< August 3	August 5 >

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

The result was Merged into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Screaming Mechanical Brain while I was working on adding article albums into the main AfD. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun with Poop[edit]

Album by non-notable band Screaming Monkey Boner. No external sources, no verifiability, album has no independent notability. I only wanted to AfD this before the band article to ensure the first AfD of the day was named "Fun with Poop". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:14, 5 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. Daniel →♦ 10:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus Thorne[edit]

Non-notable biography. While lengthy and interesting, the story of the author's ancestor makes no assertion of notability. I've decided to AfD instead of CSD in case someone knows something I don't. A Google test yields 70 results. The Thorne in this article doesn't appear to be the Broadway star or film actor that the Google results reflect. Consequentially 23:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well-researched family piece, but belongs on genealogy sites, not on Wikipedia. WWGB 03:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost stood for Parliament once. Was an overseas merchant. That's about it as far as claims to historical notability. Doesn't seem like a WikiBooks candidate (as it's tagged) but I don't know their criteria. Wikipedia is not a directory or repositor of genealogical data. --Dhartung | Talk 12:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not encyclopedic. --Moonriddengirl 12:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of the above. Also, it is original research. 24.97.138.90 18:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that was me. I got knocked off the network. Bearian 18:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to unsatisfied concerns about verifiability and reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 03:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New Tragic[edit]

No independent sources, no verifiability. No notability, except the band had some former members of other bands. According to article, band demoed three songs and then broke up. Even that would probably fail WP:BAND. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criterion 6 of WP:MUSIC: "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." This group contains several members of notable bands, so I say keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, but this band demoed three songs and then broke up. Don't you agree there has to be some line drawn in the sand? Otherwise, if some former drummer of one band and a harmonica player who once jammed with another band get together one day to busk at a subway stop in Chicago, we'll need to accept an article on that. There are rules, and then there's knowing when the rules are starting to break down. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Five-minute bands are not notable. "I came, I sang, I quit". Tragic indeed! WWGB 03:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer. I agree with you, AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (great name :)) that there does need to be a line, but I believe this one should survive because it has more than one member associated with a prominent band. If it were only one, I'd proposing merging into his article and redirecting. --Moonriddengirl 12:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Well, given the band's short history, how likely is it that they ever received any more than a trivial or passing mention in an independent reliable third-party source? Hey, if you know that one of these guys hada biography written about him, where there were several paragraphs written about this particular band, then it's obviously a strong keep under WP:RS and WP:N. However, I think the onus is on the people voting "keep" to try to track down at least one third-party reliable source out there that gives this band more than a passing or trivial mention. The "more than one member associated with a prominent band" criterion from WP:BAND is only there as a guide to making an assumption about whether non-trivial mention in a third-party source may exist somewhere - on its own it's not proof of notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also - right now as there are no third-party sources at all, this article even fails WP:LIVING. We're asserting that living people were in a band together, without any more than a myspace page and a youtube video for proof. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Verifiability through reliable sources is non-negotiable. The burden is, of course, on the article contributor, but see this Google search for the apparent inability, at least through web-based sources, to verify this material.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:04, 9 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 Metroid (series). Marasmusine 08:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Dread[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This game is vaporware, and there's no indication that anybody's working on it. There was no news for more than a year. Plus, even the name's speculation. This article should be recreated only when (if?) someone announces that they're still working on this game. _ZXCVBNM 23:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Metroid (series), with a couple sentences stating the game's vaporware status. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some cancelled games are notable. But this one is not because there is little hype on it. Marlith ^T/C 00:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete as per TenPoundHammer. --Moonriddengirl 12:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Metroid (series) as there are enough good sources to support a paragraph or two, but currently not an article. (Of course, if the game is officially announced, then this article should be merged back out.) — brighterorange (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Agree that the content and references warrant a paragraph in the Metroid series article. A redirect will preserve the edit history of the content as well as help direct anyone, even if its only a few people, looking for Metroid Dread. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom. I copied the article onto Wikitroid a couple weeks ago by the way.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Metroid (series). -- Jelly Soup 07:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Metroid (series) Judgesurreal777 17:30, 8 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, with no consensus to merge. Daniel →♦ 10:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPSOS[edit]

