< January 11	January 13 >

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

The result was delete. Spebi 07:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspinall family[edit]

This is an article on a largely non-notable family. There are two possibly notable members of the family (Arthur Aspinall and Jessie Aspinall) but the rest seem non-notable on their own and notability is not inherited. The references are a privately published genealogy book, an index of biography, a reference which applies to one member of the family and what seems to be a lot of original research. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a website that encourages family histories and genealogy, see www.ancestry.com. Wikipedia is not a site for obituaries of non-notable ancestors. Edison (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not much more to add. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query is Phillip Aspinall a member? Paul foord (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spebi 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012 presidential election[edit]

Nom per WP:CRYSTAL, and bearing in mind Wikipedia:There is no deadline. When the time is right, we can have an article properly titled United States presidential election, 2012 AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only content is an electoral vote template, but that will change due to redistricting after the 2010 census. The current election is too much of a wild card for anyone to be positioning themselves for a '12 run. --Dhartung | Talk 00:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete There is no information on here?... delete it. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 00:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Dylan (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Dhartung points out, even the electoral vote information is going to change by 2012. Somehow, I get the feeling that someone will be planning their campaign on the first Wednesday of this November. Mandsford (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - no valid information whatsoever. - fchd (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even know that you could call this WP:CRYSTAL--it's not predicting anything other than that electoral votes will still be the same in 2012. This is a placeholder article it seems and we don't really need a placeholder for four years. Redfarmer (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as having no information. A very nice and earnest newbie started a new entry that's not even a stub. Try in another 11 months. Sorry. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as premature. Let's get the 2008 election over with first, shall we? This ain't the Olympics where things are set in stone years in advance. Considering the way the US electoral system works, the preparations for the 2012 election will likely begin in December 2008 or January 2009, so the article can be recreated then. 23skidoo (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Mh29255 (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —F^red ¹1⁴ 06:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but re-title it United States presidential election, 2012 and rapidly start entering information to get it to an appropriate length.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpackfan72 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Blatant vandalism delete

Eugene bulkin[edit]

Not notable.

(I'm not a milkmaid) ~Ed Boy^[c] 23:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Mildly amusing but blatant hoax. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AlasdairGreen27. Jonathan § 23:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete To avoid being indescriminate information lists need to have criteria and I simply don't see any evidence of this or an agreed standard that can be applied. We also seem to have other articles that address this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Traditional Counties[edit]

This page appears to breach our policy on British counties outlined at WP:PLACE. "Traditional" is a word that is considered a political loaded term created by the Association of British Counties (see traditional county for where it leads). Probable breach of WP:POVFORK and WP:OR too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially a fork of Counties of the United Kingdom and Historic counties of England etc. reflecting the fringe views of this website and essentially lifted from their webpage here. Violation of WP:PLACE. MRSC • Talk 23:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please could you clarify this dispute. Is your conception of historic counties different from their definition of traditional ones? Or what? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The essential difference is that they (ABC) claim that boundaries of counties cannot change over time and in reference to this produce a set of boundaries which they promote. As change has been constant, both in modern and ancient times, it is quite likely that the historic counties (that is those that have existed a long time) have never matched up to the boundaries they are promoting. That is why it has no value or place in an encyclopedia, it cannot be verified as anything other than an aspiration of this group. MRSC • Talk 16:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Association of British Counties (which traditional county redirects to, as Jaza points out. Since the article doesn't explain what's a traditional county is, this isn't much of a stand-alone. The A.of B.C. article, at least, has a map. Mandsford (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Britain is larger than England, which indicates a place for this article in a hierarchy of lists. The term traditional is essentially the same as historic and it is used by WP:PLACE. Not seeing a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - by whose 'tradition' - the assumption that there is a uniform 'British' tradition in this area, and that counties in the several nations are generic, is not only POV, it is just plain wrong.--Doc^g 00:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hae already encountered several confusing uses of "traditional county" in English geographic articles -- e.g. "X is in the county (corporate) of Y, and the county (traditional) of Z". At best this is baffling to the ordinary user, at worst unhelpful and misleading. --Dhartung | Talk 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An analogy which may be helpful is New England. This region no longer has a government administration but still exists both as a current and historical concept which merits an article here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or old England even, which hasn't had its own government for 300 years. Lancsalot (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per points of Doc and MRSC. I'm also no fan of the phenomenon where the same info is endlessly replicated across wikipedia using difference headings. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The same information already exists and if anything, is needing simplified, not made much more complex with yet another list, especially one which is relatively unencyclopedic. Traditional is one of those ambiguous phrases that doesn't really have any useful meaning in the context of an encyclopedia. Nick (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These areas exist in law as confirmed by the General Register Office. Lancsalot (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries (quote from Wikipedia naming conventions). -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. They exist with their current boundaries which are the Mersey, Thames etc. Lancsalot (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is the exact minority view that the policy states we should avoid (for reasons made clear in the policy). That's addressed to all the other readers, not Lancsalot. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It may be a minority view bit it is factually correct. The majority may believe every Ford Model T was black, but we do not report this because it is not true. Lancsalot (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Minority views are common in the Wikipedia, even in extreme cases. And I am not convinced that the traditional/historic counties have gone. To me, Hartlepool, where I was born, is in County Durham; Altrincham, where I went to school, is in Cheshire; and Greenford, where I lived, is in Middlesex. The articles on these places say something of the sort. Trying to enforce the ephemeral conceptions of current administrations in a heavy-handed way is recentism. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        County boundaries can change and come & go just like national boundaries. Would you say Tallinn is in the Soviet Union, or Split is in Yugoslavia? - fchd (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It depends upon the context. For me, this would usually be a game about WW2 such as Barbarossa to Berlin, which I am currently playing. In this context, I would indeed say that Tallinn is in the Soviet Union. 15:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        Or that Hawarden and Rhuddlan are in Cheshire, since they were in the hidated and un-hidated parts of Atiscross Hundred (respectively), which was a part of Cheshire at the time of Domesday? What are the time-scales or limits for this? DDStretch  (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The county boundaries have now been settled for hundreds of years, long enough certainly to establish a tradition. A good analogy is with the Provinces of Sweden. They have not been used by government for centuries, but still exist as geographical areas. For example "Malmö is the third largest city in Sweden, situated in its southernmost province of Scania." According to your logic Scania does not exist! And yet the Swedish editors consider it more important than the administrative subdivisions Malmö Municipality and Skåne County. Lancsalot (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I was merely asking about the time scale and limits, rather than saying something does not exist, so I gently suggest that you may have misunderstood what I was asking. Furthermore, although I am pleased to have been educated about matters in Sweden (for which I thank you), we are discussing issues to do with the UK (or Britain, as used in the title of this article), and so what might happen in another country it is not quite relevant to the matter here, as all sorts of things might be done in different ways. Finally, I don't think your statement that "[t]he county boundaries have been settled for hundreds of years" is correct: a glance at any reputable sources for the histories of various counties will show that there have always been changes made to the boundaries: a glance through Youngs, F.A. (1991) two volumes of the "Guide to the local administrative units of England" will show many instances of boundary changes, both between counties of England, as well as within counties for lower-tier administrative units. Hence my question about time-scales and limits. DDStretch  (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As explained over at Talk:Historic counties of England, local government was separated from the "ancient or geographical counties" in 1889. Any changes since then have been changes to administrative counties, not the historic ones. Prior to that, we had the detached parts act 1844. Whether this changed the counties, or was merely an administrative simplification, is debateable. The GRO treated it as having changed them in its definition of "ancient or geographical counties". Lancsalot (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which may or may not be true. But that does not particularly matter in this instance, since you mentioned a chunk of text you think highly relevant to Historic Counties of England. This neatly illustrates that most of the information contained in the article being considered here is duplicated elsewhere. This was the other reason used to justify this AfD. Because the two reasons for deleting this article are each sufficient on their own to justify deletion, you have provided your own evidence in favour of so deleting this article. Thank you for so doing. DDStretch  (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In how many ways and forms do we have to have the same information? Also per MRSC, DocG etc. Regan123 (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If nothing else, the difference between England, Wales and Scotland in this area is so great as to make the critera for inclusion in such a list unascertainable. Tevildo (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a plain list as a resource for outside readers. It has nothing to do with the internal Wikipedia commuunity debate nor any other page. (See Discussion page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Alexander (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given by others in favour of deletion. DDStretch (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Yank, I find the list interesting and probably valuable if I were to do research in that field. There needs to be a definition of just what these counties consist of, and I will add such a request on the Talk Page for that Article. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reasons given seem to breach WP:ATA. Would you please consider retracting or rephrasing your views? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Counties of the United Kingdom. Fork of existing info. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per User:Nick above - fchd (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per User:Nick (Part 1) above. However re 'traditional', and per User:Colonel Warden, WP:PLACE seems happy with it. Some of us may not be ready to think of the pre-75 Scottish counties as 'historic' or even 'ancient' just yet. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see the semantic argument against traditional here. I feel like this information is perfectly encyclopedic and isn't really thoroughly duplicated anywhere else. matt91486 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, if you wanted to move it to Historic Counties of Great Britain or something else, I'd have no problem with it. matt91486 (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Wikipedia naming conventions, for a start (We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries). This list is part of a politically-motivated attempt to sideline modern administrative units which has created all sorts of problems in the Wales place and buildings categories for instance, with modern counties/boroughs ignored or replaced and the article worded - and categorised - to give the impression that the pre-74 counties still exist. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Modern administrative units? The correct Newspeak term seems to be Principal area. Your enthusiasm for such novelty seems as political as the converse. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My "enthusiasm for such novelty"? Did I say or imply that? As for principal area, I readily agree that it's a hideous term only used on en. and by the civil servants who thought of it. Wales has counties and county boroughs. Whether we like them or not, they exist: the "historical counties" don't. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the list duplicates existing content (such as that at Historic counties of England, and those for Scotland, Wales, etc.). I do not wish to be drawn into about whether these entities still exist or not, or in what form, but regardless of that there is no need for this article (other than to give credibility to the term "Traditional County"). --RFBailey (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: users taking part in this debate may like to read the comments from the creator of this article, which have unfortuantely been placed on the talk page of this debate. --RFBailey (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've since pointed to the WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR pages and it appears he hold's a "slightly" different point of view now [1]. He was fairly new to Wikipedia. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spebi 22:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sip, Scratch, Score![edit]

Sip, Scratch, Score is unencyclopedic, and not notable. Chetblong^Talk_Sign 22:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snip, Squash, Delete!. Non-notable promotion. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst Dunkin' Donuts is 100% notable, this advertising promo isn't. Doc Strange (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable promotion. Redfarmer (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: no assertion of notability and an obvious advertisement. Mh29255 (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spebi 22:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cereal:geek[edit]

Magazine periodical that is very recent and doesn't really have any notability as best that I can tell CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable magazine.TheRingess (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plenty of blog mentions, but no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sebastian Dahm[edit]

The result was It is tough to get a good debate with three such articles, as they all present their own set of circumstances. I strongly advise not to make such nominations again. I've been watching this debate for a few days now, and I've reached to a conclusion that it is impossible to determine consensus for the Dahm article (lol at the damn article :-p), it's there's very rough consensus to keep the Pietrangelo and Corrento articles. Maxim_(talk) 23:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junior hockey player, not professional, nominating for same reason that Stefan Legein was deleted for. Andy Saunders (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Alex Pietrangelo and Matt Corrente for the same reason. Andy Saunders (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Pparazorback (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sebastian Dahm, current non-notable player. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Matt Corrente as he was a first-round draft pick -Pparazorback (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - Alex Pietrangelo as he appears to be one of the top prospects for the 2008 entry draft. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment This has the potential to be a trainwreck nom, so perhaps you should seperate them?
- I do not plan on separating the nominations as all three are junior hockey players who are no more notable, IMHO, than Stefan Legein. Andy Saunders (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So is this a point nom then? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alex Pietrangelo because he is a projected top 3 draft pick and several references can easily be produced to prove his notability. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several references could easily be produced to prove Stefan Legein's notability as well. Andy Saunders (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pietrangelo, projected to be a high draft pick in 2008. There are a fair number of sources about him now, and it will just continue to grow. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Corrente He was already drafted in the 1st round. Plenty of sources to back up information. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dahm He is a talented Danish goalie playing well in a top Canadian junior league. That alone makes him unique. On a broader level, I don't understand the rush to delete articles that may be useful to some. 99% of the articles on Wikipedia are completely irrelevant to me. That doesn't make me go around asking for deletion. Clearly these articles about top junior players are relevant to quite a few even if they are irrelevant to a lot of others. If they were not maintained or otherwise flawed then you could go ahead and delete them. I just think this should be more about inclusion than exclusion. Are we running out of space on this thing? I don't think so. As a comparison, check out the number of players with artcles here: 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup squads. I don't see why for hockey players they only count if they play in the NHL when so many of these soccer players play at a level much lower than the top leagues, even if they are under contract with a pro team. The double standard makes no sense to me and deleting these articles for no other reason is clearly demoralising to those who have contributed to the articles. That to me is much more serious than having a few articles which may be irrelevant to some. AEJ (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dahm. Keep others Dahm has not be drafted and is not projected to be a high draft pick. When and if he ever plays professionally then he will meet WP:N until then he does not meet the notability standards. Its not about being irrelevant like AEJ is suggesting. Notability is not temporary. This comes up every year at this time, people insisting that junior players are notable because of the short burst of attention given to them by the world juniors. Once they have established they are notable on a permanent basis like being drafted in the 1st round or playing a professional game then they will be eligible for a page. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball so just because they will likely be notable in the future doesn't mean they should have a page now. This is a obviously a retaliation nomination and you can't consider every junior player equal. Those already drafted to the first round like Corrente will always be notable because he was a first round draft pick in the NHL which means if he makes the NHL he is notable for that and if he doesn't make the NHL he will be notable for being a bust. -Djsasso (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that this is a retaliatory deletion only goes to prove my point about the level of frustration these deletions brings to otherwise solid wikipedia contributors. As for Dahm, he is about the 5th Danish player ever to play in the CHL and the very first goalie to do so. Does that make him notable? I think so. You still haven't addressed my point about why so many soccer players at a similar age are allowed to have articles. I think it would be reasonable if the 3-4 impact players from every CHL team had articles. We're not talking 4th line players here but impact players. You speak of notability as if it is something far removed from relevancy. I'd say these players are clearly notable to a substantial group of wikipedia users. The guidelines strike me as very arbitrary and they are certainly not used across the board in other sports or other occupations. AEJ (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The Hockey project's scope does not venture into soccer, so I do not believe we could adequetly answer your question that you brought forth. However, the project has set it's own notability guidelines to assist in determining who is and who is not notable. Corrente is a first round draft pick, he is clearly notable for this fact. Pietrangelo could be questionable, but we have allowed players who were projected to go in the top few picks to remain. Dahm is not notable, has not been drafted, is not currently projected to go high in the draft, nor has he played professionally. If he gets drafted in the first round, then his article will be able to be re-created. This AFD is not the place to debate Stefan Legein's notability, that was already done here. --Pparazorback (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Personally I think alot of the soccer players should go to, but I don't know enough about the different levels of players in soccer to adequately argue for their deletion. My guess with the difference is that the soccer players get paid and are playing professionally. That is most likely the difference. I wouldn't doubt the large amount of rabid soccer fans that won't let anything soccer be deleted is also a factor. -Djsasso (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I guess it all comes down to a difference in philosophy. I sincerely do not understand this rush to delete content that is clearly useful to a significant number of users, is kept up to date and factually accurate. Whether this is part of a project or not, I still think it goes against the spirit of this place for a small number of people to dictate what is or isn't useful to other users. People who clearly have zero encyclopedic value, fine, delete that, but whenever there is the slightest doubt I think the proper way forward must be 'live and let live'. This tactic of retaliatory deletions should be a serious warning flag wrt overzealously deleting articles. I fail to see the harm in leaving articles such as these.AEJ (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Well one issue with leaving articles on players who aren't really notable is that its a slippery slope. Once you let these type stay then people will use the fact that these ones are staying to add even lower hockey players etc etc. And eventually you will have minor kids who might one day 15 years down the line be notable on here, or you might have beer league players on here. -Djsasso (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Beer leaguers would be easy to recognise and delete. As for young kids, I think it would be easy to distinguish between the ones who get treatment from the media similar to that of Gretzky or Crosby and the rest. Those who get the Gretzky treatment would be worthy of an article imho.AEJ (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Corrente As James says, he was already a 1st round pick. Patken4 (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added a discussion regarding the notability of projected high draft picks in the NHL Draft at the Ice Hockey talk page. Please feel free to add your viewpoints on how we should approach this. Patken4 (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Corrente per Pparazorback. Neutral on the other two as I am concerned about a WP:POINT issue here. I wish the closing admin luck in determining consensus from three separate debates in one AfD nom. Reso lute 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spebi 22:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of today's main country leaders[edit]

This is a direct copy of the information at http://www.rulers.org and http://www.worldstatesmen.org, and is a partial fork of List of current heads of state and government. Lists a zillion entities who are similar only in their being covered by the above two websites. A bad title to boot. —Sesel (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A bad title is right. This is a useless fork. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 22:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there's already a list of (and this is the conventional term) "heads of state" and "heads of government". I think I heard today's main country leaders on the radio. They were singing today's main country hits. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, etc. Biruitorul (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above and also--can you imagine the maintenance problems with an article like this? Every day we'd have to scramble to update as some revolution or election or coup-d'etat somewhere would make entries obsolete. No thanks. K. Lásztocska^talk 20:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "main country" is debatable and it already exists in a much better form. Doc Strange (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above statements. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Ngchen (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Morris (Band)[edit]

Using google I can not find anything to verify any of the items on this page. At best it would seem to be an unremarkable band, at worst it is fiction. —Noah 21:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC TheRingess (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for now, but allowing recreation if notability can be established in the future if any reliable sources can be cited. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folk Guy's Always with You[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Folk Guy's Always with You

Non-notable song/YouTube video. Fails WP:RS. Googling only yields 206 hits and no news articles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- 282,000 google hits for "福佳始終有你" -- make sure you understand that this is a translated article from chinese. This song was actually on 5 newspapers, 3 radio programs (including CRHK, RTHK, and MyRadio), and 2 TV programs (including RTHK TV and cable TV). — Raysonho 22:00, 12 January 2008

-- 607,000 google.com.hk[2] hits for "福佳始終有你" --219.78.190.124 (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC) — 219.78.190.124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC. Mh29255 (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fewer than 25 ghits outside of Wikipedia, YouTube, and blogs. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) guideline. — Athaenara ✉ 06:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, we need to understand that this is an article translated from Chinese. So google searching the English name does not reflect the actual popularity of this song. Second, and the most important point is, this is not purely an article about the song, but also the impact of this song to the Hong Kong Culture. It was covered by local media in HK. So I don't believe we should use the guidelines from WP:MUSIC. — Raysonho 15:36 , 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. After reading your post, I checked other notability guidelines including Wikipedia:Notability (web). The fact that the song was mentioned in one Slate article does not seem to qualify it for inclusion in this English language Wikipedia, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Wikinews (see also WP:NOT#NEWS). — Athaenara ✉ 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The song was mentioned in at least 9 local chinese media. As I said before, this article was translated from Chinese, and the main purpose is to help others to understand the culture of HK. — Raysonho 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would then be best for what encyclopedic information there is in the song article to be included in whichever Hong Kong culture/politics article is most appropriate. — Athaenara ✉ 00:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also, the Slate article's attribution to "a Hong Kong high-school kid and Chinese-language blogger who calls himself Lam Kay" contradicts the attribution to "the collaborative work by a group of users on Internet forums" in the Wikipedia article. — Athaenara ✉ 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Crystal Rod[edit]

Delete. There is no indication that this will be a notable film; as the article states "Most of the cast is family". No relevant Google results: "The Crystal Rod" film. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 21:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that author has moved the article to The Crystal Rod(film) in an attempt to avoid deletion. ... discospinster _talk 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would appear that this is an independent work, perhaps part of a college film class assignment or similiar.--InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (ironically) WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. The internet reveals virtually no notable coverage. Article itself mentions that information regarding the film is unknown. WP:CRYSTAL. Wisdom89 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a crystal rod? Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to chime in. That was a good one. Even with the more refined and tuned google search, it yields unsatisfying results. Wisdom89 (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Curtain Puller[edit]

