< August 14 August 16 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, user with long history of creating articles on fake books/series. NawlinWiki 13:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiacs (Power of the Zodiac)[edit]

Zodiacs (Power of the Zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Un-Notable. Google Search shows nothing about this subject. Tinkleheimer 07:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Power of Zodiac (Anthology)[edit]

The Power of Zodiac (Anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable Book. Google Search (Advanced Search) does not list anything similar to article, even with Exact Search. Tinkleheimer 07:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, non admin closure. Giggy Talk 07:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Marazzi[edit]

Paul Marazzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mark Read (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My reason for deletion is neither has no other notablility on their own right other than their stint in a boyband so why should they have their own stub sized page. Dr Tobias Funke 23:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as spam by user:Jimfbleak. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Critical[edit]

Vision Critical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM.Hu12 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantcast[edit]

Quantcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Quantcast. Was deleted three times under WP:CSD#G11. Hu12 23:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by user:Anthony.bradbury (db-repost). non-admin close. Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crosby Textor[edit]

Crosby Textor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

PR piece. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Was deleted twice previously. Hu12 23:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We all have seen these types marketing pieces come back over and over again, afd gives the immediate option of deleting future spam articles like this immediately under WP:CSD#g4.--Hu12 00:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment rather a good point, mine has 54,000 and operates in a niche market and has about 30 employees and (rightly so) has no article. Bigdaddy1981 05:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Sinai 48; redirect Tom Moncrieff to Sinai 48. WaltonOne 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinai 48[edit]

Sinai 48 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Tom Moncrieff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable band and band member. Also from the looks of it, very likely being used for promotional purposes. There's an apparent conflict of interest as the creator seems to be one of the band members. -WarthogDemon 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Here is a policy that makes it not eligible for deletion, "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. " Both Gary Hodges and Tom Moncrieff were part of Buckingham Nicks. The producer and backup vocalist Charlie Chalmers has also been a major player in the soul music industry with uncountable hits stemming from the 1950's on. This is reason enough not to delete. Ajmccarrell 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)ajmccarrell[reply]

Who is supposed to make the changes, such as deleting the flag and combining the articles?70.102.205.26 16:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)ajmccarrell[reply]

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

The result was redirect to The Royal Tenenbaums. Singularity 04:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Tenenbaum[edit]

Royal Tenenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't need a seperate article, doesn't provide any information not given in The Royal Tenenbaums, and there is no information that could be added to it to give it more detail than the film article. SGGH speak! 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to List of BBC children's television programmes . ELIMINATORJR 18:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

CBBC On Choice[edit]

CBBC On Choice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This information is already available in the BBC Choice article; there is no need for this article, it is not notable. TheIslander 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
"This is mentioned in a list."
No, this includes a large list that is only a small part of another list that already exists.
"This is an obvious redirect to appropriate target."
Possibly, though there's no need for the snarky tone you took in your comments - I nominated this in good faith. TheIslander 23:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly, though without a complete consideration of the options. Those three that followed you, on the other hand, have reached incorrect conclusions from their own argumentation, having provided the very definition of a good redirect in their comments! Splash - tk 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Thanks ;) TheIslander 22:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 04:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold S. Wright[edit]

Harold S. Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Most of the article is fairly inconsequential biography, but the contents of the 'Other achievements' section rise above being an assertion of note. On the whole, I'm not really sure about the article, so rather than delete I've brought it here. Splash - tk 23:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Odlum[edit]

Robert E. Odlum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Being the first to jump off a bridge does not make you notable enough for an encyclopedic article. Information should be included only in Brooklyn Bridge article, not seperate. •Malinaccier• T/C 22:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Pascal.Tesson 05:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sell the lexus, burn the olive tree[edit]

Sell the lexus, burn the olive tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to quite meet WP:MUSIC guidelines; there is a lack of reliable coverage of the band. Crystallina 22:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. This article is obviously adequately sourced - I have my suspicions about the reasons for its proposal for deletion. It does, however, need tidying and checking for POV. ELIMINATORJR 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geron Corp.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Geron Corp. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and unverified article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Geron Corp. Stoic atarian 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is heavily sourced and has received hundreds of edits from dozens of unique users. The company is among the leaders in the field of embryonic stem cell reserach, as the documentation clearly shows. I propose that this attempt to delete the article be immediately dropped. --Biotech1 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 14 references backing the notability of Geron Corporation. I move to immediately drop this claim that Geron Corporation lacks notability.--Biotech1 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Geron Corp. has developed technology which may change healthcare and the human condition. The article should be expanded to include all the potential areas which may be affected by their incipient technologies, i.e. aging, disease, medical testing, agriculture, etc.Zabsz 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page, do not delete. It is so obvious religious radicals are attempting to erase this company out of exsistance. It saddens me that sick and injured people are waiting and hoping for treatments that Geron is working on, yet a few so called "fundamentalist christians" want to end that hope. Save this Geron wikipedia page, those who have requested the deletion, are a minority few wacko cult members.

Keep. I have made contributions to other wikipedia articles; this is my first to Geron's. Much of the information is factual, some controversial but is looks like the controversy is well discussed. Geron is certainly a notable company if only because of the controversy. It deserves an entry in wikipedia.Jrm2007 10:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously the holy warriors would like to see this science go away. Maybe we should change the solar system wiki to show that the sun orbits the earth.

Keep. If Geron is to be deleted then you might as well just delete Wikipedia. Geron has the cure for cancer. It is under attack by people who do not understand Stem Cell research which is another totally separate business line at Geron. I have seen Geron repeatedly attacked by liars that claim Geron kills babies and such. There is no biblical basis against Stem Cell research. And even if Stem Cells are derived from discarded embryos (in which even those embryos are not harmed) this moral issue, if there is one, should be why there are so many discarded embryos at fertility clinics (1/2 of a million), and not how using stem cells extracted from them can cure most diseases. Regardless of the basis for the ignorant attackers of Geron, politically motivated attacks against an entry, should not be allowed at wikipedia. Suppressing information, particularly the truth is rather Orwellian and the hallmark of a totalitarian state.

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stellavista[edit]

Stellavista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Can't verify Square Enix connection. Unrelated LED manufacturer is probably not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Plinth molecular gathered 22:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Witches' Institute[edit]

Salem Witches' Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This detail was mentioned once in the entire series. This article could never be expanded beyond what it is now. Even if the author were to give more detail in the future, still not important enough to exist as an independent article. Christopher 05:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Ashley[edit]

Mercedes Ashley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. Porn actress with only the thinnest of assertions to notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wausau Center[edit]

Wausau Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall. Has remained almost entirely the same since creation, fails WP:N and WP:RS.

I am also nominating the redirect:

Wausau Center Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer(Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsReview?) 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aren't stories like the Salvation Army kettle being stolen or the Easter Bunny being beaten up incidents that aren't necessarily notable to the mall at all? You can see how if you actually have a sentence in this article that says 'In 1993, robbers stole a Salvation Army red kettle' isn't really...notable even within the context of a theoretical mall article itself. Crime happens in malls. Gang problems are probably not terribly unique to Wausau Center, but more a problem in large malls in general, depending on the locale.
(above...) This does not say it has any special historic or architectural importance, or commercial importance beyond other regional malls... ...this is why I believe a merge is the right thing to do, lacking more. For an example of a regional mall that seems to survive AFD criteria, have a look at Valley Fair Shopping Center, which is being torn down as this is written, and yet probably has more than enough to survive deletion. I'm still not convinced Wausau Center does. It needs more meat, like history, ownership, quotable public lauding or criticism of the complex...famous firsts...something. I would much prefer to see references to the 'possible sale' and the 'costs to the city versus benefits' here, than 'someone stole the red kettle'. If there were several of those, which can put together a mall history, I would be more inclined to support keeping this article. Skybunny 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the sources we are readily able to access (even in snip view, without paying some newspaper $3 to see a story) tend to cover "news" rather than substantial analysis of "history, ownership, quotable public lauding or criticism of the complex...famous firsts" which are apt to be found in ICSC publications ($$subscription), and in industry publications ($$subscription), that are harder to find or to read. It seems unlikely that a multibillion dollar industry does not analyze its own substance, with discussions of successful and unsuccessful malls, good and poor siting choices, good or poor management, successful and unsuccessful renovations, and special problems such as the hints of a crime problem found for this one (I think my town's gangs would eat alive the bandanna wearing, bunny bopping, kettle stealing classical music haters which seem to be the bane of Wausau Center, yet we have successful malls nearby with no such problems). It is really an issue for the Mall Project to get volunteers with academic library access or access to industry subscription publications to beef up these articles and to separate the wheat from the chaff. Edison 16:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. bibliomaniac15 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teenwag[edit]

Teenwag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally non-notable company. Obviously an advertizement. •Malinaccier• T/C 22:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as spam, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer(Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsReview?) 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MARKETiN[edit]

MARKETiN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account (User:Marketin) with no other edits other than related to MARKETiN. Hu12 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • reason per my nomination:)--Hu12 22:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maritz Inc.[edit]

Maritz Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:COI. Also the IP edits are registered to Maritz Inc. Was deleted twice under WP:CSD#A7 and prod. Hu12 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as nonsense, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer(Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsReview?) 22:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Johnson (conductor)[edit]

John Johnson (conductor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Text is clearly nonsense and has no obvious relation to the subject of the article (which is not clear either). The author has removed Speedy Delete and PROD tags but made no serious attempt to justify the article. DanielRigal 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Moreschi Talk 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Mall[edit]

Roosevelt Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable strip mall in Philly. No notability even asserted; fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer(Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsReview?) 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden East Crossing[edit]

Golden East Crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable small mall in North Carolina, fails WP:RS. Only 500K square feet, no sources, no claims to notability. Ten Pound Hammer(Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsReview?) 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Moreschi Talk 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticism[edit]

Authenticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Authenticism" is Tim Saunders' personal "theory" about the arguments regarding the orthography of Revived Cornish. Whathojeeves is quite evidently Mr Saunders. That user has been vandalizing regularly the pages of people who are active in the Cornish Language debate but with whom he disagrees. Every one of this user's edits has been in bad faith as is this article. I recommend speedy delete. -- Evertype· 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no point in trying to argue a case before a blatantly nobbled jury! This issue isn't going away, and it'll be Wikipedia's loss if it isn't dicussed here. Martesen, gwell dhyn dysputya hymma oll war ann Wikipedi y'gan yeith ni - ni a'vydh yn-maes a dhrehaedh ann gwas 'na yna, pan na'woer ev gworra un lavar anydhi war-barth! Whathojeeves 23:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, Korais himself seems to have had some reasonable enough ideas, according to a book about him I once read. Perhaps the Katharevousa-Dhimotiki dichotomy is an over-simplification - Greek friends sometimes offer up to five variants on a simple sentence. The central point, however, is that contemporary and recent usage was rejected as inauthentic, with deleterious effects on speakers' intelligence and morals. Recapturing the language of a specified past will be a means of recapturing the its mentality. This has certainly been a constant theme in the writings of the Steam Authenticists, but I feel a certain caution before ascribing such a modality simpliciter to the Tudor Authenticists. With them, recapturing the language of a specified past seems and end in itself. NJAW's An Testament Noweth, for example, is a tour de force in which the somewhat macaronic language of the Tudor clergy is recreated with astounding conviction. Whathojeeves 21:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PoI NJAW = Nicholas Williams who devised the UCR (Unified Cornish Revised) orthography around ten years ago. Almost all publications in this system are by Williams himself. Mongvras 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a point I'd considered, but is certainly an important one. The earlier (or 'Steam' Authenticist tendency, who advocated an Early Modern (c. 1600-1850) base for the Recent Modern (post-1850) language were certainly not a one-man band, although obviously Dick Gendall's work was the most eminent. The Steam Authenticists might have been in the running had they devoted to promoting Cornish the time and energy squandered on attacking the other tendencies. (I've seen literally hundreds of letters from them to offical bodies and funding sources of all kinds). The Tudor Authenticists would have needed not only to do this, but also to become someting more than a one-man band. We cannot but regret NJAW's decision to deprive us of the Cornish poems he might have written by indulging in vitriolic and highly repetitive polemic in English. It also occurs to me that the Authenticist attitude to Modern [n.b. in its normal] Cornish is intriguingly similar to that of some of the Haskalah crew to post-Biblical Hebrew. But it's getting late, so we can come back to this again. Suffice it to say that Authenticism is not an attitude confined to our language. Whathojeeves 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC) A[reply]

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

Mes hwath yth eson ni omma! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.217.112 (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guerrilla Geography[edit]

Guerrilla Geography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"A form of activist geography". When removing the prod, an anon said "references can be provided; instead focus on whether or not topic is wiki worthy". To which I say: without the refs we must assume the concept is non-notable and therefore not wiki worthy. -- RHaworth 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott H. Duncan[edit]

Scott H. Duncan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails Notability. Fired from his position in an already small media market. Gte893m 21:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 15:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomerang.com[edit]

Zoomerang.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Zoomerang.com. Hu12 21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops, thanks for fixing that.--Hu12 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleared out some of the dross, added a few references in addition to the company's own website. Crypticfirefly 03:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. Hu12 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weston crawford[edit]

Weston crawford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page was just created, but it's clear that some kid has created a Wikipedia page about himself. The "I love Courtney" part of the creation page is a dead giveaway. - Smashville 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to The Stage Names. KrakatoaKatie 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Ones[edit]

Plus Ones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not fulfill any of Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs criteria. Not charted, not a single, it's just a track with some references to other songs. MahangaTalk 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. WaltonOne 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jörundur svavarsson[edit]

Jörundur svavarsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Marine biology professor who doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF. Clearly nothing in the article to prove that he does, and a quick search doesn't turn up anything. I can't exactly read Icelandic though, so there might be something there. fuzzy510 21:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per DGG below Corpx 04:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stax Inc.[edit]

Stax Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:NOT. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Stax Inc. Hu12 21:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If Stax Records isn't known aa Stax Inc. then that would not be a useful redirect. The two seem unrelated. Leebo T/C 14:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a logical possible search term. I don't really care whether it's established as a redirect or not. The article there now should be deleted regardless. Otto4711 19:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as failure of WP:CORP and WP:COI. KrakatoaKatie 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L.E.K. Consulting[edit]

L.E.K. Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account(s) with no other edits other than related to L.E.K. Consulting. Was speedied three times under WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. Hu12 21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.lek.com

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

The result was Close. There was an AfD on this just a few days ago. If you (or any other editor, for that matter) disagreed with that closure, take it to DRV rather than re-nominating it. I withhold any summary judgment on the article itself. Hemlock Martinis 06:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spells in Harry Potter[edit]

Spells in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ok, looking at the rather peculiar last afd, let's try and address some issues:

*Strong Transwiki-The above now sounds ridiculous, even to me. It also isn't very encyclopedic, that's true, so it would do better on a fan encyclopedia.Therequiembellishere 01:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that the fact that other articles which discuss aspects of the Harry Potter universe exist does not exactly provide an argument as to why this article should be kept. Calgary 23:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note that all the latin roots &c. seem to all be from one published source on about.com. Hardly a volume of literature. David Fuchs (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Most things may appeal primarily to a select group, but no, articles are not supposed contain information that is of value only to a small group of people. Calgary 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. 3 of the top ten most visited pages on Wikipedia have to do with Harry Potter. That is not a small group of people. •Malinaccier• T/C 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is absolutely not what that phrase means. Notice how it says "incorporating elements" and not "incorporating [all] the elements". General does not mean that it can include anything and everything, down to the last detail, it specifically means the opposite, that wikipedia is meant to give a general view of things, general means global and without too much detail. Like many users you misunderstand this idea, which is why so many people keep creating pages about every single character in their favourite TV series, resulting in the lot being deleted or merged into the main article. Jackaranga 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, we disagree. I agree that there needs to be some threshold of notability, but WP:NOTPAPER takes precedence in many cases. Nothing should get deleted for being too specialized or too detailed. For being not notable, maybe. --Itub 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support a merge with the article the current size it is. As I understand it, a merge is when we take the information from one article and put it into another. It is commonly used when the article to be merged does not contain sufficient detail for a separate entry (this one has more information that the article it has been suggested to merge into), or when two articles have the same content (also not true). As for deletion, I believe I have made myself clear there. A transwiki, on the other hand, may be successful. I would still recommend keeping perhaps a scaled down version of this article, with a link to the transwikied article with full information on all spells. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Just because it isn't of interest to everyone on the planet does not mean it isn't notable. The arguments for deletion seem to be "I don't like Harry Potter therefore it's not notable", "I haven't read the book and I don't understand the article therefore it must be minutiae", and "needs more sources". The spells are essentially another character in the book, and an important one at that (there is no story without the spells). It is also a useful reference. I found it very useful just a few weeks ago when I was reading the last book. It is clearly notable. In theory it could be merged with the article about the series, or the Harry Potter Magic article, but then that article would be too long, someone would nominate it be split, everyone would agree, and then were right back here where we started. I really don't understand why there is a crusade to delete this, but it should not be deleted. I don't see why the books themselves are not a significant citation, as they should be for a character in any other book. But if so, there are other books written about the topic by other authors. There are lots of those books listed at the end of the article, but they are not specifically footnoted. If someone who has those books wants to go back and improve those citaions, that would be helpful. But those grounds alone are not enough to warrant deletion. nut-meg 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking[edit]

User:GlassCobra has been canvassing for "keep" votes amongst those who voted on this article's previous AFD.