An article about a "magical formula" apparently used in Thelema, apparently an esoteric system of belief of some sort. No indication that this magical formula is, as such, notable. Possibly merge somewhere, but I wouldn't know where to, since the article is very much written in an "in-universe" style, so to speak, and difficult to parse for nonbelievers. Sandstein 23:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*merge to Magical formula might be a good idea. It's very little to merge into a very sparse article, so that seems fair. Forking back to a separate article would be fine in future if they can create more content. Also BTW, this page needs a disambig - there is a polling firm named IPSOS-Reid which is referred to in a couple articles as simply "IPSOS". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I saw your note, I checked it out and added the disambiguation to the article. IPSOS-Reid is redlinked though, so it appears they need an article to be started. --Parsifal _Hello 03:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I gave you the wrong names. Ipsos is the global company, and Ipsos-Reid is the Canadian one. I don't know how to create a disambig page, but a disambig at the top of this article probably isn't a good idea. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They DAB could stay where it is and the company article name could be changed to IPSOS (corporation) or something like that. It doesn't seem to be worth a full separate disambiguation page for only two versions of a word. --Parsifal _Hello 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge to ~~Ordo Templi Orientis (Typhonian)~~ perhaps? It seems like this article is fairly minimal and could do with some additional material. The IPSOS article might be better merged with that to form a more comprehensive whole. Coldmachine^Talk 00:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I agree with the above (merge to Magical formula). The article Ordo Templi Orientis (Typhonian) is more concerned with an organisation/entity than with practice. Coldmachine^Talk 07:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do not merge. This article is a stub, but it satisfies WP:Notable and WP:V. There is no Wiki policy that encourages deletion of stubs, in fact stubs are encouraged when the topic is notable so editors can add information. This topic is notable in that even as a stub, it already has a couple references, including a mention by the notable author Kenneth Grant, in regards to the notable organization Ordo Templi Orientis. The stub should not be merged into the article Magical formula. That article contains wikilinks to many separate articles about individual magical formulas. Each has its own meaning and use. A few of them do not yet have articles, but it is clear that eventually they will. If all of that information for each of the magical formulas were merged into the one main article, it would be extremely long and difficult. Some of the magical formulas are already long articles themselves. Notable, verifiable. Keep and do not merge. --Parsifal _Hello 03:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-edited my initial note to soften my stance on the do not merge part of it. After further review, there is room for now at Magical formula to include the information so a completely separate article is not strongly needed. I still prefer it as a separate article, but my initial statement may have been a bit too strong on that point. --Parsifal _Hello 04:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article has already been expanded since last night. It's looking more interesting and more like it should be kept and not merged. --Parsifal _Hello 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep or merge to Magical formula. It does have a bit better content, and while there are no inline cites yet, at least there are references at the bottom now. I'm okay with keeping or merging at this point. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well written and has more content/context now. It has the possibility to be expanded upon a bit in future. Magical formula is such a general article this one formula wouldn't be discussed in any detail, so interesting content for wikipedia would be lost.Merkinsmum 17:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Parsifal and Merkinsmum. GlassFET 20:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability standard and is an interesting stub that can be expanded when material becomes available. --Renee 02:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In present form it is an interesting stub that is referenced by two books which appear to be WP:RS for the subject. That's two more books than the average Wikipedia article, it seems. However, the article seems confusing, since I have no background in the subject, and it would be good to have inline citations. Buddhipriya 06:04, 8 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. I'll undelete on request if anyone wants to merge this properly. Daniel →♦ 10:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mullets (band)[edit]

