for me unfortunately :p jacĸrм | speak ~ 15:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gfzh, I must request that you assume good faith and remain civil. When your nomination consists of a single word, how are we to know that you are asserting it is unintelligible in a language you speak? --Dhartung | Talk 15:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
USERFY somewhere and Delete - I do not think these articles should stay "up" while translation requests are being processed. Corpx 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google's translation shows this is not encyclopedic content, i.e. "God is praised he gives you and your son the art and the gift the world to lead" cannot possibly be expositive. --Alksub 18:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article in rather bad German claiming a "Dabak" was a member of a secret society of warriors (the Divan'ı-Dabak'un) dedicated to protecting the Ottoman sultan from conspiracies. It then goes on a little inconsequentially about a dream the founder of the Ottoman dynasty, Osman I, is supposed to have had. This isn't top quality material (it can't seem to decide whether Osman's wife is Mal Hatun or Bala Hatun). No sources, no references. There is no entry under this title on Turkish Wikipedia. --Folantin 07:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopaedic, as Alksub claimed: "gestiegen und gestiegen" translates as "and it rose and it rose". As Folantin claimed, very bad German. Strange subordination of clauses, and co-ordination of clauses and sentences without coordinator (eg and, but, or) which leads me to suspect that this was translated from a language with the same grammatial structure as Turkish into "German" by a non-native who only mastered spoken German (note that many substantives are spelled without a capitalized first letter, while one verb form is capitalized - a dead give-away usually). There is nothing on "Dabak" at German wiki. You will have to wait until Kingdom come for someone willing to sacrifice time to translate this gibberish into English, so why wait? --Pan Gerwazy 10:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Folantin's summary translation from the German. The article is nonsense and an apparent hoax. -Fagles 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. It is essentially a poor-quality German rendering of most of an English-language article on Osman Gazi at www.theottomans.org. It's unclear to me that this material is anything but a legend about Osman Gazi. The bits about Dabak and the "Divan'ı-Dabak'un" appear to be the only "original" material (in that I could find nothing on it at that website) and an all-languages search on Google turns up nothing on it. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As New England points out, IMDB alone is not enough to satisfy notability (in fact, WP:MOVIE explicitly excludes IMDB from counting toward it). The lack of other reliable sources for this film means that the article cannot satisfy verifiability or notability at this time. — TKD::Talk 04:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Warehouse[edit]

Speedy Delete Non-notable training film production Happylabel
Delete unless reviews/sources giving coverage are found Corpx 18:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is on IMDB, which is some notability. However, it seems to have no other claims to notability. It definitely needs some work though. Neranei (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Newly released indie film. Bearian 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some assertion of notability (listing on IMBD). But now reviews, or other sources indicate its not notable enough. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to lack of independent reliable sources to establish notability. — TKD::Talk 05:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitina Thomas[edit]

Sourceless bio on non-notable vanity-press (PublishAmerica) author. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by the article's creator. Calton | Talk 14:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO, no WP:RS. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity press author. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Established author, model and actress everything can be verified on websites.. Prettycitygirl (User talk:Prettycitygirl) 12:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Note: creator of article.[reply]

Given that the listed websites are Thomas's, no they can't. --Calton | Talk 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable author. Maybe down the road, but not now. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Although fairly evenly split there is no clear consensus to delete, hence it stays. There are also good arguments that it can be cleaned up and significantly improved. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 21:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius in fiction[edit]

Long list of trivial references (some even admit to being passing mentions), unacceptable per WP:NOT#TRIVIA. All genuine cultural significance is well covered by the main article. Eyrian 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This is an important list of culturally significant references to the star Sirius in works of fiction, not trivial at all. Lists of related subjects are an important part of Wikipedia; attempts to "purify" or "cleanse" Wikipedia of them amount to a dangerously obsessive type of vandalism. RandomCritic 14:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "cultural significance" might that be (other than as an easily recognized star name for lazy science fiction writers to reach for) and where are the actual discussions of said "cultural significance"? --Calton | Talk 14:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --SkyWalker 14:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another collection of random bullet points of entries in the "Spot the Word in the Video Game/Book/TV Show/Movie/Comic Book I Just Saw the Other Day" game. --Calton | Talk 14:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale is false. First, the entries are not at all random; second, the inclusion of a reference in this list depends upon the significant appearance of the star in the plot of the work of fiction referenced, not the mere appearance of the word. RandomCritic 14:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name one that is significant. Perhaps "Rama (1989-1993) series of novels by Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee. One of the Raman vessels leaves the Solar System for a node in the Sirius system."? Or "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979) series by Douglas Adams. The Sirius Cybernetics Corporation is a fictional company.", where little more than the name is used? As I've said, all the real cultural impact is covered in the main article. Purging the trivia leaves an empty article. --Eyrian 14:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they are all significant. Most of them are science fictional references to planets in the Sirius system. The word "trivia" is being abused by nominator to mean no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Something is not trivial simply because it offends somebody's aesthetic sense.RandomCritic 14:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply wrong. These things have no bearing on Sirius the star. They aren't a part of popular perception, nor do they have significant cultural impact. They are minute, insignificant, inconsequential details, which tell us nothing about the star's (well communicated, in the main article) cultural importance. --Eyrian 15:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That the references mentioned are "insignificant and inconsequential" is, in the first place, an opinion of the nominator which he has not troubled to demonstrate (insofar as it is demonstrable); and, in the second place, it is quite false. Let's consider some of the examples:

Lucky Starr series: The antagonism of the Sirians to the humans of the Solar System is the key connecting theme of the whole series. The fact that they live in the Sirian, as part of the first wave of human expansion, is a central plot point.
The Starlight Barking: The mythological relationship between Sirius and dogs, as seen through the personification of the star itself as a dog, is central to the plot.
Wasp (novel): The conflict between the Sirian Empire and Terra is basic to the whole novel.
Dogsbody (novel): The entire book turns around the embodiment of Sirius in canine form.
Children of the Dog Star: Entirely focused on contacts between Earth and Sirius.

To claim that these works have no "significant cultural impact" is preposterous; to say that whole stories that revolve around Sirius "have no bearing on Sirius the star" and are "minute, insignificant, inconsequential details", is -- like this nomination -- simply not serious. No pun intended. RandomCritic 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entities named for the star that are important to a work of fiction does not translate to the work of fiction being important to the star. --Eyrian 20:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The works of fiction named appear to feature the star, not entities named for the star. Or are you concerned that the work of fiction should have a direct effect on the stellar body in some way? That would seem a bit of a stretch. Artw 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the physical star, clearly. But the cultural perception needs to have a general change. These examples most certainly do not do that. --Eyrian 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. Children of the Dog Star certainly had an effect on me as a kid, being the way I first heard that there was anything remotely unusual or spooky about Sirius. Artw 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so everything that affects at least one person's perception of something should be in the corresponding article? Verifiability be damned? I see. --Eyrian 20:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the argument known as WP:APATHY, or perhaps it should be WP:INEVERHEARDOFIT. It's not a valid argument. These are widely sold, widely known works of art, and of course they have a cultural impact. The notability criteria are more than met. RandomCritic 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning their notability; those aren't the articles nominated for deletion. The question in whether there is anything about Sirius in fiction that is constructed from secondary sources, rather than an assortment of primary ones. --Eyrian 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In general or on a case by case basis? Artw 21:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it did win a pretty major award, so I expect other people watched it too. It's pretty notable, and I don't see a WP:V issue at all - possibly you are letting your general dislike of any reference to fiction get in the way of good judgement here? Artw 20:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The use of Sirius in fiction goes back to the True Story by Lucian of Samosata. Much of this material is not in fact "trivial", and if it contains matters thought to be so, that's solved by editing, not by deletion. Much of this material could probably be merged back into the article in chief about Sirius, or to the article on Dog Days, which probably deserves to be more conspicuous in the article about the star itself. Until that happens, this should stay. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep article is in a bad way, very listcrufty, but the topic itself is probably notable and I'm sure the article was ~~created as flypaper to protect Sirius from cruft~~ a spinout per WP:SUMMARY. It needs to be rewritten rather than deleted. Eleland 15:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per list of loosely associated items. Any minor mention in a fictional work would warrant inclusion into this list and WP is not the place to come and document every time you see _____ in a tv show/movie/book. Corpx 16:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of non-associated items based solely on the coincidence of name. No better than the List of people named John. Otto4711 16:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This criticism is absolutely false, and is either in bad faith, or is based on not even bothering to look at the page. Nothing is on the page that does not refer to the star Sirius.RandomCritic 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I'm getting pretty damn tired of your bogus half-assed accusations. I did look at the page, and it's nothing but a list of things that happen be named or mention "Sirius." There is nothing that shows the things are related to each other. There is nothing that indicates that the people who picked the name "Sirius" were doing so because of its associations with other things on the list or that the people were even aware of the other things on the list. It's a list of "hey look, something called 'Sirius,' let me get to my computer and add it like it means something!" junk that suffers from the same problem as so many other of these trivia lists. The existence of Thing A that shares a name or an element with Thing B doesn't mean that Thing A and Thing B have any relationship to each other and these repeated claims that they do are nothing but original research. Otto4711 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, all the items on the list refer to the star Sirius and not "things that happen to be named Sirius". It is very, very bad to try to justify a deletion based on a false characterization of the page. RandomCritic 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the fact that a handful of random independent writers all happened to pick the same name for use in their fiction doesn't mean that the things bear any relation to each other. It is very, very bad to argue to keep an article that is nothing but trivia and OR by ignoring the crux of the arguments against it. Otto4711 22:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with RandomCritic - you're mischaracterising the article. Artw 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really. Where is the material in the article that isn't just a list of things called "Sirius"? Where are the reliable sources that establish that there is a relationship between these various items past the use of the name? I'm always happy to consider sources but where are they? Otto4711 22:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the article being just a list of " things called sirius" - plainly it isn't. Have you even read the article? I think perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse here.

On sources - possibly you should follow the links if you want to find them? Artw 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sirius features majory in a number of important works, some covered here, some that can be added. Artw 16:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the article being just a list - plainly it is, as there is nothing to the article but a list of things called "Sirius." On sources, where are the ones that indicate that the subject of "Sirius in fiction" has been the subject of reliable sources? There don't appear to be any in the article. Otto4711 06:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dumping ground for trivial notations. Facts in fiction works are not inherently notable. MarkinBoston 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I know this can only be a magnet for partisan discussions of "I Do/Don't like it," wikipedia is not the place for trivia dumps, no matter how many people assert that a single mention of a single word in a marginally noteworthy bit of cultural product is "inherently notable."-Apollo58 17:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FIVE, this is yet another list of loosely related trivia disguised as an encyclopedia article. Burntsauce 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just a list. It doesn't say why the authors chose Sirius - proximity to Earth? Likelihood of it actually supporting Earthlike planets? It just sounded good? It's not like golden age SF that put warlike people on Mars because of its long association with gods of war - it's just a recognisable star name, and most of those books could search-and-replace the name and not be significantly altered.--Jamoche 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally, good fiction does not need, nor include, a statement from the author as to why they chose the subject. Nor do I get the statement that this is a list of "things called Sirius"... the idea appears to be books, films, etc. that reference the well-known star Sirius and the inevitable planets that would have to exist in order to make it a decent setting for a science fiction story. Although it could be merged back into the main article-- I mean, how much do we actually know about the Dog Star?-- the existence of this article does not pose any Serious problems. Mandsford 00:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction doesn't need to say why it uses a term, no, but WP lists do need some reason to put things in a list beyond them all having the same name. --Jamoche 00:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting stuff, the kind of aggregation of disparate things that could probably only happen on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Calton, and most of the keep votes are of the ilk of "this is interesting" or "it's not hurting anyone", which is not a reason to keep an article. Dannycali 16:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO. The article is populated with trivial mentions of the star Sirius, instances of the mere use of the word "Sirius," or fictional counterparts to the star "Sirius," as others have pointed out, and it does not accomplish what it should: to prove the importance of Sirius in fiction, and what makes it notable. Without reliable, secondary sources that prove said notability, this article is just a laundry list. My favorite example of "bzuh?" from this article is Sirius' connection to Tolkien's "The Silmarillion" -- "Sirius is called Helluin by the Elves." Yes, that's what it says, and, no, it isn't just me not liking it; it's me pointing out its non-notability, superfluousness, and trivial state, along with 99% of this article. Cleaning it up will not help matters either, I'm afraid, since once indiscriminate material is removed, the article will have two sentences left. María (críticame) 18:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup. I agree with Eleland that topic itself is notable and is a useful spinout per WP:SUMMARY. Although some items are trivia, others are not, as explained by RandomCritic and Artw. Although it would be nice to have the article pruned and expanded with prose, an article should not be deleted merely because it is badly written.-Fagles 20:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. I think that something like Mars in fiction should be our goal. The article as it stands is pretty far from that, but it is acheivable. Artw 21:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not far at all. The entries there are organized chronologically. That's about it. --Eyrian 21:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    - Maybe you cna try deleting that one too. Good luck. Artw 21:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil; we should be discussing the article, not sniping at other editors. María (críticame) 23:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit as with any other article that contains encyclopedic and nonencyclopedic content. There is unfortunately every reason to expect that every last one of the articles dealing with every possible theme used in works of human creativity will be nominated for deletion. The hypothesis is apparently that while the authors of works of art may be important, and possibly the publication history and a word or two about the plot, nothing else about them is. DGG (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, incorrect. It's just that that importance needs to be demonstrated by a reliable source, just like everything else in Wikipedia. --Eyrian 16:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Each of the items on the page should have a blue link to an article that meets WP:NOTE, establishes the item has Sirius as a major theme (and not just "something named Sirius"), and is a work of fiction. Any judgement calls on top of that are purely subjective, so a matter for consesus. You seem to be arguing that each and ever item on the page needs it's own cite on the page, which I don't see supported by any policies. Artw 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether Sirius appears, it's whether that appearance is significant. That significance needs to be cited, otherwise the article is just a collection of insignificant data, i.e. a trivia collection. From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I challenge that significance for all of these entries. Therefore,the significance should be attributed to a reliable, published source with an inline citation. --Eyrian 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You're really reaching here. WP:V would refer to the factual content, not the importance of the content. So you oculd challenge "Canopus in Argos series of novels by Doris Lessing. Star-visitors from Sirius play a part in Earth's history" under WP:V, and remove it if no one could provide sources for that, but you can't use WP:V to demand a cite for the relative importance of that fact. Artw 18:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. We're not discussing significance of the fact within the work, but significance to a larger culture. Do you think things that aren't significant to culture should be included in these sorts of lists? A work can be used to justify the significance of plot elements within itself, but not in a broader societal context. --Eyrian 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with WP:V or it's applicability here. Artw 18:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. By placing something on such a list, it's societal importance is being asserted. That assertion needs to be verified. --Eyrian 18:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Eyrian, this is at best a reason for challenging individual items on the article talk page where they strength of the evidence can be discussed. . If this is the basis of your objection, you mean keep and edit, not delete. If we deleted every articles with some questionable content, what would be left? WP is more than an encyclopedia of GAs. Of course, there is a purpose to a more selective encyclopedia. Why not set up your own fork? The license permits, and the software is available, and then you can choose whichever articles you want. DGG (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I move for deletion only when removal of the trivia leaves nothing. As it would in this case. There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia policy or (much of) the community; it usually works out in the end. --Eyrian 05:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

comment I've made some updates to the article for Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas, including a reference which establishes the DOgon, their beliefs and the Sirius mysteries as major themes in the book. Sirius is integral to the book, and was not picked arbitarily, and the title of the book itself is a farily obvious reference to the Nommo. This seems fairly relevant given the number of people basing their delete votes on this being "list of things that just happen to be called Sirius". Artw 07:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still no evidence of general cultural relevance. --Eyrian 07:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If the people who give their rational for deletion as "list of things that just happen to be called Sirius" wish to change their rational to "no evidence of general cultural relevance" they can do so, however that was not the point I was addressing. You don't have to reply to every single comment Artw 07:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've added a source to the opening statement, , concerning the customary use of Sirius as a setting in SF. Artw 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A trivial list, not a notable subject, if it needs to be mentioned, do it in the main article. Dannycali 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a pointless list of useless and un-sourced information --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup. Notable and not spammy anymore, but obviously has some work. Fram 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howies[edit]