[20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Miremare 15:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though it is wrong, he hasn't done much. Only two of these people might have been influenced by the message (Ichormosquito and Borricuaddie) The_dark_lord_trombonator had voted before the message was sent. Therequiembellishere 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have found my way here, anyway; but I did warn him about it. The opposing side can canvass for 9 deletes now, if they want. Ichormosquito 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing is not a tit for tat thing Corpx 20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Ichormosquito already let me know that technically it was canvassing, if you look on my talk page. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that rule. I'll keep my wording more neutral when letting people know about debates from now on. GlassCobra 20:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I for one am glad you did. I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. I would think nominating the same article for deletion every two weeks would also be against wikipedia policy, but what do I know... nut-meg 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a point: ideally, consensus should count for something. ichormosquito 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec)"The opposing side can canvass for 9 deletes now, if they want." That's ridiculous. Two wrongs do not make a right. And what's this about voting? This is most certainly not a vote; it's a discussion. I just want to let you guys know that this page has been in my watchlist for months, and that I was well aware of this discussion before I was contacted. Please note that I also added ((not a ballot)) to the top of this page. I was in no way influenced by the message. --Boricuaeddie 02:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I never said that it influenced your votes, and I'm glad you voted anyway. I was just arguing that he didn't do much anyway as very few responded at the time. I guess I read your times wrong Great Lord Trombonator, I apologise. Therequiembellishere 03:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GlassCobra has stated that he was not aware of the rules regarding canvassing, which is fair enough. However, many of you seem to be entirely missing the point on this. It's not that the messages were likely to influence your viewpoint, it's that they encouraged you to make a !vote when you may not otherwise have voted at all, as at least two of you have already said. A mass encouraging of people with a particular known view to vote WILL seemingly change concensus in this view's favour, and this is why it is not allowed. Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking. Miremare 03:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep - Nabla 17:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis de Sade in popular culture[edit]

Marquis de Sade in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Trivia collection, imparting no additional knowledge about the subject's cultural impact. Violates WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was No consensus/Weak consensus to keep. Same result Giggy Talk 07:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional dogs[edit]

List of fictional dogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant with Category:Fictional dogs. How big do you think the article will be when it is a complete list of all fictional dogs?? Georgia guy 20:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dogs are so common in fiction that a such a list like this is akin to making one like "List of protagonists in fiction" or something similar, and hence being loosely associated. Corpx 04:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rife[edit]

Royal Rife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to have any significant sources that pass WP:RS, or much chance of ever acquiring them. Everything's referenced to sites trying to sell something in his name. Adam Cuerden talk 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The crucial question here is whether Rife meets any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). If he is, in fact, "one of the biggest quacks of modern times", we should have no problem finding a reliable, published source that discusses him. At the moment, however, the article is almost entirely dependent on lunatic websites (and a couple of ridiculous books by Barry Lynes, which certainly aren't "credible independent biographies"). If someone can find a reliable, published source that discusses the guy, I'll vote to keep the article. If we can't find any reliable sources, nothing in the article will ever be verifiable so it should be deleted.
  • Bear in mind that it's possible that Rife's machines are notable but he's not. If there's substantial coverage of his machines in reliable, published sources (like the FDA and the FTC), we might want to create an article about them. Notability is not inherited though, so we don't automatically have to have an article about the inventor. Sideshow Bob Roberts 12:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=royal+raymond+rife&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr= 82.208.2.214 21:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cars in the Ridge Racer series[edit]

List of cars in the Ridge Racer series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This seems to violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 19:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cars in Project Gotham Racing 3[edit]

List of Cars in Project Gotham Racing 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This seems to violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spacepol[edit]

Spacepol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is spam. It has been spammed across several Wikipedias, but has since been removed from many of them. Currently the only non-english article is in Finnish Wikipedia [30], where it is undergoing a vote for deletion (currently 26 votes for deletion, 2 opposes). Peltimikko 19:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Peltimikko (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And yet you seem to feel that the Finnish version of the so-called debate should be carefully considered here? Jreferee: Please let me know, if you feel translation of some of the Finnish comments found on the Finnish AfD Pages would be of help (due to their nature, I don't think it would be wise or morally defensable to publish them publically, though). BTW Ekeb, Finnish administrator, Wikimedia Foundation has certain issues about which there are no "regional variations" inclusing posting insulting or other material hinting at wrongdoing or dishonesty of living persons and organizations. --88.114.56.7 08:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you to specify which parts of the Finnish deletion debate do you consider to be "libellous, unfounded and speculative"? Might this be someone questioning whether the people named on http://www.spacepol.ca/home/who.html themselves know about their association with this company? Speculative, I agree, but falls well short of libel. Unfounded, perhaps, but some of these people have now been contacted in order to verify the claim. Lendu 11:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming or implying that someone likely does not have the credentials (educational, publications, etc.) that they are said to have, with reckless disregard for whether or not that is the case and thereby leading others to believe such things (see BLP AfD in Fi:Wikipedia) or implying that they have done morally questionable acts such as paying to be included in biographical works (that also libels the publishing company concerned, if is not true), just to name a couple. Good that somebody was finally fanatical enough to do "original research" and contact associates of this person. That will probably alert all concerned to visit Wikipedia and discover what has been written in Fi:Wikipedia about them.--88.114.56.7 12:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No comments from the named associates to this day. I wonder why? --Ufinne 11:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me, or do you also notice the penetrating silence on this particular issue, after you asked this question? --88.114.56.7 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decently written? It's ad-speak waffle - making various grandious claims with little or no link to WP:RS - if this organisation has made the massive impact claimed - why are there no english language sources to that effect? --Fredrick day 13:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the AfD and subsequent debate at the Finnish Wikipedia is largely irrelevant with regards to the AfD here. As for sources, it seems to be mostly its own website. The article reads quite a bit like something a copywriter would cook up. -- NordicStorm (t/c) 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Observation Jreferee has stated this article fails to meet WP:N and two others agree. I would just like to mention that [[WP:N] does not mention the word "English" anywhere within its text. Therefore sources should not be considered irrelevant simply for being Finnish. English sources are preferable, not required. However, the article could certainly use more secondary sources. I think the relative lack of such would be the best argument against it. Onikage725 13:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any references to Finnish language sources in the article (and if there were such sources, they would of course not be irrelevant).-- NordicStorm (t/c) 14:24, 16 August 2007

(UTC)

Hmm. Here I'd have to play the Devil's advocate. I would say that Finnish sources would weigh less than English sources from an English-speaking country. The threshold for notability is quite much smaller in Finland than say even Canada or England, not to mention the US or Australia. But that said... --88.114.56.7 15:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Finnish sources either, if you look to Spacepol "Lähteet" (=Sources). Only grandious claims which just makes you laugh. --Ufinne 18:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above User: 88.114.56.7 and 82.128.246.156 belongs to a serial internet pest and spammer and previous En-Wikipedia administrator and Usernet participant Mr Guy Chapman's alias crusade against honest users on the internet. User: Homing device 139.168.16.151 18:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes and? how does such information affect the notability of this article? --Fredrick day 18:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. CitiCat 04:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After Midnight Project[edit]

After Midnight Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The Becoming EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Build Something to Break (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable band—fails WP:BAND (having a song in a video game is not one of the criteria). No references, either. Lots of ghits but nothing substantial, far as I could see. Also nominating a download-only EP and an as-yet unreleased album. Precious Roy 13:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Discussions on individual merges should take place on talk pages. Bduke 12:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spinner's End[edit]

Spinner's End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related articles:

Azkaban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beauxbatons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Durmstrang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Diagon Alley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Godric's Hollow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hall of Prophecies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hog's Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hogsmeade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Knockturn Alley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Little Hangleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Little Whinging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Riddle House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shrieking Shack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
St Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of these articles deal with locations from the Harry Potter series of books (and movies and games, etc…). I do not believe that they belong on Wikipedia, between them they do give one independent third party source. Violating the primary notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability which states “A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.”. Furthermore the articles do not “contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources.” As mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Large parts of all the articles are original research – in fact since no sources are presented it could be said that they are completely original research which is unverified and often unverifiable Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. The articles may also go against WP:NOT#INFO given that they appear quite trivial. Harry Potter is obviously notable but that does not mean that everything in the books is - even items or places regarded as important or vital to the plot - if they do not meet the notability guideline. Notability is not inherited. A pub isn’t notable just because it’s in a notable town and there’s no reason why a fictional pub (or house or magic shop) should be notable just because it’s in a notable book. The articles are essentially an extension of the Harry Potter article and if they are not deemed important enough to be on that page do not merit their own articles. They may belong in a Harry Potter wiki but not on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Fancruft. Guest9999 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply Actually I do like it, I find the information interesting and would like to see it available on the internet, I just don't feel that it belongs on Wikipedia as it violates several important guideline and policies and so will never be an accurate or reliable encyclopaedia article. [[Guest9999 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Reply Some of the sources are the books, some are fansites, some are blogs. Do the books themselves count as sources, if they do then shouldn't everything mentioned in every book have a Wikipedia page. Does this only apply for locations of significant importance in books which are well read enough - how do you define significant, how many copies need to be sold? The notability criteria is there for a reason. [[Guest9999 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Strong delete - per the very well-reasoned and -articulated nomination. Nothing has been offered here to rebut the policy concerns raised by the nomination other than "it's helpful" and the oft-bandied about and frequently mis-used WP:NOT#PAPER. "It's helpful" is just a flavor of WP:USEFUL and however useful an article may be it still needs to comply with all relevant policies and guidelines. The editor who referenced PAPER has been advised repeatedly exactly what the problem is with basing a keep on it and at this point I must seriously question whether he honestly does not understand that PAPER is not a free pass for any article or whether he is willfully disregarding that fact in the hope of confusing these discussions. WP:NOT#PAPER states explicitly This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. These articles do not. Otto4711 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then that should be the target for the merge. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles for deletion is not a vote WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, it is a discussion aimed towards forming a consensus - you should give a reason for your position. [[Guest9999 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Comment The issue of "importance" has repeatedly come up in this debate. I do not see how importance is relevent, the spouse of a notable politician could be very important to them and have a great effect on their life but unless they were notable in their own right they wouldn't have an article. Importance is something that is subjective and hard to verify; notability as defined by the notability guideline is (to a point) not.[[Guest9999 23:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Basically, we accept that Harry Potter is notable. It's notable enough that sections have gotten split off of the main articles. This is standard Wikipedia policy, of course: Many articles have sub-articles to give more detail. Importance comes in when selecting what deserves its own article, and what should just redirect to a larger collection of information. The Harry Potter articles have fragmented too far, with very minor things getting their own article. It's fine for important locations that a lot has been said about to collect together the information on them. We have to figure out what's important. I'd say Ko2007 has it about right, though I'd add Azkaban (important plot elements in every book from the second on) and possibly remove Weasley's Wizard Wheezes (As a location, anyway - as a concept, it spans four books (The 4th to 7th), as a location we only see it in the 6th.) Adam Cuerden talk 01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