A non-notable school produced movie. It did not even win an award in the production company's own film festival. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., not notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MOVIE. Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as copyvio of “Two Fatal Air Raids in Cheadle”, by John H Simmonds, 1992, with no assertion of permission. --MCB (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Raid in Cheadle Stockport[edit]

Non-notable story of a WW II air raid. Copyvio anyway. (Recording the victims names on the war memorial is unusual but it does not justify an whole article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Addhoc (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cheadle, Greater Manchester, without the possible copyvio quote - a paragraph there in the History section should be fine for it. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 21:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Keep presumably]. It may be non-notable to you but not to the people of Cheadle or the people who lost their lives! I would be grateful if you would reconsider with any help you could offer.--Seville3636 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The help is: as above, add a brief note in the Cheadle article and provide a link to the Cheadle War Memorial pages - yours? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was evidently notable as we can see from the memorial and book. Notability is not the same thing as importance. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with Seville3636, but would also be agreeable to the Merge suggestion of Alex.muller.--InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Alex.muller. There were thousands of air raids in WWII. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge a brief mention into Cheadle, Greater Manchester. There is no evidence this particular air raid had any wider importance. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge a brief mention into Cheadle, Greater Manchester. There weere many air raids in WW2. No evidence this one was notable. Edison (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It certainly can't stay here as a word for word type out from the book. ALLSTARecho 04:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ If I was to get rid of the large quote and put the wording differently would this make a difference?--Seville3636 (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please only vote once. The issue is not how the article is worded or written (mostly), it's whether it is notable enough to have an article. You're free to reword it as you wish for the time being, just as anyone is free to edit any article on Wikipedia. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 21:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quite non-notable as mentioned. Also it seems to be just copied and pasted from somewhere...Its all from one book it says itself- surely this would be against copyright laws?--Him and a dog 19:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as per WP:V, also per dicussion via my talk page. Since the WP:V policy overrides any consensus generated from this discussion, this article has to be deleted. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userbar[edit]

Contested prod. "No original research" is a non-negotiable requirement for Wikipedia articles, and this article is entirely original research based on the observations of its authors. In addition, it is not sourced with any sources, so it lacks verifiability, which is another non-negotiable requirement. Finally, there's no evidence that this meets notability by any objective test. Chardish (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree the article is not a particularly good one, however there are sources for notability and content - as listed at the Open Directory link. So it is not. imo, WP:OR, however it does need an ((unsourced)) tag. Springnuts (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any at that link. Of the 9 things listed: The first cites this Wikipedia article as its source in its description of this subject, and is thus not a reliable source. The second is a discussion forum, and not a source. The third has the same text as the first. The fourth has 2 sentences of description of userbars; its FAQ is actually about the web site and what sorts of things it will and will not accept. The fifth is a download site, and not a source. The sixth has the same text as the first. The seventh is a download site, and not a source. The eight has 2 sentences of description, logically equivalent to the 1 sentence from the fourth; its FAQ is again actually about the web site and how to use it. And the ninth is this Wikipedia article itself.
  So what sources were you proposing to support anything above the 1 sentence that an image can be put into a signature block to say something about onesself? Where does the rest of the article come from? Uncle G (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the first link you mentioned on dmoz (ubanimator.com), I strongly disagree that referring to a Wikipedia article for more information completely invalidates it as a reliable source. The third link (ubdesigner.com) does in-fact have a detailed description of userbars on the overview page mentioned in the first sentence of the second paragraph. If such a large percentage of the userbar sites listed in the open directory project have "the same text as the first", does that somehow make the description wrong? Drunnells (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to the Wayback Machine (Archive index at the Wayback Machine), the third web site with the "detailed description" didn't exist before January 2007. The domain name wasn't even registered before 2006-06-29. In contrast, our article had this information in this same form in May 2006. Who, exactly, do you think copied whom? I'm pretty sure that the webmaster of Ubdesigner is not in possession of a time machine.
      Similarly, according to the Wayback Machine (Archive index at the Wayback Machine), our article in January 2006 predated the creation of the first web site in February 2006, and its description then was as sparse as our article then. (More exactly: Our article had this content first added on 2006-01-05. The domain name was registered on 2006-01-31.)
      The simple fact appears to be that no-one has actually sat down and properly documented these things, but instead people have come here thinking that Wikipedia is a free webhost where they can write up some primary source documentation simply and cheaply, in violation of our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies.
      We have no way of knowing whether the description is right or wrong. It is, as I have said, unverifiable. You're pointing to those other web sites as sources. But they got their descriptions of userbars from Wikipedia in the first place. The answer to the question "Where is the standard set for userbars?" appears to be "the Wikipedia page". How can readers check, say, that Wikipedia is correct to say that userbars must be 19 pixels high, rather than 29 pixels high or 20 pixels high? The answer is that they cannot. There's no website documenting the userbar "standard" that pre-dates this article documenting that "standard". This article is a collaborative invention from whole cloth. That is not how Wikipedia is written. Uncle G (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you saying that any document written after a Wikipedia article is automatically unsourceable? Can no book ever be written about penguins again and be sourced here because there is already an article in the Wikipedia about penguins? The UBDesigner overview page is in-fact a detailed description of what a userbar is and should very much be considered a source even though it happens to have been written after the Wikipedia article. Please don't attempt to present "they got their descriptions of userbars from Wikipedia in the first place" as evidence that this article should be deleted, as it is untrue and unhelpful in bringing about a consensus. Drunnells (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was doing some Proposed Deletion patrol yesterday and this was in fact one of the articles that I researched to see whether it could be rescued. I couldn't find any reliable sources that document userbars, and anything to support more than the 1 sentence above, that can be quite adequately stated (and pretty much already is) in signature block#Internet forums. Wikipedia appears to be being abused as the primary source documentation of this subject. As noted above, the web sites that document it are using Wikipedia as their source. So we have no way to know whether any of this content is accurate, because there are no sources to check it against that didn't get their information from this article in the first place. This is simply an undocumented subject, and an obvious niche for an enterprising author of a book, a paper, or an article to fill.
I left the article to complete the Proposed Deletion process, and my opinion is the same now as it was then. Uncle G (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a common term for this sort of thing, although it may well be used somewhere. The topic is covered somewhat adequately in Avatar_(computing)#On_Internet_forums. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's wide spread enough (over 1 million ghits) and there are enough sites for it to be kept but the article could do with some improvement, removing the 'conventions' sections for a start. A userbar is not the same as an avatar different purpose altogether. --neonwhite user page talk 01:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you propose addressing the complete lack of any sources whatsoever? Uncle G (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with signature block in its own section. Variations of these signatures are often found in forums but not as thin as these. The article is short and all content as of now is not special or spectacular for a reader so just merge it with the other. It lacks historical info and importance also. - 6etonyourfeet ^(talk?) 02:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What it lacks is Verifiability. Why should we merge information that cannot be verified? Uncle G (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verifiability only applies to controversial material or material likely to be contested. Obviously none of the material doesn't fit that threshold. But I do see alot of weasel words used in this article which should link to a HOWTO guide. Back in my day when I was playing WoW we referred to these things as badges. The Zune social also uses a flashed based signature box. There are all sorts of these crap out there. The counterstrike version... The geek test version... etc. Anyways the current article lacks love and attention the reason why you do not see diverse interpretation but the POV of one editor. - 6etonyourfeet ^(talk?) 06:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This material is contested since it is being considered for deletion. The burden of evidence now rests on those who wish to preserve the material to back up the material with a reasonable number of reliable sources. 5 days is plenty of time to do that. - Chardish (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that deleting this article from the Wikipedia would be a disservice to users. Userbars are popular, notable and distinct. People will come here to find more information. Add ((unsourced)) if necessary as linking to a specific userbar site is going to show promotion and bias. Drunnells (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and this means that information here that does not exist elsewhere must be removed, regardless of whether that information is subjectively deemed useful. - Chardish (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It clearly exists and is encyclopedic. Please see Wikipedia:Use common sense and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --neonwhite user page talk 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Allow me to be Zen for a moment: Wikipedia's rules are like the advice of a wise and revered elder - they should usually be followed, except when circumstances arise which the elder did not anticipate or adequately account for. The reckless person disregards the elder's advice because it prevents him from having his way. The wise person understands that the elder's advice is not to be taken lightly, and ignores the elder's advice only with great prudence, discretion, and forethought - when he is certain that his way is correct, and feels advanced enough in his understanding of the advice to make the right choice.
      Wikipedia's rules work the same way. If you feel like they must be ignored in order to benefit the project, please present a specific argument why this is so: do not simply state that because the rules can be ignored, they should. - Chardish (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My house clearly exists. Pulling out IAR in an attempt to trump fundamental content policy is a sure sign that one has no argument that is actually based in policy. Uncle G (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tt is used when something has obvious notability despite not quite living up to policy. This exists, is widespread and popular and the encyclopedia is improved by it's inclusion that is why we can ignore all rules. As WP:N says it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. --neonwhite user page talk 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Could you please point to another deletion discussion where IAR was cited by the closing admin as to keep an article consisting of entirely original research with no objectively established notability? Could you please explain why this article, in particular, is an exception to the community's accepted standards of notability? Could you please explain how including an article consisting of entirely original research improves the encyclopedia? Could you please explain the purpose of the notability standard if we discard it whenever we disagree with it? - Chardish (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Simply becasue it's notability is glaringly obvious as many people have pointed out. The whole point of WP:IAR is that not everything fits the criteria and common sense should be applied to all cases rather than rigid adherence to policy and guidelines (which is discouraged) when it's obvious they arent always helpful. We dont always discard them, we judge everything case by case. --neonwhite user page talk 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are also dealing with the concept of notability independently of other core concepts of Wikipedia. The reason that we require secondary sources to establish notability is because articles that consist entirely of primary sourced material have a very strong tendency to be original research, which this article is. You have yet to address why an original research piece should stand when there is no reliable information to back it up. Furthermore, you are incorrect in your assertion of what IAR means. The "whole point" is that improving the encyclopedia is the supreme directive and the rules sometimes get in the way. In this case, the rules tell us that original research gets deleted because it runs contrary to what our project is about. The rules help us improve the encyclopedia in this case, as they do in most cases. - Chardish (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the first line of the article, I don't think that there is a single "original thought" here. Line by line the description of a userbar in the article is described elsewhere. The first two lines of the characteristics describe the dimensions, this can be found in the first few paragraphs of userbars.com, ubanimator.com, ubdesigner.com, nav bar of userbars.net, faq of userbars.be, and every tutorial listed on userbars.com. Lines 3-6 describe the characteristics mentioned on the overview page of ubdesigner.com, almost every tutorial listed on userbars.com, and all of the userbar tutorials that I glanced at while looking at the 55,000+ results from a "userbar tutorial" google search. Line 7 I wasn't able to verify in the few minutes that I was searching. Line 8 is exactly what the userbar tutorials tell you. Line 9 can be found everywhere that 3-6 are. And the words that say userbars are created with graphics programs is probably original. Drunnells (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your "verification" process is entirely circular, using sources that post-date this article. Uncle G (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You missed checking userbars.com in 2005 in your own "verification" process while you were checking the other sites with the wayback machine. In 2005 userbars.com linked to this tutorial on tutorialtomb.com to describe userbar characteristics and creation. If you are looking for the ground-zero of where the userbar was first conceived, I doubt you are going to find it. The original userbars.com mentions userbars being designed by users of consolenetwork.de and tutorials on tutorialtomb.com.. none of which are accessible today. Drunnells (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That forum post tells us absolutely nothing because forum posts are not reliable sources. In most cases we have no way of knowing if anything a user anonymously posts in a forum is true. In this specific case, we have no way of knowing if anything a user posts in a forum is indicative of an accepted standard for userbars. For this reason, all self-published sources (such as personal or hobbyist websites) are considered unreliable unless third-party sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) cite them as an authority. Furthermore, we aren't looking for the "ground-zero" of userbar origins because that would be original research as well. We can only summarize and present what other people have found and published in reliable sources; we cannot do any investigation of our own. - Chardish (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the phenomenon is clearly notable, and I think the large quantity of unreliable sources makes it sufficiently verifiable. Searching 'userbar tutorial' on Google yields hundreds (thousands?) of tutorials listing pretty much the same specifications — although nearly all of them are on forums/blogs/etc. I think we should invoke common sense here, because although these sites would not be reliable sources individually, there's so many of them stating basically the same thing. There's also the userbars.be FAQ that I've referenced in the article, which can probably be considered a more reliable source. -- intgr [talk] 10:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A self-published webpage written by an anonymous author, such as that FAQ on userbars.be, is not a reliable source for any purpose. There is no evidence that the userbars.be webmaster is more of an authority on this topic than you or me or anyone else. - Chardish (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles on this, it clearly exists, that makes it worthy of inclusion. --neonwhite user page talk 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep horribly useless, yet notable. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Springnuts (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ONLY if sources that do not link back to the article itself are found. ShadowUltra (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm also gonna quote the WP:IAR and common sence here... Fosnez (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. this article is in need of cleanup and citations, but not deletion. Kingturtle (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Signature block. These are simply graphic variations of a signature block. -- Whpq (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Userbar" is an independent noun and is widely used in the WWW discourse. Deleting this article would be a step to weakening the Wikipedia itself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greencat4 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've never heard of this sort of thing and I'm pretty active around the net. I'd guess that the maker is also involved with a push from some quarters to try and have this thing become the standard. So it falls under OR.--Him and a dog 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you been hiding? this has massive popularity, google it. --neonwhite user page talk 04:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "google test" tells us nothing about a page's notability. - Chardish (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a few hundred or a few thousand hits, this is over a million. How would a strict interpretation of the rules having this article removed be beneficial to the Wikipedia or its users? Isn't that the exact purpose of the common sense rule and ignore all rules? Perhaps no one argument you have seen here over the last few days conforms to your interpretation of notability, but there are hundreds of thousands of users out there that see userbars every day, and I'm sure many that see them don't know what they are and want more information about them. Removing this article isn't going to help anyone, keeping it will. Drunnells (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I don't find them to be "obviously notable" at all, and there is a clear lack of reliable published sources regarding them. Every single concept or object in software or on the Internet is not necessarily notable. --MCB (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - unreferenced original research. KrakatoaKatie 04:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single page application[edit]

Unnotable, unsourced personal commentary and definition type article. At best, mention in web application. Was deleted via PROD but someone recreated. Collectonian (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as OR. Springnuts (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OR. It's either someone's research paper or two paragraphs written for a class, but still not of any value around here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either a NN neologism or WP:OR. Seems to be some sort of essay. Doc Strange (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since I was the guy who recreated the article, here a few remarks:

As a professional web developer I am regularly confronted with the term 'single page application', so I was surprised to see that it was not available on Wikipedia.
I wasn't able to look at the previous version of the article, but from the article's 'discussion' I gathered that it might have been slanted too much towards a specific technology (Ajax, DOM manipulation, DHTML, ...), so I thought a more conceptual article would be acceptable. I said as much in my discussion entry, but it seems it hasn't had much impact.
Furthermore, the 'discussion' seems weird to me, centering around 'saving' and online examples. IMHO, this misses the point. The presumably 'last straw' on the discusson page was another weird and biased posting, and by an anonymous, too. The whole discussion left the impression of an originally bad article treated badly.
I'm surprised to see that after my re-creation nobody added to the article's discussion but rather the deletion process has been re-initiated.
The presumably biggest flaw currently is the lack of references. I haven't had time to do proper research, so I would be happy with qualifying it as a stub.
But to offer something more substantial for the sake of this deletion discussion, here are a few references:
- the trimpath project on Google Code uses the term 'single page application' and also lists some sample applications: http://code.google.com/p/trimpath/wiki/SinglePageApplications
- Z3Lab, a Zope3-based open source project, uses it: http://www.z3lab.org/sections/front-page/design-features/single-page-application
- a blog entry: http://intersezioni.wordpress.com/2005/12/17/single-page-application/
- an entry of a belgian LotusNotes developer: http://blog.lotusnotes.be/domino/archive/2007-05-12-domino-spade-1.html
- a page from Sun's Java BluePrints program: https://blueprints.dev.java.net/petstore/
- Sitepen, one of the companies behind the popular Dojo toolkit: http://www.sitepen.com/blog/2007/05/02/ambassador-publications-announces-dojo-based-app/
- Online version of a book, 'Ajax Design Patterns': http://ajaxpatterns.org/Richer_Plugin#Single_Page_Application_.28SPA.29
- Paper on Southern Cross University, Australia, from Australian WWW Conference: http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw07/papers/refereed/rees/paper.html
- ... and Google Scholar throws up another couple of handful academic papers that at least use the term 'single page application': http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22single+page+application%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

These are not ment to be 'proofs', nor have I tried yet to come up with a canonical definition, but simply evidence that real people use this term and therefore it merits a Wikipedia entry. I'm sure that given a bit of time and labour, the current version could be transformed into something that gives proper and acceptable reference for its contents. Thron7 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Nikki311 18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Cena & Shawn Micheals[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John Cena & Shawn Micheals

This tag team has only teamed once for less than 6 months and are not of great notability; information on this tag team can be found and accustomed into the tag team member's respective articles. TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 20:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 22:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cheers, L A X 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super Strong Delete - not even close to being the slightest bit notable together, iMatthew 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as well. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (and this will likely be snowballed soon). D.M.N. (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom.--InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NiciVampireHeart (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cena and Shawn Michaels . Nenog (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already been deleted before. They were NN as a tag team. They were two singles wrestlers who accidentally won the titles and never got along as partners in the short time they teamed. TJ Spyke 23:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; no need for a redirect. JJL (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a new admin, I'm hesitant to do this myself, but speedy delete per this (admin only) - Revolving Bugbear 00:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. The Chronic 03:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence A. Pagnoni[edit]

Non-notable. The subject looks like a very nice person and good professional, but I am having diffculty understanding why he should be in Wikipedia. News articles are scarce, relating to a protest he was part of in 1986 and a citation in a 1991 article. GHits (76) look to be trivial.--Legionarius (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged the article for lacking sources about a month ago, but it has not really improved since. Delete as per nom. --Crusio (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no sources (though it does have lots of external links!) and hasn't been touched in nearly three weeks. I don't really see anything notable about this guy. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless there are articles about him--ifhe is as important as the article claims, there will be. DGG (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete sounds like an advertisement. Marlith ^T/C 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per DGG notability may be verifiable but unless it's followed through with.....True theory (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 69 Ghits, including Wikipedia. Just 50 hits if the middle initial is removed. --Crusio (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1248 in Ireland[edit]

An article that should be, if anything at all, a category AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Putting this here as a test case for clarification of policy. It seems there's a group of Irish editors who have created a whole series of articles for every year in Ireland. Check this user's contributions, for example: [3]. What should we do? Are we going to have an article for every year in every country in the world? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the subject of year-by-year pages: it could be argued that we should at best have decade-by-decade pages for such topics where little information is avalilable. Punkmorten (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What we should do is to have all of those articles deleted unless the year has been particularly notable. Below, one of the user says that, "There isn't a year since 500 AD in Ireland that you couldn't write a book on". I respectfully disagree, at least not a book with any notable content. And I say that as someone who knows Ireland, its history and culture very well. I'll be happy to continue the debate in Irish with any editor who disputes that point :) Seriously, very few of these articles seems to containt anything notable. Should we really have close to half a million articles on each year in each country's history? I'm sure Turkish editors, Mongolian editors, Bolivian editors or Algerian editors think every year in the history of their own country is just as notable as these Irish contributors feel about their own history. Will there be any logic in keeping this page and deleting 945 in Yemen, 946 in Yemen, 947 in Yemen etc should those articles be created? JdeJ (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This particular page. Speedy delete as containing nothing whatsoever, and essentially a user-blanked page. Such article skeletons are just garbage and in no way deserve to be in an encyclopedia. Punkmorten (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hi Alasdair G - with regard to your question: Are we going to have an article for every year in every country in the world? The answer is yes - check out the Years by country category. Content is coming for Years in Ireland, but like everything Wiki it takes time. Develop the article, don't delete it. Ardfern (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reply to Ardfern. In the vast majority of cases, Category:Years by country leads to subcategories, then further subcategories and so on, not to articles. However, you are right that there are a few examples of pages that are essentially the same as those in the years in Ireland series, such as 2000 in France. These seem to be for recent years where more information is available. The problem is obviously that not much worth mentioning may have happened in any given year in a particular country, such as in this test case, 1248 in Ireland, and we may end up with hundreds or thousands of pages that are basically (or completely) empty. I take your point, but I think the community should decide what we want to do, hence this discussion. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a lot of point deleting this single year, what's needed is some way of deciding how Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is to be applied to this kind of ever-finer subdivison before we get to articles on "February 1134 in Co. Cork" etc. Punkmorten's suggestion of articles by decade sounds more reasonable. JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Year-country combination are relevant when there is material; its one of the good ways of organizing WP. We are not limited to categories. Two major events are enough to start, considering the very few WPedians who work on this important material. The events listed are important, not indiscriminate. A list of everyone born that year in ireland would be indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not opposed to this in principle, although I do question whether it's really useful. My greatest concern might be its use for POV-pushing, e.g. the assertion of the existence of an entity before it became a "country" as such. That doesn't apply to this instance, though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, neither confusion of location nor shortage of material applies in the case of Ireland. It is no argument to judge this series in the context of places with much less lengthy written histories or less rich archeology. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