Previously deleted as Advert, and I was going to db-repost, but may be notable with a lot of Google Hits for "Howies" +clothing. Article will need substantial rewrite, but it's a stub anyway. Don't know if it belongs here or not. (That is, I don't know if the subject is encyclopedic or not.) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough. 69.116.62.33 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Some hits on Google News also Corpx 16:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Article has been brought up from advert-style recently. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recreated the Howies Wiki page using a copy on WayBackMachine as a template that had been on Wikipedia for sometime - this version didn't have any obvious advertising and did not have a AfD. The page now is more of how it used to look before I think someone at howies had altered the wiki entry and added lots of material that made it a blatant advert (this was on about 5th July: see howies blog entry which correlates with the date the page was made a blatant advert ). Note that there are now third-party sources for the information. Cheers, --LeisureHat 10:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Pure Spam.--Gavin Collins 12:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can this be "spam"? It has valid sources - often double sourced, I could triple or quadruple source lots of the article if you really want me to. The references are to the Financial Times, the Guardian, BBC News etc. I've yet to reference the ethical / environmental awards howies won as well (if this is a valid "source"). If this is categorized as "spam" , then have a look at Life is Good as that appears to be more "spam" like than this. I've had a look at the Spam and, to my mind it does not match anything listed there. It is not "External link spamming": one link to the companies web site at the end - shall the links to all companies that have a wiki entry be deleted.? It is not "Source soliciting", "External link spamming with bots", "Canvassing", "Wikiproject advertisement" etc, under what criteria is it "spam" please? --LeisureHat 13:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources seem reputable enough, and I fail to see how the article (as currently written when I write this comment) is spam. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ム 09:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Marve[edit]

Contested PROD. Non-notable athlete, has yet to play (and won't for a season!) down of college football. Scout.com sources are meaningless since every college football player has a page there and many high school players do as well that aren't notable with the ESPN one not about this player and just mentions him in passing. Not a notable player, yet. Re-create when named starter or plays or gets more coverage (ie, transfer). MECU≈talk 13:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you really want this article deleted then you might as well nominate Jimmy Clausen for the same reasons. Seancp 13:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between Clausen and Marve. One will be playing this season and has articles about just him and the other doesn't. One has been the subject on ESPN Sportscenter (right or wrong) segments.... I could go on. MECU≈talk 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clausen is going to play this year? I have not heard that.↔NMajdan•talk 16:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean play as in named starting QB or what-not, but the difference between being injured and not playing and at least playing in practice type. Also, Clausen has articles about him and just him, ala http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2990282&campaign=rss&source=NCFHeadlines MECU≈talk 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~Rather large~~ difference between Robert Marve and Jimmy Clausen, I think. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.↔NMajdan•talk 16:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miami Hurricanes - Maybe one day he'll get the starting job and become notable Corpx 16:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not some giant article; it's mostly a stub. He lead his team to a state championship, won Mr. Football, is the son of a long-time NFL player,and was heavily recruited. Other recruits who have yet play a down of college football but have wiki articles (most bigger than Marve's): Terrance Toliver, Marc Tyler, Arrelious Benn, John Brantley, Jimmy Clausen, Noel Devine, Joe McKnight, Everson Griffen, Chris Galippo... Sure some may be more "famous," but others are arguably less - so why draw the line with Marve? Granted, he has hardly achieved the serious national fame he is likly to, but I certainly don't see a problem documenting what little fame he has already achieved. Seems like deletion would be a waste of a perfectly reasonable wiki entry.--Mcmachete 07:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmachete (talk • contribs)
Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO. Anything could happen to him before he even plays, much less starts or becomes truly notable; car-wreck, fails out, career-ending injury (see Tyrone Prothro). As to the Clausen and other recruits above, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument and I'll be happy to support deletion for any (or all) of them. AUTiger » talk 20:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm all for having articles about noteworthy college players ... but they ought to at least play a down or two of football first. Plenty of kids who look like amazing prospects out of high school never do anything in college. This should be deleted without prejudice against recreation if and when he becomes the starting quarterback. --B 20:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Hooperbloob 04:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stargate Command#Department of Homeworld Security without prejudice against later retargeting. This discussion makes it clear that this should not exist as a separate article. There is less clear agreement about the target of the redirect, but the argument that Stargate Command explains the topic already means that it's probably a better target for the redirect, at least for now. If material is later added or moved elsewhere, feel free to re-target the redirect at that point. — TKD::Talk 05:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Homeworld Security[edit]

Not notable enough. The Department of Homeworld Security was only mentioned in a few episodes towards the end of SG-1, and even then it was only really as a pun of the Department of Homeland Security Philip Stevens 13:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to redirect to main SG-1 page, or articles about episodes that involve this. MECU≈talk 13:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect fails notability guidelines. Eleland 14:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not notable on its own. 69.116.62.33 15:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of real world notability Corpx 16:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect nn. KTC 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge with Stargate SG-1. Wl219 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think Stargate Command would be a better target for merge/redirect as it already has a short section on Homeworld Security. Wl219 17:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Stargate SG-1. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent secondary sources. Jay32183 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect As a Stargate fan, I have to admit that this article holds no notability from outside sources, and likely won't, as it was only trivially mentioned within the series itself. spazure (contribs) (review) 06:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Stargate SG-1 per Josiah Rowe. Thin Arthur 08:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to ~~Stargate SG-1~~Stargate Command. Not enough information to warrant it's own article. --Pixelface 08:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Stargate Command, which already mentions Homeworld Security. On it's own, Homeworld Security is definitely nn. SirBob42 22:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to Stargate Command or Stargate SG-1. --BaldDee 15:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE. OK, I know this isn't really related to the discussion, in a mere co-wiki-dence. but shortly (hours) after my vote on this issue, I ran into Tony Todd (Lord Haikon on Stargate SG-1) at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Cherry Hill, NJ. We were both there for Monster Mania... BaldDee 12:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Redirect to episode concerned or transwiki to stargate wiki.Mbisanz 02:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ム 09:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bustitution[edit]

Contested PROD. Barely more than a dictionary definition, and has already been transwikied. Self-admitted (by the article) Neoglism. Unsourced, questionable notability. TexasAndroid 12:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism per nom, and per the distinction drawn by Eleland below. —gorgan_almighty 12:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's been used in newspapers, especially in the UK. While WP:NEO generally discourages neologisms on here, if they're sufficiently covered in reliable sources then they can stay. Google news and Google archive news search get some hits, [38] and [39], and gets a good number of regular Google hits as well, especially in railway oriented websites, such as here and here. It's mentioned in a BBC article, and was used in Scottish parliament. I think these sources establish widespread usage of the term, but perhaps someone can dig up more in-depth coverage in reliable sources (which I'm fairly sure exists). Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 13:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge the examples mentioned are interesting, but they are not coverage of the term, they are simply examples of its use. An article along the lines of Replacement of rail transportation with busing or whatnot might be justified, but this article appears to be about the term rather than the practice. Eleland 14:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eleland, you make a good point. A redirect to a page about the practice that 'bustitution' describes would be entirely appropriate. And it looks like the articles which merely attest to the term's usage are a solid start for an article on the practice, or a subheader under the 'bus' article. I'd be up for collaborating on such an article, and notifying related Wikiprojects.

Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 16:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'd be happy to help. Perhaps History of rail transport in Great Britain 1995 to date is the place to start? Eleland 16:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The citations just show that those who are against bus replacement have been successful in seeding the internet with a media-friendly neologism. MarkinBoston 17:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Yawn. Burntsauce 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a non-neologism and keep the redirect. Or redirect if that article already exists. --NE2 19:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary and delete. Thin Arthur 08:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's a (bloated, rambly) dicdef, and we can confirm usage. —CComMack (t–c) 09:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nick 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bioshock (film)[edit]

Blatant hoax. There is no such film. Closedmouth 12:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax, punish the originator. --Agamemnon2 12:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Maxa megalon 2000 12:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If hoaxes were speedyable, this would have already been deleted. I'd say to warn the article's creator, but s/he's already been warned. -- Kicking222 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing with the name Bioshock is listed in IMDB, however, a google search turns up something about a short called Bioshock, but the article mentions nothing of the sort. Neranei (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This not a hoax. I swear. Its the truth. Syphon367 18:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 JPS ^{talk to me} 08:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Bentivegna[edit]

Minor filmmaker. Lots of name-dropping, no real sources and few signs of actual real-world impact. Creation of -- and sole contributions of Emperorpasta (talk · contribs); PROD tag added, but removed by -- wait for it -- User:Rbentivegna (didn't see that coming, did you?), whose own sole contributions are this and adding refs to Roberto Bentivegna to Hotel Chelsea. I'm sensing a self-promotion campaign. Calton | Talk 12:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and warn Rbentivegna about article spam / COI Eleland 14:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too minor for inclusion here. Sasha Callahan 15:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All smoke, no fire. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen much worse entries on wikipedia that were not taken down. I don't particularly feel the need to defend my accomplishments with a group of people that I have never met before, especially since the accusations are low-blow and uninformed.

If the article does not merit a page, then it will be taken down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbentivegna (talk • contribs) 15:41, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I have seen much worse entries on wikipedia that were not taken down - Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; if you don't mind, send along that list of "much worse entries [you've] seen" so those can be taken care of, too, as things get overlooked all the time.
I don't particularly feel the need to defend my accomplishments with a group of people that I have never met before - And yet you had no compunction about using Wikipedia as tool for self-promotion. Funny, that. --Calton | Talk 20:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Hooperbloob 04:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know Roberto personally and before anyone asks, he did ask me if I would voice my opinion here. An article about me was recently deleted here on Wikipedia. I am a published author, producer and many other things but still it was decided, even voted for deletion. I never realised how un-notable those things were until they were pointed out to me by the Wikipedia community. As I know for a fact that the work Roberto did was excellent I can't say his work isn't notable but if I am not entitled to an entry and you can buy my books in Borders or Amazon.com I don't suppose he is either. Just a thought. --SebastianProoth 22:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VANITY. If the subjects in question were notable, then other people would write articles about them. The fact that they had to do it themselves proves that, for now anyway, they aren't. AlistairMcMillan 23:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again Alistair! I see you have found yourself to another one of my "pointless" struggles. This dedication must make you one of my biggest fans! It must make all Wikipedians feel good that no matter what kind of decision, just or not, informed or not, they make about deleting an article on Wikipedia someone like Alistair McMillan here will jump and cast his notable vote and all will be settled. The fact that you say Mr. Bentivegna wrote the article about himself when he didn't is yet another example of Wikipedia's deleting staff being incapable of reading the clear writing on the wall. As I have said before, I don't care if I have an article here on Wikipedia, I didn't write it and I don't really *get* anything out of having it. What gave and continues to give me pause was the fact that someone here believes that they have the right to sit in judgment over my worthiness of a couple of paragraphs about things I have accomplished. If Mr. Bentivegna is denied his few paragraphs...he looses nothing but a pointless battle with malicious and jealous "admins"--SebastianProoth 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson's Cinemas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anderson's Cinemas

Non-notable company (especially since it's supposed to be defunct) as confirmed by no sources listed. Svetovid 12:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable company. —gorgan_almighty 12:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Moved from article space Eleland 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability made. Eleland 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above reasons. jacĸrм | speak ~ 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds that article contains information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. --Gavin Collins 13:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. Carlosguitar 11:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, also given that the article on the company has been deleted. --Core desat 04:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine Anderson[edit]

Non-notable former owner of a few cinemas and with no sources to back at least that. Svetovid 12:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable bio. —gorgan_almighty 12:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or perhaps Redirect to Regent Cinemas if it survives the AfD I'm going to put up for it (apparent commercial spam). Eleland 14:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable business owner. At the very least, merge into the article about her company. Academic Challenger 02:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 05:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Talk[edit]