This should reasonably sort out the articles. Note that a few non-nominated articles appear in this suggestion. Adam Cuerden talk 01:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Harry Potter Wikiproject states it is "an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Harry Potter universe" - this is at odds with Wikipedia policy and would be more approproate for a dedicated Harry Potter wiki or fansite. I do not see why it would be so difficult just to change all of the pages listed above to redirects to the List of places in the Harry Potter books article, it would then just be a case of expanding the current stubs. [[Guest9999 02:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • To my mind it would seem to go against WP:NOT#INFO but I see your point. Although in almost all cases it seems that - rightly or wrongly - policy and guidelines are used in the same way on Wikipedia. [[Guest9999 03:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Aye, I'm not sure about those two either, hence why I listed them to be nominated - e.g. to have more discussion. Adam Cuerden talk 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment whilst I don't think that being in all the books should be a criteria for keeping the article, Little Whinging does actually have a BBC source attached ([[31]]). [[Guest9999 06:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Reply Nobody ever said that Azkaban was unimportant - what is being said is that it is not notable - WP:NN [[Guest9999 18:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
OR, delete also the following articles: Byss, Alderaan, Ebaq 9, Hoth, Lehon, Corellia, Bajor, Benzar, Khitomer, Qo'noS, Arda, Black Gate (Middle-earth), Misty Mountains, well, I won't go on. You can see the idea - these are just randomly selected articles about places in other fictional series (Star Trek, Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings, respectively. I could have picked other series but those were the ones that sprung to mind first). None of them are likely to have any "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", because they can't be separated from their subject!! I haven't checked each article so there might be an exception, but if so there are many more articles of this type to replace it By the definition of "notable" above, none of these articles, or any article about a fictional place, person, or event etc, can EVER be noteworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. And yet there can be no argument that these articles are not looked at and considered useful by thousands of readers and researchers. Either we accept that articles such as these have a place in Wikipedia, or we accept that there are literally thousands of articles about fictional places, people etc which need to be deleted for being "not notable". I will not be party to such a massacre, so I choose to invoke Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules to supercede a blatant use of the letter, rather than the spirit, of WP:N.
If this AfD closes as keep, I will be eager to help merge some of these pages into other articles, not because of their notability, but because the quantity of information in some of them does not justify separation. However, I believe that articles about fictional places should be judged based on their notability within the relevant work of fiction rather than the real world. If there is enough information given in canon to create a decently long article, it meets my critera for notability on Wikipedia. Happy-melon 21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FICT is essentially what I have a problem with, not WP:N (which works extremely well for factual articles). Your point on WP:NOTINHERITED is taken and will, as I mention, result in my active participation in the merging of some of these articles which cannot justify their notability within the subject matter (for instance, Beauxbatons and Durmstrang). However, I do not believe that my argument is covered by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which, incidentally, is neither policy nor guidline). I am not arguing that one other article exists. I am not even arguing that twenty other articles exist. I am arguing that a measurable fraction of the entire article namespace fails the same criteria. The fact that these articles exist, are read by Wikipedia readers and are useful to them, implies that it is policy, not the articles, that are at fault. Happy-melon 10:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline was updated recently to adhere to recent movements at AfD and merger/transwiki proposals, as well as to comply to WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:N. The problem doesn't really lie with WP:FICT, since it's now a logical extention of those guidelines and policies. You are right that there are still a ton of fiction articles that should comply with the new WP:FICT should it remain consensus. As for useful, well, a phonebook or directory is useful, as is a detailed summary of a work's plot (the plot consists of the story, setting, and characters), but these are things that Wikipedia is Not. I think that's your fundamental disagreement may lie with WP:NOT. — Deckiller 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite possible. However, an AfD is not the place to argue such a fundamental policy! Happy-melon 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy requires that these fictional articles actually are notable enough to have their own articles; just put it into a "locations of harry potter", which MAY have enough notability to stay. Besides, the examples you cited are dubious; the locations in lord of the rings are far more notable that Rowlings, since Tolkien probably wrote whole books on his locations and their influences, and then there are many reactions to the books and movies. These locations do not seem to have near that notability. Judgesurreal777 23:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whenever someone argues other stuff exists I get a sudden urge to nominate for deletion the articles the person is using to make their argument. Many of the articles you listed are indeed not notable outside the work in which they appear, however, the mere existence of articles about places in other works of fiction do not excuse these. All articles on Wikipedia must meet policy, the order it is enforced in does not matter. --Phirazo 03:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I came to this page through Diagon Alley, a quite thorough and informative article, if you are looking for information on Diagon Alley.--Knulclunk 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that many thousands of sports players other than Jackie Robinson have been the subject of multiple secondary sources. I'm not 100% sure that your arguement is serious, given that many have multiple books written solely about them and are mentioned in newspapers and magazines on an almost daily basis. Additionally the fact that probably around 90% of articles on fiction probably fail WP:NN doesn't mean that it is right that they exist. If the notability guideline is so wrong on so many artcles it should be rewritten. [[Guest9999 03:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • If a guideline is rewritten to satisfy a recent trend or consensus, then there will still be many articles that need to comply. Of course many articles won't meet the guideline (yet), but it's not a solid reason to change it; otherwise, we'd have no change on Wikipedia. — Deckiller 13:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be quite hard to rewrite the notability criteria to allow pages on subjects which have not been mentioned by any secondary sources. In fact I would say it is impossible as it would allow pretty much anything to have a page in Wikipedia which would go against "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", one of the fundamental principles (five pillars) of Wikipedia. Additionally the notability criteria for Fiction has recently been changed (by consensus) in order to ensure that it goes along with the primary notability criteria (as well as other guidelines) of which it is meant to be a logical conclusion of. [[Guest9999 13:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • I'm confused. I was arguing in favor of the new WP:FICT (I wrote and presented it for discussion). Since it's difficult to rewrite the notability criterion, then wouldn't it be up to the articles to comply? — Deckiller 14:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I think that I may have got my wires crossed, basicly my opinion isWP:FICT now matches WP:NN (which it should have always doen as it was meant to be derived from it)thousands of articles like these do not meet WP:NN (and so by definiton do not meet WP:FICT). Altering or discarding WP:NN to include such articles would likely be completely unmanagable and to the detrement of Wikipedia (apart from the fact that there is no consensus to do such) hence all of these articles should be deleted as per policy. I think maybe we agree? [[Guest9999 16:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Actually, I think it's my fault; I was responding to the wrong person above. We do agree. I think the only area we disagree is that I prefer testing merging and transwiki before deletion; if this can be transwikied to a Wikia, then all the better. — Deckiller 18:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question? Why is Azkaban an obvious keep - it has no secondary sources - none have been mentioned in this debate and some of the current article such as the section entitled "Inspiration" is pure speculation and origional research. The rest of it is probably covered within the plot descriptions of the books in which it is involved - if it is truly an important part of the books which seems to be most people's rational for allowing it to go against WP:NN - so the article should be redundant anyway. [[Guest9999 16:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Comment: I would, however, like to say that I completely agree with the nominator and would like to commend him for his excellent policy-based arguemnt. bwowen talkcontribsreview me please! 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only keep Weasleys Wizard Wheezes, Diagon alley, hogs head, hogsmeade, grimmauld place, due to the fact that they have been moderately important if not majorly important. The others havent.Ko2007 18:20, 15 August 2007 (USCMT)

and delete or merge the rest respectively. Ko2007 03:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator used 257 words to present essentially two arguments: failure of WP:OR and failure of notability under WP:FICT. I can blow away half of that in one 'word': WP:DEL#REASON - presence of original research is not justification to delete. It is justification to edit the articles as severely as may be necessary to remove it. If all that's left at the end is a redirect, so be it!! The nominator's argument under WP:FICT is the only one with credence. I would like to think that my argument displays use of policy as well as common sense, even if the fundamental argument is that I disagree with WP:FICT almost in its entirety. You may disagree again - that is, of course, your prerogative. Happy-melon 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - saying you disagree with WP:FICT is saying that you don't believe that WP:NN should be applied to fiction. Isn't that a bit of a slippery slope - what happens when other people decide it shouldn't apply to biographies or places or bands. Personally I do disagree with you, I think that the information contained in these articles and articles like these does not belong in an encyclopaedia - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia WP:5P - it would be entirely appropriate for a Harry Potter Wiki. Wikipedia is not meant to be a single unified source for all human knowledge WP:NOT#INFO. Also I felt it would make my case stronger if I explained my reasoning rather than juts giving a couple of links to policies. [[Guest9999 22:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep all. Here's my point-by-point rebuttal for the nomination:

Happy-melon I think put it best. (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, that's a Wikipedia policy.) The rebuttal to Happy-melon's arguments says “Look at WP:FICT”, but that guideline states that deletion should be the last resort, after all other options are unavailable, not the firstline response. Besides, as I've said, the Harry Potter universe (including locations therein) has been the subject of numerous works of secondary information and therefore passes notability requirements, even if the individual articles need improvement and sources. Jaksmata 20:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Jaksmata. How much longer is this debate going to stay open?? It looks like keep to snowball keep to me - only one delete against 17 keeps in the last 4 days, or 28 keeps against 17 deletes, merges, redirects and transwikis (all lumped together) overall. Although, of course, WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, we do seem to have built something of a consensus over the last few days!! Happy-melon 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until someone gets around to putting up templates on thirty-some articles to announce the result... Adam Cuerden talk 04:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy Delete. Maxim 00:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northgate Mall (Tullahoma)[edit]

Northgate Mall (Tullahoma) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very small stub on a non-notable mall in Tennessee. The mall only has has thirteen stores in it, so it can't possibly be all that big. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer(Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsReview?) 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 17:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Square[edit]

Nottingham Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable strip mall in Maryland. (Strip malls are generally even less notable than enclosed malls in my opinion.) This is mainly just a directory listing. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer(Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsReview?) 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newington Mall[edit]

Newington Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable (dead) mall, consists mainly of a list of stores with some OR thrown in. Far too small to be super regional, fails WP:RS too. Ten Pound Hammer(Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsReview?) 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to Computer animation. ELIMINATORJR 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animation software[edit]

Animation software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just a large, poorly written, POV list.

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College Square[edit]

College Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall, fails WP:RS. Falls way short of super regional at only 459,705 square feet. Ten Pound Hammer(Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsReview?) 18:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing unique about this mall. It does not distinguish itself from other malls amd appears non-notable.--Stormbay 21:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It is notable. It is the only regional shopping mall located outside a major metropolitan area in North eastern TN. From the beginning since its opening, it has had lots of traffic. Even thought it competes with Knoxville Center mall, with the easy access off US25E, people from KY, VA, and TN have fast access to Major mall shops. This is not an advertisement. It is adding an important piece of information on the malls of Tennessee. It represents a piece of culture and a way America shopped. Being built in the 1980's it was at the end of the biggest period of mall building in TN. Having many of the services of Knoxville Center just being local for a 15 county area, it is important. Thats why its notable.Etittle1978 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - non admin closure, tagged with ((db-afd)) Giggy Talk 07:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Hollow Mall[edit]

Oak Hollow Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable shopping mall, fails WP:RS. 937,048 square feet is pretty big for a mall, but I don't believe that size alone makes for notability. Ten Pound Hammer(Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsReview?) 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from its current shortage of tenants, this mall appears non-notable. --Stormbay 21:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Toward Delete - Typically, as a rule of thumb, I've been trying to only keep the malls that are over a million square feet. This mall is under that, but just barely. Nevertheless, this mall doesn't seem to have anything special and is thus quite boring and needs no article... that is unless I'm wrong and this mall is special in some way. --Triadian 21:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Mall[edit]

Memorial Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Short, sub-stub-class article on a non-notable mall. Tagged for importance since April with no improvement. At only 367,147 square feet of GLA, it's definitely not a super regional mall either. Ten Pound Hammer(Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsReview?) 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has had a chance to expand and seems stalled. It is non-notable. --Stormbay 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Angel Pearl[edit]

The Angel Pearl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very little context, Seems not to be very notable and could possibly even be merged to other related articles, Google search renders no viable sources. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable how a 1928 article could predict it to be currently owned by a private collector on Grand Cayman Island. Gordonofcartoon 02:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I have this right. We have 1.original research 2.WP:ILIKEIT and 3. a supposed article in an 80-year-old magazine with no references that, per Google, doesn't even seem to exist. Excuse me if I'm not convinced.--Sethacus 15:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Ashcroft[edit]

Warren Ashcroft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability, no sources available, except the company web site, which isn't a third-party source. Besides, I'm not even sure as to what his company does, or why it and he are notable. Delete this article. Panoptical 17:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Hogan (accused murderer)[edit]

John Hogan (accused murderer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnotable and serious BLP concerns (this is a tragic case of a man considered unfit to stand trial for killing his son), the name is POV and the article contains almost nothing (had a notability tag since January), SqueakBox 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - fails WP:BIO, no sources. - KrakatoaKatie 17:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tito power 106[edit]

Tito power 106 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Biography of a minor radio Disc Jockey in California that does not appear to meet the criteria set out in WP:BIO. Given the absence of his real name, looking for sources online is next to impossible. CIreland 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete This man does not want his name to be known for the same reason "Big Boy" doesn't. Everything in this article is true. Sources include the power 106 website and of course, the radio. I've been listening to Tito for 10 years. He is well-known in the L.A. area and has an interesting story, one that I believe is very notable. This link leads you to his profile on the power 106 website http://www.power106.com/airstaff/tito.aspx This is a video of Tito's Top 4@4 which happens to be the top rated show on air in Los Angeles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upp6Vqykkmg

This comment was left by Djfromwhittier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See [41] and this one too [42] Sasha Callahan 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italic textWhat the hell is this guy talking about...What an idiot. It's the same reason a local newsreporter in arkansas is on this site... they're well known in their region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.121.152 (talkcontribs)

  • That's my point...nobody outside of LA knows about this guy Corpx 04:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MP3Artists[edit]

MP3Artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not quite sure what to make of this article. A google search reveals pretty much only that this was a group over several forums, and that it wasn't a particularly notable one. The claims of starting out as a record label cannot be easily verified, and in any case, given the parsity of references, it was probably a non-notable label. The Evil Spartan 15:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Force[edit]

Fresh Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a minor band, signed to an independent label, with few releases. Asserts notability, but fails WP:MUSIC, and also WP:V, as it lacks sources entirely. Xoloz 16:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TR Griffin[edit]

TR Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Assertions of notability, but this article has no external sources: fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:LIVING. As for notability, this person is a singer in the Sacramento area and has won his singing awards in a prior a-capella group in that city; there's no notability asserted outside of that town. Seems to have been contributed to mostly by WP:SPAs and IP accounts. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DemandTec[edit]

DemandTec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested G11 speedy deletion. I've fleshed out the most ad-like content but the question still remains about the notability of the company per WP:CORP. Procedural nomination, I abstain. Pascal.Tesson 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of the World[edit]

Queen of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor beauty pageant. Google searches turn up some mentions of it, but it is not really covered in any reliable sources. I had no luck with "Königin der Welt" either. ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 16:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC) ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 16:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 23:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trigger (band)[edit]

Trigger (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BAND: no reliable sources that establish notability, released two albums, both "unsigned". Prod was removed without a comment. Melsaran 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Duvalle[edit]

Lacey Duvalle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Biography of a pornographic actress that I believe fails to satisfy the guidelines in WP:PORNBIO. Appearances on a couple of TV shows are her best claim to notablility. Furthermore, the two sources provided are not independent of the subject. CIreland 17:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge into Amalgam#Mining. - KrakatoaKatie 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amalgam table[edit]

Amalgam table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I cannot find a single source for the existence of an "amalgam table" on Google. (The results are "...amalgam (Table 1)." and similar.) If references cannot be found, the article cannot stay. Shalom Hello 16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source&merge per Gordonofcartoon. Jakew 21:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Q-ships[edit]

Fictional Q-ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Uncited trivia collection that is riddled with OR examples of similarity. Violates WP:NOT#IINFO (and WP:NOT#TRIVIA?) Eyrian 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