Article on a band from Kentucky. Only claim to fame is that one member later became an author; but notability is not inherited. Other than that, the rest of the article has no external independent sources, no assertion of notability, and probably even fails WP:BAND. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This thing has absolutely no neutrality. It's written like a commercial for the band's newest album, which in itself makes it vanity. That notwithstanding, this thing isn't adequately sourced and was written in 2006 by an IP and a guy called Twintone. Perhaps we should ask him where he got his information from, if he's still editing. However, a cursory Google Search clearly shows that, save for the Wikipedia article, this band has absolutely no references on the Internet. This is definitely not deserving to be here.-Ljlego 23:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a good portion of this article. The band hasn't been around for several years so it's not really 'promoting' anything. I would suggest merging anything noteworthy to the Joey Goebel article.--Twintone 17:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only they way make notability that I can see is if their releases are on "one of the more important indie labels"--and a read-through of Higher Step's website doesn't seem to qualify them. --Moonriddengirl 12:59, 5 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. In present form this is an apparent first time integration of two words to support material that is original research. The only sources cited, as noted, use the words in conjunction to mean something unrelated to the subject of the article. As such, they are irrelevant to the article at issue, which means the article is entirely unverified. The desire to keep on the basis that other meanings exist requires us to consider nonexistent material; that is beyond the scope of this debate. If that inchoate article is written it can and should be considered on its own merits.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Species integration[edit]

Article creator invented a fake scientific name. The article claims that the term species integration is used by the scientific community to describe the merging of two species into one breeding species. It then proceeds to list two references where the words 'species integration' appear. Upon closer inspection, both articles use the word integration to mean different things. In one, it meant interrelationships between groups of genes that produce some ornamental phenotype. In another it meant the forces which holds a species together, protecting it from speciation. I have since removed these two references. You can see them in the Talk:Species integration page. Fred Hsu 23:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article nominated for deletion was created by user User:Ryoung122, after his article on another name he invented was deleted via the same Afd process. That article, most ancient common ancestor, dealt with similar human species integration theme. See the discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor Fred Hsu 23:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not a hoax...the article on hybrid clearly states that this process has occurred. A normal hybrid is 'sterile' but not in all cases.74.237.28.5 06:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (paragraph reinserted and indented by User:Fred Hsu for User talk:Ryoung122 who wrote this paragraph)[reply]

Comment: Get subject-matter experts to validate or repudiate the article. Subject-matter experts include biologists and those in similar fields. By getting experts involved now, it should short-circuit similar AfDs in the future. No comment at this time on this article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously biological nonsense, as shown by the two references asserted, clearly selected on the basis of title without even reading the abstract. The material on the talk page is clear enough. Left-over idea from the 19th century, possibly related to some equally obsolete racial theories. DGG (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From the 'hybrid' page: "Plant species hybridize more readily than animal species, and the resulting hybrids are more often fertile plant hybrids and may reproduce, though there still exist sterile hybrids. A number of plant species are the result of hybridization...". 74.237.28.5 06:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC) User talk:Ryoung122[reply]
- So, it it NOT biological nonsense. Second, even if an idea is 'left over from the 19th century' it would still be significant from an historical perspective. 74.237.28.5 06:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC) User talk:Ryoung122[reply]