This is a fan newsletter and website about the band King Crimson. I have serious doubts as to its notability. If this comes out as delete, move Elephant Talk (song) to this page, where it should be anyway. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable magazine. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 14:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources giving coverage are found Corpx 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is not notable, and seems very obscure. Neranei (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Her main claim to fame is the one award, but that award is utterly non notable, as it is a choice by the readers from between the models in the magazine. 15 hits for the award don't really indicate much notability. So no reliable independent sources indicating notability for this model, means no article. Fram 13:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Marie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previous AfD closed last month after a reference had been added. But is winning two awards in a non-notable porn magazine notable? You help me decide. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep God help me... but she does seem to satisfy WP:PORNBIO cat 3, as the magazine probably is notable within it's subgenre. However, this is an absolutely wretched article — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah, that's what I thought, but how can the magazine be notable within its subgenre yet not notable enough for an article?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:FisherQueen speedied the article on the magazine last month. Not really sure why; I'm not an admin so can't access the deleted WP version, but assuming it's the same as answers.com's cached version it could maybe have been AfD'd for insufficient notability (although I think it would have survived), but certainly isn't appropriate for speedy — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I understand it, something's notable if other people (in WP:RS have taken non-trivial note of it). I don't think that's too likely with this magazine, but I couldn't say really.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't that the whole problem with porn, and why we have separate guidelines for them; because it's not covered by the mainstream press, you have a bunch of magazines, companies, channels etc which all cover each other, but none of which constitutes enough of a RS to 'get the ball rolling'? — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah, porn articles present a few problems for Wikipedia. Some say we shouldn't have such articles at all, others say that WP:NOT#CENSORED, but it's hard to judge in many cases.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PORNBIO criteria 3. Epbr123 13:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did I really just see Epbr123 arguing to keep a minor porn model? What happened to everyone while I was away?!? — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 13:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the award Corpx 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This nomination is, well, unnecessary. Notability has already been established, and the subject still meets WP:PORNBIO today as much as it did a few weeks ago. Burntsauce 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable in her niceh, satisfies WP:PORNBIO. This one's a no-brainer. Xihr 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plumper of the Year! MarkinBoston 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - which is an award of questionable notability. Is it significant enough to the BBW erotica scene to merit an article? You tell me.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The award doesn't have to be notable. There just has to be evidence that she is one of the top BBW models. Epbr123 12:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The award has to be well-known (eg. notable). This one isn't. Valrith 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well-known doesn't mean notable. The award is possibly the most well-known award in the bbw genre. Anyway, it's criteria 3 that's being claimed she passes, not criteria 1. Epbr123 22:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's the debate that has been raised here that means that the WP:PORNBIO guidelines need to be made more clear, and less subjective. We need to explain why a model merits an article if they've won a well-known award, but not done anything else notable in particular.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete nobody. Beorhtric 11:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What policy does that violate exactly? WP:JNN? — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. No coverage in reliable sources means no verifiability. And that means no article is possible. Valrith 22:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her website and XL Magazine are reliable sources. Epbr123 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is a reliable source. Both are simple self-promoting outlets. Valrith 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So XL Magazine isn't a reliable source that she won Plumper of the Year, and her website isn't a reliable source for her birth location? Do you mean they aren't independent sources? Epbr123 22:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, protect. Deiz talk 11:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerian people[edit]

POV-pushing original research essay that is a content fork from Sumer, written in a nonencyclopedic tone, and inaccurate in many regards. Created by a banned editor, and resurrected by a brand-new editor. The article is an orphan. THF 11:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create a protected redirect to Sumer. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:37 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Speedy redirect to Sumer and protect to stop all the shenanigans. Neil ム 11:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Reid[edit]

Not quite A7, but worth considering for deletion. What do you think? Seems to be covered in WP:RS, but WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AS per weatherman90's comment. A little respect in some posters answer would be nice too please. gazderry 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)— Gazderry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. I regret to say, not notable for anything he had done during his life, nor for anything particularly exceptional in his death. Had he lived he may have become notable but that's just speculation. Sam Blacketer 11:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 11:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never played a game in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). Number 5 7 11:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Never even signed a professional contract. --Badmotorfinger 15:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a couple of sensationalistic news articles don't make you notable.--Svetovid 12:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's actually 61 news articles on his death on Google News. Weatherman90 13:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was a one-day news story of no lasting interest to people who did not know him. Dominictimms 14:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At best, redirect to an appropriate article about similar types of deaths, such as List of sportspeople who have died during their playing career. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the article didn't exist before death, one has to wonder what this person is 'notable' for.Ryoung122 15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable before death, even less notable now. This line just about sums it up "His idols were Rio Ferdinand and Ledley King and he really wanted to be a big name a long with them, some say he had the talent to do just that but now we will never know.". Ditto for about 100,000 young footballers too... Lugnuts 15:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His death is tragic, but not notable. --Badmotorfinger 15:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Sam Blacketer - fchd 17:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe not quite A7, but it still does not meet WP:BIO from what I can tell. Burntsauce 18:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think an article on this lad is warranted, but it would be nice if some people here could express their opinions without being crass and disrespectful. However non-notable Reid was, he was probably more notable than anyone listed on this page. Bretonbanquet 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reid's death is a regrettable personal tragedy for his loved ones and a loss for his mates and team. However, it isn't a notable event and shouldn't be covered in this project. My condolences to those affected by his loss. --Ssbohio 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:RECENT, death does not make a non-notable person notable. Jdcooper 23:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the aboves. Speedy Close since it's heading for a unanimous WP:SNOW delete.--JForget 23:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article reads like it was written by a friend on the team. This death is tragic and regretable, but commonplace, and not noteworthy Joshcating 17:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleteSad circumstances but clearly news and not notable. --Malcolmxl5 20:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. News stories, even one-day news stories, do make someone notable. Academic Challenger 02:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It reached the news, therefore it must be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.117.101 (talk) 21:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. CitiCat^♫ 02:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technomancy[edit]

The term is a non-notable neogolism, whilst the article itself is wholly comprised of original research dressed up as mysticism. --Gavin Collins 10:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment verging on Keep - I am not sure about this: I don't seem to see actual mysticism, it is made clear that the article is about "an imaginary or fictional category of magical abilities". It seems more like an admissible article about a recurring theme in science fiction and fantasy, not too dissimilar, but in scope, from Time travel or Shapeshifting, say. Goochelaar 10:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited my previous remark to strike the "verging on" and make it a full-fledged "keep". --Goochelaar 11:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the difference is that time travel and shapeshifting are widely used and established scifi concepts. Technomancy isn't, and the term to describe it is a neologism. I don't know about the games listed, but nowhere on Buffy or Angel is the term "technomancy" used. - Koweja 13:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting curious about this, I did some serching around and found:

it is not quite a neologism; there is at least a short story by a Steve Martindale titled "Technomancy" (see here) published in 1990;
as for role-playing games and the like, the term is used not less than one hundred times just in the rpg.net domain;
there are several items tagged "technomancy" in del.icio.us and similar sites, and I understand that the term is widely, jocularly used to describe a kind of attitude towards one's computer.

Hope this helps, Goochelaar 15:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure about the current state of the article, but it is a term used to describe some organizations in books, and an existing fantasy terminology. It might be appropriate to redirect this to the existing disambig at Technomancer or to relocate that here. Unless some good references can be found defining the term at least in how it's used. FrozenPurpleCube 14:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. The term technomancy/technomancer is in use. I suppose the question is if this can be shown with appropriate references. I'd lean towards keep at this time as the justification is incorrect ("technomancer" has been used for at least a decade) and no attempt has been made to address any problems (like tagging the entry asking for sources) - I'd like to see more effort put into trying to fix the entry before moving on to an AfD. (Emperor 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Added two references, one from 1996 is purely pop culture so you may disparage it but it exists and I can probably find more from that source if quantity is what you need. Despite being best known as a sci-fi writer Arthur C Clarke is a respected as a scholarly source his third law of prediction dates from 1962 and asserts that a technology beyond the understanding of an observer will have the appearance of magic.KTo288 19:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, a tough call with good comments on all sides. The main concern is whether commanders of the Serious Crime Squad or QPM's are per se notable or not, or whether the head of a major investigation is notable. But:

The "Squad" itself is a division in the West Midlands police rather than a major national police force, it would seem. If it has greater standing then the article doesn't say so. Commanders of divisions in regional police forces probably aren't especially notable.
Senior detectives and QPM award winners are not especially notable (per comments in this AFD), and
The claim to fame of running a high profile case (James Bulger) isn't really grounds for an article, since a person notable as a participant in one main incident is usually handled by a redirect to that incident anyhow.

Does all this added together make him notable? People might want to look him up, but then again not everyone that could be looked up has a BIO article, that's what AFD is intended to decide. On the whole the AFD seems to veer towards non-notability, and deletion, and the above concerns tend to support that. Delete without prejudice against trying it again on a stronger basis.

Albert Kirby[edit]

Biographical article which is completely unreferenced for almost a whole year. It seems like this material should be deleted since nobody is interested in improving it, and because of liability concerns. Mikeblas 09:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've added some references to the article. Jakew 11:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Great, thanks! I think the question of notability is still left, tho ... -- Mikeblas 18:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I agree, and I've yet to decide which way to go. On one hand, he seems to have been mentioned in 3 books, numerous news articles, and some journal articles. On the other, I suspect that an awful lot of people receive that particular medal, and his main claim to notability is his connection with the Bulger case. Jakew 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. The medal is probably the best case, I think, as I'd look at the book and article mentions as not substantial. -- Mikeblas 03:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you're right. Weak delete. Jakew 10:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if the medal and sources added by Jakew establish notability, otherwise redirect to Murder of James Bulger, the case he is famous for working on. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - Only known for that one investigation unless he's really an "expert" in his field Corpx 16:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Seems like an important and notable person. Academic Challenger 01:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete --Hooperbloob 03:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just being at the head of this investigation isn't grounds enough for notability; indeed I'd argue it's bordering on attempting to inherit notability from the investigation - which doesn't apply on Wikipedia. Perhaps that's just my interpretation, but still. What's left, then, is to ask what else makes him notable? For instance, whilst Ian Blair and one of his colleagues (the name passes me by right now, unfortunately) are notable for their role in the investigation in to & death of Jean Charles de Menezes - especially the release of "inaccurate information" - make them notable, Kirby seems to have no such role beyond heading the investigation. This leads me to believe notability just isn't there beyond this one incident. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very tough call this one, and I've wrestled with it for some time. The QPM is unconvincing; these are issued in large numbers. The main claim to notability is leading the Bulger case. Though there are many references, they mostly say he led the case and there are no sources stating that he he did anything notable in the investigation. If the subject was truly notable there would be other achievements to record. As I say, a tough one but on balance he fails to make the cut. TerriersFan 21:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 00:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ReCycle (program)[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reason components Hu12 09:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reviews etc conferring notability are found Corpx 16:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless third-party publications are cited to establish notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two separate, reliable third-party publications have now been cited - one review, one in a 6th edition book on recording - and notability confirmed--Mrtombullen 21:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've never jumped in to an afd, but since I used Recycle a few times and found the AFD by looking it up out of curiousity, I think it should stay.

[40] [41] [42] [43] --Torchwood Who? 23:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. Leibniz 13:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deletion review for this article may be found here.

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

The result was delete. Arguments to "keep" in a number of cases lack any justification for retaining the list (Richard Arthur Norton, DHowell, Hmains, Badagani, Pia, Drieakko, Nomen Nescio), and a number of others (Steve Hart, Storm Surfer, DGG, Mikka) don't really provide any justification for why we should keep the list. In this case, DGG's duplicate argument is ignored. Neil ム 09:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norwegian Americans[edit]