==Case for keeping==
First of all, this is my first proper attempt at making a case for keeping an article so even if I make a bad job for the defense this should be taken as a failure on my part and not be taken as reflecting on the merits of this article.
Second this article is new, as of this moment less than a day old, although it consists almost in its entirety of material contributed by other editors and now deleted from the original Q-ship article, I don't believe any of these contributers know of its existence. So for now it is friendless and beset upon by an editor who cannot abide its existence. Said editor having deleted this material from the original Q-ships article. It is apparent therefore that the two editors who have so far shown an interest in this article, myself and its nominator for deletion stand opposite each other, one in enmity for this article and I presume others articles like it, and myself as its unwitting champion in amity. Under such circumstance both I and User:Eyrian cannot be said to be neutral in this argument and at most our voices will counteract the others. I therefore ask that neither I nor Eyrian should act until a consensus of other editors without a vested interest in the survival or deletion of this article have had a chance to consider its survival; and that any possible execution should be stayed until such a time as the article has had a time to mature.
Because yes I concede that this article as it stands is flawed. However how many articles arrive fully fledged and flawless. Those flaws in format, in detail and in writing can be fixed with time. But will it be given this time?
I come now to the crux of the matter, does such an article have a place on Wikipedia? It was deleted by Eyrian as trivia and I suppose others who denigrate popular culture as trivia would agree with this. Indeed I would agree with Eyrian that this material has at best a tenuous right to existence in the Q-ship article proper, but I contest that it does have a place in a Fictional Q-ships article. If this article is deleted than it can only be on the grounds that all popular culture references should be deleted, and only reality and real things should be the subject of articles in Wikipedia. If only Q-ships as they existed in reality has a place in Wikipedia, than I suggest that articles such as HMS Thunder Child be deleted, as the logical extension of the no trivia school would mean that only steam rams as they existed in reality have a place in Wikipedia and this famous but fictional example is irrelevant, and while you're at it how about Space battleships and battlecruisers, the fiction section of HMS Surprise (1794), every ship that appears in Star Trek and List of Star Wars capital ships and every fictional person, object, ship and organisation in Wikipedia. (Okay I better stop there, I guess there are some editors out there who would want to do just that).
Even if it is conceded that fictional subjects have a place on Wikipedia, which I hope the majority of editors will do so, does that mean that this particular fictional subject has a right to survive? Q-ships as they existed in reality were remarkably unsuccessful for the amount of effort expended on them, and like the ironclad steam ram, they have been much more successful in fiction than they were in reality. That they have captured the imagination of writers and readers, means that for many what they know and understand of Q-ships will have stemmed from an exposure to Fictional Q-ships rather than to the reality. It can be hoped that an article on Fictional Q-ships (and it has been linked to do so) can serve as a bridge to those interested in fictional Q-ships to Q-ships in reality.
I've spent longer in this defense than seems to be the norm here, and I'll stand aside now to allow other voices their chance.KTo288 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)KTo288 20:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but your arguments here do not address the substantive policy issues raised by the nomination. The existence of other articles has no bearing on this article. If there are examples of actual fictional Q-ships that have been identified as such by reliable sources then that might demonstrate a basis for this article. But the things on this list have apparently not been identified in reliable sources or within the fiction from which they have been drawn as Q-ships. Gul Ducat never referred to his purloined vessel as a "Q-ship" for example. Thus, the list is nothing but the assumption by some editor or another, in the absence of sourcing, that a particualar fictional ship is, or worse, simply resembles, a Q-ship. This is original research and it has no place on Wikipedia. Otto4711 21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the discussion page of the article (my apologies, but this is the first time I've participated in a Afd debate in such a way, and find myself in the deep end with regards the etiquette of this procedure) I received the replies that "...yes, there are interesting aspects of the cultural impact, they are not illuminated by a list of trivial references" and "...it's not a matter of growth;it's a matter of replacement" from the editor who originally nominated this article for deletion. From this I surmise that he or she would be interested in seeing a well written and sourced "Fictional Q-ships" but not the article as it stands. In this I guess we have a difference in approach.
Is it reasonable to expect articles to emerge from the foam full grown and perfect? I suggest that the opposite is true, I've participated on more than one article in which a scrawny summary and mass of conflicting views have grown into an article one can be proud of. Something happens along the way, an article attracts a critical mass of interested and knowledgeable editors and the article blooms. In this even badly written and incorrect content has its uses, as it will provoke said editors into action. However what is required is the seed crystal around which this progress can be made. Well I guess that one line about Fictional Q-ships on the Q-ship article proper may act as a grain of sand, but without time, space and the tolerance of editors intent on preserving Wikipedia's purity no critical mass or take off is possible.
There will of course be editors for whom such a take off is anathema. For such editors the sooner this article be nipped in the bud the better; and to these editors my answer is...okay you've got me, there is no possible argument that I can make that will convince you otherwise. We're not supposed to mention that articles and categories such as List of fictional medicines and drugs,List of fictional ships,Spacecraft in the Honorverse,and the Category Fictional towns and cities in the United States] that exist, are tolerated and nurtured.
So get out your knives and be done with it, delete the article. Because there is only way that the consensus this Afd is going and that is "delete". This article just hasn't had the time for any but those who wish its termination to take an interest in it, no chance to gain supporters to rally; these debates seemingly to be the prowling grounds of those whose only instinct is to delete.KTo288 19:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really ought to know better than this by now. If a fictional ship is not identified as a Q-ship in reliable sources then including it on a list of fictional Q-ships is original research. These are not examples of fictional Q-ships. All of your high-falutin' talk about what an encyclopedia might be means nothing in the face of the concrete policy objections. Address those. Otto4711 01:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any entries you think wrong, you are welcome to discuss on the article talk page. I don't consider "inclusive" a particularly high-falutin' term or concept. If anyone is interested in building an encyclopedia containing only what a few people want it to contain, GFDL will let you do it as a subset of WP. Really-important-pedia. DGG (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh huh, and so leaving aside all of this "what an encyclopedia should be" chit-chat, do you have any sources at all that indicate that even a single item included in this article is a "Q-ship"? Whatever meta-discussions you may want to have, as far as this article goes do you have any fact-based answer at all to the policy problems? Otto4711 04:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Bergmann[edit]

Tina Bergmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Biographical article with little assertion of notability; the only thing that I see is that she supposedly performed at various places nationwide. No proof that she fulfills WP:B WP:BIO Nyttend 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Thanks :-) Nyttend 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Zaharias[edit]

George Zaharias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article does not establish notability. He seems to be nothing more than the husband of a professional golfer, which does not make him notable. Nikki311 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, did you read the obituary? All it says is that the husband of a professional golfer died. There is almost no information about him other than his death and marriage. Nikki311 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it also mentions that he was a professional wrestler, and the Google news results below suggest that he was a rather famous one. Zagalejo 18:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I AfD'd the article because it, in its current condition, does not establish notability. If someone is willing to expand the article and add sources, I have no problem changing my vote to keep. Nikki311 20:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added material about his 1932 match against Jim Londos, the best attendance of any that year, which seems to demonstrate that he was one of the top wrestlers of his era. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. A number of good arguments were raised on both sides, but I don't see how this discussion can be closed as anything other than "no consensus". As an editor, I would urge moving the article to Race relations in the LGBT community and would strongly urge more of a focus on what reliable secondary sources (e.g. sociologists) have to say about race relations in this community, rather than a focus on individual incidents of racism which, sadly, are common across all strata of society. But that's beside the point; for the purposes of AfD, this is a no consensus, defaulting to keep. MastCell Talk 22:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the LGBT community[edit]

Racism in the LGBT community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Let me first explain that I think it is very unfair in that it singles out a community, allow me to ask, is there an "Anti-Semitism in the Black community" article? Or more on topic, "homophobia in the Black community"? No. Should there be? No. Because homophobia, like racism, appears in all groups, no matter how much you can document and find incidents to talk about, this is the truth. --Revolución hablar ver 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Here is quite a bit of information that counters that idea.Racism Issues in Predominantly White Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Communities; North America - Europe - Australia (with quite a few sources and articles.)[51]
  • It is not a question of whether this particular sort of racism is "special." It is a question of whether the topic meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Clearly it does. Otto4711 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there is. Just to be clear, we're talking about racism within the community, not racism from the community. While racism may be very similar wherever it appears, the idea is that racism is of enough significance within the community to merit it's own article. In summary, the article is primarily an article about the LGBT community that specifically discusses racism, not an article about racism that specifically discusses the LGBT community. Calgary 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm failing to see any WP:OR in the topic that suggests that subject isn't valid. Indeed many of the comments are clear that racism does exist within the LGBT community so where is the WP:SYNTH? Benjiboi 11:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this history in the US section, the article examines a "gay bar named Badlands" and allegations of racism there. Then it moves on to some alleged verbal assaults that occurred in the Castro. Then it moves on to Chuck Knipp. The article is tying all these incidents under the big umbrella of racism in the GLBT community - which, to me, is WP:OR Corpx 08:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted the article could do a much better job at presenting the material. That gay bar Badlands was brought up before the SF Human Rights Commission for dozens of complaints of racial profiling and discrimination, because of the race-based incidents a group And Castro For All was created and still exists to address racism issues in the LGBT communities. It should be noted that the Castro is probably the best known (and I believe still largest) gay neighborhood in the world.
  • Chuck Knipp's character Shirley Q Liquor is a prime example of racism insensitivity and made headlines for blackface stereotyped stand-up comedy - the character was disinvited to perform in several venues after protests. Both these incidents were covered in the GLBT national press so no WP:OR needed there. I can see how it could be interpreted that way. Benjiboi 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If enough sources were to support those articles then they certainly could be written. There are numerous sources writting about racism within the LGBT communities as well as books and taught as a part of LGBT and black studies in colleges. Double-minority status is not exclusive to these communities but this article is. You are free to start an article on other subjects as you wish and they will be held to the same standards. Benjiboi 07:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what relevance the "flat earth" link has, but yes, those terms are rather subjective ("racist" being used by the new McCarthyists of the Left to silence large swathes of dissenting opinion they may not like; "LGBT" an obfuscatory umbrella term that seeks to couch its members' behaviour behind the banality of an acronym) and in any case, the only ones likely to be writing about either topic, let alone both in tandem, are radical leftist grievance-industry types, whose screeds need not befoul an encyclopedia that strives for objectivity. As an aside, this article seems highly likely to remain focused on attacks by white American (male) homosexuals against their black and Hispanic counterparts. As it will be some time before (if ever) before it starts to address racism by Afrikaaner bisexuals against Zulu bisexuals in South Africa, or by Fijian transsexuals against Indo-Fijian transsexuals, perhaps it could be given a more specific title. Indeed, the title is vague in another respect: does the article seek to address racism within the "community" (seemingly yes), or in the "community" but directed at society as a whole (this is how the title reads)? The questions proliferate, and with these, the keep rationale diminishes ever further. Biruitorul 21:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with this topic having a broad scope - the beauty of Wikipedia is that perceived or actual biases will be continually challenged as articles develop. So, I say, lets trust the collaborative process that is Wikipedia. If contributors want to address the Afrikanner/Zulu question you mentioned, they will. Kootenayvolcano 22:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but on the other hand, that raises a further question: is there a single worldwide "LGBT community"? Maybe in a loose sense, but the term "racism" can have very different meanings in different cultures, and of course homosexuality itself is perceived quite differently around the world. So while a broad focus could cover everyone, let's keep WP:SYN in mind and try to avoid mixing apples and oranges when discussing the issue in (eg) advanced industrial ethnically heterogeneous societies (say the US) vs. developing, more homogeneous ones (like Somalia). Broad-focus articles are good because combining lots of little articles makes for more comprehensive coverage; at the same time, lots of little articles may be necessary if the topics in question are different enough. Biruitorul 22:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprisingly the research and published writing on the subject that are up to WP standards have mainly been in the more developed regions of the world and the article (as, I think with almost all WP articles) will reflect that. As the article develops it would be interesting to note geopolitical differences and the responses and affects of same. Jamaica with its recent Murder Music attention to its LGBT community is an example that people who are LGBT in developing countries might have fighting racism as an interest but staying alive is a priority. Benjiboi 00:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Administrator: The poster objects to both the terms "LGBT" and "Racism". Perhaps we should delete those as well? How's this for Wikipedia "consensus"? --George100 09:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on above note What is that even supposed to mean? Biruitorul's personal and political opinions are not the topic of discussion here. He raises valid points in his comments, whether or not you agree with everything he says; and in any event, opinions and comments in an AfD cannot be dismissed simply because you don't like the commenter's political opinions. K. Lásztocska 19:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Racism article is quite large and although a summary section might be appropriate I think it would quickly be nominated for it's own article anyway. There is more than enough material to turn this into a good article, "weird" or otherwise.
  • Comment No one seems to dispute the article needs improving. NPOV, Globalism and Sourcing are all easily fixed through regular editing. Possible renaming may be appropriate once AfD has been resolved. Benjiboi 13:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 05:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft of Ace Combat[edit]

Aircraft of Ace Combat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This seems to violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 15:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines state clearly that Wikipedia isn't a list or directory of indiscriminate information, especially about games (which are just about as notable as single movies). Keeping this article would be like keeping one that was titled "List of minor characters in Top Gun."--ZXCVBNM 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd example to give, particularly as the Top Gun article includes a section listing the aircraft in said film. So should this information be merged into the Ace Combat article? --Oscarthecat 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was not kept. Singularity 06:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uplayme[edit]

Uplayme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Queried speedy delete for notability. Anthony Appleyard 15:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to PaRappa Rappa#Episodes Giggy Talk 07:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PaRappa Rappa Episodes[edit]

PaRappa Rappa Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article seems to be about a game (althought it says its about an anime series on the page...) Well, I think it does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. I would nominate for speedy deletion but I was not sure of this so I would like the opinion of the community. Thanks, Brusegadi 15:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anubis (Orbital frame)[edit]

Anubis (Orbital frame) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - there are no reliable sources that attest to the notability of this fictional item out of universe. Otto4711 15:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battles in Harry Potter[edit]

Battles in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There have been so many afd deletes related to this article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Wizarding War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First War (Harry Potter), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second War (Harry Potter) (Endorsed) etc.). Basically, the consensus has been repeatedly established that the events at the end of books 5 and 6 cannot canonically be called "battles" and are never refered to as such by Rowling. There is a chapter in book 7 called the "Battle of Hogwarts", however, even that should not be treated on Wikipedia with the motif of the battle infobox etc. because that requires fan original research to determine who the commanders were, who "won", etc. The events at the end of book seven can more than adequately be covered in the plot section of that article, rather than treated alongside events for which it is original research to call them battles.

Even already on the talk page there is difficulty figuring out which side Snape fought for; I think that this illustrates the problem with trying to fit Rowling's story into these parameters. The present article also comprises much content which was deleted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in Harry Potter (Endorsed) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

In my view, those articles should be taken to deletion review, rather than having the content be recreated under increasingly distant titles. Savidan 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already more than adequate plot summary in all those articles, and they are likely to remain high quality without any information from this article. There is also the Muggles Guide to Harry Potter and the Harry Potter Wiki, which both already cover the content in question. Savidan 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Wikia wiki, so we don't really have any business dumping articles on them like we do with our sister projects...:) Savidan 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being as the same content has been deleted more than once, I think a DRV would be in order. Savidan 22:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of them did go to DRV and their deletion was endorsed. --Farix (Talk) 23:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was responding to Josiah Rowe's claim (mosty in his edit summary actually) that there should be no predjudice against recreation. I think there should be, inasmuch as it should have to go through DRV. Savidan 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I said there should be no prejudice against recreation once reliable secondary sources exist. The burden for providing those sources will be on an editor who recreates the content. Any recreation without such sources can and should be zapped with the Elder Wand. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being as the Wikipedia community has deleted this content almost ten times now through afd (and more through recreates being speedied), it's not unreasonable to ask that those sources be brought to DRV. Savidan 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 02:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik J. Dale[edit]

Erik J. Dale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not clear at all, no specific sources to verify facts presented in article. Citations point only to generic sites, not specifically to those referring to Dale, except for his own (very peculiar and very outdated) blog. The article appears to have been written by a member of the subject's family. Only one relevant Google hit for "Erik J. Dale" outside of WP itself. Appears to violate WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Contested prod. Realkyhick 15:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for future reference: soft money, yes, and therefore non-tenure, but Stanford like other US research universities makes a distinction between Research Assistant Prof, R. Associate Prof, and Research P. that parallels the distinctions in the regular lines. To what extent the standards are comparable is an interesting question, but normally (& at Stanford) Associate & Full are renewable for life if the money holds out (at Stanford for 6 yr terms). I doubt the Stanford depts. & administration let the values discredit the university. Of course, we don't know just what rank this guy had, if he ever actually had any, which I doubt. DGG (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babi boy[edit]

Babi boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is a dictionary definition for a foreign language slang term that has no evidence of notability. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NEO. Can't find anything relevant for Google searches of "babi boy" or "pork boy". Possibly created in relation to a now deleted attack article made by the same author. Darksun 14:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Contrary to Giggy's assertion below, a consensus discussion may apply guidelines like WP:MUSIC selectively, within reason (that's why they are guidelines, not policy.) Hereinbelow, consensus is to regard Amanda Rogers notability as suspect, and to delete despite her involvement in the group. Xoloz 15:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter Sunrise[edit]

Jupiter Sunrise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band fails WP:MUSIC. Their only substanstiable claim to notability is the album they released. PROD contested with comment: "1 album is enough". However, WP:MUSIC requires two albums. See also the article's talk page. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, that article appears to be ripe for deletion as well. Precious Roy 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it exists, it asserts notability over this article. Delete that one, and this one can go. Giggy Talk 02:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. Precious Roy 13:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Doxer[edit]

Kathleen Doxer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. While a number of sources are given, they do not contain substantial coverage; the most detailed seems to be this one, which is from the local chamber of commerce (not very impressive). The article also contains some copyvio from there. The book cited is not a biography of the person, but about an organization which she sponsored; it mentions her briefly (as far as I could see from Google Books preview). PROD contested with request to list the article on AfD. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 13:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum Apparently, the store re-opened a few months later, but there hasn't been much press since.--Sethacus 16:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium alloy mind shielding[edit]

At first glance this article appears to be about genuine scientific research into the ideas the tin-foil hat brigade espouse, but there is a distinct whiff of hoaxery about it; while the people mentioned (Samuel Goldfarb, Eduardo Miranda) are genuine names of research scientists, there are a few glaringly odd points. Firstly, the Executive Order 1949/117b supposedly authorized by Truman - Executive Orders do not use a date-slash-number format, just numbers, and it's not listed on any EO list I've checked. Second, I can find no evidence of any of the cited references existing - no book or paper titles match anything. The "First Annual Conference on Titanium Alloy Mind Shielding", supposedly having taken place in 2005, sounds fishy in the extreme. This is more elaborate than most Wikipedia hoaxes, but unless I'm very much mistaken it's a hoax nonetheless. ~Matticus TC 13:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Jayne Innes[edit]