Delete as a "scientific"-term-invented-on-wikipedia for a possibly non-existent phenomenon. Was the creator intending to discuss Interspecific hybrids, which, of course, is a completely valid subject ? Abecedare 02:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obviously a fabrication, I've seen one or two papers that use the term, but the meaning is different from what is in the article. Its Most ancient common ancestor De ja vu. [1]Muntuwandi 02:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You know, I'm inclined to say that there's a lack of sources, or that this constitutes original research, all of which is true, but I think the fact that the article states that the concept is rejected by "mainstream" researchers says it all. Calgary 02:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hopefully second time will be the charm that stops this nonsense. Before creating another article of this type; maybe it would be best if you collaborated with another editors in the hopes of producing a more successful article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is OR or a hoax. the original references has nothing to do with the subject as described in the article. As far as I know, the term "species integration" has several other meanings, and I don't know if any of these meanings are used in a widespread manner to justify an article. One of the meanings is what the nom stated, another example is describing interactions between multiple species living in the same ecosystem. In any case, none of these meanings is related to what the article states.Dan Gluck 07:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we can create articles for random terms found on the Internet that happen to combine meaningful words? Cool! Oh, hold on, no we can't. Delete for failing RS, OR. WLU 12:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references found in a google scholar search suggest this term is in use with the meaning ascribed to it. The suggested application of the meaning is junk, too. Multiregional hypothesis does not include the hypothesis that modern humans are a hybrid between multiple species from different regions: it contends that the speciation of humans occurred over a wide geographic area, but that there was constant gene flow between these populations, so they were never separate species. JulesH 13:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, OR/SYN, thanks for spotting this. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the name were 'invented' then why is it being used in scientific papers? Also, a word may have more than one definition...the existence of other uses argues for keeping the article, even if reworking by explaining that the word has multiple meanings (such as scientism).74.237.28.5 06:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (paragraph moved by User:Fred Hsu for User talk:Ryoung122 who wrote this paragraph)[reply]

Delete per all above. Being used in a different context doesn't assert notability, it asserts a hoax. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 07:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete heres the thing, I'm of the opinion that the subject itself should be covered, but the single paragraph of information and theres more talk in the discussion page than the article itself, means that my user experience @ wikipedia has not been satisfied by reading the article. I'm not going on about notability or sources, its just too inconclusive leaving me with a feeling that, well, I learned nothing from it, but more from the discussion page. Otherwise - if it was just that the article lacked sources I would change my vote to weak keep. really, all these people claiming lack of notability might have to go down to the US patents office and register a new widget that does nothing (which will get you a patent) but only when the patent gets challenged in court is where it makes the difference whether the patent is valid or not, and I believe this should also apply to wikipedia, really. Not worth quoting the ABC's and XYZ's of wiki rules like others have. Its just that I didn't learn anything from the entry. All the best. --Achidiac 09:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Invented term. Or, at least, invented meaning for the term.Bgplayer 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - See here as a good example of academic coverage. Clearly notable, and the incompleteness of an article is not a reason to delete it. — xDanielx^Talk 23:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Finally something credible and at least somewhat on-topic. For now, this stub should be deleted and an appropriately named high-quality, well-referenced article written. If all you want is a stub, then write up a well-referenced paragraph and put it under evolution or some similar topic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ PAPER BEFORE YOU OPINE! This is the same reference which I keep removing from the article. Instead of