Relisting per suggestions from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans. Also nominated are the fellow Scandinavians (as there should be no reason to keep some but not delete others).Bulldog123 08:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom Bulldog123 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what categories are for.----^DarkTea © 12:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random and pointless. Dominictimms 14:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per intersection of nationalities/loosely associated items . Replace with category (if that's appropriate) Corpx 16:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, this is why we have categories. USE THEM. Burntsauce 18:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until there is a Wikipedia policy against ethnicity lists, these are no less worthy than any others; see Wikipedia:Lists: "Lists and categories have different properties, and having both a list and a similar category is not necessarily redundant." As for these lists in particular, they have the virtue of being fairly concise and certain to stay that way no matter how broadly defined, unlike List of German Americans, English Am., Irish Am., etc. So the lists are more manageable and notable at the same time. At a minimum, in considering these ethnicity lists individually, there is no particular reason to delete these specific ones that would not apply to every list, and the decision was already made not to delete every list. Deleting these lists without a reason specific to them would just be a random act therefore and generally kind of a dumb way to run an encyclopedia. -Langrel 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They should all be in categories only.--JForget 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All If these were indiscriminate lists of blue links, I'd agree that a category would be just fine, although I think we tend to overcategorize (as with Peter Graves, that well known "1926 birth, American character actor, American film actor, American television actor, Best Drama Actor Golden Globe (television), Living person, New Jersey actor, Norwegian-American person, from Minneapolis, Minnesota, and from Sussex County, New Jersey, Spaghetti Western actor, University of Minnesota alumnus" guy. While it's rather odd to see three Scandinavian nations getting nominated at the same time (can't decide where Denmark belongs, I guess), these actually have something else in common, which is that they're all well-sourced, something that is to be encouraged in Wikipedia, with an attempt to explain the connection. Of the three, the Norwegian-Americans list has the most room for improvement... currently, its footnotes go to a website which explains the Norwegian ancestry a bit better. Mandsford 00:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do tend to overcategorize and that's why there are limitations to it WP:OCAT. However, we also tend to overlist and destory the purpose of a list WP:OLIST. When category intersection rolls around (the near future) we're not going to have to worry about what ethnicity-occupation intersections we don't have. These lists do end up being a random assortment because so many of these people are related by nothing more than having an ancestor from the same country. We don't even list distant family members in this way. Categories completely suffice. Bulldog123 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOT. Far too broad and indiscriminate, practically trivial. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as aides to navigation and for information purposes as well, per WP:LIST and Langrel. Bearian 18:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, on the AfD for List of English Americans you put "Delete per Corpx, Arkyan, Dark Teal, et al. CAT" but here you imply WP:LIST has some kind of requirement for keeping all lists that can be poorly sourced. Why is there so much of a difference between a list of Scandinavian Americans and a list of English Americans? Bulldog123 06:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep all no valid reason for deletion provided above. Valid per WP:LIST as information, navigation. These well-sourced, verifiable lists cannot be replicated by categories, because of information provided about field of endeavor. --JayHenry 18:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the software provides category intersections, at least. As others have said, these lists are sourced and more useful than mere categories. — The Storm Surfer 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As categories by occupation, they fail overcategorization. So why wouldn't this be a form of overcategorization in lists? See the essay WP:OLIST for ethnicity-occupation intersections. Bulldog123 07:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be overcategorization to divide these into separate categories by occupation. Grouping them on one list is just sensible. Kappa 08:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Categories will never be flexible enough to do this, and there is no policy to prefer them to lists. this seems to be sataisfactory for the topic. DGG (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy to indicate these lists should be created either. This extreme view of policy is a dying argument because most AfDs run on consensus when there is no policy violation in play. We can make tons of lists that can be sourced and verifiable, but whether they are notable or have importance as an individual article relies on community opinion. There is no other way to do it. If we were to allow just any lists sourced by "reliable" references, wikipedia would turn into a memorial service, a trivia basket, and a huge collection of loosely connected names and items. WP:LIST really says nothing to help us determine what should and what shouldn't be kept. Bulldog123 06:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Over categorization. Most are blue links, so the argument that it is a repository of red links is invalid. An argument which I never understood, if they're notable, they would probably already have an article. A category might be ok, but I still think it's overcategorization. i ^said 06:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too loose a connection between listees, overcategorization. Mad Jack 21:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and debate at the Portal level. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from numerous problems: how Fooian must someone be to listed here and what WP:RSes will tell us that the individual is sufficiently Fooian, and how exactly is being XX% Fooian important to categorize based upon. Once again, WP should not be categorizing on race/ethnicity. Carlossuarez46 00:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, we shouldn't have lists based on race/ethnicity or, in my opinion, religion. But I don't think there is consensus to kill lists based on nationalities. The question is rather how far back in time can these lists go before nationality can no longer be claimed. -- Steve Hart 00:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - in its current revision I can't see that these fails WP:LIST. (And I like lists, I find that they serve a different purpose than categories.) On the other hand, there are millions of people born in the US with Scandinavian roots. We do need a policy discussion about lists. -- Steve Hart 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all There is clearly no policy-based reason to delete these lists. Therefore, the consensus of the many editors who contributed to these lists (including over fifty who contributed to the Swedish American list) outweighs a dozen or so who essentially don't like them. DHowell 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:EFFORT is a better argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? User:Jack O'Lantern contributed to these lists and still thinks they should be deleted, so I don't think the assumption that everyone who may have made an edit to this page would want it kept is fair. Bulldog123 06:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep all and ignore the editors who chief purpose in WP is deleting things they personally do not like and those who object at every turn to anything regarding the ethnic groups who make up the US population. Hmains 02:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all - encyclopedic and needed for our users. Contribute constructively, not destructively, to our project, and do not WP:POINT disruptively propose this article for deletion again, thanks. Badagnani 02:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful. Pia 07:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL Corpx 07:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "USEFUL" essay you cite above is idiotic, and does not become less so the more times it is cited in these sorts of damaging, WP:POINT AFDs. Badagnani 07:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is idiotic, should it be linked to as a "See Also" item on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page? Corpx 07:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked through several thousand of your edits, and see that you only make edits to try to delete things. I don't think I wish to "debate" with someone like that anymore; hope you don't take that personally. Badagnani 07:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to make sure wikipedia doesn't turn into a triviabag because of overzealous editors. Corpx does a great job. Bulldog123 08:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "triviabag" and "valuable content." You don't seem to be able to distinguish between the two, and when knowledgeable editors prove the value of articles such as this one, you denigrate them with this sort of language. It's time to move on, and begin creating your own valuable content, or work to delete actual "junk" articles. This is not one of them. Badagnani 08:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, eye of the beholder I suppose, but you're taking this way too seriously and getting a little uncivil. Bulldog123 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Useful" seemed a particularly useful shorthand phrase at my 2 am energy level. Sorry to have skipped the essay on the uselessness of the word "useful". I meant "useful" as in "non-trivial to many users", as in "satisfies usage needs not covered by categorization alone", as in "a good starting point for further research into a population sector", and as in "a good way for students to get quick access to footnotes on a general population sector and to find examples of people in this population sector." Pia 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Using categories for this would overload the related articles. As a Finn, I am very much aware how important this kind of lists are for the Finns. Just to point out an example, the visit of Pamela Andersson this summer led to nation-wide hysteria. Can you believe that, uh. --Drieakko 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no List of Finnish Americans on the Finnish wikipedia? Bulldog123 07:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is: [44]. --Drieakko 08:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a list like we have. Bulldog123 08:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come? The list is at the end of the Finnish article, and it seems to cover pretty much the same names. --Drieakko 08:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been proven wrong, Bulldog123, by someone who knows more than you about this particular subject. It's time to move on (and maybe write an article or two of your own, contributing valuable content to Wikipedia? You will enjoy it!). Badagnani 08:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Finnish Wikipedia has an equivalent to Finnish American with a short list at the bottom, apparently unsourced. Once they are sourced, the list will probably be pruned even more. Adding Finnish-American (who are truly notable for their Finnish-Americanness) on Finnish Americans is acceptable in everyone's view. There isn't a list of Finnish Americans alone though, so my point stands. Drieakko, are there any other X-American lists? Bulldog123 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Finnish Wikipedia list has 38 names, the comparable English list 34 names. The Finnish list is unsourced but the English list is well sourced. Much of the Finnish Wikipedia suffers from the lack of proper sources. Finnish Wikipedia covers only a fraction of English Wikipedia articles (some 0.5%, I think) so claiming that some articles in English Wikipedia would not be worth existing because they are not in Finnish Wikipedia is just strange. --Drieakko 08:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability: I think it's relevant that histories of Finns in the U.S. commonly note the contributions of specific (notable) Americans of Finnish descent, not as trivia but as a pertinent part of that historical treatment. Also, the existence of notable members of an ethnicity can itself be a component of that ethnic identity in the U.S. (See, e.g., "Survey of Finnish-Americans", item 45.) And these lists, by definition, include only those whose ethnic ancestry has, in fact, been noted in the wider world outside Wikipedia. -Langrel 18:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the "how-Fooian" concern: The fact is that this slope is not terribly slippery. Even if you broadly qualified any notable American with any degree of publicly known Finnish ancestry, for example, you would still have a very short list. (Personally, I would be happy to be proven wrong about that, but I don't expect I will be.) -Langrel 18:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep all Ethnicity is important, and a major connection between people--or at least, people themselves generally think so. the criterion should obviously be "self-identified" which lets us ignore what percentage of ancestry is sufficient. DGG (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Both sides have reasonable arguments but at present I tend to be slightly in favour of the "keep" arguments.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable notion. Classification not POV. `'Míkka 01:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm so sick of these retarded "this is what categories are for" arguments. No one will click through a plain, unsorted list of names. And if you try to subcategorize by professions, you are overcategorizing per WP:OCAT. Kappa 08:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem in Wikipedia in general regarding categories is that there is no way referencing article's inclusion in a category. Whenever you need to source that, you also need to start making lists. --Drieakko 08:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note a duplicate "keep" from DGG was not wholly ignored, as he made a different point. DHowell's excellent "keep" argument justifies the existence of our Belgian Americans and Swiss Americans articles very well but fails to address why we should have a list. Badagnani's argument consists of "Keep as it is encyclopaedic", without evidencing why (the rest of his comments are not pertinent to this deletion discussion). Mikka and DGG's arguments, again, justify the Belgian Americans article very well, but fail to address why we also need a list. Only Kappa's argument has any real pertinence to this list, and given the number of deletions citing valid policy, I can only close this as a delete. Neil ム 09:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian Americans[edit]

First of all, this appears to be a NATIONALITY-NATIONALITY list instead of the typical ETHNICITY-NATIONALITY list. It should be deleted because of its forced amalgamation of potentially completely unrelated people. Last, it is in line with the recent nominations of List of English Americans and List of Portuguese Americans. Bulldog123 08:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Bulldog123 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what categories are for.----^DarkTea © 12:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per intersection of nationalities/loosely associated items . Replace with category (if that's appropriate) Corpx 16:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all lists of this type. Artw 22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be in a category only.--JForget 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Detailed, sourced, encylopedic. There's no reason why there can't be both a category and an article. Mandsford 00:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. So broad and indiscriminating as to be practically trivial. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST criteria - useful as navigation tools and for the information content themselves. A typical college student doing research on Belgian- and Swiss-Americans could sorely use these lists. Bearian 18:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so why does this not apply to List of English Americans which you chose to delete? Bulldog123 07:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Taken from the List Articles essay:

"To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion must comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is, if someone is listed as an X, that person must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source. Also be aware of original research when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted.

Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit".

If lists of these types are kept, they should all be required to follow the suggestions above. Explicit criteria should be at the top of the page, and citations should be required for each entry - otherwise, it's personal research. MarkinBoston 22:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Explicit may be better than implicit, but implicit is still acceptable. Where the matter is discussed in the WP article, the basis for inclusion is clear. DGG (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. As with most of these kind of lists, very loose connection between listees. Mad Jack 21:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from numerous problems: how Fooian must someone be to listed here and what WP:RSes will tell us that the individual is sufficiently Fooian, and how exactly is being XX% Fooian important to categorize based upon. Once again, WP should not be categorizing on race/ethnicity. Here, where Foo is a multi-racial country, it makes even less sense. Carlossuarez46 00:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - encyclopedic and needed for our users. Contribute constructively, not destructively, to our project, and do not WP:POINT disruptively propose this article for deletion again, thanks. I see that the "delete page regulars" have made their appearance, but they shall not destroy valuable content in such an arbitrary manner. Badagnani 03:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For Swiss-Americans, there are reliable sources such as Prominent Americans of Swiss Origin: A Compilation Prepared by the Swiss-American Historical Society, The Swiss in the United States, and Swiss in Wisconsin, and plenty more. For Belgian-Americans, I note that the Library of Congress has determined there are enough published books on the subject to make Belgian Americans a subject heading, and One America: The History, Contributions, and Present Problems of Our Racial and National Minorities devotes 6 pages to the subject, belying the claim that such categorization is "indiscriminate", "trivial", or a "loose connection" and thus a violation of WP:NOT. The remaining arguments to delete boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. DHowell 05:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You justified Belgian Americans and Swiss Americans, not these lists. All I can say, for now at least, is the only other international wikipedia which has this list is the Belgian wikipedia, with a total of 10 names, all of which appear to have been born in Belgium. That alone speaks volumes. You could use your long list of reliable sources if anyone dare nominate Category:Belgian Americans, but here it is off topic. I just think you're thinking of a very different use of WP:IINFO than what people are expressing here. Bulldog123 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that in numerous past AFDs and CFDs you chose to delete all text entirely rather than merge it into articles such as Belgian Americans shows your bad faith in each of these attempts to delete carefully crafted articles that provide our users with important information about notable inhabitants of the United States. Please stop. Badagnani 07:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I chose? I suppose I'm to blame for deletion of List of English Americans too, right? Bulldog123 07:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously making "What about X?" arguments? And how is a book about prominent Swiss Americans "off-topic" when discussing a list of notable Swiss Americans? And what part of WP:IINFO exactly says that lists of notable people who are members of notable ethinic groups are not allowed? You see, I've actually read WP:NOT#IINFO, and I just don't see it. On the contrary, the idea that policy prohibits such lists seems to be personal analysis or synthesis of material that appears to advance a position. If lists aren't justified by being verifiable to reliable sources, what criteria exactly will justify any list in your mind? Or do you think all lists should be deleted? DHowell 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to User:Badagnani's suggestion that I'm menacingly deleting List of Americans, which I don't think has anything to do with WP:WAX since that seems to refer to arguments to avoid when !voting. I do believe your many links are superfluous here because the question of whether a Swedish American is notable would be relevant if we were deleting Swedish Americans or Category:Swedish-Americans. The argument for deletion isn't "Being Swedish-American isn't notable." Moreso, I would say, it is "Being Swedish-American isn't notable for EVERYONE who has some Swedish background" and certainly not on the same level. WP:LIST, nor any policy that I can think of, suggestions we MUST keep every list that is verifiable. No, obviously, I don't think all lists should be deleted, and neither does anyone else here. Bulldog123 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't told us why different (and stricter) criteria should be applied to List of Swedish Americans than to Category:Swedish-Americans. Apparently, the only arguments you have made for deletion here are it being a "forced amalgamation of potentially completely unrelated people", an opinion which is not supported by any policy nor consensus; and that List of English Americans was deleted, which is exactly a WP:WAX argument. And supposing I accept that your statement "Being Swedish-American isn't notable for EVERYONE who has some Swedish background" is an argument against listing EVERY notable person who has some Swedish background; then what is wrong with a list of notable Americans for whom having Swedish background IS notable? DHowell 01:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The english Americans article was deleted in part because it appeared unmanageable. In retrospect, that may have been a mistake, and once these are kept, some brave person should try to re-creat the article with care t meet objections that have been raised there and at these discussions. All ethnic groups are notable, and this includes "hypenated-Americans"; the definition is possible because it can be self-identification without use having to worry about whether true or false--we're about V, not truth, as I recall; people placing themselves in an ethic group are a close relationship--not as close a biological parentage, but perhaps as close as geography or college attended; lists like these serve a useful function, and so on, as discussed at all the other Afds. I would say that every individual one of them is justified and keepable. DGG (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable notion. Classification not POV. `'Míkka 01:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if there was any argument that this is a non-notable intersection DHowell has refuted it. That leaves the same old "categories can do this" argument, which is based on the completely ridiculous idea that readers will click through a plain list of names to find out who they were. Kappa 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Kappa 07:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

35 Rhums[edit]

Fails film notability for future films. Also may be perceived as crystal-balling, since the project is not even the director's next one in line. Girolamo Savonarola 06:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has barely any context, almost nothing is known about the film except the director, and it fails WP:NF. Neranei (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Hooperbloob 00:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTABLE. It would be acceptable if it were to gain sufficient notability, which I only see possible after the film is released (of course, after it's released, it may or may not gain the required notability to be a Wikipedia article). ♠TomasBat 22:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 list and redirect the pyramid article to glycemic index. There is a clear consensus to delete the list. However, Mandsford correctly points out that many participants in this discussion seemed not to address the article on the pyramid. On the other hand, a couple of keep recommendations for the pyramid article were based on the nominator's lack of clear rationale, which isn't helpful for determining the merits of the article once it's been listed in good faith; the other argument for keeping the pyramid article was that the existence of a broader article doesn't preclude it; this is true, but that doesn't justify directly why the article should exist. I'm left with Arkyan's rationale for redirection as the strongest argument for deciding what to do with the article. Whether any content from the history is merged into glycemic index is up to editorial discretion. There is also no prejudice against turning glycemic-index pyramid back into an article if sufficient reliable sourcing is found; no one addressed whether that material might actually exist. — TKD::Talk 02:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of foods with a low glycemic index[edit]

This is a cross between an unverified list and an "advice" page of unreferenced dietary and medical information. The topic is covered with greater authority in Glycemic index and references contained therein.