Jayne Innes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Yet another parliamentary candidate, one of thousands. Wikipedia is not a listing of parliamentary candidate biographies. Timrollpickering 13:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we let this one stay then we'll have tens of thousands of articles on people who's only claim to fame is that they have been candidates for this and that. Minimum standard should to be actually getting elected. Galloglass 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have several thousand candidates each election, none of which we consider notable if they do not get elected. Even standing for one of the three main parties does not seem to justify any notability. As TRP has said above, Wiki is not a candidates biography website. Galloglass 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The sources cited seem to not be about the club, rather being just trivial mentions. No real evidence it passes WP:RS. 08:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

ConFusion (All My Children)[edit]

ConFusion (All My Children) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - prod disputed with the addition of the "cultural impact" section. There do not appear to be reliable sources that attest to the real-world notability of this fictional nightclub. The notability of the show does not impart notability to every aspect of it. The "cultural impact" section, besides being dubiously sourced by trivial mentions in what appear to be gossip columns, does not establish that the fictional club is notable. Otto4711 12:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The quality of the writing is not at issue here. Neither is the factual accuracy. What is under discussion here is whether the subject of the article passes notability guidelines, which require independent reliable sources that are substantially about the subject. The items serving as references here do not qualify as reliable sources and are not substantially about the subject. Otto4711 18:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references in the article consist of: a four-sentence blurb about Rihanna's appearance that does not discuss any significance of the club; a biography for Emily Frances that notes her AMC appearance in a single sentence and does not mention the club; a gossipy column that includes only a single sentence that even mentions the club; and another gossipy column that mentions the club in a single sentence. I am sorry, but these simply do not, in any possible way, constitute significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The fact that some celebrities did cameos on the show does not establish the notability of the club, as the notability of the celebrities cannot be inherited by the club. WP:FICT, under which articles on fictional characters falls, states that a separate article for a fictional topic within a work of fiction is warranted "[i]f these concepts are by themselves notable (meaning they include substantial real-world information...) and an encyclopedic treatment causes the article on the work itself to become long...." Since the club is not notable, WP:FICT does not support the existence of this article. Otto4711 21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those columns state the truth, not some gossip columns spreading around rumors or speculation. The references within this article are all from independent reliable sources. And one is even from The Associated Press, which is certainly reliable, and, yes, it mentions Rihanna's musical performance -- her musical performance at this fictional nightclub. I'm sorry (actually, I'm not), but having seen most other fictional club or inn articles on Wikipedia, this one is certainly one of the most notable out of all of them. Several celebrities at this fictional nightclub does make this fictional nightclub notable. Citing Wikipedia policy to me that I know by heart, even if you feel that I don't know it by heart, doesn't make me feel any less strongly on this matter. Emily Frances' mention on this show can easily be exchanged with one that mentions this club, though I don't feel that it needs to be exchanged. It's obvious that her appearance on this show was for the opening of this fictional nightclub, unless someone figures that she guest starred on All My Children more than once. Rihanna singing at the opening of this nightclub, plus several celebrities at this nightclub, yes, that's notable for a fictional nightclub. Flyer22 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please explain what part of the phrase substantially about the subject is giving you so much trouble? Notability requires sources that are substantially about the subject of the article. One-sentence mentions in longer articles are not substantially about the subject.
  • The existence of other articles has no bearing on whether or not this article should exist. This article, like every article, needs to meet relevant policies and guidelines. In the absence of reliable sources that are substantially about the subject this article does not meet the guideline of notability. Otto4711 21:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I honestly can't make heads or tails out of your sentence that begins "Can you please explain..." so no, I really can't explain because I have no idea what you're asking. If you know what "substantially about the subject" means then I have to wonder why you continue to insist that these passing references in any way establish the notability of the club. Otto4711 22:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't explain what you don't get about notability either. These "passing" references are are multiple, and they prove the notability of this fictional nightclub. Citing that it should be substantial, well, that doesn't make me feel that this fictional nightclub is any less notable. Flyer22 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, see, there we have the crux of your failure of understanding. Quoting again from WP:N: Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. A passing reference is not more than trivial. A handful of passing references do not add up to notability. I'm sorry that you don't think that substantial coverage should be required to establish notability, but fortunately the strong consensus on WIkipedia is that substantiality is required. Otto4711 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • <bangs head against desk> A simple mention is not substantial. Several simple mentions are not substantial. Otto4711 23:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly is it too restrictive to read "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail..." as meaning that a source that does not mention the article's subject by name does not establish the subject's notability? How is it too restrictive to think that a passing mention in a single sentence of a much longer piece does not constitute significant coverage? I don't think it's really that much to ask that there be a source that's about ConFusion before there be an article about ConFusion. Otto4711 13:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games published by Nintendo A - Z[edit]

List of video games published by Nintendo A - Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete new list that is redundant to already existing and better organized Nintendo list articles: Franchises established on Nintendo systems, *List of Wii games, List of NES games, List of Nintendo 64 games, List of SNES games, List of Nintendo DS games, List of GameCube games, List of Game Boy Color games --Dr.Who 11:30, 15 August 2007

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

The result was delete; no sources. - KrakatoaKatie 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willen Hospice[edit]

Willen Hospice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing to distinguish this hospice from hundreds of others. -- RHaworth 11:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ardeshir Sepahsalar[edit]

Ardeshir Sepahsalar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page seems to be an autobiography of a non-notable person, who also seems to have created a page about his particular philosophical views, Relational Philosophy Anarchia 11:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relational Philosophy[edit]

Relational Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am 90% sure that this article was created by Ardeshir Sepahsalar, the person who is cited as coming up with the theory discussed. In any case, a google search of 'relational philosophy' + this man's name only yields his pages and wikipedia related pages, so the theory does not satisfy the notability criteria. And, the only references for the theory are on Ardeshir Sepahsalar's web pages. Anarchia 11:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy funk[edit]

Anarchy funk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A musical style practiced by one person. Non-notable, Wikipedia is not for things made up at band camp one day. Weregerbil 11:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Lebowski Urban Achievers[edit]

Aparent hoax Od Mishehu 11:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ActiTIME[edit]

ActiTIME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

procedural - PROD removed - NN web-software - the only mentions of this seem to the usual "this exists" listings and user-generated content that is the hallmark of lower-rung (if that's the right term - in terms of notability not quality) product. Fredrick day 10:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Just found one real source, but it's kinda borderline and doesn't really give strong case for note. Will switch to keep if stronger sources can be found and the article expanded, but as it stands now, it lacks adequate context, lacks any attempt to demonstrate a case for note, and lacks more than the one third party source. MrZaiustalk 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. The Dawn article helps, but not enough. Realkyhick 15:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 04:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Time Lords (Doctor Who)[edit]

List of Time Lords (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This new article duplicates information in the article Time Lord. Since the latter article can comfortably contain such a list, there is insufficient reason for this content fork. Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --OZOO (What?) 10:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no reason why the above template could not be expanded to include other timelords for reasons of navigation. I only mentioned the template as a common argument for lists is that they serve as navigation, when often a template or use of catergorisation is better. Pedro |  Chat  12:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: There is plenty of reason not to expland that template. Most of the Time Lord names are simply trivia compared to the template as it stands. The template is about the Doctor himself. Dr.Who 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe it quite satisfies any of the criteria for speedy deletion. I would've proposed deletion, were it not likely the editor who started the article would object. Hence, nomination. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Singularity 03:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long hair[edit]

Long hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. I found this article via its ((unencyclopedic)) tag; I pretty much fail to see why we should have articles on long hair, short hair, average-lengthy hair and hair that falls down to your ankles, when the concept is covered quite well at the article on hair in general. This would seem to be a somewhat arbitrary fork. >Radiant< 09:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Review if you wish. Non admin closure. Giggy Talk 07:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RauteMusik.FM[edit]

RauteMusik.FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable internet radio. References in the article are only the stations own website and their press release. The talkpage (and the company website) have a press coverage links which in all cases are trivial coverage of RauteMusik.FM as part of wider reporting - mainly the change of legislation regarding license fees and how operators (including RM) were affected. Agathoclea 09:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so it is not relevanced? RauteMusik.FM is in Germany/Europe like DI.FM in the USA/World. One of the biggest internetradios stations. There are also a few internetradio stations on the wikipedia, so why not RauteMusik.FM? Keep it!--Chuckeh 10:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability presented. --Fredrick day 10:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RauteMusik.FM does exist in Germany and Europe. A local company notable in its own country and not worldwide doesn't mean it lacks the notibility. Rather than referring it to lack of notabilty, help to improve the article as a stub. Cocoma 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the discussion's page. You can find RauteMusik.FM in all the big media players like iTunes, Windows Media Player and so on! And NO, not every radio station is listed there, especially on iTunes there is no other german radio station!--Chuckeh 12:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes but there is a requirement that sources say more than "this exists". --Fredrick day 12:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You never read the discussions page correctly or said anything to it? There are a lot of references and you can see on the streamstats a lot of listeners, more than on 80 % of other webradios of the world. So?!--Chuckeh 17:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge content then delete. The content has already been merged into Manchester United F.C. statistics. The title is not a likely search term worth keeping as a redirect. TerriersFan 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Manchester United's Squad Numbers[edit]

The content of the article is unencyclopaedic and, IMO, is not notable outside of a very narrow field. The same information and more can be found at http://www.footballsquads.co.uk - PeeJay 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there is a section like this on the Liverpool F.C. statistics page. This belongs on a similar page. ArtVandelay13 09:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In that case, I will create a page similar to Liverpool F.C. statistics for Manchester United and put the table in there. = PeeJay 09:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aggie Moffat[edit]

Aggie Moffat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject was a tea-lady who made one comment to Graeme Souness which was picked up by the media. Ms Moffat is not individually notable - not close to WP:BIO - and all relevant information is already in the Souness article. Redirected, contested. Deiz talk 09:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that 20 years playing professional sport at the highest level possible and another 20 years coaching professional sport at the highest level possible qualify Graeme Souness as a tad more than "barely notable"..... ChrisTheDude 10:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welp, you've nearly convinced me. Has he had any other cleaning ladies we should write articles about? Qworty 10:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is a place to offer opinions about articles which have been nominated for deletion. "Delete, completely non-notable" would cover it, so maybe chill out on the diatribes, possible awards for uselessness and sweeping generalisations about sports fans? You could read the Graeme Souness article if you have some time on your hands. Deiz talk 11:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but I did read it. It failed to establish notability for his cleaning lady. I think you'll have to agree that this is one of the very thinnest articles to dome down the VfD pike in quite some time. And the highly assiduous manner in which it is cited makes it read almost like a spoof. But in all fairness, I'm sure that the article's author(s) had no intention of satirizing the limitless obsessiveness of (some) sports fans. Qworty 11:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you'll nail her profession the next time you read it. Hurry now; it looks like it might not have long left. - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she's not a cleaning woman, why does she care if a soccer coach is a slob? Oh, I see, she's a tea lady. What, she pushes a tea cart through a Scottish locker room? And objects because the place is messy? And European soccer hooligans are consequently enraged over this local "sports" incident? Am I getting close to why she is "notable"? We are truly separated by a common language, my friends, as well as caffeine-delivery systems--a tea cart? Perhaps she'll become notable when she is the last survivor of her dying profession. In any event, I hope not too many people were injured in any riots that might have followed this grave incident. Qworty 18:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I "feel" like I'm in an endless "Jay" Leno "monologue". There must be a door around here somewhere... - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don;t know I liked reading this article, and felt like I would like to meet her and shake her hand afterwards. I guess she isn't really notable, but she did make the Independent. Jihad Shaar down below got two newspaper mentions and has people arguing that he is notable because of that. Aggie Moffat got more newspaper mentions, but is not notable because of her profession? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchia (talkcontribs)
Delete The person that the article is about is not notable. The event is notable and therefore belongs in the article about Graeme Souness. Pedro |  Chat  12:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not at all convinced the event is notable, though I'm willing to admit that I need my cultural awareness raised a bit in this area. Americans drink beer and watch football; Brits, apparently, drink tea and watch soccer. A man who coaches soccer is a great cultural figure in the British isles and the British aisles. No less significant is the woman who rolls the cart up the aisles to serve him his vitally important national beverage, tea. When these two great cultural icons have a disagreement of any sort, it's like Bush and Putin going at it, and the British media is transfixed. Well, I'm sorry, but the United States is not a democracy on anything near that kind of level. Over here, a football player has to murder two people with a knife and then get away with it before he (and the incident in question) become truly notable. Being admonished on personal cleanliness by the guy who sells the hot dogs just isn't going to, uh, "cut it." Qworty 18:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice bit of generalisation there. ;) But I agree the event is not notable. Dave101talk  19:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close - Nom withdrawn. (non-admin close) —Travistalk 13:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pure Pwnage episodes[edit]

List of Pure Pwnage episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability of Pure Pwnage notwithstanding (although it's probably fine), I see no rationale for a separate article to serve as nothing more than a collection of episode trivia and summaries. This is my first AfD in a while, so if I've nominated this in error, please feel free to correct me.. spazure (contribs) 09:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Nom withdrawn, sleep-deprived, non-researched nom. Was already nommed before and kept. Please speedy close. spazure (contribs) 10:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Impossible Return[edit]

The Impossible Return (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Full of OR and NPOV, and most fatally, not notable. The 2001 Seattle Mariners missed setting a new MLB record for the most wins in a season by a team by one game, and this game—a regular season game—was one of them. That is the only claim to notability this game has. Granted, for Mariners fans, this was the most heartbreaking, but this was merely one in 54 games they lost that they could have won, and it's quite arguable this game was not any more notable than those games, or any regular season MLB game. It's not the greatest comeback in major league history either (see this), and that game doesn't have an article. Even the title given for the game is unsourced and non-existant on Google except for Wikipedia and some blogs. Full disclosure: I'm a Mariners fan, but I don't think my bias is an issue here. hateless 08:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is the other famous sliver of baseball history for one Mike Bacsik.
The nominator rightly points out that the lead section is highly pro-Indians, and the article must have been written by Indians fans. (History is written by the winners.) However, it is not notable as a regular-season game, since there have been two other comebacks from 12 runs down in the early 20th century. Should we have an article about the game where Mark Whiten hit 4 home runs and had 12 RBI? What about the game last year when the Dodgers hit four straight homers off the Padres in the bottom of the ninth, then came from behind in extra innings to win? All these are nice games, but trivial in the larger context of baseball history. Shalom Hello 17:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewisham-Indo Chinese[edit]

Lewisham-Indo Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable series of workshops with no indication of their outcome. And then there is a bit about a school tacked on Malcolma 08:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Shaar[edit]