~~Merge into decade article~~ Weak keep. Was tempted to say keep, as the reason given in nomination is false A s c a n v e r y e a s i l y b e s h o w n. However, Punkmorten is right that by-decade articles might make more sense for early years like this one, with redirects from individual year dates (see 1560s in England for an example of how well it can work). Grutness...wha? 00:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is part of a series under construction. Also strongly oppose the merge suggestion. I'm not sure what is meant by referring to 1248 in Ireland as a "test case". If anyone insists on deleting this they will have to go through the other 800 case by case. For example, see 1349 in Ireland, needs refs, but you could hardly say "very little happened". There isn't a year since 500 AD in Ireland that you couldn't write a book on! Note: There is as much information on "1349 in Ireland" as the whole decade "1340s in England", partly due to various monastic scribes. Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...one of whom, FWIW, was a distant relation of mine. Yes, having looked at the size of the articles, there seems to be a case for keeping them separate rather than merging, though it is borderline. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Royal(ish) blood! Grut, a key argument here is that these are under construction; a vast task but given the small handful of editors working on it progress is fairly rapid. We need time. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the idea of reducing the years to categories is a bad one because because many of the events don't have Wiki articles; Births and Deaths of even those who do will usually occur in different years and decades. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Strong keep. Per Grutness, the nominator's reason is simply false: there are plenty of by-year articles. This is part of a series of articles which are still under construction but which have been massively expanded in the last month or two, largely due to the hard work of Ardfern The alternative suggestion of using categories does not appear to have been thought through: a category will simply list the title of an article without indicating why it is relevant to that year, e.g. 1248 in Ireland says
King’s Bench in Dublin is instituted (today contained within the Four Courts)
… and a category listing could not convey anything more than Queen's Bench, without any explanation (was it created then, abolished then, or what?). As Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes says, categories and lists can co-exist, and in this case they do co-exist, very well. I see this series of articles as a sort of historical index, a valuable addition to the encyclopedia, and I find it very disappointing to see Ardfern's hard work problematised with a "what should we do about" question. What we should do about this is to say "well done", and encourage other editors to join in the work of building this series of articles index.
If the nominator is looking for a series of hundreds articles to delete, why not try tackling something like one of the piles of fiction-trivia, such as the 709 articles in Category:Middle-earth characters, the 417 articles in Category:Middle-earth locations, the 366 articles under Category:Pokémon or delve into the 126 articles in Category:Mario Bros. games. And before someone quotes it at me, yes I do know WP:WAX and WP:POKEMON, and I still make the comparison because what we are discussing here is a component of an index to articles on a country with a well-documented history. This seems to me to be a case of systemic bias: the interests of editors have led us to have hundreds or even thousands of articles on each of very many fictional topics, yet the spectre of hundreds of historical articles is the one raised at AfD :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! Sarah777 (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries seem to be fully able to make do with categories. See [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] etc. etc. JdeJ (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, JdeJ, but your supposed example is plain simple wrong.

Check further, and you'll find 1940 in Canada, 1836 in Canada and dozens of other year-in-Canada articles. It would also have been good manners for you to check the categories you listed above, because every one of them has an associated article:

Category:1980 in Canada → article 1980 in Canada
Category:1981 in Canada → article 1981 in Canada
Category:1982 in Canada → article 1982 in Canada
Category:1983 in Canada → article 1983 in Canada
Category:1984 in Canada → article 1984 in Canada
Category:1985 in Canada → article 1985 in Canada
etc

I'll assume good faith, and assume that you simply didn't bother to check before posting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touché, I stand corrected. Unusually stupid mistake on my behalf, I offer my apologies. I still think, in principle, that having articles of that kind is a bad idea, though. JdeJ (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good points made by some others who see some value in keeping. Recently, at the end of December last, 1695 in Ireland was put up for speedy deletion and removed with the comment: "This page is part of a larger structure of similar articles that should be dealt with as a whole via AfD if desired" which would the proper way to deal with this if there was no possibility of content. Either way they should all stay or none stay. In the 1695 case, I was able to find several additional entries on Wikipedia alone to improve it. A quick look around by any decent editor will likely turn up verifiable data that can improve any of these Year in Ireland articles. Though data should be referenced unless will documented in a main article. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Guliolopez (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as timelines are a staple of reference books. Whether this is kept as is or is merged into a decade is an editorial decision and out of the scope of this AFD. As creator of most of the years/decades in England, Great Britain and United Kingdom, I prefered decades for pre-1640 because it meant no gaps in years where nothing happened. Tim! (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure something happened Tim! - just we don't know what - yet :) Sarah777 (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's a group...who have created...articles for every year in Ireland. What should we do? We should award Barnstars. Aatomic1 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment - admittedly about the year - vs. - decade question, not about this AfD, but as we're having the discussion... as well as getting the information into Wikipedia, it needs to be organised to make it likely that people will actually read it. Who is going to click on "1248 in Ireland" and why? An article about a decade is more likely to attract someone interested in a period, and, because it will contain more, perhaps lead them on in a new direction. JohnCD (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply AfD isn't really the place for a discussion on how to organise these articles. I think that the issue can be best dealt with by navigational templates, but I suggest that if anyone wants to discuss it, WikiProject Ireland's talk page would be a suitable venue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational templates and in-line article wiki-links; that how it works for 'global' years. Sarah777 (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All this is doing is duplicating infomation that is already on other pages. (In this case the first piece of information belongs on the King's Bench article. The second should be on Coleraine or Coleraine Castle if it is ever created.) If people think it is useful to know what happened on a particular year, then categories are the perfect way to do this. MSGJ (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. See my lengthy comment above, where I show how categories cannot replace this sort of article. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment (again) - Just as well I'm not too sensitive, or I would be really pissed off at AlasdairGreen27 highlighting my Years in Ireland and Years in Northern Ireland contributions at the start of this exchange, without displaying the slightest understanding of what we are about or the value that it has. Maybe he should also highlight those contributors who have been doing the same thing in Australia, Canada etc (although their history doesn't stretch back so far in the same way). All of my contributions contained content, however small, but they are supposed to be stubs - you know, the old Wiki concept (nearly lost) of starting articles for others to contribute to and develop further. All of them are also being developed by the addition of birth and death date entries, which could have been seen if anyone looked, ie ensuring existing people articles are in a historical yearly index. I would eventually hope we could do the same with all Irish articles. Once again, all I can say is develop the articles don't kill them.Ardfern (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong delete~~ Weak keep. Old comment: The article doesn't contribute anything to Wikipedia, just two links to information available elsewhere. I see no reason (or even sense) in having articles by year for countries, unless the year has had important consequences. With close to 200 countries in the world, we'll 401 600 articles of this kind if we start putting in articles for each year after year 0 to now for each country. An article on, say, 1989 in various Eastern European countries, the year when the dictatorships fell, would be notable. There is nothing notable in this article, not more so than an article on 1183 in Madagascar. Articles of this kind should definitely be deleted. New comment : I still think that we do not need countless of articles of this kind, but the reason I suggested deleting it was because I saw it as precedent on all of Wikipedia. I now realise that this isn't the case, there are many other similar articles already. While I repeat my hesitance about this kind of articles, this article is by no means any less notable than any others, nor is Ireland any less notable than other countries. I would welcome a more general debate about the issue, but this is not the place for such a debate. In the absence of such a debate, and with many other similar articles, there is nothing in this article to make it especially suitable for deletion. JdeJ (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. 1248 in Ireland is a stub article, which means that it is a small starting point for a larger article. The reason that it contains only two entries is because that's all that has been added so far, not all that could be added. JdeJ's arguments for deletion seem to be a delete-all-stubs position, which would have widespread consequences if followed through. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BHG and Grutness - Alison ^❤ 21:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being fond of Québec, I hope it's ok that I create exactly 405 articles similar to this one on each year since it was discovered in 1603? JdeJ (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a great idea to create these articles for countries, for the years in which there are entries to record. I'm not sure whether it's a good idea in general to do the same for country sub-divisions unless the year-in-country articles are getting overlarge. (Whether Quebec should be counted as a separate country is of course a contentious issue in itself).
  However, the aim of the years-in-Ireland articles is not to create hundreds of articles with two entries, but to populate the articles properly and to create an index. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your input! Still, I suppose the area being a country or not sure isn't the most important thing? Surely the notability of the events that took place is the thing to look for? Ireland, for most of history in the last millenium, wasn't a separate country either but many notable events still happened. JdeJ (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it would indeed be an unusual year when not a single notable event occured in a whole country! Even if all 200 countries on Earth could find material for each year since zero AD (even in Ireland the record starts to disappear before 500) the absolute max would be 400,000 articles. Reality is that in Australia, America North and South, Africa south of the Sahara, central Asia etc 500 years is the likely maximum. So we are realistically looking at 100,000 articles tops. There are more than that about pop groups, train spotting, nematodes, games and much else besides. Maybe half of the two million articles on Wiki have the no long-term relevence to match this series. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. Regarding comments above such as "Just as well I'm not too sensitive, or I would be really pissed off at AlasdairGreen27 highlighting my Years in Ireland and Years in Northern Ireland contributions at the start of this exchange, without displaying the slightest understanding of what we are about or the value that it has (...) All of my contributions contained content, however small, but they are supposed to be stubs" and "1248 in Ireland is a stub article, which means that it is a small starting point for a larger article. The reason that it contains only two entries is because that's all that has been added so far" I would like to draw attention to the fact that, at the time of nomination, this was the article: [10]. Yes, Ardfern, I am aware that this is not one of your creations, to save you the trouble of pointing that out. While I'm on (yes, I know this is a question for the article's talk page, but anyway) perhaps I might suggest that you look into the claim that the article has been updated with that Coleraine castle was built in 1248. Does this mean that construction started or finished then? Or was the whole thing sorted from foundation stone to curtains in a year? A remarkable achievement, if so, and quite unlike other castles of the period.
Bearing in mind all of the contributions above it is quite apparent that there is broad consensus to keep, so I'll withdraw the nom. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Al! That creation was mine it seems! Don't normally create blank ones but I'm sure there was a good reason at the time :) Your intentions were good; I fault you not. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-)) -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Year in Country articles are good summaries, and they should be encouraged as long as they are well sourced. This is an excellent way to organize information too detailed to be appropriate for either the specific Year article or the Country article. I really don't understand this nomination. Quale (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, this article really should be deleted, its quite pointless. BUT year xxxx in country y seems to be an established standard on wikipedia, the issue is with that entire way of doing things being daft not with this article.--Him and a dog 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 Promises Between Me and My Dog[edit]

Nom per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. No assertion of notability other than it being a film, no prejudice against re-creation in the future. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL applies. Springnuts (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Mh29255 (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom pretty much covers all problems. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus despite the fact that this AfD ran for 2 weeks. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kreia[edit]

Another lackluster Star Wars character article which consists of little more than an extended in-universe plot summary and a lack of evidence of notability. I counted only 4 out-of-universe sentences when I examined. Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten it down, first off. I think the Gamespy Award would lend some notability, so perhaps keep. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of KOTOR characters, and merge that nugget about the best-baddie recognition in the KOTOR2 article. --EEMIV (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters. There's some potentially decent stuff in here, but the rest is just WP:FANCRUFT. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a very long article violating the two key points of Wikipedia:FICTION#Defining_notability_for_fiction. As a non-fan, this article isn't very comprehensible. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It requires a lot of cleaning up, I'll admit, but a lot of the KOTOR characters have their own pages, and this character is pretty important in the storyline. She deserves her own article, deletion shouldn't be an issue. Just get someone to clean it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.161.88 (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. I would note parenthetically that although the nominator withdrew the nomination, this closure reflects all the opinions expressed. Non-admin close. Xymmax (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

01207[edit]

An article about a regional dialling code? Good heavens. Nom under WP:NOT#INFO AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and as original research and plain cruft. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments by Bearian'sBooties. Mh29255 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Mh29255. --EndlessDan 19:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, we do have articles on area codes. For example, see Category:Area codes in the United States. -- Whpq (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nom and propose move. Oh good grief, so we do. I was of the opinion that WP:NOT#DIR applied here, led in that direction by the shockingly poor state of the article and the fact I couldn't turn up much of a similar nature. This is not information that can't be found on the inside cover of a UK telephone directory, and I still don't believe it's suitable material for an encyclopedia, but anyway, I'll speedily withdraw my nom and suggest that 01207 should be moved to a name (at least give it a proper title, for heaven's sake) that is a bit more encyclopedic. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for what its worth, my personal opinion is that I agree with you. But a mass nomination of area code articles would stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing. -- Whpq (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are right, my friend. And thanks. Think I'll go for a lie down in a darkened room. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all content that can be referenced otherwise delete as WP:OR, There are multiple articles about area codes. While I am not aware of any policy directly supporting them, current consensus seems to be keep them as evidenced by Category:Area codes in the United States. Jeepday (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right Quick Music[edit]

I am the owner of Right Quick Music, and we would like to have the article removed as it is no longer accurate. Bigarlo609 (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sounds like an editorial issue to me, not a deletion issue. If there are factual errors, correct them, don't nominate the article for deletion. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say the same thing. What is it that is inaccurate? -Koryu Obihiro (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator's reason is not valid, but the article fails the notability guideline for companies. The primary notability criteria here is coverage in reliable secondary sources. This excludes the label's own website, fleeting mentions in lists of record companies or the like . There is no evidence of any reliable secondary coverage for this record label. Notability could also be conferred via the notability of its signed artists, but the list in the article is also non-notable with the exception of The New Breed whose own article makes no mention of Right Quick Music and states they released the bulk of their music via Thorp Records. The article also includes an element of advertising and conflict of interest, having been created by an account named after the article, then edited by someone who now indicates he is the owner. In short - an unsourced article on a non-notable record label with a non-notable list of artists. Euryalus (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Euryalus is right, "it is no longer accurate" is a reason to fix an article, not delete it! But this record label has no assertion of notability (I'm pretty sure it's a different The New Breed referred to, since the one with the Wikipedia article disbanded before Right Quick Music was formed) and no independent references, hence, delete. --Stormie (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not as per nom, but under WP:N. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable record company. Can't find any good news articles or anything on it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. WP:N is the rationale here, as the article could be corrected if an editor felt so inclined. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 23:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jseamless[edit]

"A very new project" but not clear what on earth it is. No context. No notability. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources to establish notability. UI abstraction is PRODed as well, for basically the same reasons. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:CRYSTALBALLERY - actually I wondered if it was simply a joke, but I think it is real ... possibly also very dull, but that is not a reason for deletion. Springnuts (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI'm not sure if this is where I should post in response, but I'm the creator of this Wikipedia entry and it references the jSeamless Java framework (http://jseamless.org). I've added additional information to further explain what jSeamless is. Please tell me what else I need to add validate this entry in your opinion? It is similar on several planes to Openlaszlo and Echo_Framework that have remained on Wikipedia. Please tell me what these other entries provide that the jSeamless entry does not so I can fix it. Further, this may make less sense to you if you're not a programmer. This is intended primarily for Java developers and I've added some further clarification to the entry so there's no confusion. Darkfrog26 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response - I think you might do well to read (and apply) WP:YFA - quickly! Or, read some deletion discussions to see what other wikipedians say about articles you do not have an interest in. Springnuts (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
response - I have read that and though it is promoting a project, it is an open-source one and the reason I believe it belongs on Wikipedia is because it is such a new idea and conceptually nearly unheard of. Part of the purpose of the article is to publicize the concept of UI abstraction, that although very new, is the way development seems to be moving. Darkfrog26 (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to also mention that the request for deletion of "UI abstraction" as an entry is un-contested by me (the creator of that entry) and I've removed any reference to it from the jSeamless entry. Darkfrog26 (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI don't see why this is any less note-worthy than the several other competing technologies out there. While I am not personally familiar with this specific framework, I found several other frameworks on Wikipedia that do exactly the same thing.Meltonkt (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Ozols[edit]

Strongly suspect WP:HOAX. I can find nothing at all on this guy. Auseklis Ozols, another artist is as close as I get. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable. Pburka (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very few hits on Google, all of which seem to read exactly as per the WP article. CultureDrone (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom and Pburka. Springnuts (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability = speedy. (Also, I am unable to find anything to support a keep, such as even ONE non-WP ref.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & no assertion of notability. Mh29255 (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete and a touch of salt as well. Secret ^account 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Moore (actor)[edit]

This is the third time that this hoax article has been created so I am taking it to AfD so that it will qualify for speedy on future creations. Article describes an actor and asserts notability by suggesting that a number of academy awards (best actor, Best adapted screenplay, best picture) have been won for a non-existent film in 2004 when the subject would have been 14. nancy ^(talk) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article consists of nothing more than an info box. No assertion of notability (nothing about Academy Awards in the current version, either). However IMDB lists several actors with this name; I've no objection to an article being created about a verifiable, notable actor with this name. Pburka (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article does assert notability - the academy award claims are in the info box but you need to click on 'show' to see them nancy ^(talk) 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right -- I hadn't noticed that. I'll argue, though, that an infobox isn't the right place to assert notability and that even if it is, the assertion is so easily falsifiable that it should be ignored. Pburka (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - No assertion of notability, no reliable sources. Rudget. 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and Salt to prevent another creation. No assertion of notability and fails WP:BIO.~~ —Travis^talk 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (starting over after reading Nancy’s comment again) Strong Delete - No evidence of notability could be found. This smells of a hoax and should be salted to prevent further creation. —Travis ^talk 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability/vandalism - who cares which? Author has created only one other article, William H. Christopher which has been ProDded. Springnuts (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this article, although with no prejudice against any of the other Patrick Moores getting an article. But this one: actually it isn't the third creation, it's the seventh creation of the substantive article. The other four were at Patrick A. Moore. I remember the article, partly because of the name - which would be familiar in another context - but also for the infobox that had to be clicked. I just checked my old watchlist, which I cleared out last year, but saved as a text file, and found the earlier versions. All speedied, for various reasons (but all good :O)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism in the form of an obvious hoax, and no claim to notability once the hoax content is ignored. Do not salt, because there are other actors by this name; instead, block the article creator if he tries to create this hoax again. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete empty. Salt the earth, please. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina bennett warner[edit]

Disputed prod. Whilst notability is asserted I believe this article to be a hoax. Google shows zero hits to back up the existence of Georgina Bennett Warner as described [11] The whole tone of the article is hoax-like including the fact that the TV Choice awards are for television programmes not theatrical productions. nancy ^(talk) 18:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. Proclaims to be a contestant on the Czech verson of X Factor. There is no Czech version of that program that exists or is in pre-production. Also the claim of winning the TV Choice award for a theatre production. Hoaxilicious. Doc Strange (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a hoax, and even if it isn't, it fails WP:BIO. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- funny but a hoax nonetheless. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable and undoubtedly a hoax. --Lockley (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Well spotted. Victuallers (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOR, a core policy that cannot be modified by consensus. This is a research paper, not an encyclopedia article. All editors are free to write an actual article on this topic. Sandstein (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFM Nanolithography[edit]