Also nominating related page

Dbromage [Talk] 06:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 07:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 07:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 07:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. The existence of the GI article does not seem to preclude existence of sub-articles. 'Low GI' can be precisely defined, and reliable lists of such quantities have been published. Lack of referencing should be fixed, and editing is needed to remove the how-to aspect. Espresso Addict 08:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I wouldn't be opposed to refocusing the list as List of common foods by glycemic index, as suggested by Eleland. Espresso Addict 19:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list, redirect the article about the pyramid back to Glycemic index. The list seems to be more a collection of statistical information per WP:NOT and is unverified. That "low GI" can be precisely defined does not mean that it is - and selecting an artitrary number to define it would be POV on the part of the editors. The article on the pyramid doesn't really introduce anything valuable that cannot be contained at the parent article - although if more encyclopedic material about it can be found, I've no objections to it having its own article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect it's one thing to have, say, a List of common foods by glycemic index which could be a valuable resource, but this is uncited listcruft and may constitute medical advice (bad!). Eleland 15:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think we should be sorting food by the compounds they contain. Not a health guide Corpx 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list as subjective. Merge/redirect the pyramid back to Glycemic index. Otto4711 16:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LDSC

Delete - Appears as listcruft to me. TheInfinityZero 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed violates WP:NOT. And another point what is considered "low?" --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both No reason at all is stated for the nomination of Glycemic-index pyramid other than it is "related", and this piggy-backing attempt seems to have failed, in that most people seem to be referring to the article "list of foods with a low glycemic index" in their comments. Voting "keep both" as a protest against trying to kill two birds with one stone. Mandsford 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment Piggy-backing articles is a valid method of finding community consensus on related articles. This is not a vote anyway. Thin Arthur 08:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list and redirect the pyramid to Glycemic index. This is not a medical advice site. Thin Arthur 08:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list per Espresso Addict. The list is already informative and will be more so when the GI is actually given. Low GI is a likely search criterion for foods and helps understand the concept. "Low" is currently undefined but renaming per Eland would solve that. Alternatively an arbitrary cutoff is acceptable for lists, e.g. List of tallest buildings and structures in London. Speedy keep the pyramid; no reason has been given for deletion. Kappa 12:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How low is low? The article requires specific criteria for inclusion of items in the list (based on a definition from a reliable source). See Wikipedia:lists. --Coppertwig 20:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main article defines low GI as 55, I'm not too sure what their source is. Kappa 09:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only merit in such lists is to identify missing articles, but essentially there are none. Categorise and delete Peterkingiron 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike lists, categories can't have arbitrary inclusion criteria, see WP:OCAT. This list also has the merit of giving the actual GI in some cases. Kappa 09:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per Eleland. Han-Kwang (t) 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Korean beverages[edit]

The entire subject is covered more thoroughly and comprehensively in Korean wine, Korean beer, Korean Tea and to some extent in Korean cuisine. Notable companies receive an appropriate mention inthose articles. Dbromage [Talk] 06:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 07:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 07:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 09:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the beverages of a given nation/nationality can well be served by a list article, and in this case, if there are better pages on Wikipedia, they can be used to improve this one. FrozenPurpleCube 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with Nominator Dbromage that most of this is more thoroughly covered by other articles. My only concern is that there are a number of alcoholic beverages on the list that wouldn't qualify as beer, wine or tea. When you think about it, American bourbon whiskey couldn't be described as any of those things. Maybe this can be moved to "Korean liquor" and enhanced. Mandsford 00:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the items in a list are always better covered in their respective articles. That's nowhere near close to a deletion rationale. Per WP:LIST this is valid for navigation, information and development. --JayHenry 18:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list does somewhat duplicate other lists as Dbromage says, but for example sodas and energy drinks don't fit into "beer" "wine" or "tea". Also sujeonggwa is that really a kind of tea? Kappa 05:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because there are red links. Peterkingiron 18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. CitiCat^♫ 02:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine snack food[edit]

The entire subject is covered more thoroughly and comprehensively in Cuisine of the Philippines. Notable companies recieve an appropriate mention there. Dbromage [Talk] 06:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 07:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 07:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per nom Corpx 16:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cuisine of the Philippines and hard protect the snack food page. Burntsauce 18:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to presence of red links, provided these are separate foods, not mere brands of it. However I do not see a "snack foods" section in Cuisine of the Philippines. Once missing articles have eben created, the list should be deleted or converted to a category. Peterkingiron 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gouda[edit]

Suspected hoax of an NBA player. Search engine yields no basketball related results for "Peter Gouda" -wikipedia, and all of them are about some random Dutch person. An attempt to search for "Peter Butros Gouda" -wikipedia (as indicated by the article) returns nothing. Hence it's likely to be a hoax. Alasdair 06:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX. Dbromage [Talk] 06:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slam Dunk Delete as a hoax. You know the article's no "gouda" when it claims Tim Duncan got upset over the attention he got. Clarityfiend 06:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly a hoax, but zero decent Google hits demonstrates that this information would be un-verifiable where it true.Pedro | Chat 09:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If he were an NBA player, he should at least receive some degree of media coverage. After all, professional sports players in the top league are almost always "famous".--Alasdair 09:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax Maxa megalon 2000 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a Hoax so funny Sasha Callahan 16:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant and obvious "cheesy" hoax. Gouda last name, middle name of "Butros Butros", and born in 1991?! Based on a history of the user's vandalism contributions (and it appears, other deleted articles), a warning and/or block is in order. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Yet another hoax. Fortunately we caught this one in time. Oh, and ban the article creator. Burntsauce 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to scratchcard. — TKD::Talk 00:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky For Life[edit]

Article describes a $20 scratch-off lottery ticket. Not encyclopedic. Gilliam 06:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A local scratchcard game is not notable. Possibly redirect to scratchcard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calgary (talk • contribs) 06:48, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
Delete this local scratchcard game is possibly not notable.

A.m.aji 09:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate as a redirect an individual scrathcard game doesn't need an article, so this should redirect to the article on scratchcards. Sasha Callahan 15:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of instant noodles[edit]

The entire subject is covered more thoroughly and comprehensively in the main article for Instant noodles. Notable companies recieve an appropriate mention there, integrated into the article. There is no need for a separate page listing manufacturers of instant noodles, as it is redundant to the main article. Calgary 06:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is moved from List of Japanese instant noodles some months ago but changed little in scope. Redundant to Instant noodles. Dbromage [Talk] 06:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to Instant noodles (it has barely improved since its creation).--PrestonH 22:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Ridiculous article title. --Coppertwig 20:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of acquired tastes[edit]

Is this a suitable subject for an article? How can one say what is or is not an acquired taste? I'm not sure how strongly I'd argue for deletion here, but I'm not sure this can be an effective list, as the scope is potentially vast. FrozenPurpleCube 05:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if somebody else wants to look through Category:Lists of foods you might find other articles to be concerned about. FrozenPurpleCube 05:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literally anything has the potential to be an acquired taste for someone, somewhere. As it stands, there is no well defined inclusion criteria, and I doubt there could ever be an objective criteria for inclusion. Calgary 06:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and POV. Pretty much everything listed is an acquired taste outside places where they are made, but common or even staple foods elsewhere. Try telling anybody from the Mediterranean region that olives are an acquired taste! Dbromage [Talk] 06:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, try telling anyone from New York that coffee is an acquired taste. Indeed, the list currently expands to cover just about all culinary areas that you could imagine. I'm sure even cheese could be considered an acquired taste to some. Calgary 06:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now I look back to see that cheese is actually on the list. See what I mean? Calgary 06:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being Australian, I'll make the same claim about Vegemite. Dbromage [Talk] 06:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too loose of an inclusion criteria + OR involved in maintaining this list Corpx 07:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 07:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 07:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this could ever be more than OR. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else, obviously OR, unverifiable, POV etc.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on delete this is possibly the stupidest piece of OR I've yet seen — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original contributor should be kicked from Wikipedia for wasting our time with bullshit like this. --Agamemnon2 12:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the original creator's defense, the original version was a straightforward dicdef; people then spent the next 18 months adding "see also"s until it sprawled into this mess — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete About as clear as you can get •CHILLDOUBT• 12:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since literally everything can qualify, plus it's entirely subjective, original research, and so on. Koweja 13:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another pile-on delete OR they? -- Kicking222 16:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Anyone can say that they have a "special taste" for something, making this list difficult to maintain and biased on one's point-of-view. TheInfinityZero 16:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh for crying out loud. Burntsauce 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spit it out Holy crap ... this article has been around since 2006???? How'd it last this long? This is listcruft gone mad. Indiscriminate as I don't know what, and will never be complete.Blueboy 96 20:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SNOWBALL! SNOOOOOWBAAAALL!!! Eleland 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, there's no need to Snowball, let it hang around so the deletions can pile on. FrozenPurpleCube 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No possibility of developing unambigous NPOV criteria for inclusion of items in the list as required by Wikipedia:lists. --Coppertwig 20:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Please! --Malcolmxl5 10:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese p90[edit]

~~Non-neutral stub. Alksub 05:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nom withdrawn. --Alksub 05:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trips & Getaways Magazine[edit]

Magazine started in Aug 2007. Clearly non-notable. Deproded by author without explanation. eaolson 05:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant advertisement per CSD#G11. —gorgan_almighty 13:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. I like smoky bacon best, anyway. Neil ム 08:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese & onion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cheese & onion

Does not assert notability or cite any references. Cheese and Onion was previously deleted but unsure of that page's content.

Also nominating related page

Dbromage [Talk] 04:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I was thinking that maybe Salt & vinegar could be expanded since it's such a common flavor (and one of my favorites), but it fails WP:RS. Could be mentioned in potato chip. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. While cheese and onions go well together, as do salt and vinegar on potato crisps (or chips, here states side), they don't taste so good on a Wikipedia. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Completely reduntdant the fact that both are used as spices is already stated at their respective pages. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both and redirect to potato chip. Should have added my own vote in the initial post. Dbromage [Talk] 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people can tell from the nomination what action you're advocating. But y'know, I'm slightly more bothered by the lack of world-wide perspective to these articles. Seem a bit UK-centric. Oh well, I don't know that there's enough content to merit an article on them, though potato chip flavoring may be sustainable on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 05:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Will we have to create Salt and pepper as a popular pair of table condiments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eaolson (talk • contribs) 05:24, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I dunno, but Salt n pepper is a hip-hop trio. FrozenPurpleCube 05:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to spell it out? An individual flavor of a kind of snack is not notable. If it is a very prominent flavor, that may be grounds for a mention in the Potato chip article, but I don't see why flavors should get their own articles, especially considering how little information there is. Delete both Calgary 05:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just worked out the reference! :) Dbromage [Talk] 06:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete both. In the same sense that there are "colas" and "root beers" it might be possible to have an article on a flavoring applied to chips/crisps as well as a variety of other snack foods. But certainly an article about a flavor on ONE snack food is unnecessary. --Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand stub thoroughly. Certainly not a difficult article to expand upon. There are numerous brands that use it, and numerous ingredients that go into creating it, a process, etc. MrPrada 06:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Even if there is material which we could use to expand it, how is this particular flavor (or any flavor of potato chip, for that matter) notable enough to have an entire article devoted to it? Calgary 08:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that chips have to follow BLP guidelines for notability. The manufacture, distribution, usage, etc., have encyclopedic value, although assembling that would be nigh-impossible so I'm sure merging it into the potato chip article is just as good as keeping it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPrada (talk • contribs) 21:28, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per lack of notability as to why these pairs of condiments are notable. Corpx 07:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 07:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I'd like to see Sour cream and chives, however not on this project.--Hu12 09:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and change I think there is maybe scope for an article on Crisp flavourings as there are so many and, as MrPrada mentioned, there are certainly processes and ingredients used that could be written about and would prove interesting. It would require an expert though. - sorry, forgot to sign --Mrtombullen 12:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect both to Potato chip per Dbromage. —gorgan_almighty 13:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or alter - The article doesn't seem to make itself look notable. However, if new information was added, the article may provide useful. TheInfinityZero 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Potato chip. Verging on a keep myself, as they were the first crisps (or chips, even if that word sounds really wrong to me :O)) that were flavoured as part of the production process rather than coming with separate bags of salt, but there is an extensive "seasoned chips" section in the Potato chip article that covers the history quite well and could be expanded FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Potato chip per above. Thin Arthur 08:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calgary. Do we need an article on every single flavor of potato chips? No. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 00:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technological momentum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Technological momentum

A neologism, some guy promoting a book of the same title. SolidPlaid 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. The article is three years old but doesn't have any secondary sources. I think that's the greatest weakness of the article. If reliable sources can be located, I recommend keeping the article. I don't think it's so bad as to need deleted—if I thought it was advertising, I'd have speedy deleted it—but I can't strongly endorse keeping the article. Subject appears notable (scholarly) but needs sources to verify it. —C.Fred (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although in agreement about secondary sources, not quite sure if its a new neologism [45],however would like to see the article expaded. --Hu12 09:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as proposed by SolidPlaid. Like the debate regarding the deletion of socionomics, this is another neogolism based on a combination of economics and sociology, but at least the author had the good sense not to call it something like Technomics or Technomancy. I would also argue against merging the content of this article with Thomas P. Hughes, since this article is self referencing, unless book from which the content derives can be demonstrated as being notable. --Gavin Collins 09:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalvageable Original Research. —gorgan_almighty 13:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly failing the criteria of WP:NEO. One published work by the creator of the term is not sufficient independent coverage and use. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 company with no assertion of notability. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M2Z[edit]

Future company, no citations, funding will dry up in current credit meltdown anyway. Speciate 03:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Dbromage [Talk] 04:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Fails to assert any notability and since it deals with a "future company" its probable it fails WP:CRYSTAL to. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 02:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AHANA[edit]

unsourced neologism not in common use or frequency Chris 03:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Neologism. --Alksub 03:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Never heard it used. Speciate 04:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I don't know how 'neo' a word has to be to be branded a neologism, but in any case it fails WP:V. Dbromage [Talk] 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. Changing my vote as it does appear to be verifiable from reliable sources.[46][47] Also see WP:IDONTKNOWIT regarding limited geographic usage of the term. Dbromage [Talk] 07:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as hoax, I have never heard of this or been refered to as such, without any reference this doesn't meet WP:V. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Not only is it made up in school, it's ostensibly being used in an official capacity! Nonetheless, despite this, it reeks of being a neologism. Strong delete accordingly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to keep and clean up. I don't like the term and think it's ugly, but that's the only other reason I can come up with to maintain a !vote of delete, and since it's sourced, it can stay. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete WP:NEO - I mean perhaps if they could find a source that used it or even sources about it that would be acceptable - but until then it's relatively obvious how to handle the situation.--danielfolsom 05:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO also possible hoax. Oysterguitarist 06:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Theres actually many references on the web; [48] --Vonones 06:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some references. --Vonones 06:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Globe has articles on this that I have referenced. --Vonones 06:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the newly added sources + additional ones on google news Corpx 07:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of sources added. Oysterguitarist 07:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - with new references it meets WP:V, although its still something a little limited to a certain geographical area. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of new sources. --Alksub 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Now sourced. ♠TomasBat 00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source appears to be an example of WP:NOT for things made up in school. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ム 08:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idenics[edit]