a PDF file, now we have an html page. I debunked it here on the talk page! The article talks about something completely different. If you want to write a new article about the forces which holds a species together, protecting it from speciation, be my guest. But that reference has nothing to do with the article in question here. Fred Hsu 00:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Understanding the referenced scientific article was the relatively easy part. Understanding what this stub is about is something else. The stub has to go. Any replacement article, whatever the name and whatever the actual topic, must conform to Wikipedia standards. Among other things, the name should match the topic and another use shouldn't have a higher-priority claim on the name. See my comments elsewhere in this AfD. See also User talk:Ryoung122#Suggestions on how to avoid AfDs in the future. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Fred Hsu 02:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the differing uses of the term, but I think it is a mistake to treat them as different subjects entirely. Check out the nanotechnology article as a good example - it is (in modern use) an extremely broad term that has been defined in many ways and used in many very different contexts, but there is a rough theme uniting the different uses. I think if the two uses discussed here can be backed up with sources, we can follow the same path. Admittedly I've never heard "species integration" used to describe multiple species converging, but this article seems to use the term in the context of multiple species, and I'm sure there are more. I only scanned it though, as it's thick material for late-night reading and well outside of my expertise. Perhaps someone else could take a look? — xDanielx^Talk 05:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This paper is mostly talking about habitat segregation and integration of different, competing fish species in a particular water column. I have been keeping fish for a long time (and reading about them) myself, so I know what this paper is talking about. Are you proposing that we keep the article Species integration to accommodate at least 3 different meanings of the permutation of two words, when this particular permutation occurs only 669 times in google (including usages where these two words belong to different parts of a sentence such as in Talk:Species_integration#Ridiculous reference), while nanotechnology appears 3,320,000 times? Should we create an article for flies like an arrow (which occurs occurs some 115,000 times) to mean both time flies like an arrow and flies really do like an arrow, and fruit flies like bananas? Fred Hsu 06:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to suggest that decisions are somehow bound by precedent, but I think my proposal is fairly reasonable and not atypical. I don't know if we should integrate one, or two, or three meanings of "species integration" into the article, but given that at least 1-2 of them have credible academic sources backing their "notability," I think we should have an article which deals with the notable uses of the term. (I use quotes because I think "notability" is perhaps slightly misleading. "Given attention from credible sources" is more descriptive.) If some uses are not notable, then we can forget about them. I don't think "flied like an arrow" has received significant attention from reliable sources, but if it has, then an article might be appropriate (assuming it doesn't violate whatever other policy). — xDanielx^Talk 06:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mr Hsu seems to be holding a grudge and has an axe to grind. The fact of the matter is, 'flies like an arrow' is a sentence fragment, not a word-phrase; an article on 'flies like an arrow' would not be appropriate. However, an article on 'species integration' describes a theoretical concept that cannot be expressed with either word by itself: the word "species" does not imply this concept; the word "integration" could imply this concept but would be much too broad. "Species integration" narrows the focus to the idea being discussed. Therefore, it makes sense to have an article using a phrase. I note, for example, the article recent single origin hypothesis. Is that one word? No! Also note the word 'integration' implies NOT a 'holding together' but a coming together, a merging of parts. Second, whether an article should exist or not should be based on whether the concept discussed has any bearing on scientific theory or thought. We already see that it must be an important idea or you wouldn't be so negatively opposed to it. Given that, despite the best efforts of you to discredit it, it is in fact possible to occur in plants and has been hypothesized to occur in animal species (and more importantly, would have a major bearing on discusssions such as whether homo sapiens/homo neanderthalensis could have 'interbred'), it seems that the idea is important.