Jihad Shaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another attempt to turn WP into a WP:NOT#MEMORIAL of someone non-notable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment But the sources just cover his death. Why was he notable other than dying ? Article asserts he was a "would be student" who "hadn't decided what he was studying" - just being killed, even in these distressing circumstances, is not on it's own a criteria for notability. Pedro |  Chat  09:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see anything in the guidline requiring a specific reason for fame. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL doesn't apply since the requirement "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." is fullfilled. // Liftarn
  • Reply Please see WP:N#Notability_is_not_temporary. This guy was not notable when he was alive. Nothing in the sources indicates he will be notable in the future. Just because the subject has been covered in the news does not mean we need an encyclopedia article. I respect you are not personally involved but just because the article meets the criteria of coverage does not initself make the subject notable. To clarify the notability thing: I have reports of a gas main being dug up on my local road from two independent verifiable resources (e.g. the BBC and a local paper); neverthless the gas main and roadworks are not notable although they are verifiable.Pedro |  Chat  10:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but my divinations skills is a bit low so I find it hard to tell if he will keep being notable of not. But considering the events it's likley the issue will consider to generate interest even in the future. The gas main is unlikley to do so. // Liftarn
Yep, I know but WP:CRYSTAL and per my above link. If the guy becomes notable at a later date the article can always be re-created. The point is that his notability at this time does not fit with the guidelines, IMHO. Pedro |  Chat  11:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He currently is notable (no dubt about that). Nobody knows if he will remain notable or not. So it boils down to if you are a deletionist or an inclusionist. Anyway, I moved the article over to Wikinews so it is available there. This Rodney King incident mey remain notable or not. // Liftarn
Good choice on the move to wikinews. Pedro |  Chat  12:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that on Wikinews it was deleted on sight. Sigh! // Liftarn
Duh! Category:Suicide bombing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... // Liftarn
Duh? Very WP:CIVIL. Anyway, what is your point? There are no victims of bombings in that category, just four suicide bombers. Number 57 08:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An entire category of events that aren't current news. // Liftarn 10:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And? I didn't say delete the article because it isn't current news. I said delete because not every victim of the conflict is notable. Number 57 11:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having a separate article about every detonated bomb seems to me like a bit of an overkill as well if we should use your logic. // Liftarn
There is a big difference between a suicide bombing or an IDF operation and a seemingly random knife attack. Number 57 11:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clubs and rifle butts, not knifes. Compare it with articles like Rodney King and Reginald Oliver Denny that also only became known for things done to them. And for that matter the entire category Category:Crime victims. The guidlines does not support deletion based on Humus sapiens' claims. // Liftarn
Perhaps if this guy's death had started something like the 1992 LA Riots (I'm not American, but I've heard of Rodney King) he might be notable, but obviously it hasn't. Number 57 12:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's just US centrism. OK, I've also heared about Rodney King, but what about Reginald Oliver Denny? How many have heared about Allen Benn or Helen Brach? // Liftarn
So nominate them for deletion too then. Benn in particular seems non-notable, though the Brach issue at least has some connection to a well-known company. Number 57 13:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have prodded Allen Benn if it makes you feel any better. Number 57 13:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carefull to avoid WP:POINT. // Liftarn
Just because somebody has been covered in the press does not automatically make them notable, Liftarn. If both the Daily News and the NYT lists the name of someone shot in the Bronx, they get their own article? The policies need to be applied WITH common sense; having an article for this person lacks common sense. -- Avi 13:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it of general interest? Then yes (but then I'm an inclusionist). However they are just local newspapers. Did the hypothetical shooting became international news? // Liftarn
But WP:NOT#NEWS DOES apply. What is this person notable for? Including the fact that he is dead? There are many, many dead pepple whose obituaries appear in multiple newspapers. Do we start adding each and every one? ABsurd, in my opinion. -- Avi 17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable for being beaten to death when he was handcuffed and on the ground. Obituaries may be used as a source (note that the article in question does not use a obituary as source, but newspaper articles) and death notices aren't usable since they are esenssialy advertisments. // Liftarn
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 one valid reason given for keeping. Neil  08:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vkontakte.ru[edit]

Vkontakte.ru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just another clone of Facebook, already mentioned in the main article. Violates WP:WEB. No reason to keep a separate article. Ash063 08:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of arguments is absolutely no good. There is a clear logical fallacy. Ru-wiki and En-wiki have different rules, but anyway existence or quality of interwiki isn't and never was an argument in discussion. Moreover, you said "ru-interwiki is nice" and it's nothing but your POV. "I like it" is an argument to avoid, see WP:AADD. Interwiki existence can't be a reason to overcome Wikipedia rules for sure. Once again, it seems not notable, it violates WP:WEB. There are many clones, they are already mentioned in the main article. Still, there is no reason to keep this article. — Ash063 19:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument seems a WP:JNN. - K.O.T. 20:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it seems so, I can be explain it in details. Look at WP:WEB criteria:
  • 1.The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • 2.The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
  • 3.The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators.
I haven't found anything about it so it seems that this site fails WP:WEB. — Ash063 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also as per WP:COI, it's just another self-promotion and promotion of author. There are no proofs of notability as required per WP:WEB. — Ash063 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think Vkontakte.ru article has been written by the website team? I've asked them, and they claim otherwise. They say that the appearance of a separate Vkontakte.ru article here is a surprise for them... K.O.T. 20:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It pleases to hear this. I hope that possible deletion of this separate article from English Wikipedia would not hurt these guys. — Ash063 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what about Google hits? Google hits count simply for vkontakte.ru is big, but all of them are in Russian language. Google hits count for vkontakte.ru only within English-speaking pages [53] is only 632 and still most of them are in Russian or simply from spamsites. This clearly shows that this site is notable only within Russian-speaking segment of internet and isn't notable within English-speaking segment of internet. Therefore there is absolutely no need of nothing but a mention in Facebook article. So that article should be deleted. — Ash063 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not satisfied with [54], you can find absolute numbers of unique visitors per day at [55]. Then the only remaining question is whether half a million visitors a day is significant or not. K.O.T. 20:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Visitors count has nothing to do with "reliable sources giving significant coverage" =). — Ash063 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being "4th biggest web site in Russia" is a good reason to have an article about vkontakte in Russian wiki, that's one of the reasons why Russian wiki exists. As well as being not notable for English-speaking world is a good reason to delete this article from English wiki. — Ash063 17:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please, your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Who said that "German clone is not claimed to violate any Wikipedia rules"? — Ash063 16:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, in any case your original claim "No reason to keep a separate article" is simply an unmotivated POV. As to violation of WP:WEB, this would be indeed a serious argument for deletion, provided you could elaborate your claim. Saying that something just violates WP:WEB isn't sufficient. K.O.T. 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unmotivated POV? I wonder why you think so. This site is a successful clone of facebook, facebook use some features that were introduced by vkontakte? Enough for having a mention in facebook article, but not enough for having a separate article because vkontakte fails WP:WEB criteria. — Ash063 22:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a POV. Vkontakte.ru has much more individual visitors and page views per day than Moikrug.ru. So it's not that clear which site merits an article more. That's not too relevant for this discussion anyway. 14:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K.O.T. (talkcontribs).
Moikrug is on market since 2005 and is very popular (Yandex acquiring endorses) and numerously mentioned by general press (see [56]) unlike Vkontakte started recently (and article about it seems therefore to be obvious PR, also large number of hits may be a result of a viral campaign). --ssr 19:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one project is two years old, the other is just one year old, but somewhat more successful: [57] Notice that Vkontakte has a large "hits per user" ratio, so all those visits cannot be casual. In any case, this is indeed WP:OTHERSTUFF - we don't discuss here whether Moikrug.ru merits an article or not. More importantly, popularity of vkontakte has been confirmed in Russian press several times, but I'm unable to point out any English-language publications for a very obvious reason. -- K.O.T. 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Malaysian name (assuming all keep arguments are cool with the article in either location. Stefan's seems to be - it cites articles linked to, and related to, Malaysian name). Non admin closure. Giggy Talk 07:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malay name[edit]

Malay name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is just a list, not suited with Wikipedia article's policy Zack2007 07:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 03:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singladies[edit]

Singladies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC, and a quick search turns up no independent coverage. fuzzy510 07:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.. (and rename) CitiCat 20:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STI Colleges[edit]

STI Colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references in the article; Google search provides very few returns, with no apparent significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Very little article content, what little was there originally was advertisement material lifted directly from the website of the article's subject. Dreadstar 06:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I guess..but what reliable sources back up that claim? That's the biggest problem, no sources besides the org's own site. They could say they have a billion locations and a thousand year-history..but what WP:V sources exist that back this up? ;) Dreadstar 23:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Singularity 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beekeeper Records[edit]

Beekeeper Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record label. All of ONE album has been released on the label, and there's pretty much no independent coverage. One of the co-founders is apparently a writer at Pitchfork Media, but I think we'd agree that it's not enough to justify notability. fuzzy510 06:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's Beauty And The Beast (St. Theresa C.S.S. Version)[edit]

Disney's Beauty And The Beast (St. Theresa C.S.S. Version) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

High school production of musical. Is it notable? (Disputed prod.) -- RHaworth 06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 02:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actors who have played God in films[edit]

Actors who have played God in films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previous prod; removed by administrator as not uncontroversial with rationale on talk page. As in the original prod reason and talk page follow-up, this article fails WP:NOT#INFO, since it meets a common definition of an indiscriminate list, failing the original talk page support by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also as noted, 'God' could legitimately mean Jesus, non-Christian deities, and other God-like supernatural entities, potentially running to thousands of entries. No apparent significance or notability in the article, nor is a rewrite or expansion likely to make the article significant or notable. Michael Devore 06:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raise interesting points. In response, I offer further insight into why, I think, the article is best deleted. It is manifestly true that God is notable and significant. Further, the portrayal of God in movies is clearly notable and significant, if for no other reason (and there are many) than because the role reflects on fundamental beliefs and behaviors in society. So, in that respect, you are absolutely correct that the movie role is neither random nor miscellaneous. An article listing movies where God was the subject or played a nontrivial supporting role could be more difficult to argue against. But in this article, we address merely the mechanics of the role, the person whose body just happens to fill out the robes for the screening duration (my apologies to actors here). Those mechanics are not intrinsically part of God's role, but rather a human animation of the movie script's subject noun of the day. The "God" slot in the article is just as easily replaced by any other noun. Actors who have played kings, beggars, cauliflower, mothers, fathers, tables, chairs, rocks, centaurs, warriors, feminists, and so on all have equal claim to a valid Wikipedia listing, because they also "correlate to our listings of actors, and roles they have played". I don't want to get too silly here, but it reminds me of another movie which frequently points out that when everyone is special, no one is. Opening the door to actors who have played 'X' where 'X' is any noun invites the worst kind of listcruft. Here I see no special reason to have an article about actors who have played God in films. Its extremely low threshold for existence denies either notability or significance of the topic. Michael Devore 08:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. While the article needs work, there are some sources, and the notability standard doesn't address virtual worlds like Second Life. Also, we could gain a lot of editors by attracting Second Life participants, so let's see where this goes. - KrakatoaKatie 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrage Wise[edit]

Arbitrage Wise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A "resident" of a virtual world who appears to have been noticed in the real world. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 06:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That article gives a one line mention of this subject, not qualifying as "significant coverage" Corpx 07:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are there, but I dont think the coverage in them would qualify as "significant" Corpx 07:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 06:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Elementary School (DeKalb County, Georgia)[edit]

Austin Elementary School (DeKalb County, Georgia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was introduced into the WP:PROD workstream despite having been considered at AFD previously. The reasoning for the most recent deletion nomination was "Notability & Relevance", which is essentially the same as the initial AFD nomination that ended in 'no consensus'. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator, no opinions to delete. Kevin 03:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mama Bhagne[edit]

Mama Bhagne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I cannot easily verify the subject's existence; I'm suspecting a hoax, but I'm not sure. --Spring Rubber 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a hoax, its very real, if this AfD notice was put by a bot then the bot algo should take care of the time lag between edits (especially when creating a new page ). Its really annoying to see the article you just created with so much of effort is put with an ugly tag. Jeroje 06:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)jeroje[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Cerebral Palsy Sports Association[edit]

Alberta Cerebral Palsy Sports Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn organization, no nontrivial coverage, no sources. The prod ran its course, and the reviewing admin declined to delete the article despite it being tagged as unsourced for over a year and tagged for non-notability for nine months. MSJapan 05:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wertstahl[edit]

Wertstahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. I checked but could not find sufficient sourcing. Crystallina 05:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.. CitiCat 14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feed Me Bubbe[edit]

Feed Me Bubbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted for failing WP:WEB. It is now relisted based on new evidence of notability presented at DRV. IronGargoyle 05:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Feed Me Bubbe is #6 on the WSJ link, not #5. Wl219 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In June 2007, "Feed Me Bubbe" was featured in an "Art of Living" segment on Retirement Living TV, a TV channel carried by Comcast and DirectTV.
"Feed Me Bubbe" was discussed in a June 5, 2007, article by Vikkie Ortiz in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It stated, "The videos, which offer 'Yiddish Words of the Day,' were mentioned on the NBC late-night TV show Last Call With Carson Daly and have inspired hundreds of e-mails daily." The Journal Sentinel article was picked by (at least) the Miami Herald and published on page E4 of its June 9, 2007, issue.
Here is the link to Carson Daly, saying about Avrom, "That guy's awesome, actually. He's becoming a famous IYS'er."
Another print mention of the show appeared in the Canadian Jewish News, v. 37, issue 4 ("Kugel - tradition, recipes and lore," Jan. 18, 2007). The (KRT) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ("YouTube nation: Relating experiences," May 5, 2007); and the Spokane Spokesman Review, page 11A ("Video Bloggers Serve Offbeat Food TV," May 7, 2007) also published articles.
The Wall Street Journal's Jessica E. Vascellaro wrote an article, discussing "Feed Me Bubbe" that was distributed by The AP Datastream ("Using Youtube for posterity," May 10, 2007). Vascellaro's article was published in the Toronto Globe and Mail, page L7 ("Seniors leave their legacy - on YouTube," May 11, 2007); in the Charleston (WV) Sunday Gazette Mail ("Grandparents give YouTube a try," May 13, 2007); in The Cincinnati Post, page B3 ("Latest Stars of Youtube Belong to Elder Generation," May 17, 2007); and on page 1 of Business section in the Virginian-Pilot & Ledger Star (Norfolk) ("Hey! grandma has a story tell on youtube," May 21, 2007).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Laesch[edit]

John Laesch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Running for Congress does not automatically denote notability. Mikemill 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I missed that part, but he went up against a 10 term incumbent, and the speaker of the house. I dont think the Dems had much of a chance Corpx 05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP (merge suggested) - in the mean time all were merged into Hos-Hostigos, except for Zarthani - Nabla 19:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great King Kaiphranos[edit]

Great King Kaiphranos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor character in a science fiction series. Clarityfiend 05:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are non-notable fictional realms and peoples in the series:

Princedom of Hostigos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Princedom of Nostor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Princedom of Sask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hos-Hostigos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Urgothi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zarthani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At the least, it appears reasonable to argue that the game is notable within the context of a particular regional culture. Xoloz 15:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fighter Online[edit]

Little Fighter Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article has been around for over two years, but still has no apparent notability, and does not cite a single independent source. I would have tried an A7 on it, but as it's been around for so long this seems more appropriate. Miremare 22:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 04:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainers related to academics[edit]

List of entertainers related to academics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Related to academics" is a vague phrase. Also, the criteria for inclusion seems to be completely random. Some entertainers are included because they have relatives who are somehow related to "academics" ("Angelina Jolie, actress, is the niece of renowned volcanologist Barry Voight"). Others are included because they were in an academic field prior to or following their entertainment careers. musicpvm 04:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus.. CitiCat 19:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of a subsequent AfD was delete (see discussion). Rsduhamel (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Airways flight 358[edit]

Thai Airways flight 358 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I would think that ground incursions between two large commercial jetliners are quite rare and certainly not daily. --Oakshade 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several hundred a year, says the NTSB, although the vast majority of these do not result in collisions or serious mishaps. Sacxpert 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking all general aviation (Cessnas and whatnot) or commercial jetliners? --Oakshade 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just relized the term "incursion" refers to when aircraft come within too close of one another while a "collision" is when aircrafts actually collide. There are not several hundred collisions a year according to the NTSB. --Oakshade 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I said. And, yes, I would tend to assume that several hundred annual ground incursions includes non-commercial aircraft, although I'm not sure. Sacxpert 09:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This commercial jetliner flight was involved in a collision which makes it notable, not a one of hundreds-per-year incursion. --Oakshade 16:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amended keep comment: after review of the one source, the article does meet the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force notability guidelines, in that it has contributed to a change in regulations. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's one more point of the story that seems unclear. Was it noticed at the time; if not, how soon after? Did the planes explode before or after someone noticed. It's so bloody contradictory. Sacxpert 16:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed...but that calls for a cleanup tag, not for deletion. This is one reason we have a task force...so that such articles can be brought to our attention and addressed. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as notability was not asserted.  But|seriously|folks  06:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Horse[edit]

Black Horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete are all beers notable? I think not and this unsourced article is about a nn beer. In another form and under another title it was speedied as nn firm, but keeps coming back so let's figure it out here. Carlossuarez46 04:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, agreed 'speedy' was probably excessive in the context of a second nom Dick G 05:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.. CitiCat 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fazed[edit]

Fazed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy (never mind that articles about the band have been speedy-deleted more times than I can count). Band clearly fails WP:MUSIC with no label, no songs/albums released, or apparently even recorded. They may be notable someday, even someday soon, but for now they're not.