DELETENot notable. Only 1,410 Google hits, mostly from message boards or ads from practitioners. If there is a concern about losing this data, the article may be merged with Freezone. S. M. Sullivan 03:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment S.M. Sullivan has a pro-cofs POV. The cofs considers Idenics to be a suppressive group.--Fahrenheit451 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixed malformed nom previously attached to the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Smith (predator). cab 03:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm not really sure by what standard this isn't notable. By a quick glance it seems to have extremely significant coverage from reliable sources - could you be a bit more specific?--danielfolsom 04:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all of the references cited in the article are self-published. There are no independent reliable third party sources (non-Freezone non-Idenics associated newspapers, books, magazine articles) as references. The articles and references are basically Idenics ads. S. M. Sullivan 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNot true S.M. Sullivan. Other than the Idenics web site itself, the other sites are definitely Not advertisements. I guess you really want to get rid of this article.--Fahrenheit451 19:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ahh my mistake - for some reason I can't actually recall I thought one of those wasn't self published--danielfolsom 05:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RS. Dbromage [Talk] 04:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS--danielfolsom 05:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. No evidence any sources are not reliable.--Fahrenheit451 19:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per above. Fourth-rate Scientology-wannabe spin-off. This article and its "sources" mostly regurgitate what Idenics says about Idenics. It actually garners only 190 unique Ghits, and most of those are template-spam, personal pages, message board posts, junk, and unrelated entities that have the same name. Hopelessly non-notable . wikipediatrix 20:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipediatrix is advertising her ignorance of the subject as it is very different than scientology. It is a practice and does not purport being a religion. Wikipediatrix should keep her ignorance to herself and deal in facts.--Fahrenheit451 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe subject is noteable and is definitely not a Scientology-wannabe. --Identitygoldz 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above post is the very first edit User:Identitygoldz has made. wikipediatrix 21:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've done idenics, and it's very useful. I believe it's an up and coming thing. I'm assuming scientologists are trying to suppress this, although I know little about the religion, but know something about it's practices in silencing its competition. The guy who calls it "Fourth-rate Scientology-wannabe spin-off" is clueless about what he's talking about, and is too ignorant to be allowed to comment on this subject. He's probably from the "church" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.221.56 (talk • contribs)

Delete As per nom.HubcapD 23:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment HubcapD has a pro-cofs POV. The cofs considers Idenics to be a suppressive group.--Fahrenheit451 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could care less about the Scn connection. It just ain't notable. Someone thunk up sumptin does not equal notability. Sorry. --Justanother 03:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Justanother has a pro-cofs POV. The cofs considers Idenics to be a suppressive group.--Fahrenheit451 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I could care less about who or what the CoS (CofS) thinks is "suppressive". Although I have found that sometimes those tagged such rightly deserve it - they are sometimes manipulative, selfish, and abusive people . . . or worse. Sometimes they are not. --Justanother 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI found Idenics to be simple, direct and powerful and I got great results. I think more people need the opportunity to become aware of this.--Blueyes1125 16:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Note: the above post is the very first edit User:Blueyes1125 has made. wikipediatrix 16:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete not notable. What cofs considers is irrelevant. At best it can be merged with Freezone or redirected to it. While it branched out from Hubbard way earlier than what is considered the founding period of Freezone (the 80s), groups have been branching out from Dn/Scn since 1950. --Leocomix 10:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leocomix has a pro-cofs POV. Leocomix has also demonstrated that he is very misinformed about Idenics as it did not come into existence until 1987. Leocomix's comment of notability is based on misinformation he has obtained elsewhere.--Fahrenheit451 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F451, what is with this evaluative BS commentary on other editors. --Justanother 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, it is a factual comment about the racketeering conducted by the Church of Scientology against help groups that the cofs puts up as competition.--Fahrenheit451 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet there are no Federal racketeering charges being brought against the CoS, even though their opponents have been stating for over 25 years that it's coming "any day now". How is it that you think you know more than the U.S. Government? Or are they part of the conspiracy too? (More importantly, what do all these red herrings you keep dragging in have to do with whether the Idenics article passes WP:CORP?) wikipediatrix 19:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The crime and the prosecution are two different things entirely. I think you are dragging red herrings here in support of a spurious contention of "not notable". --Fahrenheit451 02:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idenics is a system not related to Church of Scientology copyrights. I have held important exec positions in the Church for many years, so i can say this. however, the Church wishs to stamp out anything like a self-help group that they do not control. I find it very odd that a Church hides behind commercial law and will do this. readers should know about Idenics whether the Church likes it or not. Are we book burners? no. George Rasmussen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.195.15 (talk • contribs)

Keep - relevant and respectable Freezone group, no need to delete this. Google counts are not the world - David Gerard 10:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree, relevant and respectable Freezone group, no need to delete this. ThomasPaine123 11:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe subject is relevant to hundreds if not thousands of individuals using the subject. I did not know Wikipedia made decisions on if a subject was important to everyone. Information needs to be kept correct and policies established for that makes sense. If a subject is correct but unimportant why delete it. It simple will be used by only those few that are interested. Sounds a bit like book burning to me because someone wants only their version of the way things should be to be available. --User:ThomasPaine123 21:25 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment to closing admin With a couple of notable exceptions, the keep votes are very much of a WP:SPA nature. Much more than I have seen on other Scn-related AfDs. Interesting. --Justanother 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing admin This AfD is a Office of Special Affairs inspired hatchet job and Justanother is a member of the Church of Scientology who, along with his cohorts, are following the human rights violating dogma of Fair Game (Scientology). The Deletes from User:S. M. Sullivan, User:Leocomix, User:HubcapD, and User:Justanother are all maliciously motivated. There is no such thing as assuming good faith from them because the cofs dogma demands that they must not.--Fahrenheit451 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. So the Office of Special Affairs is out to delete this article, eh? And all editors who disagree with you are part of the conspiracy, eh? And you don't need to assume good faith because of this, eh? Paranoia strikes deep. wikipediatrix 14:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not state that, you did to misdirect from what I did state. You are speaking for yourself Wikipediatrix.--Fahrenheit451 14:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't just say that "This AfD is a Office of Special Affairs inspired hatchet job"? And you didn't just say "The Deletes from User:S. M. Sullivan, User:Leocomix, User:HubcapD, and User:Justanother are all maliciously motivated"?? And you didn't just say "There is no such thing as assuming good faith from them"? wikipediatrix 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my entire comment in context, which you destroy in your "comment":Comment to the closing admin This AfD is a Office of Special Affairs inspired hatchet job and Justanother is a member of the Church of Scientology who, along with his cohorts, are following the human rights violating dogma of Fair Game (Scientology). The Deletes from User:S. M. Sullivan, User:Leocomix, User:HubcapD, and User:Justanother are all maliciously motivated. There is no such thing as assuming good faith from them because the cofs dogma demands that they must not.--Fahrenheit451 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:HARASS:

Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. [emphasis added]

--Justanother 15:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, harassment is certainly one aspect of the practice of Fair Game (Scientology). The practice is used routinely against those folks who object to the Human Rights violations of the cofs. We are seeing it here.--Fahrenheit451 17:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think OSA is very good at provoking fire fights as shown in USA courts of law. Whether this is actually the case here or not is not the important point. The original problem is earlier. I am very glad the administrators are not treating this as a vote. It is a very grave error for Wikipedia to start deleting articles on the basis of use or possible use. It is the basis of freedom of communication that if something is said in good faith and truthfully, that it is then allowed to be heard. I believe that Wikipedia exists because of this principle and for Wikipedia to establish policy violating it would be suicidal to Wikipedia's standards. --User:ThomasPaine123 4:01 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth does any of this OSA junk have to do with whether the Idenics article passes WP:CORP?

wikipediatrix 20:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OSA being a hidden setup group or not, is NOT important. Wikipedia deleting an article because it does not get used is the point. Someone may write about arcane information on Hamiltonian Operators in Quantum Mechanics. Maybe only ten people can understand it. It should be left in. Number of users looking at it should not be the criteria. There is no shortage of cheap storage space. User:ThomasPaine123 21:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant promo piece about the miracle testimonies of people "who were unable to handle their issues in years of previous therapies". The sources are ridiculous, try this one. Delete per Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment That can be edited out, Bishonen.--Fahrenheit451 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with respected Wikipedia user David Gerard (talk · contribs), and his comment above. Shinealight2007 23:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Gerard gave no guideline/policy-based answer, thus simply saying "I agree with him" is unhelpful. What parts of WP:CORP and WP:RS do you cite to support your decision? wikipediatrix 23:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some good referencing is provided. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is a good editor and respected on Wikipedia, and I trust and defer to his judgement. If he says keep, and the article can be worked on, then I think we should keep it and give it a chance. Shinealight2007 23:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Keep Though it is light on information for my taste, I was able to find a reference not already included so perhaps more might be available with a more detailed search. Anynobody 01:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources for the first sentence are reliable (WP:RS). The rest of the page is POV drivel. Even if this does pass WP:CORP, it fails WP:NPOV. --Alksub 07:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Massmann[edit]

This article was prod'ded, and I don't necessarily disagree, but considering that it was deprodded once, I felt being it to AFD was appropriate. The concerns as stated by the prodder are: "article lists membership in Writers Guild of America, west -- no such membership exists [49], article lists membership in Screen Actors Guild -- no such membership exists [50]. Subject is not notable under the WP:BIO guidelines. Basically the guy is a local actor and video producer. No sources cited. Veracity of claims questionable given that on IMdb database, subject lists General Hospital credits dating back to his birth (obviously he is taking credit for another person's work)[51]. MikeDWatcher 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

This seems possibly true to me, though there may be some other people with the name, so it could be I'm missing something. FrozenPurpleCube 03:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the lack of sources do not support notability. I'd certainly reconsider if additional reliable sources were located. --ElKevbo 04:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete. Verified the theater director claims at [52], film distribution company at [53] and the Mr. Dungbeetle claims at [54][55][56][57][58]. Clearly the article needs to be fixed though—it looks like the IMDB entry on him was vandalized and is unreliable. Still, I can't help but feeling that none of it really matters, so it probably should be eliminated. MrPrada 07:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, the IMDB page only counts 5 episodes of General Hospital from 2006. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even so, the IMDB page does not impress me, and 87 google hits do not suggest notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was g11 -- Y not? 04:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narragansett church of god[edit]

A church, with a list of doctrine from the parent church. No claim to notability. I believe Narragansett is the name of the street the church is on in Chicago. Speciate 03:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Uses promotional language such as, "Respectful of our past and driven toward our future." --Alksub 03:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete blatant advertising. CitiCat^♫ 04:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. While it is possible that he meets notability guidelines (through the discussion below suggests he does not), in light of WP:BLP the lack of sourcing and balance mean that the current article must be deleted. Eluchil404 00:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Zeisman[edit]

Non-notable person. Ran for office but never elected. Article is also way too self-aggrandizing. Suttungr 03:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Claim to fame is coming in third in an election. 69.116.62.33 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claim to fame is embroiling himself in scandal during an election. Being a defeated candidate is not inherently notable, but he was the subject of (as opposed to merely being mentioned in) news coverage across Canada (and perhaps outside of Canada too; I'm not aware). Keep. Sarcasticidealist 19:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN, resume/autobio, mention he writes letters to the editor of local paper near the end. Speciate 03:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have reverted to a more reasonable revision. Subject has been covered in multiple news articles[59][60] and is therefore notable. --Alksub 03:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still nothing that clears notability. CitiCat^♫ 04:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Oysterguitarist 06:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many references available online; meets policies. --Vonones 06:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Also, unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons is sufficient grounds for article deletion.Dominion1867 20:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC) — Dominion1867 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep seems notable enough, but only just. Rehevkor 18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Bombycil 22:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grunka lunkas[edit]

Non notable, shown in very few episodes. DurinsBane87 03:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Few episodes but notable enough. Some fans (not me) will want information about them. 69.116.62.33 03:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fans wanting information is not wikipedia's concern. Notability is. These are not notable. being in 1, maybe 2 episodes while being ONLY supporting character does not make a subject notable. DurinsBane87 03:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING. Dbromage [Talk] 03:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Fry and the Slurm Factory or Futurama. Granted they appeared in a few episodes of Futurama but the article does not assert notability or cite any sources. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Dbromage [Talk] 03:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, they were a funny take on Oompa Loompas, but they are only that, a fleeting cult/cultural reference. Speciate 03:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of real world notability Corpx 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost every other edit by the user who created this were out-and-out vandalism. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real world importance. 17Drew 06:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we need a new speedy criterion for lame crap of this nature. --Agamemnon2 12:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Nothing worthy of encyclopedic note here. Burntsauce 18:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 00:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Thornton[edit]

Not a notable individual P0per 02:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a missed speedy. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Should have checked earlier versions before. Tagged version was vandalism. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete. Regardless of vandalism, only borderline notability is asserted and it fails WP:V. Does not cite any sources. Dbromage [Talk] 03:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changed by vote on the basis of additional information below. Dbromage [Talk] 05:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly needs improvement (particularly in the area of citations and references) but if the assertions of notability are correct then this subject is notable. --ElKevbo 04:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, over 200 Google Scholar citations, over 200 Google Books citations indicate the acceptance of her work as standards in the field. Many of these could be used as sources demonstrating notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung, passes WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep Nom has been withdrawn, nobody has countered. spazure (contribs) 06:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC) You're right, I'm an idiot. For some reason I thought Dlohcierekim was the nom. Nevermind, striking my keep vote. spazure (contribs) 06:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where P0per has withdrawn the nomination. --ElKevbo 06:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 14:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was g11 -- Y not? 04:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web Analytics Association[edit]