Perhaps the worst part of this dispute is that those who fancy themselves thinking in a 'scientific' manner instead are responding religiously...defending the 'single recent origin hypothesis' as if it were a faith.Ryoung122 06:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (indented by Fred)[reply]

I hate to explain jokes, but... See the end of Syntactic_ambiguity#Examples section on "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." It's a well known example in every Natural Language Procesing text book in computer science. Now back to our topic: it's clear that you really do want an article based on your own whim, even though no actual paper supports your interpretation of these two words. Your 'keep' seems different from Daniel's 'keep', if I am not mistaken. Fred Hsu 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me use another example which more closely resembles our current situation. Try this search on animal interaction in google scholar. It yields 1,860 hits. Should we create an article for this permutation of words to cover all possible ways scholars have used it in their papers? I can clearly see a "rough theme uniting all of them". Fred Hsu 06:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that we should document all unique uses of the term "species integration"; I said that we should include them if they can be explained and established as notable by adequate sources. If some uses of "species integration" are not notable, then fine, we can forget about them for the purposes of this article. If "flies like an arrow" or "animal interaction" constitute notable terminology, or are useful ways of organizing notable and sourced information, then sure, they can have their own articles too. I do not think that that is the case; certainly not for the former. You seem to be neglecting the distinction between a term of art and a random string of words. That isn't to say that all articles must be predicated on terms of art (lists are an obvious counter-example), but "species integration" clearly is such a term, albeit perhaps a vague one. If sources exist to support the notability of the term of art, then it should have an article. And if multiple sources exist to support highly different uses of the same term of art, then they can share an article, or they can be divided into separate articles if appropriate (probably not in this case, considering brevity). — xDanielx^Talk 07:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new paper you found is a 2007 master thesis titled: An Experimental Study of Vertical Habitat Use and Habitat Shifts in Single-species and Mixed-species Shoals of Native and Nonnative Congeneric Cyprinids. As I read elsewhere in other AfDs, people who vote to keep should be prepared to rewrite articles according to their own recommendations. Would you be willing to completely rewrite this article, if it were kept, to show how we can contribute to further our knowledge with the three references people have found so far for the permutation species integration, even though none of them talks about anything remotely close to what this article was created for? If I created an article called animal interation to describe how different animal species talk to one another by sound, would you be willing to completely rewrite it based on some notable papers out of the 1,860 references I found in google scholar? Thanks. Fred Hsu 14:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, the fact that certain editors (myself included) are not able or willing to write a comprehensive article on a subject does not mean that that subject does not merit an article. I don't know anything about the suprachiasmatic nucleus, so I let others deal with it. I think it's better to leave an innocent stub intact than to delete it such that the next curious science student who stumbles along gets driven away by "this article has been deleted" messages. — xDanielx^Talk 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, if you don't know anything about "species integration", you shouldn't be voting here. If you have background knowledge and are able to understand the current article and the 3 irrelevant references, and you still recommend that the article be kept for reasons I cannot fathom, you should be ready to rewrite it in the way you recommended in your previous comments. No one else except Robert voted to keep this article, so who do you think will take up such useless task? Please don't say that you will again just put the irrelevant references back to the article, because I will promptly remove them again. Fred Hsu 02:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't I be voting here? I gave valid reasons for keeping the article, and "I'm an expert on the subject" wasn't one of them. Species integration is a borderline term of art; if only those with comprehensive knowledge on all uses of the term were permitted to vote then there would be one or two votes at most. I don't know what the role of a suprachiasmatic nucleus is, but it's evidently notable and clearly merits an article. Threatening to start a revert war really isn't appropriate for an AfD. — xDanielx^Talk 03:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>Comment I'm echoing Fred Hsu - the page as is, is bogus, and all the references happen to use the two words in conjunction, each time with a totally different meaning. The fish article seems to mean the physical mixing of different species of fish within a waterway, and has nothing to do with genes. The bird one is about the integration of colours to form display features. The plant one is about how species are kept together and prevented from speciation. The article created by Ryoung122 is about a non-term, possibly a neologism, 'justified' by scientific references which have nothing in common aside from happening to use two words in context. There's no article that defines 'species integration' in the way used in the page. It's not a minority scientific position, it's at best original research. Regards Young's comments above, if 'a word may have more than one definition', that makes the page a definition, and wikipedia is not a dictionary. WLU 16:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nanotechnology has a definition as well. In fact, it has many definitions. Does that mean it shouldn't have a Wikipedia article? — xDanielx^Talk 22:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, the nanotechnology article is NOT just a definition page. It is a long and complete article. As I said before, there are 3,320,000 hits in google for this. On the other hand, "species integration" produces very few random hits because it is just a permutation of two words. I am afraid I don't get what you are trying to convey by equating "species integration" to nanotechnology. Fred Hsu 02:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't have to be a brief definition either. Regardless of what editors decide the word means, if one or more meanings can be discussed meaningfully sighting reliable sources, then the article satisfies notability and should be kept. That condition has evidently been met. Content disputes are generally best settled on the articles talk page; the AfD forum really isn't for "this article is too short"-type complaints. — xDanielx^Talk 03:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 03:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the current article has no sources to support it. If somebody wishes to create a second article with a different meaning then we can debate that at the time. But it would be inappropriate to debate both this existing article and a hypothetical possible other article simultaneously. SilkTork 19:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by original author of the article, User talk:Ryoung122[edit]