How-to type essay, and, despite the number of references, seems kind of original researchey. Wikipedia is not for things like this. Prod was removed by author without comment. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty clearly a cut and paste job of someone's term paper. "For this project I used SAMs..." etc. eaolson (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total WP:OR. Editor must've been proud of his or her paper... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!!. see article referenses, they are good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.14.164 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC) — 201.141.14.164 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Please note comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/AFM Nanolithography. J Milburn (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yep, this does seem like it started life as a term paper (but a pretty good one). It also needs some editing help with the sources. Nonetheless, this is a notable, useful topic. I certainly don't think this represents original research unless the author is an advanced engineer/scientist and, in any case, the sources are provided, if not entirely clearly. I can see no valid grounds for deletion. Tim Ross 22:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a how-to guide? If an article was written on this topic, even if it was a bad one, that's fine, but this isn't an article. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic does seem like a notable one, per a quick Google search [12]. The use of an atomic force microscope for lithography is mentioned in the Nanolithography article, along with several other methods. The article certainly needs an extreme makeover, but hopefully there is an expert up to the task. I'll create a link from the Nanolithography page as well as a post plea for copy editing on the page itself. Teleomatic (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "Experimental procedures" section is unencyclopediac and should be removed or replaced, but the rest is certainly appropriate material. Antony-22 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong maybe. The topic seems notable, but this is someone posting a lab report, which needs such a complete rewrite that we might as well delete it until someone decides to write an encyclopedic article about it. --Itub (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I made some improvements to the experiment procedures part. I hope more peolple can help editing this article because is a notable topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da.delvalle (talk • contribs) 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dead City Radio (album) for now until a new consensus is established by means of discussion. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead City Radio[edit]

Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC due to lack of released albums on major labels. I have found no indications that DC Records is a major indie label or even exists (unless it referes to Dead City Records, which was speedied under G11). No sources to otherwise establish notability. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Dead City Radio (album). Pburka (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how about going the other way, and moving the content from Dead City Radio (album) here, and making that the redirect? - fchd (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd support that, except I think there may be an album naming convention at work. Best to check before making a redirect. 23skidoo (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus appears to be that the subject meets the current form of WP:BIO. Non-admin close. Xymmax (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Mikloş[edit]

This is a non-notable person. Google search returns nothing, and the article is both orphaned and unreferenced. Ohmpandya (Talk) 17:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Ohmpandya (Talk) 17:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see page 16 in this document which records results from the 1976 Olympics and confirms the facts stated in the article. Being a member of a national team and competing at the Olympics qualifies her under the guidelines for atheletes. Sourcing is I grant a problem, however, as her time of prominence was 1976 and as she is Romanian I don't think we should read too much in to the fact that web sources in English are scant.nancy ^(talk) 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the reference to the article. nancy ^(talk) 13:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People !voting might be interested in reading/commenting here. No !vote for me. Cheers, CP 00:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Or people might be interested in reading here to see that it is unnecessary to vote. The decision does not depend on the majority. No vote. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As shown in the discussions above, this article does not pass notabilty requirements. The article is currently completely unreferenced and is only a few sentences long. Although your reference somewhat verifies the content, is is an extremely trivial reference being simply a passing mention. No notability is guaranteed. Reywas92^Talk 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That the article is short is no criteria to delete - it is a stub and can be expanded. It also has a reference now. nancy ^(talk) 17:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Doma-w, Mikloş is not another James Barker, about whose accomplishments little is known. She scored 14 of her team's 73 goals. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - athlete on a team that came fourth in the Olympic Games easily passes WP:BIO ("highest level of amateur sport"). Place on the team confirmed in the listing in David Wallechinsky's books. - fchd (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, more is needed than just participating. Read WP:BIO. She needs non-trivial references. She definitely does not easilty pass yet. Reywas92 ^Talk 17:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, without any question she's notable. It could be expanded, but surely we could seek to get sources from a Romanian editor. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are deletion tools necessary here? She's a verifiable Olympian. We could bicker about the merits of an individual biography, but we should at least merge this information somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 20:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't necessarily support including all Olympians from all Olympics, but a fourth place is definitely notable. Punkmorten (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassettes Won't Listen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails to meet notability criteria per band WP:BAND. Was recently speedied under A7, but was recreated on the basis of it being kept under the previous AFD. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - This one is borderline. The Spin and Billboard references provided in the article are valid, but are very minor. Would be better with some more substantial sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources meet WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources out just fine. Physical media isn't the test to pass notability, reliable sources is. Pharmboy (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEED DELETE. WP:CSD#G11 Advert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Www.eriecomputerman.com[edit]

blatant advertisement Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee (porn star/1994)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cherokee (porn star/1994)

No real sources. It'll prove difficult to find them, too, given the generic name Cherokee and the fact that there's another porn star of the same name. Doesn't assert any particular standout notability. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only source found was IAFD listing. Almost nothing verifiable to note. Other sources can't keep the 3 porn actresses named Cherokee straight. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; need more evidence of WP:N and better sourcing. JJL (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other stuff exists but that article still fails to establish proper notability with clear sources. Existing content has an inappropriate tone anyway. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus leaning towards keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Goto (actress)[edit]

Non-notable actress. Not even any assertion of notability in this article, but previous prod was declined, so bringing it here for discussion. Complete lack of coverage in WP:RS, so this person fails WP:BIO. Valrith (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ——Quasirandom (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She did have a role in Ichi the Killer, which seems to be a notable film. Whether or not she is notable I'm not sure of yet. Pburka (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral ~~no evidence of~~ unable to evaluate notability. JJL (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Japanese sources linked list abotu a dozen film roles, aside from her own DVDs. What notability she has is not being asserted very well in this article. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If she's notable enough for Yahoo[13], she should be notable enough for Wikipedia. According to Yahoo, in addition to the movie, tv, and dvd credits, she is named in the title of a TV show (loosely translated as "Goto Mai's 'I like Wine'", of which I can't find very much info about), and also in the title of at least one book published in Japan. Neier (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of articles just like that on other East Asian celebrities. However, the style of writing is often excessively wordy or requires cleanup in one way or another: this is due to the fact that most East Asians speak their native tongue ten times better than English and so this limits them in a way. Many are still bound to tradition and whatnot, although they're trying really hard to become modernized. Also in East Asian languages (or at least Chinese and Japanese, as far as I'm concerned) they tend to use a lot of terms that are detailed and make perfect sense to any other native speaker, however when translated to English the words just seem to be backwards or too detailed because English lacks some of the terms they use in their native tongue. But back on track, people who contributed to that article probably wanted to write more about Goto but weren't sure how to do it. I think that we just need to find a few sources and write more for it. If we deleted it it would be a waste, and there's nowhere to merge it to. ― LADY GALAXY 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This model/actress is fairly well known to Western fans of Asian pop. (I don't know whether she is actually well known in Asia itself.) —SlamDiego_←T 02:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She must be well known in Asia too. All of the Asian pop stars that Western fans like, they're even bigger in Asia. ― LADY GALAXY 05:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, probably. But I note that sometimes one has a Rula Lenska — someone made in country B to seem to be a bigger star in country A that (s)he really is. —SlamDiego_←T 05:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time it doesn't work like that. But Leah Dizon is one example of what you just described. ― LADY GALAXY 15:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The E.N.D. (The Energy Never Dies)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete (without prejudice for recreation) per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, Wikipedia:There is no deadline. An album title has been announced, for an album that will be released in September (November?). Nothing else is (verifiably) known at present. At present, the article will serve as nothing more than a magnet for blog/messageboard-sourced rumours (which then have a habit of becoming gospel and spreading like wildfire once mentioned on WP) and/or hoaxers - as can already be seen with the 'producers' section in the infobox. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per above - It will probably be necessary to have an article on this in the future, but I don't think it could be useful now until some verifiable information is released. Firestorm (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~(neutral) ~~per the consensus keep result of last time (ran from Oct. 12-29, 2007). R. Baley (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)~~ edited to add: after poking around a little, I couldn't find a mention, or an expected release on the BEP official website. Without prejudice towards re-creation should more sources be found, I'm changing my 'keep' to neutral with a lean towards delete (sorry JuJube) R. Baley (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Album DEFINITLY needs to stay. It is an album by a GREAT populuar successful band featuring one of the worlds best Fergie. How could anyone delete this? An album has been confirmed and a month for release and more information would be coming soon as it is being released in just over 7 months that is enough information. And people would go to the Black Eyed Peas or Fergie articles and click on The E.N.D. link and that would promote the album as this is a populuar website. I would be VERY upset if this article was deleted. I am already angry that is even being considered for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.188.247 (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to anon: You can increase the chances of an article being kept by adding references (magazines or newspapers would be best). If you find additional references and don't know how to add them to the article, just ask anyone for help. I am sorry to say however that being upset will carry about zero weight as far as comments go. R. Baley (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ "Fergie" and "the best" being used in the same sentence. JuJube (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BLACKKITE 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per R. Baley. JuJube (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's really no info other than the name of the album. Changing my vote to Delete. JuJube (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom under WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL, or we'll be setting a precedent for people to have articles speculating about all manner of things. If and when the album comes out, the article can be re-created. Until then, by definition, it's all unverifiable speculation. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and AlasdairGreen27. If and when it's released and becomes notable, an article can be created. This is a classic WP:CRYSTAL case. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've had a brief google search and can find nothing on it that's not from the BEPs forum - none of whose posts I can read! There's nothing on it in their news pages so I can only assume the title is speculation. Starfighter Pilot (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. The article is kept without prejudice to re-submission. --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Medic Droid (band)[edit]

Does not assert notability in any way. Claims of an international tour aren't backed up by any reliable sources; a search for sources turned up bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found one Google News listing for a show in New York, and they have shows in Arizona, New Mexico and California listed on their Myspace page. But, I don't find any other chatter about the band that would classify as WP:RS, so it's kind of hard for them to meet WP:MUSIC at the moment. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 05:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Charted on the iTunes top 50 dance chart. Therefore Meets criterion 2. News article on the band from MediaPredict and Arkansas Times, so probably also meets criterion 1. Snellios (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ward3001 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Above media references are either trivial or not from a reliable source. iTunes chart is not from a reliable source, either; even if it's correct, I don't know that #26 on the iTunes Dance Chart qualifies as a hit. Fails WP:MUSIC. Seems like they're bubbling under in the hype department which may or may not see them breaking through (i.e. past MySpace popularity into Popular IRL)—if they happen, the article can easily be re-created. Precious Roy (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:MUSIC is very clear. If any of the criteria provided in the guideline are met, then the article meets notability. Criterion #2 is "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." Per Snellios below, the band at one time ranked #26 on iTunes top 50 dance chart for the U.S., and that's a national music chart. Note that once notability for the article has been established, Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. Nobody below bothered to actually add the reference to the article, and so I'll transfer it from this AfD discussion myself. The Transhumanist 10:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Controversial non-admin closure overturned, discussion reopened. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Transhumanist. John254 14:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom. None of the references above have actually been added to the article as yet; the Arkansas Times article is just a gig listing, and therefore inelegible per WP:BAND; I'm not sure that MediaPredict counts as a reliable source, and all the article says is "if this band goes on to become successful, they'll be worth money", which seems to imply that they're _not_ successful as of the article date; and the purported iTunes charting is not backed up by the URL cited, which just gives the current chart. Whether or not iTunes charting is sufficient evidence for notability is debatable, but, even if it is, we're going to need proof that they actually _did_ make the iTunes chart. Tevildo (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -trivial media coverage Addhoc (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The iTunes dance chart is not a relevant national chart, in the same way that top 50 country tracks sold on Amazon isn't relevant. The Billboard singles and airplay charts are, that's national, not just a single retailer. And I'd argue that the niche subsection charts such as Hot Dance Club Play, or Hot Christian Songs don't count either. For a band, these guys have had trivial coverage. - hahnch e n 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of countless non-notable bands with a MySpace page and an EP "currently being worked on". The iTunes Dance Chart is not what's meant by a "national music chart". The mediapredict.com link is an online betting game where, basically, you can bet on whether or not The Medic Droid will become notable. And the Arkansas Times link is a gig listing! --Stormie (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakin' Up[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Breakin' Up

Fails WP:MUSIC as a home-produced non-notable single by an unsigned band. Original prod tag was removed by IP. Recommend Delete Dchall1 (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no article for band itself. Band itself NN unsigned band. Doc Strange (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the article says that the single recieved "no feed back from anyone". --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Weary[edit]

Delete bit part teen actor sourced to imdb & myspace, nn fails WP:N & WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, myspace and imdb are not reliable sources. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, actor who portrayed a significant character in a core family on a significant soap opera. Not a bit part at all. Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- this article is insignificant and trivial. It should not be in an encyclopedia. There are no credible sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.3.125 (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial media coverage and sources such as TV.com or IMDB aren't reliable. Addhoc (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not so trivial. If the character has a large wikipedia entry, likely the actor who plays him should have an entry too. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick look around Google revealed plenty of sources that establish the subject as notable, with entries on TV.com, Soap Opera Digest, AOL video/CBS, Daytime Emmy Awards interview and many more. The Transhumanist 07:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tv. com isn't reliable Secret ^account 21:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Discussion reopened; closing statement by non-admin closer added as opinion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the references provided in Jake_Weary#References and in the comment by The Transhumanist above provide evidence of sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of Jake Weary's notability per the general notability guideline. Such a presumption, being established through objective evidence, outweighs the subjective assertions of non-notability presented by editors supporting the deletion of this article. John254 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 16:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep, though the article needs to be fleshed out. There is more notable information about him, including the controversy that occurred when he left his role. And more detail is needed about his music career. (Will try to add these items myself). NickBurns (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deseloper[edit]

While the terms gets a few hits when Googled, it lacks the currency to make it anything more than a neologism. Most of the article is a WP:COPYVIO from here: [14] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing here that even comes close to notability. It's a term used by Flash programmers and only by Flash programmers. It was evidently made by one of these "deselopers". Redbull47 (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are more and more of us and we need this term to describe what we do so we don't have to give a twenty minute explanation that's different depending on the circumstances and person we are speaking with. User:Texxs —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/request. User:Texxs, can you provide any reliable sources that the term in fact exists? Any literature, websites etc referring to it at all, perhaps? That would greatly help to support your case. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found this eWeek article. But it doesn't seem to have gained a large usage. -- Whpq (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary tower[edit]

Strongly suspect this term is the invention of the author, nom under WP:MADEUP. Unable to find any other references to it AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot find any sources to verify that this term exists. - Revolving Bugbear 14:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The example provided (Capenhurst) doesn't even match the description. It was just a radio tower. Pburka (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the above reasons. Ohmpandya (Talk) 17:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 05:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diefex[edit]

Non notable musician, fails WP:N. Subject appears to have removed the text asking that the stub be deleted. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable musician and, as AlasdairGreen27 points out, the subject himself seems to have logged on and requested removal. --Lockley (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus leaning towards delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Fake DIY[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This one ended in "no consensus" last time so I'm relisting it in an attempt to reach consensus. Non-notable webzine/record label. No claim to notability. Fails WP:ORG. Redfarmer (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean by it ended in no consensus? The first AfD ended in Speedy Delete, and if the second one was real, it was trashed at some point, and left blank by you. ~~If we are working from a basis of a no consensus AfD, I have to ask why we need to reopen this two weeks after it was closed?~~--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've restored the content of the second AfD. I agree with the nominator that the second AfD should have been kept running rather than closed when it was, but I'm not (at this stage) expressing an opinion about the article itself. Tevildo (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for doing that for me. Twinkle kind of freaked out and deleted the second nomination when I was attempting to relist it. I'm still not quite sure what happened. Redfarmer (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~; real award, record label has bands with Wiki articles, but there's the link to the just one article on Google News, and no real evidence of anything else.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no sources found.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. webzine just barely meets WP:N, label has notable artists, but its the lack of outside sources that's sorta killing it. I've found a few more Google News articles although three reference a Bis song with the same name. Another thing is the somewhat weak Alexa rating. I really can't find much else. I'm sure there must be a few links to the site from the websites of notable bands. Doc Strange (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Alexfusco⁵ 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from the second nomination by User:Prosfilaes, on the assumption that the user wants to discuss on the currently open nomination.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the "per nom" that xe is talking about is William Graham's from the 2nd AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although the award may be real, there are very few reliable sources [and very little info for that matter], so I'll pull the 'delete' lever as it doesn't really warrant an article. ><RichardΩ6 12 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think the argument concerning the label having notable artists has anything to do with this subject being notable. For example, the town I live has notable people living in it, however that's a far cry to say their should be a Wiki article about me. Guldenat (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The town you live in has notable people living in it, thus there should be a Wiki article about it, not you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is false, too. A correct statement would be to say that the town that xe lives in has been documented in depth by multiple published works from reliable and independent sources, ranging from published history books through news articles to government census reports, therefore it is notable and Wikipedia (not wiki, note) should have an article on it (See User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not a blanket.). The same criterion applies to web sites and record labels. Uncle G (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This, to me, is a perfect victim of new media interests/culture versus traditional media sourcing. They have their own label with notable music acts, they produce events, have their own podcasts, have their own online TV and an impressive roster of writers and contributors; they look to be expanding a North America version as well. This doesn't seem, by any stretch of the imagination to be a fly-by-night or amateurish company but instead a newer music related company that is more interested in catering the needs of their young online customers than getting stories planted in the print media (which would likely view them as competition). My hunch is that a good article certainly could be written but it will take some investigating to find good sources. They seem to produce original music and concert event-related content so that might be a good place to start. Frankly there are a tone of bands and music events and generally they journalists don't write (or even refer to) the label or event producer unless something goes terribly wrong. To me it would be wiser to focus on the product(s) they produce until better sources are found to discuss the business aspects. Benjiboi 20:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And where are the sources to use for writing about the products, or indeed for writing anything at all about this subject in a neutral and verifiable manner without original research? Please cite some. A boldfaced word, a personal hunch, and a regret that the world doesn't document the things that you think to be important, won't negate the above arguments. Citing sources that document this subject in depth will, though. Wikipedia is not here to document the undocumented. It's an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Uncle G (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point, and I do have one, is that they most likely have been documented but also in mostly new media forums. As their industry is music one might expect them to be well represented on the radio, podcasts, webcasting, blogs, social-networking cites. These are areas that are much harder to source and cite useless someone documents a transcript or for some reason writes about what someone talked about. Industry publications likely refer to them but which ones cover the concert business in the UK I don't know. AfD is not about merely judging what I can plainly see on the present article but what an article can become. Lots of articles are more stubby than this and the subject seems notable enough just new. It seems a waste to throw out the work that's gone into thus far when it simply needs to be improved through regular editing. Benjiboi 23:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - AfD is not about merely judging what I can plainly see on the present article but what an article can become. — I have a fair idea of what AFD is about. You write that statement, and yet don't actually answer the question that is directly addressing what AFD is about. So, once again: Where are the sources to use for writing about the products, or indeed for writing anything at all about this subject in a neutral and verifiable manner without original research? Please cite some. Vague claims that there might be some don't cut the mustard. Show that there are. Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the major sites of its kind in the UK. They have a very impressive list of artists that have given them interviews, etc. The award nomination in itself should be sufficient for notability.--Michig (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not subjective. We don't base decisions on what editors personally think to be major and impressive. That way chaos lies. Please cite sources. They are your only arguments. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a source for the award nomination - it made the final 5 in the 'Best Music Magazine' in awards sponsored by one of the UK's biggest companies. That seems to me a claim to notability.--Michig (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Claims to notability only matter for speedy deletion. Here at AFD we determine whether something is actually notable, which requires the existence of multiple published works from independent and reliable sources that document this subject in depth. The BTDMA web site contains 2 sentences on this subject. Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and the news stories from TIFDIY are picked up by several other sites, including the BBC and Columbia Records UK.--Michig (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's immaterial, and has nothing to do with the existence of sources that document this subject from which full encyclopaedia article can be neutrally and verifiably written without original research. Once again: Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not immaterial - it means that the site meets criterion 3 of WP:WEB. Notability and verifiability are essential, and I don't see a problem with either of these here. "Substantial coverage in reliable sources" is only one way of demonstrating notability. As WP:N states, so are..."the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines." --Michig (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources appear. (This vote is changed from the last AFD.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisifying criteria 3 of WP:WEB. I agree that this is a textbook case of why Wikipedia needs to update its notability standards for the 21st Century, as it's difficult for most webmedia to attain the notability standards currently in place for WP:WEB. I happen to believe this particular site does. 23skidoo (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in several different sources, website is notable. --Hdt83 ^Chat 01:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "podcasts, webcasting, blogs, social-networking cites" have one thing in common: no quality controls: anything and everything gets on there. That's no way to establish notability. We do have weaknesses here; one of them is a horrid insistence on verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Same is true of books, magazines, newspapers, radio and TV. All sorts of misinformation and problems of "anything and everything" getting published. Luckily we can discern which are more reliable and operated by trusted organizations. Most major newspapers have blogs these days, are they at the same state of distrust as all the rest? Benjiboi 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply - A reputable newspaper's own blog, with a known author and editorial board behind it, is not in the same class with regard to reliability as somebody's LiveJournal, MySpace page (full disclosure: I have both), fansite or podcast. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply Exactly, just as there are pretty bad books and magazines and newspapers who use as sources is dubious there are good and bad podcasts, webcasts, blogs and social-networking cites, in the case of the latter, however, wikipedia generally says they're all bad as they are newer media sources and we've yet to sort out how to effectively deal with them. I think some are perfectly fine. Benjiboi 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely passes the notability test.--The Dominator (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some 'reputable' sources perhaps? The Guardian see fit to quote the website on their albums run-down (the quote refers LCD Soundsystem) here, there's further description on the BT DMAs website here. As for bands linking to the site, here, here and here are just three examples; there will be far more in bands' news feeds on their websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.177.52 (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if at least by virtue of being Duels' label. Its also a somewhat notable website.--Him and a dog 16:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the announcement for Duels' new album was the main news story on BBC's 6Music news, 10th Feb. Securing that release is a real coup for the label.Dicarus (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 05:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differents[edit]