Speedy delete. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT. Hu12 02:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. --Alksub 03:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. Dbromage [Talk] 03:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Ansari[edit]

non notable architect whose article doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:BIO. - Fordan (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Not notable 69.116.62.33 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:57, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
Delete No press coverage or notable work shown. --Alksub 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. He and his work are only trivially mentioned (one four-line paragraph) in the source cited. Cannot locate any non-trivial coverage (the bookbinder in the GNews archive hits appears to be someone else by the same name) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL cab 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 23:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP He is a notable Architect. Look at his client list and works on his official website. His office was even covered on BBC World long back. I have added press coverage. One article talks about a house of a Indian Film Celebrity which Ahsan Ansari did. We has done projetcs of alot of Celebrities from the Indian Film Industry - Bollywood. Thanks. Khan. Khan.found 15:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC) — Khan.found (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Non-notable. Looks like blatant self-advertising. Suttungr 13:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was suspended. That sounds awfully weird, but really I don't really feel comfortable taking any action based on what's going on right now. If she wins, is she notable? Most likely yes. If she's eliminated this week and disappears is she notable? Most likely no. So, I think this should just wait to see if this could be expanded or retooled as she remains on the show. I support re-AfDing this a couple weeks after her elimination to see what consensus is then.Wizardman 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Schumer[edit]

Non-notable and a breeding ground for vandalism. It has been vandalized twice just while I've been watching it, and also it's only 39 words long. Somebody Else's Problem^{(aka Alethiophile)Ask me why} 02:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability criteria set for entertainers by WP:Notability (people). Calgary 02:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Entertainers who are not notable on their own but are relatives of notable politicians should be noted from the politicians' articles. Merge to Chuck Schumer. 69.116.62.33 02:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed, non-notable. Suttungr 03:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Chuck Schumer, plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable reality show losing contestant. -- Mikeblas 10:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awww man ... I've been watching this entire season of Last Comic Standing, so I am quite familiar with her by now (and she's a cutie!), but I can see how she might not meet the notability guidelines. I am abstaining for now, but may be interested in a revisit depending on if she actually wins the competition. No pressure though; I can always just undelete the article if that eventuality becomes reality. I do agree with the general sentiment, however, that reality show contestants do not automatically get articles. --Cyde Weys 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps Merge with the Last Comic Standing page, but deletion is not necessary. Other comics who have performed on the show (e.g., Doug Benson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Benson) have similarly short bios. Delete her, delete them all. Sauce for the goose, as they say . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.232.222 (talk) 16:06, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep until the Season ends and see how she does. Then decide. Bearian 18:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until the season ends. She's a stand-up comedian in the final rounds of a television show that is being broadcast worldwide. I'd question the non-notability of that. --Stacecom 14:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was Speedy Delete as advertising. Page has been salted. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propellerhead Software[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Was speedied 4 times previously under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Hu12 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Not notable. Check Google... 69.116.62.33 03:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources. Speciate 03:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4G11 and salt. Dbromage [Talk] 04:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 and salt. Dbromage, G4 doesn't apply here, as this is the first time it's come up on AFD. Still speedyable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Fair enough. My misunderstanding of G4, even if this will be its 5th speedy! Dbromage [Talk] 05:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time turner series[edit]

WP:NOT#CRYSTAL - The series is only a rumour. Alksub 01:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V outright. Only source given is a blog which contains no information about the book series. Likely WP:COI given creation by Chriska (talk · contribs). --Dhartung | Talk 02:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick google search shows up only five hits for this subject. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this subject from third-party reliable sources as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Siva1979. RS2007 02:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete UNCONFIRMED book series by an UNKNOWN author. 69.116.62.33 03:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrote[edit]

Original research. The Wiktionary definition for the term indicates it is only a pejorative. The article's extensive description of a demographic, or subculture (as chav), by this name is prima facie unverifiable. Alksub 01:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article. A google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the sad product of what happens when someone tries to write about a pejorative as though it were factual. Major NPOV issues as well. Calgary 02:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and snowball delete. Violates WP:NOR heavily, unverifiable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Worthless article that tells the reader nothing; has no place in an encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion: funny how every sad individual who wanted this well written article deleted (using the spurious WP:IDL arguments) no longer edit on Wikipedia.81.141.61.151 (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 02:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airline complaints[edit]

Non-notable subject, people complain about everything. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there has indeed been a significant increase in complaints filed with airlines, it's still not a notable enough subject to merit its own article. A sentence or two in the main article for Air travel would suffice. Calgary 02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No more notable than Wikipedia complaints or Rush-hour traffic complaints. --Evb-wiki 03:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or insurance company complaints. There are laws to handle that too. Not that it matters. Non-notable subject. --Evb-wiki 03:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Laws exist to handle airline complaints; laws do not exist to handle Wikipedia complaints or traffic complaints. This topic is worth keeping if more information is added. 69.116.62.33 03:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per clear violation of WP:SYNTH Corpx 04:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:SYNTH, "complaints" is a very subjective term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violation of WP:SYNTH. Oysterguitarist 06:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: referenced and notable. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response It's not notable in and of itself, it is notable relative to certain other subjects. I'm not even sure I'd go so far as to say that the complaints themselves are notable so much as the causes of the complaints are notable (the hassles of air travel), which again are not notable as their own subject. Calgary 06:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I object to the proposal for deletion. If you search Google for "Airline Complaints OR "Airline Complaint", there are over 60,000 very specific search results. If you search the same terms within Google News, there are over 450 very specific articles. So even if you do no consider the billions of air travelers that fly every year and the tens of thousands of ensuing airline complaints, this is still notable for that reason alone. In fact, this subject matter is notable enough for the US Department of Transportation to have a specific section for "Airline Complaints". Having said all of that, this article is both informative and helpful as it stands, and will become more so as it grows. Considering the current size of the article, it is also very well referenced with 8 citations in total. "Complaints" might be a subjective term, but "Airline Complaints" within the context of an encyclopedia describes a real-world issue, especially when you consider that the Department of Transportation publishes specific Airline Complaints figures. WP:SYNTH does not apply in this case. No part of the article is original research; it is made up entirely of cited facts. Therefore, I object to its deletion.--Sidarthian 10:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC) — Sidarthian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as a clear case of a synthesis of sources used to lend notability and verifiability as an encyclopedic subject. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please explain how this is a "clear case" of synthesis of sources. Most people in favor of deletion are citing this same reason without any justification. I fail to see what part of this article constitutes "original research" which is a main element of WP:SYN.--Sidarthian 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a how to, which is what wikipedia is not, enclosed within some text. Vegaswikian 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response What part of this article is a "how-to"? The article itself contains no information regarding how to complain about an airline.--Sidarthian 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expunge! Per norm. !paradigm! 18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)!paradigm![reply]
Keep: The claims for synthesis of sources are inaccurate. The article uses various different sources, yet no new conclusions are made in the article itself. The article as it is is well-structured, informative, and it has plenty of room for development. The reason why so many people want the article to be deleted is probably that articles of that kind are currently very uncommon in wikipedia, yet in the modern world, the issue itself is definitely very relevant and it is totally possible to write an unbiased and informative article taking into account views of passengers, airlines and government bodies alike, and describing trends and the causes of them. The large number of google hits means that there is plenty of information avaliable in the form of verifiable resources.

195.50.215.56 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MZMcBride (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 02:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idaho Hold 'em[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Idaho Hold 'em

Vanity nonsense. Zero online mentions. Also silly commentary about some kid playing 25 cent games. (And the prio contributions of the editor who created article have been vandalism.) 2005 01:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3, vandalism, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page's creator has been indef blocked. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Doubt's sixth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previously deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Doubt's sixth studio album). This version's not much different. It's some quotes saying that they liked performing and that they're happy to be making a new album. Still no release date has been announced, no song titles, only that Spike Stent has been at the sessions. The last reference (which provides no actual information anyway) is unreliable. The ((db-repost)) template was removed by Haemo with the edit summary "substanitally (sic) different, and more sourced, than the deleted version -- suggest WP:AFD instead?". 17Drew 00:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more reliable than the other article, so you can not say "not much different." you have to let other people edit No Doubt and Gwen sometime :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthonyeatworld (talk • contribs) 01:03, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

There's a difference between "allowing" people to edit articles (as if I were any sort of authority) and deleting an article full of non-information such as "I don’t think I will make another solo album. I can’t predict anything." 17Drew 01:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verify notability, or delete - announcements directly from an author or artist don't qualify as appropriate references. We need to point to references from reliable third-party sources, like a major magazine or newspaper article. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. The Transhumanist 01:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? An artist is not a reliable source for information about their work? Atropos 06:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think The Transhumanist is referring to the fact that articles can use primary sources, but that primary sources do not establish the notability of the article. 17Drew 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. Otherwise, what he said makes no sense.

Been seeing eachother everywhere. Crazy, eh? Atropos 05:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no third party sources seem to have reported it yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - eo 01:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What is the fascination with writing articles on things that haven't happened yet? If you want to be the first to create a page, there are gazillions of things that exist that need pages. Speciate 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Oysterguitarist 06:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and lack of sources. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fine, fine ok. delete the page, and you do sorta not let anyone edit no doubt, you monitor them and make sure it's perfect, if you don't like it it's gone! and is it YOU (drew) who keeps editing gwen's ablums and changing the genre to R&B? (she is clearly not R&B) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.202.177.5 (talk) 13:44, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

If you have an issue with my editing, please let me know. But AfD is not dispute resolution. 17Drew 18:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my arguments on the 1st nomination.--JForget 23:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have a problem with you generally. gwen stefani isnt bloody R&B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyeatworld (talk • contribs) 00:57, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

And this has what to do with the No Doubt's sixth studio album article? 17Drew 01:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - While, yes this is an article about a future or upcoming album which has yet to be produced or released, the article clearly states that. If this were by a non-notable artist, I would agree with "delete", but since this future event warranted coverage by MTV, and the band in question is clearly notable, it's worthy of an article. If, in fact, the information changes or it never happens, the article can be edited to reflect that. NOTE: The article can definately use a little clean-up to make it sound more encyclopaedic. --BaldDee 16:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 01:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Dance[edit]

Non-notable High School Musical 2 album track. No sources here, all speculation - no content at all, really. Suggest delete or redirect to album page. - eo 00:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some content and sources. The song has charted as the article indicates. It is a top 40 download on two different charts despite being released very recently. The only speculative content is whether or not it will be released as an official single, and that's irrelevant now that downloading is the main way that this generation obtains music. Kinston eagle 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being released as a single is relevant; otherwise any song that is available as a digital download anywhere would be notable enough for an article. - eo 01:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't just that it is "available" as a download but that it "charted" as a download. And on two different international charts. Kinston eagle 01:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about iTunes or Radio Disney, those are not official charts nor are they representative of any country. - eo 01:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That's the point they are not representative of any country because they are international showing worldwide appreciation of the song. Kinston eagle 01:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not representative because the iTunes Store is one specific retailer, and Radio Disney is not compiled by any official measure of radio airplay outside of Radio Disney. These charts say nothing about international popularity. The song is an album track and benefitted digitally because the album (worthy of an article) was released and sold tons of copies. - eo 01:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're reasons for deletion are 1. It's an album track that hasn't been released as a single - Many songs from musicals are never released as singles. See for example, Consider Yourself and If I Were a Rich Man (song), besides, there is no requirement for a song to have been released as a single to be notable. 2. No sources - I've added several sources that discuss this song including the New York Times. 3. All speculation - Only one line of speculation and that can be easily removed if you object to it. 4. No content at all - at 5800 bytes, I wouldn't say that there was no content. In fact, it's currently larger than the page for the soundtrack. These are the four objections you've stated and I don't see as how you have an argument for any of them. Kinston eagle 02:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I never said a song had to be a single to be notable, I was countering your argument that it was "irrelevant". 2. As you stated above, you added content to the article after I nominated it for deletion. 3. Speculation should be removed yes, but again, you added content after I nominated this article. 4. Same as #2. - eo 10:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that it should not be deleted now that the content has been added? By the way, I just found out that it is the official theme song for this year's Little League World Series. I will be adding that info very soon. Kinston eagle 12:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I've responded to the points you brought up. - eo 12:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Kinston eagle 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was added to the baseball related deletions due to the prominent use of major league players in the music video as well as the baseball related dance routine in the movie. It is also the official theme song for this year's Little League World Series.Kinston eagle 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It is a likely single, and besides, it has been charted. Neranei (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This song most likely satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria for songs. Considering that the first High School Musical soundtrack had more tracks hit the Billboard Hot 100 than any other album since the chart began, there is a fairly decent chance that this song might be released as a single and hit the charts. --Metropolitan90 02:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 03:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until song charts on the Hot 100, right now the sources are trivial so the song fails WP:RS, possibly violates WP:CRYSTAL too. All "keep" votes seem to lack any reasoning and are possible WP:ILIKEIT votes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, has charted on the Billboard Hot 100, pretty much all charting songs seem notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 12:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Village Voice, the Charlotte Observer, and New York Times are trivial sources? My keep vote lacks reasoning? You vote delete for "possibly" being WP:CRYSTAL, and yet you give no instances where it even might be. Exactly which lines are predicting anything? Be specific, so we can address your concerns. Kinston eagle 09:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the sources per se are trivial, their mentions of the song are. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 12:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has no reliable sources and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Oysterguitarist 06:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Village Voice, the Charlotte Observer, and New York Times are not reliable sources? Kinston eagle 09:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nothing wrong. JB 82^c 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wow, those sources are so trivial I had great difficulty trying to wade my way through them. Just because something is 'likely' doesn't mean it is going to happen; there 'likely' will be a Tropical Storm or Hurricane named Felix this year, but there isn't an article for it. WP:ILIKEIT isn't good reasoning, everyone who has voted keep. Delete in accordance with WP:CRYSTAL.Ravenmasterq 18:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another poster who claims that this article is crystal balling without showing exactly where it supposedly is. Please tell us exactly which lines in the article are predicting something and maybe we'll have a chance to address those concerns. Making vague assertions isn't helping anything. I'm not sure where all this WP:ILIKEIT talk originated, but neither I nor any of the other Keep people mentioned anything about liking the song. As a matter of fact, I don't like the song. Just because I don't like it though, doesn't mean it isn't notable. I feel that being the official theme song of a major international sporting event is enough in and of itself to make it notable. Kinston eagle 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. "The only speculative content is whether or not it will be released as an official single" (Kinston eagle), "It is a likely single" (Neranei (talk)), "This song most likely satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria for songs. (Metropolitan90)". Of the keep votes, three claim likelyhood (*cough Crystal Ball cough*), two are simply assertions of agreement ('nothing wrong', 'notable'), and only one gives an argument (Irish Pearl), but it could be refuted by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other songs, who in that user's opinion are lesser, have articles, doesn't also mean that a song the user thinks is better should have an article as well. The article has trivial references, and has no major references dedicated to it entirely; it would be like creating a page for a minor league prospect simply because the NYT ran an article about prospects in , say, the Yankees or Red Sox organizations. It isn't specific enough of a reference.Ravenmasterq 04:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that you wanted to "Delete in accordance with WP:CRYSTAL" and yet all the crystalballing you're talking about is in the deletion discussion. The deletion discussion is not up for deletion, it is the article that is up for deletion. What is in the article up for deletion that you consider to violate WP:CRYSTAL? That was the question. In regards to the references. One of the references is entirely on the song and the video for the song: [61]. The comparison with articles on prospects isn't appropriate. Prospects "may" make the major leagues someday, whereas this song "has" been released and "has" achieved sales through downloads - enough to be a top twenty seller, and it "has" already been used as an official theme song of a major international sporting event. Kinston eagle 13:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if your arguments are based off WP:CRYSTAL, as I previously showed (and an apology is due to Metropolitan90, I used the incorrect quote, it should have been "there is a fairly decent chance that this song might be released as a single and hit the charts") then doesn't defending the article based on WP:CRYSTAL form a logical fallacy? And didn't you say 'The only speculative content is....' which could be interpreted as 'may'? Regarding the sources, the first one is specifically focused on the Major League baseball players, the second (Greensboro New Record) has ~75 words regarding the song, the Village Voice covers it in ~45 words, 'TV Blend' has ~35 words, the Charlotte Observer uses 13 words to disparage the song, and the NYT, the most reliable source on the list, uses ~80 words in its description. So, only about ~225 words are used to describe this article in all the sources used! It doesn't seem relevant enough to deserve listing.Ravenmasterq 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that the song most likely will satisfy the WP:MUSIC criteria for songs; I said that it most likely satisfies the criteria (present tense). No crystal ball is involved. The criterion it most likely satisfies is "...has been covered in sufficient independent works." --Metropolitan90 13:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm not sure about the Charlotte Observer, but the New York Times and Village Voice are very reliable sources. And the fact that it is now the official theme song for this year's Little League World Series I feel makes it plenty notable. Not to mention the fact that the soundtrack charting so well already should help the article's case in the sense that being a song associated with the CD in addition to being this year's Little League World Series theme song and being mentioned in several major newspapers. I would think this song deserves an article far more so than the single "What Time Is It?" from the CD does, given that "I Don't Dance" now has notability outside just being on the CD. Irish♣Pearl 20:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The song has now hit the Billboard Hot 100 while this AfD discussion was going on. [62] --Metropolitan90 01:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I let the Delete voters know about this on their talk pages in case they weren't watching this page anymore. That did seem to be one of the major objections to the notability of the song. Thanks. Kinston eagle 12:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure about this article. While the proposed wikipedia song policy does indeed state "...has been ranked on a national or significant music chart." as a guideline, I would still feel more comfortable if there was a major source specifically dedicated to the song. As we saw before, all these sources (minus the MLBPA source) only give trivial mention of the song while doing an entire article that is focused more specifically on High School Musical Two. The long list of them may look impressive, but it seems akin to the practice back in high school that would be used to pad a reference list with trivial mentions of certain information. I would like to see a larger criticism section, with more reviews from more reliable sources. I would like to see a history of the song with more production details. I'd also like to check into the reliability of 'TV Blend'. So for now, my vote remains Delete, but a few more well placed sections or primary sources focusing on the song itself would throw me to keep.Ravenmasterq 15:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep although precedent is to kill such songs with a long stick, I'm fine. Will ^(talk) 13:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would say Weak Keep except that near the end of the article, it states that it has not yet been released as a real single, thus I propose Delete or Merge WAVY 10 20:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 17:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All For One[edit]