Addendum: Despite the box to the right, this is apparently the only AfD that is relevant to this band, despite numerous speedies. There's apparently a web site, which has nothing to do with the band, that was also speedied many times and then deleted via AfD. Realkyhick 03:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the notability guidelines require two albums in the past rather than half an album in the future, they're still short at least one-and-a-half albums. Also, while the world isn't entirely convinced that The Guardian or the Times of London has the authority of myspace, can we wait for a print source on this one? Qworty 11:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's on the bands own myspace page so I think its reliable enough. Also, the guidelines state "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets ANY ONE of the following criteria:" - it does not state that it has to meet all of the criteria. The band meets a few so there is no reason why the article should be deleted.Findlaybrown 18:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A friend of mine, User:Helmsb, came up with a great shortcut: WP:YMINAR. I think it applies here. Realkyhick 16:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That doesn't apply here, the Fazed article hasn't got myspace as its ONLY reference, it also has the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation).Findlaybrown 18:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BAND says they are notable if they meet any one of the following, they don't have to meet all the criteria.

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

The result was unanimous snowballed delete. Acalamari 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War against Iran[edit]

War against Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Gaze into the crystal ball... This is a one sentence article that just serves to link to Opposition to war against Iran and Support for war against Iran. There is no reason to have this page. GhostPirate 03:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Singularity 01:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCC College of Technology[edit]

RCC College of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominated for speedy deletion under G11, blatant advertising. I speedied it, but then had second thoughts and restored it. Nominated for prod (reason given was "Spam & Non-notable"), and I contested it for the same reason I wouldn't speedy it. I feel that as this is an educational institution, it needs some discussion to establish a consensus one way or the other about the keep-ness or delete-ness of the content. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - OK, I have been through the article and removed the hype. It still needs sourcing but it is much better. TerriersFan 16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, with hopes that the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry can come up with a better name & more concrete criteria. — Caknuck 20:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names[edit]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Extreme case of Original Research with entirely subjective inclusion criterion. Deciding which names are "unusual" enough to be added to the list violates WP:NOR. Of course, this isn't a list of chemical compounds with unusual names, since most chemical compounds have unusual names; it's a List of chemical compounds with names that some people may find amusing, and as such it has no place on Wikipedia. This survived an AFD last year, but standards were lower then, and most of the "keeps" appeared to be based on WP:INTERESTING. Masaruemoto 03:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul May's web site is considered by very many chemists to be a very valuable chemical education site. Yes, it does aim to get students interest by amusing them as well as teaching them. His "molecule of the month" competition is linked from hundreds of sites, to the extent that Paul May's web site is notable or close to being notable in its own right. I'm quite sure the Bristol Chemistry department is delighted that he spends time maintaining this site. He has written material from the site in journals such as "Education in Chemistry". "Just hosted ... by a professor" does not get close to describing the importance of this web site. --Bduke 04:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great and all, but explaining why Paul May is notable doesn't actually have anything to do with whether or not this article is encyclopedic. Guy can write all the yay-chemistry bromides he wants on his site. In that context, yeah, this article is totally cool. However, we are talking about what belongs on Wikipedia. Ford MF 05:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely correcting what seems a glib dismissal of Peter May's site as a source. My opinion on this debate was given earlier and is below. --Bduke 05:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed to me you were implying that the notability of May in some way supports the persistence of this material on Wikipedia, and was an extension of your 'keep' vote. Ford MF 05:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we were to rename it to make it more specific we'd have to change it to something along the lines of List of chemical compounds whose names resemble something else, which to me seems overly pedantic. I think the title is good enough, as the names are unusual. If you want to get more specific, the article smply needs to explain why the names are unusual at the top of the page in addition to after each individual name. Which is a change I may make right now. Calgary 04:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, it's already there, just in prose rather than "this is a list of...". Calgary 04:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have revisited the article as this AfD seems to have taken hold. It would appear that most of the compounds have their own articles (I won't comment on their individual notability) and it might make more sense to put any reference to the unusual evolution of the compound's name into its own article. Lists such as this do tend to antagonise editors and are in the grey area of various WP guidelines. I still feel some of the content is worthwhile and interesting - not to mention externally referenced - but it could find better homes.Dick G 06:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbromage [Talk] 06:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Apparently it sounds dirty to scientists as well. Who knew? Calgary 06:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. "Unusual" seems to be a specific issue relating chemical nomenclature, e.g. W. V. Metanomski, "Unusual Names Assigned to chemical substances", Chem. Int., 1987, 9, 211-215. Wikibooks also notes that there are "unusual names" in Organic Chemistry Nomenclature. Dbromage [Talk] 07:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add that somebody has decided the article was worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia:Unusual articles which "are valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but are somewhat odd, whimsical, or something you wouldn't expect to find in Encyclopdia Britannica". I agree this is not original research. JustAnotherChemist 08:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have changed my opinion after I read what Ford MF said about actually looking up the references (that the sources he could find only say that the chemical exist not that it is unusually named). 11:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. the second nomination is a violation of the deletion policy which states that time should pass for a second nomination if the first nomination fails. See [73]. The closing admin for that nomination was very weak in that he was unable to offer any guidelines with respect to the future of the page. The result was simply: keep. therefore a new nomination is uncalled for.
  2. the article is three years old with countless editors contributing in good faith to the article including at least 20 people with a degree in chemistry even at PhD level.
  3. the article plays an important role in the area of chemical nomenclature. This is a junior level topic in chemistry and also a very difficult topic to master. See IUPAC nomenclature. While systematic naming of molecules is important and concise, it will come as a relief to readers of wikipedia that chemists have an alternative way of naming chemicals for everyday use. The list also gives an impression what chemists inspire in the naming game: if the molecule looks like a window call it fenestrane or like a barrel call it barrelene. This is not obvious to a lay person. In astronomy stars are given boring numbers and in biology species get somebodies latinized name. It is instructive to read that in chemistry the alternative rules are very lacks and often based on visual clues. In summary: the list is indispensable when it comes to explaining chemical nomenclature.
  4. The Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines are very important in this discussion. The chemists frequenting the chemistry pages have a special duty trying to explain aspects of chemistry to the laymen. They are permitted to do so without the usual rigorous citation policies because in many cases concepts obvious to the initiated but not to the uninitiated are not easily sourced in the literature. Instead emphasis is put on controversiality: if something is considered controversial then additional citations are in order. In summary: WP:NOR does not apply
  5. I see from the discussion above there are several additional citations that back up this article.Including them in the article will only strengthen it.
  6. Regarding User:Masaruemoto who initiated the deletion proces. His claim that deletion standards were lower when the article was first nominated is unsubstantiated. While endorsing deletion of this list I see from his edit history that he actively contributes to such lists as list of cheerleaders and List of films about computers. Are these lists more important? (they are currently not nominated for deletion). personally I feel these lists are worthless but I feel no urge to nominate them simply because I do not want spoil other people's fun. More importantly I think I would not stand a chance having these lists deleted because whereas only students of chemistry care about chemistry pages like the one we are discussing most men would be interested in cheerleaders. And that is an issue not addressed in the current deletion policies: when it comes to specialised pages the voting power of a few specialists should outweigh the voting power a nominal majority
  7. Warning: I used to take the quality of admin for granted but given the recent upheaval around List_of_people_known_as_father_or_mother_of_something See [74] I am no longer sure. The attention tag on top of this page possibly means that admins decide something irrespective of the prior discussion and then start arguing with other admins. Who is supervising admins these days? V8rik 17:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) That's not a policy. I'm not even sure it's a guideline. At any rate, it doesn't really matter, since subsequent AfD's give other editors who're not watching the AfDs ALL THE TIME, like me, to weigh in.
2) The variety of editors and length of existence are not really good indicators of an article's suitability for inclusion. The force and variety of debate on this page is proof of that.
3) While I don't doubt what you're saying is true, this article isn't that. Since, as several editors have pointed out, quite a few of the compounds listed DO adhere to convention. So it's not really "about" naming alternatives. And even if it was, it should be called that.
4 & 5) Again, citations are used to assert the truth of something. You cannot assert the truth of an opinion. Therefore, the citations here are meaningless.
6) If the article is indeed 3 years old, then yeah, deletion standards have changed since then. Also, frivolous as you think it might be, list of cheerleaders has a fairly unambiguous criterion for inclusion. Something that absolutely cannot be said for this list. This list's "importance" is not at issue here. Its subjectivity, and therefore unencyclopedic nature, are.
7) What, if anything, does this have to do with the argument at hand? Ford MF 04:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; That's got to be the funniest (unintentionlly), and most off-topic rant I've read on AFD in a while. Admin-conspiracies, and I'm only nominating articles to "spoil other people's fun"? Bizarre. We need more characters like you around here, if only for the amusement of the AFD regulars...
STOP THIS AFD! It's true, I added a category to List of cheerleaders. Oh, the foolishness of my actions, all my future AFD nominations should be held in contempt for such wrongdoing. Every time people see my name in an AFD, they will shout "That's the editor who added a category to List of cheerleaders, what a fool!", and "How dare Masaruemoto edit a people-related list and then AFD a science-related list in the same day! Let's !vote keep." What an arsole. Masaruemoto 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't consider "Einsteinium" unusual, then why should we consider "Dickite", named after Dr. W. Thomas Dick, unusual? This article is not about naming conventions; it is about "whimsy", irony, and penis jokes. It even explicitly states that these names are legitimate: "Some compounds whose names derive legitimately from their chemical makeup or from the geographic region where they may be found include:..." (emphasis mine). Quoting from WP:LISTS: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might 'seem obvious' what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit" (emphasis in original). Are "peculiar", "startling", and "whimsical" explicit criteria? No. Nor has "unusual" been defined - with some degree of specificity in this context or a similar one - by a reputable source.
I'm surprised that no one has brought up notability yet. Seeing as this article is not about naming conventions, as argued above, an article about "whimsical" chemical names is not a notable topic. Nor would it be notable if it were explicitly about certain chemists' senses of humor. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 20:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the references? Ah, okay, not to get totally tedious with this, but:
References 1-5 are not things I can look up from here. 6, for Arsole is an abstract that does not mention anything about the name, unusual or no. The joke here seems to be that "arsoles" are debateably "aromatic". 7 more stuff I can't check from here. 8 costs money to look at. 9, 10, More citations you can't check outside a university library. 11, for Cinnamaldehyde, which is the first complete, easily accessible reference, doesn't actually mention anything about the compound's name being unusual. It mentions that "Cinnamaldehyde" isn't the IUPAC name, which the article also lists. But that's about it.
12-15, more unreachable references. 16, for "Fartox" or "Earthcide" lists approximately fifty other apparently non-IUPAC names for the compound, some of which seem equally unusual (e.g. Fungiclor, Turfcide) but are not included in our article. Yet no unusualness of any of the names is remarked upon. 17, 18, 19, more inaccessible stuff. 20, shows a bunch of Hirsutane molecules, which I guess look like goats when they're upside down? It doesn't actually say that anywhere, but thanks. 21 appears to be the same reference as 20, but it's a broken link so it doesn't matter anyway. 22 only asserts that the Hantzsch-Widman nomenclature for a monocyclic, heterocyclic compound with three ring atoms is, in fact, "Irene". 23, 24, inaccessible. 25 is a textless About.com article that proves only that such a thing as Penguinone exists. There's a picture, and maybe it looks like a penguin, but who knows? The reference certainly doesn't say anything about it one way or the other.
26, inaccessible. 27 is an abstract and says nothing about "Rudolphomycin" being named for La Boheme (I am, of course, in all these cases, not disputing that this may be true, just asserting that these are shitty references). And finally we have two more references, 28 and 29 I'd have to take a day off work to go to the library to check out.
I am not arguing with the hypothetical idea that a good, encyclopedic article could be written on the subject of non-IUPAC chem names maybe. But this article ain't it. If an article doesn't clearly state what it is, or a list what exactly should be on it, then it is a bad article. And these references seem to assert only that these compounds exist (which no one is arguing about), nothing more. Ford MF 09:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that why WikiProject Chemistry exists, so people who do have access to these references can verify the information? Why not let some actual chemists peer review the article? That's how science in general works, too. Thin Arthur 10:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree there. 90% of the references presented in Wiki chemistry are not open access. I for one hope that more scientific literature will become freely accessible but this is not the case at present V8rik 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's not Wikipedia's problem or the problem of an individual reader who doesn't have access to those references. If a reference is inaccessible to you does that make it a bad reference? Of course not. You can rely on somebody who does have that reference and/or is an expert in the field. It's no different to a reference being in a language you don't speak. You can rely on somebody who does speak that language to confirm the reference backs up the claim.
Going by either vote count (even though this isn't a vote) and the strength of the arguments on both sides, I cannot see any clear consensus and I doubt there will be any. A lot of the concerns seem to be edtorial rather than policy. I'd be happy with a finding of no concensus and then let WikiProject Chemistry peer review the article.Thin Arthur 07:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is not a list of funny names: it is a list of unusual names by association outside systematic naming. V8rik 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except this is not a List of unsystemically named compounds. If someone wants to make that article, sure, go ahead. It'll be a million miles long and unmaintainable, incidentally, but at least it will have clear criterion for inclusion. Ford MF 20:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment: How are "Diabolic acid", "Fluoboric Acid" or "Unununium" outside systematic naming conventions? "Cummingtonite", "Dickite" and "Thebacon" also follow standard naming conventions. Cummingtonite is named for the location if its discovery. Dickite is named for its discoverer. And, Thebacon is named for the compound it is derived from. The only reason they are on the list is because, as I said, they sound funny. DCEdwards1966 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wouldn't be opposed to a List of chemical compounds that do not follow IUPAC naming conventions as proposed above. --mordicai. 19:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True metal[edit]

True metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article, which used to cover an entirely different topic altogether, is rife with original research and unverified/unsourced claims. It seems to act as nothing more than a chance for various editors to list bands or subgenres that are "true metal" or not. The term itself, as the article states, is a subjective one coined by the metal band Manowar. So are we to consult Manowar to see what genres or bands should be listed here? And if not, then whose opinion carries enough weight to merit inclusion in this article? What's then to stop the creation of articles like True jazz or True rap? As I see it there are a few viable options here: delete altogether, redirect to Manowar, or simply restore the article to the state it was in circa August 17, 2005 and watchlist it. cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a1 empty, a7 nonexistent, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Same user just got finished repeatedly reposting the similar Rush Hour 4. NawlinWiki 03:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Grudge: Undone[edit]

The Grudge: Undone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL - Unconfirmed sequal. Plus creator seems upset by the removal of Rush Hour 4 and this seems to be a page created out of protest. Eggy49er 03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Best[edit]

John Best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. He's a racehorse trainer, that's all. No assertion of notability, nor evidence of it. Only source is his own website. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deletion request by author. PeaceNT 15:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I eat pandas[edit]