Nom under WP:N and WP:NOT#OR. I can't find any evidence that this term exists. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as protologism. I can't find any evidence that this term is actually in use, and it would seem to me that "equality sub-genre movies" is an awfully small realm, meaning I highly doubt this will be sourceable other than by OR. - Revolving Bugbear 14:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:OR. Can't find any use of this word anywhere. I guess it's also in vio of WP:NFT Doc Strange (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --VS ^talk 05:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph and Luka Banda[edit]

These are non notable conjoined twins.The condition itself is rare, but not the patient.Very few links link to this article as well, most not even being articles themselves.No reason provided on how these twins are notable, either.Delete is my opinion--IslaamMaged126 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to something other than the biography of these kids: I think this article should be deleted in the spirit of WP:BLP; we don't and probably won't ever have a real biography here. It's a one day news item. I'd mention them in conjoined twins, but that's it. Also, most of the article is copyright infringement; that's a lot of text to take from one source, cited or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Since the condition is rare, they are notable. Are we then going to delete all the articles on twins conjoined at the head such as these. Muntuwandi (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the point is that only the condition is rare, and actually those twins have a reason to have an article;the article shows the reason clearly.--I am sooo cool! 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I would delete or merge all the articles on conjoined twins that are there just because they were born, not because they chose to be before the public eye.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This was an operation of historical significance. I might support a merge with Ben Carson or a move to Type 2 Vertical Craniopagus twins and I agree the quote needs to be paired down or used to flesh out the article. There is a precedent for a merge here. Perhaps you could explain how this article violates the spirit of BLP? MoodyGroove (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
- WP:ONEEVENT.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it of historical significance? It's a fairly routine operation, made unusual primarily by the sheer rarity of the disease, done on people who have no immediate historical importance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Type 2 vertical craniopagus would be redirected to Craniopagus twins.The Ben Carson article merge wouldn't suffice--I am sooo cool! 19:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and i just preformed a google search with only 289 results.This shows slight lack of notablility.I am sooo cool! 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question is then are we to delete all the articles in the category of conjoined twins. Since their only notability is being conjoined. One has to realize that in all these cases the conjoined twins usually end up gaining some sort of celebrity status during the time of their operations. On google, well it may not be so reliable since this operation took place 12 years ago back before the internet was really popular. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not. Many of them have extended notability by going on TV or touring in sideshows, more than just having a condition or having as an infant had an operation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Carson was also part of the team that operated on Ladan and Laleh Bijani, part of his reputation was earned from this very operation of these two twins. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, those twins have a reason for being notable. This case doesn't show any reason for notability.--I am sooo cool! 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is subjective, what did Ladan and Laleh Bijani do other than be conjoined twins to warrant notability. It was the fact that they were conjoined is what made them notable. It is the same case with these twins. My only concern is the double standard that might be raised. These twins are conjoined just as much as all the other twins listed in the Category for conjoined twins. Then what would be the criteria for deciding who among the conjoined twins is notable or not. All the concerns that have been raised here also apply to the other sets of twins as well. Whatever happens here will set a precedent for the other articles as well. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An example is Krista and Tatiana Hogan, who are notable because they are British columbia's first conjoined twins.Another example is Ronnie and Donnie Galyon because they are the oldest living male conjoined twins.Josepha nd Luka Banda show no reason of notablility whatsoever.I am sooooo cool! 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no formal precedence set, and frankly being a conjoined twin is not and never has been a reason for an article. Ladan and Laleh Bijani traveled the world looking for help and chose to have a risky and ultimately fatal surgery on them. Joseph and Luke Banda were children with a congenital defect that was repaired by surgery, no choice of their own. Not only that, we have a life story for the Bijanis; the article we have on the Bandas will probably always end shortly after their birth, which is not sufficient for a biographical article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again those are subjective attributes, one could easily find something unique about any sets of twins, like which country they were born in. I agree that the older historical cases are definitely notable such as the engs. Simply for historical purposes. However to say that Krista and Tatiana Hogan are notable because they are british columbia's first conjoined twins lacks merit. Jo and luka banda are also probably Zambia's first conjoined twins as well. The fact is there is need for an article on craniopagus twins and this article needs a variety of examples from around the world to counter systemic bias. Since it is a well established fact that wikipedia tends to be biased to western news items. Whatever the outcome, my concern here will be the same treatment be accorded to other twins in the category from recent times because inherently there is no difference. If it is agreed to listify, then I will have no problem with that. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, Ben Carson served as a consultant during the Bijanis operation partly because of his experience with Jo and Luka Banda. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't give notability to this case; it merely adds detail to the Ben Carson article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then maybe the best idea is to Smerge with the ben carsin article?I am sooooo cool! 21:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one is special. "...Siamese twins joined at the top of the head, facing in opposite directions. There'd been 13 attempts in ..., none of which had resulted in two living or intact individuals" It succeeded, and in a setting much less than a modern research hospital. DGG (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree with DGG. Most of the conjoined twins are not joined at the head. Those who are are not vertical and facing opposite directions. For example the bijanis were joined at the side of the head so they could actually walk. However these twins without an operation would have never been able to walk or get out of bed, let alone see each other face or body. While conjoined twins are rare, this condition is even rarer. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC) commentI disagree with merging with the Ben Carson article because this is a medical condition and should be linked to other related cases through the category or list of conjoined twins. If we are to merge, then all the other twins who were recently operated upon should be merged to one article such as the suggested Type 2 Vertical Craniopagus twins. As I have mentioned earlier, there are several other recent cases in the Category for conjoined twins so we shouldn't selectively single out one case simply because we don't like it and leave the others. The basic medical condition is the same in all the cases in the aforementioned category. Because this condition occurs randomly, the people affected will most likely not be of the celebrity type, but simple ordinary folk. Therefore, we don't expect to get much from a biographical perspective from any of these cases. However they are still very significant from a medical and historical perspective based on the rarity of the condition. In terms of notability, they are covered in CNN, BBC and the New York Times. Muntuwandi (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"this is a medical condition"? That's exactly why I object to this article. Joseph and Luke Banda are not a medical condition; they're people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and what about the other twins in the category, aren't they also people. Muntuwandi (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and what does that have to do with this AfD? WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precedence, if we are going to have the Category for conjoined twins then it should be populated with noteworthy cases. Its not that other crap exists, all the cases are just as noteworthy as this one.Muntuwandi (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not cases, they are people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be nitpicking over trivial details such as grammar and avoiding the main issue. They are all people with rare medical conditions and their operations are medical cases or incidents. If wikipedia is going to have articles that discuss rare medical conditions, it would be utterly pointless if they are no examples to refer to. We can't just say conjoined twins exist without giving both contemporary and historical examples of them. Muntuwandi (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not trivial details; a lot of people with various deformities get very tired of being "cases" and "disorders" when they just want to be people. It wouldn't be utterly pointless without examples; there are lots of articles on diseases without examples, both in Wikipedia and in paper encyclopedias. Furthermore, I don't oppose examples in the articles; I object to making an article called "Joseph and Luka Banda" that treats their entire life as if it were all about a congenial deformity corrected shortly after birth.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The field of medicine wouldn't be what it is without precedence and history. If we are discussing a medical condition like the flue or a fever examples would not be necessary because almost everyone is affected by them at some time. However these conditions are rare and anybody interested in them would have to learn from the few medical cases that have existed. Even Dr Carson says

One of the reasons surgeons have so much trouble separating Siamese twins is that nobody gets to do many of them. On the table, the anatomy is so different from normal, that you're constantly trying to figure out, Can I cut this? Does this wire lead to what? It's like trying to defuse a bomb.[15]

At present, I would think that any surgeon who would attempt to separate craniopagus twins would have to study or get some references from this particular case simply because there are very few cases to learn from. There are very few births with conjoined twins, fewer survive birth and even fewer survive the operations. I think that simply trying to have this article deleted without addressing the wider issues of the topic of conjoined twins goes against the wikipedia's spirit of knowledge. Firstly the twins survived birth and an then an extremely risky 2 day operation. Yes they were born in Africa from parents of limited means, they are not hollywood celebrities, maybe you believe that wikipedia should only have articles about Britney Spears. However from a medical standpoint their case is significant. The Bijani's surgery, for example came after this successful surgery and Ben Carson was a consultant partly because of his success with this same operation. I suggest keeping this article and if anyone has concerns to focus them on the topic of conjoined twins and in particular craniopagus twins. Muntuwandi (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These young men are notable because of their condition. Undoubtedly there will be future follow-ups on their progress and development. -JodyB_talk 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I say delete is that only the condition is rare, not the people.The large quote also says a lot of copyrighted mateirial was inserted into this article.major cleanup is seriuosly needed, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsocool! (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - A fairly obvious consensus to keep for all three articles. (non admin close) — Becksguy (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior[edit]

If anything, we should have a list of animals that never display homosexual behavior. That list would probably be much smaller than this one. Voortle (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be bold and add two more articles to this AfD, as all three articles should either be kept or deleted based on the consensus here: Redfarmer (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of birds displaying homosexual behavior
- List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior

Comment. These are all part of the same list. Benjiboi 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they're three separate articles so they should be kept or deleted together. Redfarmer (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is definitely overkill. We already have a Homosexuality in animals article. Fails WP:NOT#DIR. Redfarmer (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
God, simply SPEEDY DELETE IT!!! This is not encyclopedic.--IslaamMaged126 (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this would fall under any of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Redfarmer (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very well referenced and encyclopedic list that is supporting branch of Homosexuality in animals. It has notable information that would overwhelm the main article and therefore is best presented as a supporting list. It most certainly passes WP:LIST which distinguishes it from the odd suggestion that this is a directory. I would also say the nominator's suggestion to create an article on list of animals that never display homosexual behavior sounds very WP:POINTy. There is a reason why biologists study the occurrence of homosexual behaviors in animals. It is a unique behavior that extends beyond the scope of the norm. The potential physiological or evolutionary reasons behind it can broaden our understanding of the world around us. This list is very pertinent to Wikipedia's Science related coverage and to argue for its deletion based on "pointy" reasons is very POV oriented and not a valid cause for deletion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 13:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should clarify. My suggestion this falls under WP:NOT#DIR is per criteria four of said policy:
  Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.
- I would argue with you that my vote to delete is POV oriented, though. Just saying, don't judge until you know the person's story. ;) I simply feel the articles are unencyclopedic. Redfarmer (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should clarify, while I disagree with you on policy interpretation between the encyclopedic purpose of a list per WP:LIST and the appearance of a directory list per WP:NOT#DIR, I don't consider your personal delete vote POV oriented. It just a disagreement on views of different guidelines. The nominator's suggestion and the speedy delete comments do appear to be more POV then policy based. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 14:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would also say the nominator's suggestion to create an article on list of animals that never display homosexual behavior sounds very WP:POINTy. Well I'm curious to know as to what animals there are that reproduce sexually (as opposed to asexual reproducing animals) where homosexual behavior never occurs if indeed there are any. This present article seems to suggest that there's not any, or there are very few of them. Voortle (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's a straight editorial matter if some wording in the article isn't clear. We will never delete articles for things like that. If that's all this is, please withdraw the nomination. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 17:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Why is this even listed here? The nominator simply says "we should have a different list instead - it would be shorter" - that's not a reason to delete. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator's contention is that the list is too broad in scope, because it is a set complement (c.f. List of virgins (AfD discussion)) and unsuitable for an article as per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone_lists)#Appropriate topics for lists. Xe is contending that the complementary set is the one to have the list article for. Of course, whether one agrees with that contention depends from whether one agrees with the first sentence of our homosexuality in animals article. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Really, Uncle G? You read all that from the nominator? Because all I see is:

If anything, we should have a list of animals that never display homosexual behavior. That list would probably be much smaller than this one. '

- - That doesn't say anything at all that is a criterion for deletion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Keep (all) - this is a very well referenced list (in three parts). The information is encyclopedic. It supports the text that can be found in Homosexuality in animals, but is too extensive to be merged there. Aleta (Sing) 15:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Aleta (Sing) 16:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why are we deleting a heavily sourced, ludicrously straight-forward subject topic in the sciences? Lawrence Cohen 16:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SNOWBALL. If nom feels a list of animals that never display homosexual behavior should exist they are welcome to start it although, as suggested above, it would seem quite WP:POINTy and likely be no more illuminating than this list. Benjiboi 17:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOWBALL does not apply if the vote is not unanimous. Redfarmer (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment. AfD notice posted to remaining wikipedia projects. Benjiboi 17:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Clearly encyclopedic and notable subject of science, well documented. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL and to add further, this list has Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales' own stamp of approval since he questioned the list's value, threatening to wipe it out himself, before but since it was greatly sourced, changed his mind stating Absolutely excellent work. This has now gone from an article that the reader would find highly dubious to something well-referenced. I love it. ALLSTARecho 18:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As far as the 'never'-list goes: that is impossible to prove. Jcwf (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I've been thinking about this one a lot today, especially after Agne27 pointed out this is an appendix of sorts to Homosexuality in animals. I still don't feel completely comfortable with this one but feel I may have been too hasty in voting to delete, which may be a fault of my own bias towards lists since I've tried to avoid them since I got trapped in the middle of an AfD over one I helped create. I do feel the subject is notable but it's still unclear to me whether the list actually serves to increase knowledge or whether the information could be dispersed over the various species' articles and whether brief examples on Homosexuality in animals would suffice. As such, I'm changing my vote to weak keep for now. I would remind some of the voters above, however, to assume good faith in the nominator, who was probably trying to be sarcastic in his suggestion of an alternate list and defend the list on its own merits lest someone else who feels it hasn't been properly defended nominate it again. A founder approving of the article or the article being properly sourced would not save it if it was to fail other criteria. Redfarmer (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I think you're answering your own questions. We have hundreds of bios of LGBT people yet a more complete list of those people is seen as quite helpful and something that wikipedia excels at. We could try to add that such and such fish, for instance, displays homosexual behavior but I'd be willing to bet that that same information would be removed in most cases, rightfully or not, thus rendering one list as quite useful to collect and present that information. Benjiboi 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The two are not necessarily parallel, though. In the LGBT case, the people who are LGBT are the exceptions, not the norm. However, in the case of species, the first sentence of homosexuality in animals implies that species where homosexuality has been observed are the norm and not the exceptions. It states that it is "widespread".
    I note that the source whose citation is currently linked to that sentence makes no mention at all of homosexuality, and does not appear to support the article content. So one question to answer is whether that sentence is actually correct. If the argument here is that homosexuality has only been observed in the few species on this list, out of the million species catalogued by Dr Gordon et al., then indeed it is the exception and not the norm, and this is a list with a reasonable scope. In that case, however, homosexuality in animals needs attention, because "documented in fewer than 0.1% of all species" is not what most readers will infer from "widespread". Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That ref was asserting something else and had been moved in edit warring. Thank you for pointing it out, it's been corrected. Homosexuality is indeed widespread but studying and documenting that is very recent. In addition our studies of all species and their implications is, at best, an emerging field. Although there is a long history of exploration the technology to more fully understand as well as the financing to support ongoing research is woefully running behind the interest to do so. Benjiboi 20:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete since it claims that nearly all animals except asexual and hermaphroditic reproducers can display homosexual behaviour, it's difficult to see the point of a list that will presumably end up with thousands of species. Isn't this list also making a WP:POINT Jimfbleak (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What POINT is that? Lawrence Cohen 21:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If there are content disputes, deletion is not the answer. The fact that an animal can display homosexual behavior doesn't mean it does. The article clearly asserts that 1500 species have shown homosexual behavior, 500 of which have been studied thoroughly. Justin ^chat 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in that there are sources for the statements made. If it's any comfort to homophobes, these same species also display heterosexual behavior, which has prevented their extinction. Mandsford (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and watch attacks. Though it may not have been your intention, this could be interpreted as saying that anyone who believes this article should be deleted is a homophobe. I can't speak for anyone else but I don't consider myself particularly homophobic, and I don't think my last boyfriend did either (I'm a male). Redfarmer (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry... I think the article should be kept, and I'm not gay. I don't think anyone's making their opinions based on their personal preferences about lifestyles. I'm glad you closed with a joke, because a lot of Wikipedians are humorphobes. Mandsford (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, and Allstar especially. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 21:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an appropriate list, limited to what is known. DGG (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scientific/sourced etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only is it completely referenced and comprehensive, Jimbo himself gave the article a thumbs up and said it showed wiki editing at its best after Benjiboi and a colleague finished sourcing all the material. His exact words were "I love it". To nominate it for deletion shows a lack of due diligence. Jeffpw (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to cite a dozen different references and many additiona external sites. Encyclopedic and notable. Edison (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced and notable. No reason to be up for deletion. --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The information is relevant and encyclopedic, and it would be difficult to provide the same information in any other format. Queerudite (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well researched and sourced. - MPF (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although we are heading towards a nightmare CfD for all the "LBGT" categories, as it is unacceptable to have everything related to these subjects lumped together in such a controversial fashion. Many if not most homosexuals and bisexuals object to the conflation and it a massive POV and BLP problem to institutionalize this disputed terminology in the wikipedia mainspace. Indeed, the LBGT wikiproject should probably be broken up/renamed too, this terminology may be to disputed to even be outside the mainspace. Lobojo (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Keep, Keep: lists by definition are generally unencyclopadic as earlier charged. this list, however, is one of the 'most' encylopaedic around. --emerson7 04:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a case for a Speedy keep under WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. There is room for discussing whether having three articles is appropriate, but that should be first addressed on the articles' talk pages, not at AfD. Fireplace (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. It was addressed on the talk page and was agreed that article was huge and should be split with the first two largest sections, mammals and birds, having their own articles. We can merge them together again, if forced to do so, but I think we would quickly decide, again, tat the article was again too huge and should be split. Benjiboi 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Lists are an important part of Wikipedia, this is a well written and well sourced list, keep per WP:SAL and WP:LIST.Earthdirt (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodway Park School and Community College[edit]

No claim to notability, no secondary sources. Even though WP:SCHOOL is only a proposal, it does not match those criteria either. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Comment~~. Woodbay passes proposed WP:SCHOOL#Primary criteria #2. An (11-18) is a secondary school (7-12). The secondary source provided is Ofsted (the government) summary with links to the full 2007 inspection report. Passes WP:V as a stub. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that it does as the criteria is:

"High schools/secondary schools are regarded as notable unless encyclopaedic material is not available."