Non-notable album track from the High School Musical 2 soundtrack. Suggest delete or redirect to the album page unless this song is released as a single or some other special reason for notability arises. - eo 00:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Not asserting notability outside of the album its self. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 00:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The track hasn't been confirmed as a single, and is not significant enough to justify a whole article on it. Dh993 15:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All for One (disambiguation), logical choice for nn single. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All For One (disambiguation), because it is a not notable single yet. Oysterguitarist 05:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All for One (disambiguation). iTunes is not an official national chart, and I'm disinclined to say that a song from a Disney film is notable because Disney is playing it. 17Drew 06:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to disambiguation page. Not notable enough for its own article. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either the album or disambiguation page; unless it is released as a single or is charted, it doesn't deserve its own article. Neranei (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Not only is having this article a waste of space, but it'll only make confusion. Redirecting it to form one major article is a good idea. TheInfinityZero 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to disambiguation Will ^(talk) 13:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duets (Aaliyah album)[edit]

Unsourced, crystal ball-gazing article about a supposedly rumoured album release from Aaliyah; moreover, the content of the article contradicts the title. Prodded by myself; de-prodded without explanation. Extraordinary Machine 00:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax - Aaliyah's dead. -WarthogDemon 00:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People have been talking about it on forums for three years and still nothing has been released. That should be a hint. Regardless, no reliable sources are cited. 17Drew 01:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced speculation. Dbromage [Talk] 01:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a hoax per the fact that a.) Aaliyah is dead, and b.) it's been rumored for three years with nothing happening. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has a lot of incoming links, will someone make sure to kill those too? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were only three when I looked, but I've removed thme all now. 17Drew 02:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - that cover is obviously fake too. - eo 01:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as hoax, the fake cover exposes it clearly, however dead people have released CDs in the past for example Celia Cruz and Hector Lavoe. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And John Lennon. While the cover is a hoax, I believe the remainder of the article is merely speculation about something that has been in the rumour mill for years. Dbromage [Talk] 05:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notorious B.I.G. and 2Pac have released more CDs since they died than before, haven't they....? ChrisTheDude 07:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and Aaliyah has already released a posthumous compilation album. Kumbia Kings released a Duetos album several years after the death of Selena. It's a common practice, but there's nothing reliable saying that this one exists. 17Drew 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious hoax. Oysterguitarist 05:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced it's a hoax, but definitely violates WP:CRYSTAL. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Do it now. Burntsauce 18:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - May or may not be a hoax, but either way Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Neranei (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As just rumours.--JForget 23:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shane Ruttle Martinez[edit]

The result was speedy keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 03:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sydnee Capri[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 00:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 06:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No multiple non-trivial reliable published sources, no article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability in article as it stands. Tabercil 21:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May Production[edit]

Was going to speedy this, but the article asserts notability. Appears to be a production studio of some kind that produced 22 (mostly redlinked) videos. The article is written by someone claiming to be a producer for the studio, and I can't find any reliable sources that would show notability. I've speedied a couple of the videos for being empty, but this nomination also includes the two non-empty video articles, which might actually be speedily deletable under A1 for lacking context:

HOLLYWOOD NIGHT 4 - No name
HOLLYWOOD NIGHT 14 - Nguoi Tinh Mua Ha

--Core desat 09:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some assertion of notability, but no reliable sources to back it up. Sasha Callahan 15:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "very successful" company that released straight-to-video product and went bankrupt within a decade? Unless the claims presented in the article are qualified, this fits CSD. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom FamicomJL 05:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 23:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barker Brettell[edit]

Non-notable specialized law firm. It has not been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The "notable cases" section does not help to establish notability since a notable case does not necessarily make the lawyer involved notable (a case may be notable by its content or the parties involved, rather than by the lawyers involved). "Ranked top regional" does not make a specialized law firm notable (by the way this is unverified). Finally, the year of foundation (unverified) has not been acknowledged as being notable in independent sources (compared to other law firms). Edcolins 19:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only new here, but this does seem like an advertising page. If they can do it, then we would like to, also! patently 09:07, 24 August 2007 (GMT)

Keep The Legal 500 survey is an independent secondary source. The firm is clearly described as the top flight of firms outside London; the term "regional" in this sense refers to everywhere in the UK apart from the capital. Surely being verifiably ranked as one of the best firms in the country for your speciality by a reliable third party source implies notability? Also, notable legal cases are only notable due to the lawyers that take part in them, so this only adds to the firm's notability. As an aside, I would note that I have had some issues linking to the correct legal 500 page, which should be here, but if that doesn't work, try going to the legal 500 homepage, then clicking United Kingdom, London (nonsensically), then Regional Patent and trademark Attorneys, then you should see Barker Brettell listed at number 1. --Epacpa 13:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Epacpa's view, the Legal 500 seems to accept entries based on whether or not the firm wishes to pay for space, not on the basis of its own research into the sector. As a partner in a firm of patent & trade mark attorneys, my only contact with Legal 500 has been as the recipient of mailshots asking for my money, not my opinion of other firms. Perhaps research is carried out on those who are included (I wouldn't know!), but that would then be a selection from a limited group only and therefore not independent. Patently 16:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable verification of that suggestion? Also, just because they haven't polled you, why does that mean they haven't polled other independent people? --Epacpa 14:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, they explicitly say that they don't accept payment for inclusion - inclusion is by merit only, and based on the views of clients for whom the firms have acted and their researchers. It would therefore seem a reliable source, IMO. --Epacpa 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, legal cases are usually regarded as notable due to the issues they raise or the principles they set out; the lawyer involved would only become notable if those principles were the result of his/her especially insightful analysis of the case. Establishing that through verifiable independent sources would be a steep hill to climb, especially as I haven't heard of either case.

Now, I'm going to refrain from expressing a firm opinion either way; I hope that this is not seen as unhelpful, but (as I said) I'm new here as a registered user (although I've gratefully used the resource for some time) so I'm reluctant to press either way on what (in the end) is a policy issue perhaps best left to those with more experience. But this is an interesting question; can an article such as this remain on Wikipedia?? If so, we can expect to see many more; that will undoubtedly be useful to many, but is it what is wanted from Wikipedia? Patently 16:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epacpa, since you created the article, since you are the sole contributor to the article (with me), and given your advice to Patently on his talk page to go ahead and create an article about his firm (!!), I would not be surprised you work at Barker Brettell... If yes, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may also consider declaring an interest, although this is not mandatory. Thanks.

To the admin closing the discussion: please consider whether Epacpa's opinion should be taken into account or not, given his list of contributions. Thanks. --Edcolins 19:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I work at Barker Brettell, but I hasten to add that I have made all my edits in good faith and have tried to keep the article as NPOV as I can. (and, as an aside, what is wrong with encouraging people to be bold if they keep within wikipedia's guidelines, as I advised?) --Epacpa 09:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, as it appears not to have any independent sources about the law firm. The cases and the attorneys may be notable, but not the law firm, and notability is not "inherited". Bearian 18:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edcolins. Although the article has independent sources, they are not sufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:CORP. The refences indicate the firm's involvement in court cases, but this is what you would expect and is what they are paid to do. Notabilty to come, perhaps.--Gavin Collins 12:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 participants felt he was notable enough for inclusion (non-admin closure). New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason David Frank[edit]

Profile of TV character, no longer notable by today's standards. PowerRangerHunter193 20:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article is about about the actor, not the character, and he is notable.Nate 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PowerRangerHunter193 (talk • contribs) 20:49, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
Keep. This actor's career has indeed been discussed by nontrivial sources; he meets the notability criteria. Notability is not time-sensitive; Frank Sinatra hasn't made any new music lately, either, but that doesn't mean we should delete him. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above, as an obviously notable actor with 100's of appearances on a top-10 kid's Saturday morning show. The nom appears to be an error of judgment by a newbie with less than 10 edits. At least I am assuming that. Bearian 18:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VERY Strong Keep per above. He is a VERY notable actor, a great martial artist (I would love to visit his dojo someday) and an awesome person. Angie Y. 00:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VERY VERY Strong Keep per above. He's still active as an actor and by todays standards he IS notable. And as FisherQueen stated, notability is not time-sensitive. Personally I think this person has a dislike towards Jason David Frank for unknown reasons and figured he'd take out his frustration by trying to get his Wikipedia article deleted. As Bearian stated, it's an error in judgment by a newbie with less than 10 edits. Okay that's my last bit of "I agree with past reasoning." He's notable. Don't delete him. 'Nuff said. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 00:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "very" repeatedly won't make your opinions more important. Probably the opposite in fact. Back on topic, keep. Falling off the scene does not matter, since past events still carry notability. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a famous actor in the 90's and a prominent member of the crew of a popular kid's television show. Why on earth should this article be deleted. There are MANY more less famous actors on the pages of Wikipedia then this. - Samuraiman89

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 04:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit 9/11½[edit]

Crystal ball, likely hoax (see talk page). Delete with prejudice. Grue 21:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're pointing out an Anonymous user made the article - so? It's on IMDB. Good enough for me. Keep. -- A Link to the Past 11:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- That's like saying: "It's in Wikipedia - so it must be true!". Grue 11:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did some Anonymous user throw the movie on IMDB? -- A Link to the Past 18:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Fahrenheit 9/11: Until the movie actually comes out, a note about a possible sequel on the main article will be sufficient. Peter Grey 15:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Fahrenheit 9/11, not a hoax (I remember Moore saying it, and anyway Variety article confirms), but, movie projects are notorious for falling into "development hell", so speculation at this point. Can be reconstituted later if precise release date is set or some other irrevertible proof that it's actually going to get done comes up. Dcarrano 15:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep MSNBC article --Arcadian 19:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Arcadian's article. ~ Eszett 12:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Peter Grey and Dcarrano. DS1953 03:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep for reasons stated above Av 19:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how the "reasons stated above" cancel out the fact that WP:NOT a crystal ball. Grue 20:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOT a crystal ball says, and I quote: "planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion". The movie's being made. I think this qualifies. Av 00:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Fahrenheit 9/11 and make Fahrenheit 9/11½ a redirect until the actual movie comes out. --81.154.237.252 13:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep movie will be made. CanadianCaesar 03:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We really won't know till it does or doesn't come out. Hold on to it until we get verifiable proof.
Keep Keep this for the next year or so. If more plans do not come out on this sequal, remove this thread. KEEP
Keep it! --Spe88 05:33, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Darwinek 16:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me & Michael[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Me & Michael

Promotional; no secondary sources Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not notable. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:22 24 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Bearian 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement for movie, mostly copied from the movie's website (and thus potentially copyvio). — Gwalla | Talk 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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