I eat pandas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musical improv group. Only one third-party reference. Google returns only blogs, links back to their website or MySpace (remember, WP:YMINAR) . Realkyhick 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunjammer[edit]

Sunjammer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously discussed at AFD in Jan 2006 and improperly tagged for WP:PROD deletion Aug 2007; bringing here for proper treatment. Current concern is that the article fails to meet WP:MUSIC, while the first AFD was predicated on the article being a vanity page; satisfaction of notability was the basis for the 'keep' decision in Jan 2006. The article has not substantially expanded since the last AFD discussion User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The issue boils down to whether we can write a verifiable, neutral-point-of-view article on WetLeather. Both of these core content policies depend on the presence of reliable third-party sources, and, although a guideline, notability is meant to be a strong indicator of whether our core policies can be adhered to for a particular subject. The links provided generally fail at least one criterion for counting toward notability: they are either from unreliable sources (personal websites, blogs, or Usenet); or contain only a trivial, one- or two-sentence reference to WetLeather. Given this, I think that it hasn't been demonstrated that an article about WetLeather can conform to Wikipedia's core policies at this time. — TKD::Talk 07:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WetLeather[edit]

WetLeather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable web/internet content. No secondary reliable sources cited or found in my search. Chunky Rice 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few references: http://www.motogrrl.com/WetLeather.html http://www.boincstats.com/stats/team_graph.php?pr=sah&id=30447 http://www.wildriders.org/photos/euro2.html http://www.harley.com/yp/categories/motorcycles/index.html http://www.motorcycle.com/events/beth-dixon-3904.html http://www.fos.ut.ac.ir/links/Wwwyp/trans.htm http://teamoregon.orst.edu/TO_Web/groupsandorgs.html http://www.soundrider.com/archive/tips/motorcycle_camping.htm

Cpaukstis 18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the updated article, which includes those links (all of which mention the name) and several more, including coverage in the book "Idiot's Guide to Motorcycles". Compare and contrast criteria used for inclusion of this small selection of articles from "motorcyclist organizations" category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Street_Motard_Riders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet_Law_Defense_League http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59_Club Cpaukstis 05:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, pointing out that other stuff exists is not considered to be a very strong argument. Each case should be considered against the criteria on its own. Though, if you're asking my opinion, those three articles should also be deleted. -Chunky Rice 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments and guidance. I don't propose to argue further about "notability". Others may comment and make a judgment of that issue. However, I must address the remark about "serious copyright violation". This cannot be the case, since I am the author of the text in question, on both WetLeather's website and the Wikipedia article I wrote. While that may call into question the objectivity of the article, it completely settles the question of copyright violation. There is no conflict. Cpaukstis 17:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to sound strange, but even though you are the author of the website, that does not give Wikipedia the right to use your material... despite it being you who added it. By submitting that material to Wikipedia you are agreeing to release it under the GFDL, which WP cannot do when the material is reproduced from another source that is not under a similar 'free' license (I hope I have explained that properly!). If you wish to allow your work to be reused on Wikipedia, you must release it under the GFDL (or into the Public Domain or something similar). Take a look at the Donating copyrighted materials page for a more in-depth explanation. However, this would perhaps be best solved with a thorough rewrite (you must admit the article tone is not particularly encyclopedic...). You are also correct that there is a conflict of interest issue with you creating the article, but again this is a behavioural guideline, not a deletion issue. EyeSereneTALK 18:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I think you're missing the point. WetLeather is not notable for the web site, thought it is one of the more comprehensive motorcycling sites available, nor even for the mailing list. WetLeather is notable for being a unique virtual community. I have participated in many, but never one like this. Were I back in grad school, I would study why *this* community gells where few others do for any duration. To the casual observer, WetLeather looks like merely another online community, but somehow, perhaps due to the multiple annual events where we all gather together, it has become much more. For example, in my own life, the community of people I have gotten to know through WetLeather is responsible for my job, two of my motorcycles, my last and now my current boyfriend, and more than 90% of my friendships. Your immediate thought may be that this reflects on *me* more than on WetLeather, but I can think of many dozens of people in the community who would make a similar statement. When a member is injured or dies, the rest of us come together to help them, raise funds, and lend moral support. It is, in that manner, much more akin to a church group than a traditional online community.

WetLeather changes lives, whether it is in offering strategic support to a first time Iron-Butt rider on an old Silverwing, coming together to build a first bike --for free-- for a new member, or in the membership reaching out tendrils across the country to help a stranded rider get a broken bike home.

That said, I have mixed feeling about a Wikipedia entry. WetLeather does not appear more widely in part because there is a sense of privacy about the list. A concern that if too many join too quickly, the normal process of socialization that happens will get overwhelmed. For this reason, mentions of WetLeather have been carefully culled from many member's public records. For example, Jack Lewis (www.jaxworx.com) removed explicit mentions of WetLeather from two articles submitted and accepted by Motorcyclist magazine.

Codeamazon 17:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I can't remember how I discovered WetLeather. I don't care.

WetLeather is only peripherally an internet phenomenon. We are a tight-knit group of commonality, with many spectacularly generous and thoughtful members. We *use* the internet for communication and coordination, toward our purpose of people getting together for fun, food and frivolity.

"Notable" has too mild a definition for how WetLeather affects people: it has changed my life.

Alxndr13 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC) --[reply]

I did read the guidelines and saw this: "Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." It is my opinion that the group that calls itself Wetleather has had a significant impact on the larger motorcycling community, those who are not part of the group itself, as well as on it's many participants. Many many riders (of all ages) have been offered lodging, meals, mechanical support, along with route suggestions, riding tips for new experiences, and so on. These aren't the people who would go out and shout "Let me sing the praises of wetleather!", these are people who are riding cross country for the first time, riding for the first time, moving somewhere new (all across the country, not just the Pacific Northwest), traveling to other countries whether it involves a motorcycle or not. These are the people who go back home and tell their parents, children, coworkers about how they knew someone who knew someone who somehow knew someone clear across their route and gave them all the support they needed while still understanding how to let them have their ride or adventure. Many times I'm not sure that these people ever realize that all of these people that supported them were part of the same group, wetleather. For the group participants, which include an age range from 20's to 70's, there is a much more obvious effect. The wetleather culture takes care of those who need help. There is the passing of the hat when needed for members/past members affected by large scale incidents such as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods and so on. There is a fund that can be donated to at any time, that is used for many many other needs, both small and large. There are specific funds that are created for specific events, such as scholarship funds for the children of members that have died, regardless of how they died. There are training classes, free and greatly reduced cost riding gear for those that need it, coaching for those that wish it, and more.

Many many many people across America have benefited by the actions of this one group with regard to education, society, and culture; perhaps only this small motorcycling community is aware of it so far.


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 01:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


--Kegill 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments Against Deletion

The entry has been significantly re-written since the comments above were made on 15 August.


From WP:NOT#IINFO:

Wikipedia articles should ... describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance...

Although the Wetleather website itself is not the organziation, it is a visual representation of the community.

Historical signifiance: this is one of the first e-mail mediated motorcycle communities on the Internet, circa 1992. Fifteen years later, the community still exists. This is an extremely RARE occurrance online. Moreover, this is a unique online community because it exists in both virtual and analog spaces. Combined, these two factors describe an organization with historical import in online culture.

There has not been a lot of research on specific online comunities, but Pew (2001] has this to say about them in general, reinforcing the fact that online communities are an important part of culture:

In some ways, online communities have become virtual third places for people because they are different places from home and work.

And a gentle reminder from WP:NOTE (emphasis added)
Notability guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception (with the later meaning throw out the rules).

From Guidelines Specific To Organizations

The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered.

WetLeather is not large in numbers, but as I have argued above, it is notable because both of its longetivity and its unique status as stradling the digital and "real" world. It is also not "local" -- it is international in membership.

The description of secondary works described here is biased towards print sources -- in fact, there is no mention in this section of online references. I think this is an oversight that is larger than this discussion and one that works against the inclusion of a virtual community. It also works against an organization that doesn't toot its own horn.

I understand that y'all don't think pointing out other Wikipedia entries is a valid argument for inclusion -- but I'm going to point to a few and tell you why I've included them, in the spirt of "common sense" and "exception" outlined in the notability guideline:

It seems like a mention in a popular book on motorycling should be equivalent to a local TV show talking about a motorcycle club that has 80-some-odd dogs as members.

This is a historic club because it's been around for more than a century, pretty much since motorcycles were on the road.
WetLeather is a historic organization because it's been around for 15 years, pretty much since the birth of the WWW.
However, the SF Club scope is MUCH smaller than WetLeather, which is international and has more members. Moreover, the SF Club has only one external reference. This suggests the reason for inclusion is stictly historical significance. Why isn't this argument sufficient for WetLeather?

Organization is two years old; material on the page - which is almost a year old - is copied & pasted from organization website. The only external references are local member clubs -- how do they argue that the umbrella organization exists any better than the external links for WetLeather? There is no indepednent "press." (WetLeather has the Idiots Guide to Motorcycling.) Why is this page OK but WetLeather's page is not?


--Kegill 22:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more argument against deletion

This WetLeather external source is from the State of Oregon's Motorcycle Safety Training website. This is a government website. How much more legitimate can you get? Note: the "edu" domain is for the training program; the training program is sanctioned by Oregon's DOT.

Unfortunately, Washington doesn't have a similar list, or WetLeather would be on it.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1, no verifiable content beyond one joke that the director made, rest is just "this movie might be made." NawlinWiki 02:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Hour 4[edit]

Rush Hour 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Proper third party references are required about upcoming releases. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I had PRODded the article, but a reply on the discussion page makes it obvious that the deletion is not uncontested, so I initiated this AfD. Moonriddengirl 01:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: •Malinaccier• is, as I am, referring to the section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not called Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is official Wikipedia policy that upcoming releases must be verified with reputable third party sources and certain to take place to merit articles in the encyclopedia. --Moonriddengirl 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE DO NOT DELETE DO NOT DELETE Wikipedia has too many rules, what's the point? We're not talking about an article for WMD's, we're talking about RUSH HOUR 4 people. Take off your nerdy-outer coatings, and get real!! You all obviously have too much time on your hand to nit-pick articles like you do. Only reason I'm fighting for it, is because I, as many others, love RUSH HOUR. deal with it. this discussion is over If you're gonna' keep it, keep it, if you're gonna' delete it because of your up-tight rules, DO IT already. nobody's stopping you.

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

The result was delete both. Singularity 01:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balcony band[edit]

Balcony band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Balcony the band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This band isn't signed, isn't notable and the article was written by the band themselves. It looks like a poorly written ad for them. Eggy49er 01:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 00:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Tebb[edit]

William Tebb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable medical fringe theorist, top hits are this article (poor sign for notability) and a crank website. His views may be notable; however, he isn't Bigdaddy1981 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment they appears to be pamphlets he wrote in the 1890s. Bigdaddy1981 03:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One is a large book actually, the Leprosy book, that exposes the way smallpox vax spread leprosy around the world. john
Comment anti-vaccination is a fringe medical theory; that's a statement of fact. The website is a site that has been blacklisted by wikipedia you may judge for yourself if it is crank or not. You will note that I do not seek a deletion based on the accuracy of this man's views; merely his notability. Bigdaddy1981 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: "Fringe medical theorist" is not fact, it's a POV statement. One person's superseded theory or minority view is another's "fringe crank", but in any case the anti-vaccination campaigners were not solely concerned with promoting a medical theory: they were also reacting to some of the casualties of the mass-vaccination programme. These folks were essentially political campaigners, who did eventually succeed in their political objective of securing a conscientious objection to compulsory vaccination ... and victories like that don't come without political notability. Even if people agree with your stance on vaccination, assessing these campaigners solely within a medical model is missing their political significance. (A bit like assessing Ronald Reagan: lousy actor, brilliantly successful politician).
You're right that the www.vaccination.org.uk site has been blacklisted because links to it have been spammed on wikipedia, but the misconduct of some link-spamming editors is not a comment on the value of a website. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mispoke I think. I meant fringe as marginal, not fringe as (necessarily) wrong. I think its safe to say that anti-vaccination is a marginal view on the matter. The website I meant (which was I believe second or third in the searches was something called "whale dot to" which is also blacklisted. Bigdaddy1981 16:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote, it will help others to know your rationale. Bigdaddy1981 19:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in the interest of transparancy, I note that "John" User:Whaleto, is a major contributor to this article. Its usually good form to reveal things like that. Bigdaddy1981 20:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"John" User:Whaleto is also, as you might guess, the webmaster of the banned whale dot to website. Bigdaddy1981 20:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought it was polite to inform the page creator to deletion attempts. Of course, this isn't the first time [76] Also Tebb was one of the main opponents to the compulsory vaccine law, as you can glean from the fact he was the editor of the journal of the National Anti-Vaccination League called the The Vaccination Inquirer, and if smallpox vax was so wonderful, how come they repealed the law? john
If you can add references to the effect that Tebb was a notable opponent of compulsory vaccination, I will withdraw my deletion. At the moment, there is little substance to the article. Bigdaddy1981 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How more notable can you be than to be the editor of the only anti-vaccine periodical? john


I agree - the vaccine stuff is marginal as far as he is concerned - he's clearly notable per the good work of Gordonofcartoon Bigdaddy1981 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Like many reformers of that era, he seems to have been into every social cause in the book. I hope the rewrite and expansion puts the anti-vaccination into wider context; the old version gave it undue weight in presenting it as his only interest or activity of significance. Gordonofcartoon 22:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott A. Jones[edit]

Scott A. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally considered at AFD in Dec 2006. The outcome was merge→ChaCha (search engine); however, only a couple of weeks thereafter and the immediately next edit after redirection, the action was reversed with the edit summary "It is nonsensical for a biographical page to redirect to a specific item or product." The article has been expanded since then, but complaints on Talk:Scott A. Jones led to marking the article for deletion via WP:PROD and tagging with Template:Bio-notability. The discussion on talk and actions thereafter are a de facto re-nomination for deletion, which should take place here. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate waiting ;-) I just edited it. Now how's it look? jddphd (talk · contribs) 03:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and Comment useful copy edit and changes to tone but it's crying out for references/citations. As it stands - even with the neutralisation, it still reads like original research.Dick G 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


How about now?

I have added a few links. The IEEE article in particular basically grounds all the biographical material. Don't know how to escape the circularity problem that he was the source of the details in the article, but between that and Forbes it feels like there might be some weight to it now. jddphd (talk · contribs) 04:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Nicholas Windsor[edit]

Lady Nicholas Windsor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. No accomplishments. Mostly a rather subjective description of lineage. What little is of value can be added to her husband Lord Nicholas Windsor's article. Today's 24 hours 01:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: no need to redirect. Any info. of value already manually transferred to husband's article. Check it out and update as needed. Thanks. Today's 24 hours 15:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete since no district was provided. Wizardman 03:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freetown-Lakeville Middle School[edit]

Freetown-Lakeville Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school. Article has no information that cannot be covered on the School District page Raime 01:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George R. Austin Intermediate School[edit]

George R. Austin Intermediate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable Intermediate School. Article contains no information that could not be covered in the School District article Raime 01:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, article is well written. If author could get a record or something, would be worth keeping — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinaccier (talkcontribs)

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Branch: The Real C.C[edit]

West Branch: The Real C.C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future NN student produced television show, fails WP:RS Rackabello 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE due to author blanking.  But|seriously|folks  01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Branch: The Real C.C.[edit]

West Branch: The Real C.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future NN student produced television show, fails WP:RS Rackabello 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, tagged with ((db-afd)), non admin closure. Giggy Talk 07:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farmboy Fine Arts[edit]

Article about a Canadian art and design company. No assertion of meeting WP:CORP. Only about 100 UNIGUE google hits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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