Although the term is not defined, I don't see any "encyclopaedic material" provided. The information provided so far could be provided for every single secondary school in England, and I don't think that is what WP:SCHOOL intends. No doubt it passes WP:V, the issue here is WP:N. I would also consider the Ofsted report to be a primary source rather than a secondary source, but it depends on what you would consider the primary source to be in this case. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Available" implies available for editors to look up. Google and Google News searches for Woodway Park School show substantial WP:RS coverage over time, plenty to expand the stub and satisfy general notability guidelines. Comment changed to keep above. Deletion should be based on whether the article can be expanded or fixed, not just the state it is in. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is notable being well known locally, and more widely because it is going to be converted to an Academy. I have added more references from reliable sources. Snowman (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being "well known" locally means nothing, all school are reasonably well known locally (plus it is original research, unless you can find a source for it being well known). The only significant source provided seems to be the BBC link, except that this is just standard statistics, which the BBC publishes for all school. I have yet to see any source provide anything that indicates notability above every other secondary school, and we do not include every secondary school. We need somebodyt to add something that makes this school distinctive compared to the average secondary school. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is well referenced, and reliable sources are used. It is suitable according to WP:SCHOOL. Snowman (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, which notability criteria does it meet? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable according to primary criteria 1 and 2. Snowman (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it has not 1) had significant coverage in secondary sources (if it has please provide them) and 2) there is no indication of encyclopadic material (if there is please provide it). The OFSTED report does not count towards either of them, neither does the listing on the BBC (all schools have both of those). Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget that WP:SCHOOL is only a proposed guideline so for now, as WP:SCHOOL itself acknowledges:

"every school AfD has to be argued from first principles against WP:N." Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's changed--for many weeks, every high school article that comes here has been kept, unless there is something wrong with it other than notability. I think we now do have a consensus, and we can skip the nonsense of arguing them from scratch. It does not have to be more notable than other secondary schools, and more than universities have to be more notable than other universities. DGG (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not consensus that is just you coming to a conclusion from some recent discussions. Consensus on WP:SCHOOL will be seen at WP:SCHOOL where the actual debate is, not derived from a few discussions, which may well have been about notable schools. Just because other articles have been kept, does not mean that all should. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. WP:SCHOOL is only a proposal, and it's claim that all high schools are automatically notable is nuts. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 05:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsterball Gold[edit]

Non-notable computer video game. The article is *entirely* original research and trivia, so much that removing it would probably be equivalent to deleting the article. It's also written like a game guide. The article consists of an intro (the only prose in the entire page), a list of levels (OR), a brief description of the levels (OR and written sort of like a game guide), a list of "Enemies in order of appearance" (blatantly OR) and "Obstacles" (blatantly OR again). Then we get down to the trivia section with such statements as:

(Would someone please clarify that statement, or am I just dense.)

and other first-person pronouns that don't belong in an encyclopaedia. Basically, this article is just too much of a mess to be saved. NF24^{(radio me!)} 12:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. NF24^{(radio me!)} 12:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is unnecessary and serves no purpose. This is not a vote, and the closing administrator knows that your opinion is that the article should be deleted, from the fact that you nominated it for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current state of the article isn't something to worry about, just light a match and WHOOMPH the inappropriate stuff. What is a concern is that there are no particularly useful sources coming up in a web search, [this blog] is hardly reliable or established. There's an editor's comment on [download.com], but it's small and doesn't help establish notability. That's pretty much it, so delete. Someoneanother 14:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I use "Kerrrzappp!" myself. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was my point in the last few sentences of the nom. If we whoomphed (or kerzapped =P) all the unsourced stuff, OR, and trivia, there would be no article left. Seriously, even the Marble Madness comparison in the second sentence is unsourced. (At the very least, all that would be left is "Hamsterball is a 3-D computer game by Raptisoft".) But, as I said, this is non-notable as well and should be deleted because of that. NF24^{(radio me!)} 21:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 07:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 04:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recombinant text[edit]

Non-notable neologism. The article was apparently written by the coiner of the term, User:Michael Allan, and references appear to be papers written that use the term, not about them (thus failing the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms). NF24^{(radio me!)} 12:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I (primary author) reply up here, if it applies to the majority of bullet points below? If not, please correct me.

Most of you are citing the violation of a Wikipedia rule, as cause for deletion. But you fail to consider an overriding question that applies in this case: Is the article harmful to Wikipedia, or is it beneficial, or is it merely neutral? Failing to consider this, you may mean well, but end by doing harm.

Consider an example. There are societies (some of us are fortunate enough to live in them) that are open and democratic, while at the same time being governed by the rule of law. In all such societies, there is a division between legislators (who make the law), judges (who interpret it), and police (who enforce it). The police are not allowed to enforce the law blindly, without benefit of interpretation by judges. Judges apply judgment, as opposed to blind force.

Everyone understands that the rules of Wikipedia are an attempt to lay down some guidelines for how to improve Wikipedia, and prevent harm from coming to it. And all of the rules are intended to be interpreted in that light. Some rules are very clear, such as copyright violations. Others are less clear, such as the rule against OR. OR must be interpreted with judgment; exceptions can be made. You might make an exception if the subject (as here) is very new, and is the work of a non-academic who does not publish in journals. You might, that is, if the article has some apparent benefit to Wikipedia's readers, or at least brings no apparent harm to them. If you agree with my argument, I request that each editor who cited a broken rule append some considered judgment to it. Is it not true that the most valuable thing about Wikipedia is its openness? I think you are enforcing the rules too tightly, and I request that you loosen them a little, and allow some breathing space.

Is any part of the article, or the whole of it, harmful to Wikipedia's readers? Michael Allan (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research is extremely clear ("Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.") and non-negotiable ("This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."). Sorry, that's just the way it is. RossPatterson (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. NF24^{(radio me!)} 12:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First (to reply), if one invents something and gives it a name, the name is bound to be a neologism. Surely that is no fault of the article. Second, I believe notability of the subject is backed by the references. Recombinant text is the basis for 'community law making', and its 'delegate cascade' is the basis of 'open electoral systems'. The proposal for those was enough to gain the notice of several political scientists and sociologists in the APSA_ITP list (and other academics in another list). Those folks normally communicate in journal articles (publish or perish), and they almost *never* discuss new ideas in open forums, at length, with annoyingly over-excited outsiders (like me). I ask that you consider that as at least sufficient to buy the article some time (if only for their papers to come out) before deleting it as not notable. (In any case, please do discuss *before* taking drastic action such as deletion -- if only to give me notice.) Michael Allan (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for now to sort out wider-reaching issues with this AfD, regarding canvassing, see [16] and [17]. User:Dorftrottel 12:51, January 12, 2008
- I don't believe that this is canvassing. User:Unschool was thinking of nominating it for AfD, but he wasn't sure, so he went into "one day's archive" and picked out a group of editors (including me) to ask for opinions. I agreed with Unschool, so I nominated the article. Besides, canvassing can only take place after the discussion has started. Also, I don't believe that this is forum shopping (or asking the other parent) because they were simply asking my opinion; had I disagreed, it doesn't appear that they would had pressed me or others for further opinions. They may have erred by not posting to User talk:Michael Allan and perhaps I should not have nominated it for Unschool. However, here I believe the problem is with notability (it does not appear to meet the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms), not original research or a conflict of interest as Unschool thought. NF24^{(radio me!)} 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "[C]anvassing can only take place after discussion has started": Not true. How do you arrive at that conclusion? As to "recombinant text" being a neologism, here are a few examples of the term being discussed/mentioned in published works:
  - Frankly, if you're too lazy to perform so much as a simple Google search, please do not nominate an article for deletion. Continued work on the article, to widen its scope according to the available sources, is possible. Therefore adjusting my opinion to speedy keep as faulty and heavily canvassed nomination. User:Dorftrottel 13:51, January 12, 2008
- Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." Yes, there are Google Books hits that use the term, but not about the term. NF24^{(radio me!)} 14:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Look at the links I provided. Some of them do indeed discuss the term and its meaning. User:Dorftrottel 14:26, January 12, 2008~~
    - I looked through all four and saw the term mentioned but not defined. Same for the other three books that came up in a Google book search. A regular Google search also turns up uses of term. The only definition is from Mr. Allen's website, zelea.com. I will gladly withdraw the nomination (in accordance with Wikipedia:Speedy keep criterion #1) if you can provide an outside source (not written by Mr. Allen) that defines the term. NF24^{(radio me!)} 14:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author states on the article's talk page that it is original research. There is also a conflict of interest. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Neither~~ WP:COI ~~nor WP:OR are~~ isn't mentioned in WP:Deletion policy as grounds for deletion. User:Dorftrottel 13:51, January 12, 2008
  - Original research is given as grounds for deletion in policy. It has been grounds for deletion for several years, now. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion again. Uncle G (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Strong Delete, this is ~~not~~ original research ~~as its sources have been published in peer reviewed journals, but~~ definitely a conflict of interest and soap-boxing, ~~possibly~~ definitely non-NPOV and also violates Wikipedia is not™ your publisher. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any peer-reviewed journal articles using the term. AnteaterZot (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, I am not soap boxing. I don't give a hoot if my name is attached to it. I only put my name in the refs to be honest about it. And I am not forcing my views on anyone. To the contrary, I posted the article in the hopes of hearing the views of others. Nor is it a contentious article in which I argue one side of an issue, in a non-neutral way. I am describing a new technology, and a new way of seeing collaborative media. All my words are directed to that end. Please correct me if I speak falsely. Michael Allan (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two other things, first what Unschool was doing was not at all canvassing (although I can see why it might be construed that way) - he was asking for a few random editors' two cents on whether an article should be taken to AfD or left alone, and from the comments left on my talk page, I don't believe that he was attempting to influence my oppinion one way or another. Secondly, to Dorftrottel, I don't think your last statement is correct. Articles that contain solely original research can and are deleted on those grounds. The policy on original research makes it clear that material in articles must be verifiable, and content that can not be verified must be removed. If that would leave nothing, then the article would be deleteable. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the sources I provided do allow for verification of the term and its meaning, so it's not deletable on the grounds of verifiablity is not possible at all. That's what it boils down to: if an article can be improved through inclusion of published sources, don't delete it. User:Dorftrottel 14:26, January 12, 2008
  - No, they don't. You've done a Google Books search, found 4 books where the words "recombinant" and "text" occur next to each other, and then accused other editors of being "too lazy". Not only is that uncivil, it is wholly and ironically undermined by the fact that if you'd actually read what your search turned up you'd have seen that none of the books that you've pointed document the concept described in this article, at all. The first is simply talking about anonymous works that have been recombined over the centuries. The second is discussing hypertext and the phrase "recombinant text" occurs in a single buzzword-heavy quotation. The third is also discussing hypertext in buzzword-heavy fashion. The fourth is citing the sleeve notes for a compact disc, and isn't even discussing something at all. Please apply our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies properly. Random occurrences of two words in succession found by a Google search is not verifiability, as Wikipedia:Google test explains. Research involves actually reading what one's Google search turns up. Uncle G (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dorftrottel, I fail to see how any of the sources you listed are verifiable secondary sources. Every reference on the page is either written by the article's author or is an online message board (not a peer-reviewed journal as some have made it seem), and the references you brought up in this deletion discussion are the result of a Google search and only show where the phrase "recombinant text" is used, they don't discuss or explain the term. I originally wasn't 100% sure that this was OR and tried to give you the, the author, and the article the benefit of the doubt, but now I'm convinced that its blatant original research. It needs to be covered (the topic itself, not just the phrase used in a sentence in an article) in multiple independent sources before it can be included. Mr Senseless (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "verifiable secondary sources": I thought secondary sources are the ones used to verify material. How would those be verified? Peer review? Then please, I may be totally wrong on all accounts here, but I still see a difference between the current content of the page, and the page itself. The term appears not to be a total neologism, at least not by the standards defined by Ex-ex-gay. It has been used in several published books to denote more or less the same concept. That's why I keep arguing that while, yes, the current content is not compatible with policy, the term itself is. Why the drastic measure to delete the page and not leave it as at least a redirect? Are you sure you're not confusing the content with the page it's on? Remove the text, but keep the page. If not as a stub, then as a imo plausible redirect to another article. User:Dorftrottel 15:51, January 13, 2008
Delete, the term is used in many different ways. For example, "DJ Spooky" used the term in a rap/poetics context in the 1990's. Other people use the term in a hypertext context, but it is uncertain if they are talking about the same thing. And the term was used in an essay on "utopian plagiarism". However, I was unable to find any use of the term in WebofKnowledge or Jstor.org. The article has a much more well-developed definition of recombinant text than can be found anywhere on the internet. The sources provided are all by Mr Allen, except two 1982 books which do not mention the term, and two forums. Therefore the article is in violation of WP:NOT#OR points 1 and 3, and in violation of WP:SYN. The way it is currently written, it is also in violation of WP:NOT#MANUAL. As for the possiblity of rewriting the article, since it is currently missing any independent secondary sources that attest to the notability or importance of the term or the concept, it (the term) fails WP:Notability. AnteaterZot (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First (to reply), although I chose a name with prior usages, those usages were not solidly established, nor anything but occasional descriptive flourishes. So I did not usurp the term. Second, it is not original thought, but a report of an actual, working machine. Third, it is therefore not SYN, because that deals with advancing positions and conclusions (I have none to advance). And finally, the most important secondary source for recombinant text is reality itself, and (now that I have added the missing external links) you have references to it. You can test them with your own senses, and see that what I am reporting cannot be broadly disputed. It's there, as long as my server is running... Michael Allan (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and ban User:Michael Allan. We definitely need more 13-year olds that write articles on minor Star Wars expanded universe characters rather than on non-notable (=not available as comic book or on TV) neologisms. The article constitutes a blatant violation (as in rape) of WP:COI and WP:OR and considerably impairs Wikipedia's reputation as a repository of knowledge. User:Dorftrottel 15:47, January 12, 2008
- That being said, as some of you have already been suspecting, the only reason I was arguing for giving the article a chance is that I'm a sockpuppet of Michael Allan... User:Dorftrottel 16:08, January 12, 2008
- Am I the only one here who thinks that a ban is very unnecessary here? NF24^{(radio me!)} 16:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am obviously a bit pissed off right now because I really still believe the article should be given a fair chance. It may be necessary to stubbify, rewrite, or redirect, but deletion is not necessary imo. The reason why I proposed banning Allan is ambivalent: I personally do not think that he should. But those who are arguing COI should be aware that he did essentially not contribute anything else than my ~~our~~ his workSpecial:Contributions/Michael_Allan. User:Dorftrottel 16:35, January 12, 2008
    - If an article is original research, then it is not possible to rewrite it, because there are no fact checked, peer reviewed, published, reliable sources to use in order to build it. Uncle G (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, one last attempt. Even if we determine the subject matter to be non-notable, and the examples I provided are not suitable sources to back up any part of the concept: Why delete the article rather than making it a redirect to, say, Collaborative writing, Revision control or Memetics? The fact that the term as such appears in a few published works and a rather careful Google search returns ~400 hits imo means that it is a plausible search term and the page location should at least be kept as a redirect. However, I still think that the article, its current condition notwithstanding, has potential to become more than an unreferenced stub. That aside, the article is indeed well-formulated currently, regardless of COI/OR/whatnot, and that fact does deserve due consideration. So, in spite of my awareness of WP:AADD, I ask myself: why this article? Why not the thousands of "articles" on minor fiction characters? Well, the answer is simple: Mob rule. Here, we have an individual (and anyone who speaks up in favour of giving this article a chance is assumed to be a sockpuppet, for crying out loud). One person cannot win any argument on WP. There, we have ~1000 kids who want to keep everything they saw on TV the other night. And the kids prevail. Great thing, Wikipedia. So go ahead, delete this and add to WP's systemic bias. I'm just glad we have well-referenced, neutral and interesting encyclopedic articles on notable topics like Ex-ex-gay. User:Dorftrottel 17:54, January 12, 2008
- I feel your pain, but the average Wikipedia user is capable of figuring out that the article on the minor TV character was written by a minor. Articles like this one are more insidious and more dangerous, because they look scholarly but in fact are an attempt to bypass peer-review and the scholarly literature. As for the sockpuppet accusation, even if you were User:Michael Allan, you would not be engaging in sockpuppetry because he is not participating in this debate. AnteaterZot (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I protest, I am not attempting to bypass peer review. My peers do not publish in journals, they publish in code. I do not wish to avoid their criticism, but rather to encourage it. Other engineers and users of social media are more likely to see and criticize my work if it is published here (whatever the rules say about that) than in a journal they will never read. Social media is being invented by software engineers and their users, in an open culture of information exchange, and not by academics who publish in journals. Michael Allan (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have noticed the refusal of the software community to participate in the centuries-old process of publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The fact that you feel you have to publish on Wikipedia shows that the time has come for the social media/software community to grow up and create some journals. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "I have noticed the refusal of the [Wikipedia] community to participate in the centuries-old process of publishing in [printed encyclopedias]. The fact that you feel you have to publish on Wikipedia shows that the time has come for the [Wikipedia] community to grow up and create [a traditional encyclopedia]." Seriously, traditional journals and academic scholarship are not the only sources of knowledge. A running machine (even in prototype), that does something never before done (or even thought of), and has obvious utility, and interesting connections with other machines/systems/techniques, is worthy of reporting. You ought not to wait years for a peer-reviewed dialogue to emerge from the traditional publishers, not when the engineer who built it volunteers a faithful report of it, as I have. Michael Allan (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        All I see is Original Research, sorry. AnteaterZot (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think that the article, its current condition notwithstanding, has potential to become more than an unreferenced stub — That you've found no sources, and still think that it's possible to write an article nonetheless, indicates that you should refresh your memory of our content policies and the purpose of the project. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is a tertiary source. Yes, you cannot win an argument against the project policy by being uncivil and using the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The way to win this argument is to cite reliable independent sources that document this particular subject in depth, to show that the idea has been fact checked, peer reviewed, published, escaped its creator and become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. It is that that we are documenting here at Wikipedia. Our Wikipedia:No original research policy is aimed squarely at, amongst other things, novel ideas that have not escaped their creators and have not been acknowledged by the rest of the world, be they (amongst many other things) new religions, new theories in physics, new games, new languages, or (as here) new inventions. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Uncle G (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not keep the page as a redirect then? The sources I came up with at least demonstrate that it's not a total neologism only ever used by Allan. User:Dorftrottel 15:53, January 13, 2008
  - An actual machine is no longer merely an 'original thought', nor 'invention' -- it is reality. Having escaped its creator it enters the physical world where it is subject to a battery of validity tests: the machine either works or it does not work. And a machine that works (even partially, as Babbage's difference engine did) deserves to be reported as part of human knowledge. And because a working system of recombinant text is on public display for all to see, and has code that is open for all to investigate and modify, and because its whole purpose is to serve as an open medium of collaboration, I chose to report this machine in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the compendium of knowledge that best exemplifies the principles of openness and inclusiveness that I admire. If I was mistaken in this choice, then I will trust and respect your judgment, but on one condition only: let us all hear and respond to your reasons *before* you delete the article. Michael Allan (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a neologism with no sources to make the article compliant with policy. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject is interesting but a neologism. This is largely self-published material; the sources listed are insufficient to demonstrate notability and neutral third-party discussion. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP is not a place to self-publish. If his work is important, gets published and gets many pier reviews then it will eventually get on WP. Alatari (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Under WP:OR and WP:COI. My goodness the author of the piece starts the article with the statement “…Recombinant text is a term proposed by Michael Allan”, and Michael Allen is the author of the article. Shoessss | Chat 14:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not hold that sentence against me. It was added by someone else. Michael Allan (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And now I have deleted it, since you agree it is unnecessary.Michael Allan (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the article can be reproduced with independent resources then let that happen. As it is it is WP:OR and cannot stand.--Pmedema (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret. WP:OR, WP:COI. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 03:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Synthesis of published material. The references to third-party sources do not address the concept of "recombinant text" in any way. Non-notable term.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:Dorftrottel should have stayed a bit more calm during this AfD debate. The comments have been struck through but to call anything "rape" of Wikipedia's core policies is not useful. "Strong delete" would have been fine.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I lost my cool a bit. The rape comment was pure sarcasm, like the rest of that post not intended as a serious "strong delete". User:Dorftrottel 06:10, January 18, 2008

Keep, as I am the primary author. Apologies the slow response. Time permitting, I'll reply soon to your comments above, where it might help. For now I'll just explain my reasons for posting the article, and why I hope you decide to keep it. First, I should say (if you don't know from the article) I'm a software engineer, not an academic. I guess that partly explains why I haven't published this (admittedly OR) in journals. The other reason is that journal publication would take effort, and would benefit the journal publisher (in this case) almost exclusively. Wikipedia publication also took effort, but not nearly as much. More important, I had something to gain from it. It taught me how a Wiki community operates, and that has been helpful to my work, which centers on social media. I don't know quite what Wikipedia is, it appears to be inventing itself. Time will tell. But even as it is, Wikipedia will soon be needing an article on recombinant text. Recombinant text is closely interconnected with delegate cascades, and open electoral systems, and it's certain you'll be wanting an article (or section) on those, if only because an understanding of them will help you in your own work here (the whole of Wikipedia is an experiment, and continuing project of OR, as it were, and I hope it continues). Meantime, no hard feelings if you delete this article. My thanks to those who contributed their time to it, and (if we don't speak again, before the article is deleted) to those who commented above. Soon, Michael Allan (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I now see a fault in the article... I will try to correct it by adding external links at bottom. What I hope to underline is that the article is a report of a medium that actually exists (in alpha prototype), as opposed to a report of a mere concept. Maybe that will change your opinion of the article's worth. I feel, though, that many will still object that Wikipedia *is* not the place for new media/systems/machines -- actual or conceptual -- to be reported. There are rules against it. But (in anticipation, and to summarize my defense) I counter that Wikipedia *is* not anything, so much as it is *becoming*; and what it is becoming ought not to be *pre-defined* by rules, but rather *facilitated* by the fundamental rule of openness that is built into the machinery of the Wiki. If a contributing user does no harm, the fundamental rule applies. Please relax your lesser rules in this light; apply judgment in particular cases of deletion; and grant your users the freedom to take Wikipedia where traditional encyclopedias cannot go. Michael Allan (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research, neologism, and non-notable. RossPatterson (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Making improvements to an article, and voting for its deletion -- a clear case of Freudian editing... Michael Allan (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Believing that an article doesn't belong on Wikipedia shouldn't prevent me from cleaning it up, should it? Trust me, I'm not about to add references or expand the prose. But improve its structure and check its references? Sure, why not? And if someone finds the references from someone besides you, or good content from a secondary source? Well, then, it'll be a better article. RossPatterson (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're being constructive. I get a sense WhyWikiWorks for an encyclopedias and other compendia, though it fails for literary applications, legislation, and others. I'm done defending the article, no more to say... Michael Allan (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and SALTED (fourth deletion in 10 months). --VS ^talk 04:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Skylit Drive[edit]

Disputed prod. Fails WP:BAND - only reference is band's own myspace page, no chart success, no notable members, only released 1 EP.... nancy ^(talk) 12:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, fails WP:BAND. They don't even have an announced lead singer right now. Redfarmer (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NN, fails WP:BAND. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's why the article exists: the group is signed to Tragic Hero, an indie with major distribution that's got a bunch of buzz bands on its roster. They put out an EP at the beginning of last year and then toured the U.S. with a bunch of big screamo and metalcore bands, like Vanna, LoveHateHero and Scary Kids Scaring Kids. I can't seem to dig up enough to justify an article at this time; the main barrier to their meeting WP:MUSIC seems to be the lack of a full-length album. Once they put one out, I'll be back with this one, maybe in six months or a year. No opinion on the deletion but I urge no prejudice against re-creation. Chubbles (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of retcons[edit]

List is almost entirely unreferenced, potentially infinite in length, and basically entirely a trivia article VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a valid appendix to the article Retcon and it is reasonable for it to be spun off, for reasons of length, as the nomination indicates. The individual entries are no doubt variable in quality but improving these and sourcing them is matter of editing, not deletion. There are certainly entries which are highly notable, such as the notorious it was a dream in Dallas. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very interesting. Ix Dschubba 13:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. This is a list which could, potentially, become infinitely long and is not encyclopedic. WP:NOT#DIR applies here. I would suggest not merging some information to Retcon, as is tempting, because that would bring all the problems of this article to Retcon. Redfarmer (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Colonel Warden. Calling the article "potentially infinitely long" is inaccurate hyperbole, and it's also not a valid reason for deletion. Being unreferenced isn't a valid deletion reason either. The article can be improved by including an unreferenced tag and adding references. (References not existing is a valid deletion reason; references not being included in the article is not a valid deletion reason.) Rray (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if retcon was a term referring primarily to Victorian media, then nobody would consider this article trivia. But the instant you start talking about Elizabethan media, it's always trivia. An encyclopedia must give examples of what it's talking about. As Colonel Warden points out, some of these examples are highly notable; removing the overly non-notable ones is a matter of editing, not AfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous two Doc Strange (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep provided that this article get some sources and also avoids becoming a "Christmas tree article" (i.e. the kind where everyone comes by and "puts something else up") by only including notable instances of retconning. Also, the list needs to be massively cleaned up. Many of the items on the list right now are not retcons but are simply inconsistencies or plot changes that were not explained. A retcon is, by definition, an inconsistency that later gets "explained away" by changing the established continuity (e.g. a character's death being explained away as another character's dream). --Hnsampat (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FICTION states "fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources." Very few entries are notable by this definition (Dallas springs to mind). The notable examples are already part of Retcon, as they lend themselves to encyclopedic discussion. The rest are not notable, and it is inherently OR to label them as retcons without a reliable source.--Trystan (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monegasque people[edit]

We have a category for this, so this short list appears not to be necessary. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An example of when a category is better than a list. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, the category is all we really need. Redfarmer (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a category is better for this. Hut 8.5 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - a list is better than a category where a list is liable to contain redlinks. There is currently one redlink on this page, but that does not mean that more could not be added, and unless someone can point out to me how a category could contain the existing or other redlinks, a list is a better solution. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhino (Novel - 2008)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rhino (Novel - 2008)

Self-published book with no assertion of notability. Pairadox (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:BK. JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BOOK. Poeloq (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there should be a speedy for this, but there isn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No there shouldn't. The whole point of open-source is to bring as many eyes as possible to bear. Deletions under notability issues should always be brought to full AfD to give more people the chance to dig up information others are missing. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of that assertion, I have to wonder why there's a speedy category for people then. An author can be speedied, but his hand-written manifesto has to go through AfD? Not that I want to get into a debate, just pointing out the illogic of it all. Pairadox (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That, as I understand it, is a legal issue, to avoid/minimize defamation of living people and current organizations. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, this one -- delete. Fails WP:BK. If it gets NYT reviews, then it can come back. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Weah, Jr.[edit]

Son of a notable player, but seems not yet made his professional debut and without a club. Matthew_hk t c 08:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination. Also notability is not inhereited. - fchd (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does representing the American Under-20 team not give him notability? GiantSnowman (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He just played in friendly match for U20 team. And differ from Olympic team, U20 team player were not yet notable. Matthew_hk t c 12:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~In that case Delete. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Actually Keep based on Jogurney's rationale. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although he has not played in a fully professional league, there is a good amount of non-trivial coverage of the player in several reliable sources. In my opinion, the article meets notability on that basis. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, not played in a fully pro league, media coverage is only because he's George Weah's son. Struway2 (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jogurney BanRay 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about Christian Maldini? Few article mentioned his name means nothing. 203.185.57.117 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maldini Jr is a child-player, not an adult player like Weah Jr. and hasn't recvd the same amount of coverage. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not yet played in a fully professional league, and does not merit an article in his own right until that happens. Perhaps attracts more attention than others because of his highly notable father, but just because father is notable does not mean that he is. Robotforaday (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and Junior was the subject of at least 2 CTK (Czech News Agency) articles related to his October trial at Slavia (no mentions of the father as far as I can tell - but I don't read/speak Czech). The Independent covered his signing with Milan's primavera. He also received coverage from the BBC with respect to his exploits with the USA U-20 national team. I'm struggling with other coverage (I don't speak/read Italian), but it seems to me that he has more coverage than the typical U-20 national team player. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the fact that at aged 20 he has not started for a professional club surely indicates he is not good enough to be notable? If he is any good then sooner or later he will get a start or a full cap and he can then have a page. If we keep this page and he never makes a start then we shall be stuck with a page on a 'might have been'. BlueValour (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Additionally, I doubt he would have ever received all the claimed coverage (not enough, in my opinion) if he wasn't George Weah's son. --Angelo (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plight of the common soldier in the American Civil War[edit]

This article is a high-school American history essay. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Dgillett (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject does not warrant it's own article. Information can either be found or added to other more comprehensive civil war articles. Above comment also accurate, if the article is kept, it would need a HUGE re-write. Guldenat (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:OR. Tevildo (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:OR. Don't put school essays on Wikipedia Doc Strange (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else and as an OR essay. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the article: "10,000,000 men, however, died from disease..." which rules out any possibility of plagiarism. I'm sorry, but there were not ten million Civil War soldiers to begin with. Thus, the accuracy of the rest of the article can't be taken for granted. It occured to me that this may be a case of someone who never learned the [[< ref > and < /ref >]] convention for documenting citations to the pages of the books listed as sources. However, I can think of ten million other reasons to delete this article .Mandsford (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Snowball it. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 21:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above. - Headwes (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotit[edit]

A quick G-search indicates no reliable, sources seems be a nonnotable software piece (CSD#A7 doesn't cover software) VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 08:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go one step further and call it a WP:HOAX. No evidence that this actually exists, and it seems to me as if a game released in 1987 revolving around shooting falling breasts with spermatozoa would have gained at least some media coverage.Firestorm (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Google brings back 200 hits on the game so it exists, and it seems like its notable to someone as abandonware and as an adult game. Notability here can't be assured though. Nate · (chatter) 10:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 07:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is badly written, but that is easily fixed. The game exists and is a well done professional game though freeware.—Graf Bobby (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it certainly exists but has not demonstrated notability, a search is turning up no reliable sources, just the predictable abandonware sites giggling about it. Someone another 18:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imekanu[edit]

non notable biography. Jones McAnthony (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Jones McAnthony (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She was the last and greatest Ainu epic poet, and one of the greatest women epic poets the world has known (so far as written record goes, which may not be very far). Thus a very notable person. If the biography is not yet notable, let me explain that I started the article hoping that others who know the Ainu/East Asian field better would improve it. Since it hasn't changed much, I'll improve it in the next 2 days. Don't delete too soon, please.
Footnote: the article has evidently been translated into the French and Spanish wikipedias from this English version (brief though it is). Notable enough for them, it seems. Andrew Dalby 10:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So I'm guessing you want to keep the article? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough, more so than a lot of our assistant football coaches. JohnCD (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sounds notable though would like to see more WP:RS. I found quite little [18]. JJL (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep; Everything2.com is less of a reliable source than Wikipedia is. The Spanish and French translations were both done by User:Gaudio and in neither case that they have got any more attention than this article is--i.e. not "notable enough for them". Sadly enough, I see no evidence that she has been noted more than most of our assistant football coaches. I'd really like to see more citations here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like more than the one reference, but if it's an accurate statement of the translator's notes, then it's a valid stub of a notable person. Even if she only collected, and not composed, those epics, then she's still notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was, in case it wasn't clear because I didn't actually say it, intended as a weak keep. Which is now stronger, given Nihonjoe's sources. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I found this PDF which discusses her a bit. This page gives a bit of her history, as does this page. Finding online references for Ainu people is very difficult as there are not very many of them around. It's likely that offline references exist, but those are very hard to come by, too, given the small number that have ever been produced. I think, given the little information we are able to find, she is very notable among her people. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (Nihonjoe suspected [above] that this was my opinion!) I am now going to add a little material to the article, but I don't know Japanese; more could be done, I'm sure, by those who read the language. Andrew Dalby 16:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can now. Andrew Dalby 17:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Nihonjoe. Oda Mari (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stud Munson[edit]

The article in question is about a radio personality who achieved minimal success on a weak-signaled station in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois (the 220th or so largest market in the U.S.). I also believe, based on some of the edits and knowing the subject of the article on a professional level, that the article was started by the subject himself and should be deleted per Notability guidelines. InDeBiz1 (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)InDeBiz1[reply]

Delete The lack of sources and extreme brevity of the article certainly evince WP: NOTABILITY concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guldenat (talk • contribs) 08:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 5 google hits if one excludes myspace and wikipedia, and they mostly appear to be self promotion. Pburka (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Reasons stated already when I nominated article. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red State Diaries[edit]

A future TV show from last year. Old information that never came into fruition, should be deleted.

Delete, never came to fruition, and the IMDB page looks fairly empty: [19]. If it ever does surface, than the article can be recreated easily enough. Lankiveil (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons above. Guldenat (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; shows that disappeared into the ether are very unlikely to be notable, absent some "censorship" uproar or widely noted expensive debacle.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate if it actually comes to fruition. It does feature a notable person and was confirmed by Comedy Central last year, but i've yet to see anything about it at all Doc Strange (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After nearly two years, still nothing.Reinoe (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the info into Lewis Black Ausir (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 04:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Jakks Classic Superstars Action Figures[edit]

non-notable toy line; advert Mhking (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - A useful tool for collectors, and a figure series extremely dominate. This series has over 200 figures and has been created with turning jakks around.mrdanielaiello (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.125.133 (talk) [reply]
STRONG KEEP - I started this page as a tool for collectors. This line has revitalized the jakks Pacific brand, and is one of the top toy lines sought out by collectors. Find something else to do with your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatrich1 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:V, and WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete markcruft, there's an arguement to include a mention of the toys to the WWE article, but nowhere near this detailed. -- RoninBK _{T C} 07:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, toycruft. Not a notable product. Lankiveil (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep it there may be reasons in the rules to delete this. but the page has been very valuable to me since u can not go to the toy makers web site and find this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiss1217682002 (talk • contribs)
I also say Keep it Don't delete it. Just don't. It is a reference that is helpfull to many, and a list this good only proves wikipedias awesomeness. It is the most collected action figure line of all, in my opinion. People spend thousands upon thousands of dollars into WWE Classics, but in you peoples opinion, its non notable and not worth anything. Do you know how many collector's sites there are? Do you know how vast this line is in popularity? Do you guys think your cool for berating toys on the internet? Come on... Yeah this comment is probably gonna be disregarded and deleted cause Im not an offical member, its happened before. 208.111.196.63 (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, If you think you can delete toy's articles, I think we should go around deleting videogames, to. 208.111.196.63 (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you misunderstand. We are not berating toys or wrestling. There are penty of articles about both here. When some editors say "this subject is not notable", we are not just giving an opinion. Wikipedia has a written policy, which is to be enforced: Wikipedia:Notability. It is very specific in that the subject of any article must be notable by having supporting publications in legitimate third party, neutral sources. This is what we mean by "non-notable". So far, no one can find an article about these figures written about why they are notable. Without these references, this also violates another policy Wikipedia:V, which comments on the need for verifiability.

In addition, Wikipedia has another policy about creating directories of things that may or may not be related (which we couldn't tell without references). This policy is at WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. If any editor can find references for this article and improve it, then there may be a reason to keep it. Most editors, when they "vote (and this isn't a vote), base their votes on Wikipedia policy. Sometimes that policy is in a gray area, and the debates get very long and heated. In this case, the article is more clearly in violation, unless it can be cited.

Please don't take this deletion debate as a sleight against you, wrestling, or this particular toy. Peace! LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To echo LonelyBeacon, this information would be highly appropriate for a website such as http://www.classicfigs.com/, but there is no reason that this has to be included on Wikipedia. -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being from Canada, I have very limited resources in finding these figures. This page is an excellent source for me to check out whats coming up, so I don't have to make the 4hr. trip down to the boarder, checking store to store.

It also gives me an update on the exclusive figures that I otherwise would not know were out there. I vote to keep it. It's not harming anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.209.120 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was previously closed and was reviewed at DELREV (view discussion). Although the closure was found to be proper, new information that became available subsequent to the closure made relisting this discussion for further input the proper course of action. I am therefore relisting it, accordingly. I also recuse myself from closing this debate a second time to avoid any appearance of admin bias. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC) The original closing comment was: The result was Delete based on strength of argument and reference to policy/guideline. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wonder now about the comments like there is no reason that this has to be included on Wikipedia. One would think it was the other way round: if you want to delete it, the burden of proof lies with you. Seems perfectly notable to me. Talk about "mindless three-letter bureaucratic nonesense". -- Saaska (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to fit in WP:NOTABILITY well enough, given the perceived importance of the figures from collectors. Guldenat (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From WP:NN: "The topic of an article should be notable ... This concept is distinct from ... "importance"". [[Guest9999 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment "...although these may positively correlate with notability." My decision to keep is based on because the subject may be important and popular, we should take a closer look at it then simply rule lawyering and deleting. Guldenat (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The objections to this seem to be weak cruftcruft. I have added a cite to show the fans how it's done and expect that there are more to be found in the likes of Toyfare. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where is the significant coverage by independent secondary sources? (not counting adverts/promotional material obviously) Is there a perceived interest by collecters? This may indeed be a valuable tool for collecters, but Wikipedia isn't a guidebook/directory/catalogue. I wouldn't expect to see this in ~~Britannica~~ an encyclopaedia. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cited a newspaper but you removed this citation on the spurious grounds that the link requires a payment to access the source in full (a feature of many sources). Referencing sources may require time and expense and allowance should be made for this. Wikipedia does not confine itself to things which may be freely Googled. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right and I apologise for my error in judgement. I actually sought a second opinion on the issue after removing the citation but completely forgot to revert my edit. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I cannot agree that this article should be deleted because a publication like Britannica wouldn't cover it (there are many wholly legitimate articles that Britannica would never cover), I must agree that I still don't see anything that would fulfill WP:V. Coverage must be independent of the subject. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I've altered my wording. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Suriel's altered comment. Nikki311 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above. Really is needed. -- bulletproof ^3:16 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added another cite. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - hmmm ... the one reference, as you mentioned, requires a subscription. I could not check that. The other reference was intriguiing: I think Toy Collector Magazine would have to rank as an independent source, given that it appears to not be affiliated with wrestling or the company making the line. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was the person who posted the original AfD; a further review of the page, despite the additional source material added, still encourages me to support my original position to delete the page. --Mhking (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is not notable due to lack of significant coverage by secondary sources, also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, there is not sufficient sourced encyclopaedic information to create an encyclopaedia article. [[Guest9999 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Also since - I believe - the magazine mentioned was selling the toys in question I don't think that it can count as an independent source, they have an interest in promoting the toys. [[Guest9999 (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Strong Delete - Obvious advert, nothing else. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 11:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I am the admin who originally closed this debate then subsequently relisted it). The compelling evidence that convinced me to overturn my own closing and relist was the statement that this toy was featured on a toy industry magazine cover. After reading the above statement that the magazine promotes and sells products it features, I reviewed the magazine's [magazine's website viewable in edit mode] and it does indeed look more like a catalog than a true magazine, as it has links to buy the products next to the discussion of each, and prominently has a basket on it's main page. This magazine can not be used as an independent source to establish notability. JERRY ^talk _contribs 13:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we close this now? It's been deleted, and that deletion has been endorsed at DR. The only reason that this is still here is because of a last-minute stay-of-execution by the closing admin, and said admin has now withdrawn his opposition. And by the timestamp, that was three days ago... -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: I can not close this, as I recused myself from closing when I relisted it. Any other admin is requested to immediately close this obvious Delete AfD. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adlai Stevenson IV[edit]

Article is about former reporter and current media analyst of questionable notability. Speedy deleted per CSD A7, but overturned on deletion review to list on AfD. As this nomination is procedural, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Adlai Stevenson is known in three television markets. Mike Dowling 13:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. The ONLY reliable sources seem to indicate his only claim to fame is that he is named after his famous grandfather. Well below notability threshold, WP:BLP1E doesn't even cover it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above comment. Simply being a small time media personality with a famous name does not meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements. Guldenat (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the references provided in Adlai_Stevenson_IV#References indicate sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of Adlai Stevenson IV's notability per the general notability guideline. Such a presumption, being established through objective evidence, outweighs the subjective assertions of non-notability presented by editors supporting the deletion of this article. John254 12:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources provided seem to indicate they were only written because he shares his name with his famous relatives. Such coverage seems to be patently trivial. It would be nice to see some references that discuss him and what he does, otherwise, the article becomes "Adlai Stevenson IV had famous relatives, and he is named after them" and nothing else. Where are the independent sources that the REST of the information in the article comes from? If more sources could be produced, I would change my vote... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the sources given are print sources, that's not my problem unless Wikipedia instigates policy requiring all sources to be online. Based on what I see here, I believe this individual to be independently notable beyond his famous name, with the added kicker being his involvement with a television station in Chicago. The article does need to indicate which newspaper chain he now works for, and I will add a request asking for same. (Additional: in doing the preceding I noticed that the talk page had not been restored with the article, so I have done so.) 23skidoo (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This search shows you the first few lines of the cited article. Registration is required to see the rest, however. Picaroon (t) 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per above. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the article as of now, but I'd recommend redirecting to Stevenson family over outright deletion if consensus is against retaining the article. Picaroon (t) 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TV reporter in a major market, Chicago. Edison (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional career and sources provided satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited, otherwise case for notability is fairly weak. --Core desat 03:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a former TV reporter does not make one notable, nor does being a media analyst. What has he done other than been born to Adlai Stevenson III? Fails WP:BIO Teleomatic (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN as a journalist. Article uses his famous relatives in an attempt to bolster his very tenuous claim to notability Mayalld (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 00:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cambra[edit]

No assertion of notability per WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Related article Scylus Creed was also nominated for deletion earlier. Mh29255 (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable ember of a non-notable band. Nice photo, though. Pburka (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Body core[edit]

Fails to assert notability, and I am also nominating the following related band pages:

Delete, per nom. PKT (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not sure that they meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NN, fails WP:BAND. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the main nominated article as WP:OR and WP:NEO. The bands are marginal, so weak keep them. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per hoax. Rudget. 09:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie as The Sleeping Beauty[edit]

This article is a possible WP:HOAX: an Internet search only provided links to a video game with a similar title; no matches of any kind on http://www.imdb.com. Mh29255 (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax and consider blocking user. User did some nonsense on an existing article as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, probably not true and even if it was, it is obviously not notable yet since no sources exist.--The Dominator (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete let's be charitable and call it WP:CRYSTAL. JJL (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; editors may merge and redirect as they see fit. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lipozene[edit]

I am uncertain if this product is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, or is this entry serving more as an advertisment. Avi (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I don't think reading like an ad is a problem for this article as it mentions (and references) that the supplement has mixed results. Seems interesting enough as an example of a drug fined by the FDA for false advertising - Dumelow (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick googling shows links that fail wp:rs, plus scam complaints and links to such. Not sure how this meets wp:v with wp:rs if only blogs and google ad farms are talking about it. FDA fine is a singular event that might itself be worth adding in an article about FDA fines, but not notable outside of being a fraud. I can just see in two months how the negative stuff will disappear and it will become full boat spam then. Pharmboy (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, This article is useful and informative. I say keep it as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulbreez97 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I found the article useful and merging it with Glucomannan would not have done me much good as I did not know of the association, nor would I have thought to look for information on lipozene in an article on FDA fines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernmic (talk • contribs) 09:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Being useful and interesting are precisely why the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay was written, and are considered NON-arguments for an AFD discussion. Pharmboy (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - The Lipozene would redirect to Glucomannan, so it wouldn't be a matter of "looking for it". Torc2 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Glucomannan, as was done with its sister product, propolene. No need for an article for each brand name of what's largely the same thing. Pburka (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Glucomannan - Agree with Pburka, this is just a one brand of a common substance. Torc2 (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - fails WP:WEB. Self-references are not considered reliable sources. KrakatoaKatie 05:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ML Master Lists[edit]

non-notable website Christoph StSmith (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - doesn't assert notability. MER-C 09:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia ML Master List is a brief description of the ML Master List concept, a reference for it was provided on September 21, 2006, tinyurl.com/2e3xoq.Jonathan00 (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Doesn't pass WP:WEB, no references. — brighterorange (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- A reference for ML - Master Lists was already provided. ML- Master Lists is a form of web-specific content - its content is distributed solely on Internet - and is grouped under the Wesites category. Its notability is not temporary as the interest in the topic has been continual. The Wikipedia article would be able to develop other sections, for instance the article on Tinyurl.com. The Wikipedia article does not describes the nature, appearance or services a website offers, it describes the ML - Master Lists concept and, according to the Wikipedia policies, is more up-to-date than most reference sources, incorporating new developments and facts as they are made known. 75.93.8.231 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC) — 75.93.8.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fever crotch (band)[edit]

Non-notable band. 80 g-hits show mostly advertisements or forums[20]. No reliable sources or evidence of having been signed by a major record label. Just because one artist is notable, doesn't make every band he's played in notable. Also, the part of when and where they play is a little advert-y, along with their current discography. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sean O'Donnel is not notable enough to warrant articles for all his bands, and certainly not his one that seems to do only a few recordings and play in the same pub every week. Poeloq (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panelite[edit]

Reads like an advert. Non-notable company. Searching Google for "Panelite llc" brings up 121 distinct results. (Note that there are several unrelated products called panelite, hence the search for Panelite llc.). Other than WIkipedia, all are directory entries, location maps, or the company's own pages - there is not one third party source providing verifiable or even unverifiable information on this company. Emeraude (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simply adding references does not, in itself, establish notability. The references are to an exhibition catalogue, a TV programme website (on which I've been unable to find the information suggested) and to a building magazine. Not sure if any of these establish notability for Panelite.Emeraude (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. --Kannie | talk 03:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article fails the primary criterion of WP:CORP. There would need to be multiple secondary sources as the sole valid 2S at the moment is a brief mention of an award given to a single product. A 10-page Google search turned up mostly self-promotion and product adverts. This [21] is the only potentially useful reference I found and I have concerns over its neutrality. Not enough to build an article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail WP:CORP. Lankiveil (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Klein[edit]

Non-notable blogger, no reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 02:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn - fails WP:V. Sting_au Talk 02:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notability now established. Kudos to Sting_au for digging up the sources! Redfarmer (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Kannie | talk 03:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Mr. Klein is more than just a blogger. Mr. Klein is now a staff writer at The American Prospect and is often seen as a commentator on television shows such as Hardball with Chris Matthews and Countdown with Keith Olbermann. He is a public heath expert these days and his latest article can be read HERE. I will work on adding to article and find additional sources. Too quick on the delete article move. ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 03:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like I made a major boo boo with the delete! Changed my vote after a Google News search here. Plenty of hits, New York Times , CBS etc. Looks notable - prominent journalist. Sting_au Talk 03:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see anything that makes him notable. Corvus cornix_talk 04:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Klein is not just liked by bloggers but has received notice from the likes of Paul Krugman. Adding non-primary sources. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but get rid of the sources that are just blogs. There are enough non-blog sources to indicate notability. Lankiveil (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Google News search provides plenty of sources. Klein has also written multiple op-ed columns for the Los Angeles Times, which is further evidence of notability. JavaTenor (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ezra is the real thing, he writes Op-Eds for the LA Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheatreKid01 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl Art by Daniel Edlen[edit]

Looks like it has been edited mainly by the subject of the article. Commercial. Incorrect subject titling for an article. The references are all about the same person, not about an art genre. Clubmarx (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit:Having links is not the same thing as notability. Clubmarx (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and Rename. While we discourage subjects from creating articles based on themselves or their creations, notability has clearly been established in the secondary sources in the references. May need some cleanup but it's notable. Redfarmer (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have taken a closer look at the references. All but one are to blogs. I'm still uneasy deleting this but it's a lot weaker of a keep now that I realize that. Redfarmer (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't made my mind up on this one? I feel that the subject "Vinyl art" would justify an article by itself. Vinyl art redirects to this page by the way. The redirect was created by one of the main contributors to this article. The references cited I'm not completely happy with. I don't have a copy of the "Palisadian-Post" for starters and unsure how reliable a source it is? The blog references are not reliable and the last one "getTRIO" I can't view unless I download the flash player! I'm leaning towards delete but rather than rush in I'll see if the article develops now it has been listed here. Sting_au Talk 02:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteDoesn't state notability. --Kannie | talk 03:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Clubmarx (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Clubmarx (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help?Ok, trying again as edit conflict occurred. I'm trying to learn, having just figured out how to create references. Thought I'd flesh out the piece with current references. I have an email in with the author of the Palisadian-Post article to see about an online link. There will be more published about this that will be able to be referenced, but as it's fairly new in the public eye, there isn't yet. If that makes it inappropriate, then please delete it. If not, help me clean it up. I wanted to remove the 'vinyl art' and replace with 'vinyl art by daniel edlen' as 'vinyl art' can apply to toys as well. Hopefully I'm adding this correctly and signing successfully. Dedlen (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what do I do?Thanks, Sting_au, for the welcome! Is the page appropriate enough to keep? I don't want to run afoul of things here, as it should stay strict, but I do think my artwork is notable enough. Maybe not yet?Dedlen (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I was leaning towards keep, but three out of the four sources provided are blogs that don't establish notability. However, given the assurances above, I suggest that we Defer closure for a few days to have a look at the Palisadian Post link if it can become available. At the very least, the article should be moved, I suggest to Daniel Edlen. Lankiveil (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
QuestionI've gotten a response from the Palisadian-Post that there is no archived copy of the article. I have printed copies which I could use to create my own copy of the article on my website. I noticed that Luke Chueh has this for most of his references. Is this acceptable? Would that make it a keep? I don't know what else to do, if not. Thanks!Dedlen (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local press won't be enough to save this one. Neither artist nor "genre" notable. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performance by club in the Commonwealth of Independent States Cup[edit]

This article was tagged as a proposed deletion, and while the prod tag was not removed the article creator did object to the prod on the article's talk page. I've moved the article here so that the creator can argue their case, however I do believe this article should be deleted because this information is already on the Commonwealth of Independent States Cup page and does not need its own article. -- Atama ^chat 01:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and merge This table would be approriate for the main article. --Kannie | talk 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the context is unclear from the article as it is, but that will be fixed by merging it into the article on the competition itself. Lankiveil (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
eh? do you guys check articles before voting? They were merged long before this nomination, Delete. BanRay 12:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this information was taken from the main article and put into its own article, because the creator of this article believed that the original article was "too crowded" (see the talk page). -- Atama ^chat 23:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicate information which does not deserve its own article. --Angelo (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already in the main CIS Cup page. - fchd (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicates table in main article, which is where it belongs. Doesn't make the main article "too crowded". Struway2 (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicate info. GiantSnowman (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I think it is too early to decide wether if this article is notable or not as it there was too little chance for the article creator to assert notability. If this article is still problematic after 2 weeks or so, I would recommend sending it through the AfD again. Also, the lack of consensus for deletion also contributed to this result. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marlins top Draft picks[edit]

Fails WP:NOT#INFO, the MLB Draft isn't as important as the NFL Draft, and it's an issue that it doesn't matter where you get drafted here, because most people who gets drafted in the MLB Draft doesn't reach the majors Delete Secret ^account 01:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I understand your argument, and I do agree that it is less important than the draft in the NFL, NHL, or NBA because the players drafted don't begin professional play right away. However, it seems that most of the top draft picks do end up eventually playing in the majors, so I don't believe that articles about the first round picks for a team lack notability. And there are already articles for the first round picks for the MLB in general for each year so there is a precedent. If this article is deleted on notability grounds, those other articles should definitely be deleted. -- Atama ^chat 02:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only articles I see is the main MLB draft articles, which I don't mind much, I can't see the teams ones. Secret ^account 02:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant articles like 2007 Major League Baseball Draft. That information wouldn't be any different than what would be on team draft pick pages. There is an article for every year going back to 2001. If that information is notable enough, then the team draft pages are as well. If it isn't, then we should consider deleting that as well. -- Atama ^chat 23:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat weak delete Nearly empty article. --Kannie | talk 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was only created a short time ago, give it time. The real question is whether it's notable enough to warrant having a page at all. -- Atama ^chat 23:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, CSD A3 non-admin close. Oysterguitarist 06:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yujiro[edit]

Contested prod. Notabilty concerns here. Article about a Japanese actor and presenter, but the references provided don't actually mention him. Note: there are links to the Japanese Amazon site that might be relevant, so if someone who has Japanese could take a look at them. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article seems to be an obvious advertisement, and I can see nothing which indicates real notability (per WP:BIO). Additionally, most or all of the text is an obvious transmutation of the text found on the official site, and the image used in the article has now been tagged for speedy deletion as a blatant copyright violation of an image found on that same page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also marked the page as a likely copyvio due to the uncanny similarities between what was there (before I marked it) and the official site of Yujiro. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page is currently empty. --Kannie | talk 02:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for WP:SPEEDY per CSD G7. Redfarmer (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was deleted as WP:CSD#A3, no meaningful content, by User:J-stan, after User:Nihonjoe blanked it, claiming copyvio (WP:CSD#G12), and User:Redfarmer marked it as a WP:CSD#G7 speedy (author requests deletion per comment above this one). Normally when I come across a speedied AfD I'll just close it as a de facto delete, but I'm not convinced that any of these reasons is valid. G7 is only valid when the author is the only one to work on an article, which could only be true here if we assume a lot of sockpuppetry. It looks like it has the same information as the claimed copyvio page, http://www.yujirotube.com/, but that's not the same as having the same text. And there was only no meaningful content because it was so recently blanked. Perhaps the right thing to do is to close this and take it to deletion review? I'll leave that for others to decide. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text was the same, just with some words juggled and replaced. That's plagiarism, and a copyright violation. I marked it, because after reading the article, I visited the official site and noticed the English parts there were almost the same as the content in the now-deleted article. Apparently J-stan agreed with me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the image used in the article is still being considered for deletion. Just a note for completeness' sake. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that G7 and A3 are not really applicable here. Another reason should have been used. And I should note that I claimed likely copyvio, and I never nominated it for G12 deletion. You can see that in my comments up above. I followed procedure exactly for a possible copyvio. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it was all in good faith, and you're right that you didn't ask for speedy — I added the mention of G12 myself, mostly because it's the most plausible reason to justify the speedy post facto. And it's possible that it would have been deleted anyway; we didn't have any keeps yet. It's just not a very convincing sequence of steps, when viewed as a whole, to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L'aeiou a.k.a. The Vowels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/L'aeiou a.k.a. The Vowels

Non-notable unsigned band. Fails WP:BAND. Denied speedy because claim to importance is that the band supposedly sold 200 EPs. Only source is to Myspace page and a conversation the page creator says they had with the band. Redfarmer (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn band - choice of name for supposed first EP "Vow of Silence" seems appropriate as that silence has extended to sources available. I couldn't find anything. Sting_au Talk 02:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 200 EP's doesn't equal notability. --Kannie | talk 02:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable for now. (Which might change, of course, their 200-copy EP might become their big break.) -- Pepve (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable, only ghits are the bands myspace and 200 EP's sold doesn't make them notable. Oysterguitarist 06:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, and has a touch of blatant advertising about it too. Lankiveil (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant independent coverage, so not verifiable. - Revolving Bugbear 14:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not very many relevant google hits all Google hits are to either Myspace or mirror sites of Wikipedia. Totally NN. Doc Strange (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, CSD G3 by Sandahl. Non admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Airball Association[edit]

This article is total nonsense. The only Google hits for this page link to this page. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The article is so badly copied from the National Basketball Association article they left the title "National Basketball Association." WP:HOAX. Redfarmer (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete : article is a WP:HOAX. Mh29255 (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G3 (and so tagged) - this is pure vandalism. —Travis ^talk 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete – not only is it not in general use, the text is a copyvio of a page at usfirst.org. - KrakatoaKatie 05:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gracious Professionalism[edit]

Non-notable phrase/neologism coined by one professor and probably not in general usage outside the FIRST Robotics community. No independent references to suggest otherwise. More than half of the article is a quote. Author just removes all tags without explanation. FIRST Robotics itself is notable and already has its own article but this phrase does not deserve a separate article. It could be merged into FIRST Robotics. DanielRigal (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Non-notable neoglism. Redfarmer (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless more examples of this term with this exact meaning can be gleaned (and even then, it would be an entry in the wikidictionary, not the wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riversider2008 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this isn't WP:NEO, delete and start over. Article is hard to read. --Kannie | talk 02:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written superfluous neologism. -- Pepve (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable neologism and poorly written. Oysterguitarist 05:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO. Lankiveil (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect to FIRST. It's a major part of FIRST philosophy, but I don't think there's enough that can be said and verified about it to give it a separate article. --Goobergunch|? 11:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism, very poorly written. Jonathan § 16:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the professor's article. NN enough to stand on its own. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. - Headwes (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, CSD G1 by Metropolitan90. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siladelphia Nicers[edit]

This article appears to be a hoax, a pun on the word Silly. A goaltender called Bum? Playing in the Silly Cup? An ice hockey roster with only five players? The only Google hits for the Siladelphia Nicers are this article, the category it's in and eight Wikipedia mirrors. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it smells like it's made up, perhaps it is made up. Delete. TML (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, nonsense and probably WP:HOAX. Tagged as such. Redfarmer (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise West[edit]

Lack of notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Safari Cruises and User talk:AmericanSafariCruises Toddst1 (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing a lot of chatter on the business but it's mostly customer reviews and commercial web sites. If someone can quote secondary sources, I'd be persuaded to change my vote. Redfarmer (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article this article and the stubs about the cruise lines ships. Potentially non-notable cruise line and doesn't state notability in any case. --Kannie | talk 02:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP, and those stub articles on their ships are potentially low hanging AfD fruit as well. Lankiveil (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 16:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - fails WP:ORG. KrakatoaKatie 05:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Challenge International Canada[edit]

Non-notable organization, makes no claim to notability whatsoever. Unsourced. Reads like an advertisement. ~~Only link is to official web site.~~ Unable to locate any secondary sources on the organization. Less than two pages of Ghits. Fails WP:ORG. Despite all this, was previously declined speedy because admin felt we should try to "help article," so I'm bringing it here for consensus. Redfarmer (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The listing from the Canadian International Development Agency, which I've added as an External link, is a secondary source, is it not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a basic government listing with contact info and a short bio. I don't think that would count as a secondary source to establish notoriety. I don't know about Canada, but in the states we have all kinds of non-profits which are listed on government web sites and are, in no way, notable. Redfarmer (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, we're not trying to establish notoriety, surely. I don't know about the US, but I do know Canada and if CIDA lists you as an accredited organization, you're legit. Or at least there's no reasonable basis to assume otherwise. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ORG, an organization must be notable in order to warrant its own article. Just being legit does not meet the guidelines. Notoriety is established through media reports such as newspaper and magazine articles, etc. and other secondary sources. Redfarmer (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notability we're trying to establish here, Redfarmer, not notoriety. (I certainly hope this non-profit organization isn't going to end up being notorious). At any rate, I also added a link from La Francophonie, the international body for all French-speaking nations. This appears to be an notable international youth aid agency, IMO. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you quote a secondary source to the article per WP:REF? I don't speak French but the new page appears to be another directory listing, which does not qualify as a secondary source. Redfarmer (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I converted the CIDA link to an in-line citation and have also tagged the article as too promotional in tone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to quote a secondary source for me, though. If you can find a secondary source which establishes the notability of the organization per WP:ORG, I will withdraw the nomination. Directory listings do not count as secondary sources. I cannot find such a source. Redfarmer (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted about all I can find. I'm not sure I would describe the CIDA Web page as a mere directory listing, though. CIDA has listed them (and they have flagged CIDA on their home page) because they're being funded and supported by CIDA. So in my mind, at least, that denotes a certain level of notability and significance. But no, I've found nothing that's going make you want to pull the AfD, I suspect, and your viewpoint may well prevail. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, even if I grant that those articles are not akin to a directory listing, you admitted that both organizations give funding to this organization, which, to me, makes it more like a primary source than a secondary source since the CIDA and the La Francophonie are associated with this organization. Redfarmer (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that La Francophonie gave them anything, but CIDA did. For you, that makes it a mere primary source -- I get that. But for me, it means that the Canadian government has seen fit to support this charitable international youth organization -- which it wouldn't have done unless they were up to something socially noteworthy and important, per WP:ORG.Shawn in Montreal (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article describes what the organization does but doesn't state notability. --Kannie | talk 02:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a worthy cause to be sure, but not notable. No secondary sources that assert notability. Lankiveil (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm sure there are many thousands of equally worthy organizations and charities that receive government funding throughout the world; we need evidence of why this particular good cause is notable, in the form of non-trivial references from reliable secondary sources (a newspaper article would be a good start), but none have, as yet, been provided. Tevildo (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no indication that this is a large group or that it has generated any significant media coverage. RJC ^Talk 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RJC. GreenJoe (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a non-notable organization. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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