Comment. I find it disturbing that in a world that is supposed to be fair, rational, and open-minded, such attempts are being made to stamp out any alternative viewpoints. The deletion of the previous article is simply a prior example of the same bias. Both concepts can be found from the multiregional hypothesis page. However, to argue that only one article is needed is simply biased.74.237.28.5 06:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be noted that, at least, some ideas here are close to the 'point' of the article...past 'racial' theories have argued that the various 'races' of 'man' were each individual species. In that case, the race-theorists may have confused 'interspecific hybridization' for what they considered to be 'intergeneric hybridization'.

However, the point of the article was not exactly that. If one is to argue that homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis...two separate species within the same genera...hybridized to form just one species, this is an example of 'species integration.' Even if the idea is false, researchers have been debating the issue for decades, and thus an explanation of even a 'discredited' idea is warranted. For example:

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Neanderthal.html

http://www.livescience.com/health/061030_neanderthal_hybrid.html

In fact, we find 54,000+ articles for the concept:

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 54,300 for humans+neanderthals+interbred. (0.11 seconds)

Human-Neanderthal Hybrid?"They intermixed, interbred and produced offspring." ... remains and living humans indicated that Neanderthals did not interbreed with the modern humans. ... cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Neanderthal.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

Humans and Neanderthals Might Have Interbred | LiveScienceAnthropologists find evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred as humans spread across Europe. www.livescience.com/health/061030_neanderthal_hybrid.html - 35k - Aug 4, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages

News in Science - Neanderthals & modern humans may have interbred ...New evidence suggests that Neanderthals and modern humans were not distinct species as previously thought but evolved together and probably interbred. www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s272265.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

Neandertals, Modern Humans Interbred, Bone Study SuggestsAncient bones from a cave in Romania add fuel to the theory that modern humans absorbed Neandertals through interbreeding instead of out-competing them to ... news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061030-neanderthals.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

Neandertals, Modern Humans May Have Interbred, Skull Study SuggestsThe new skull find also shows that humans continued to evolve after reaching Europe some 40000 years ago. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070116-neanderthals.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

Humans and Neanderthals interbred | COSMOS magazineSYDNEY: Modern humans contain a little bit of Neanderthal, according to a new theory, because the two interbred and became one species. ... www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/814 - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

Skull suggests humans, Neanderthals interbred-Health/Science-The ...WASHINGTON: A skull found in a cave in Romania includes features of both modern humans and Neanderthals, possibly suggesting that the two may have interbred ... timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1230744.cms - 47k - Cached - Similar pages

Modern Humans, Neanderthals May Have Interbred - Health and ...Doctor-produced health and medical information written for you to make informed decisions about your health concerns. www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=77210 - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

Modern Humans, Neanderthals May Have Interbred HealthDay - Find ...Modern Humans, Neanderthals May Have Interbred from HealthDay in Health provided by LookSmart Find Articles. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmhea/is_200610/ai_n16917492 - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

GeneticArchaeology.com - Human Neanderthal Interbreeding (11/8/2006)Neanderthals died out about 35000 years ago for some unknown reason. Some scientists have suggested that they interbred with humans, and "bred" themselves ... www.geneticarchaeology.com/Research/Human_Neanderthal_interbreeding.asp - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Thus, we can conclude:

--such an idea is not a hoax --such an idea has been well-discussed in the media and scientific literature, even if not the 'most popular' version --such an idea of 'species integration' is NOT 'interspecific hybrid.'

Ok, isn't the article on 'hybrid' enough?

In regards to the first argument, there is a different 'angle' here. Suppose two similar species of plants 'hybridized' to create a THIRD species...but the first two original species still existed. That isn't 'integration.' However, if the two species A and B 'hybridized' to create species AB, and then A became extinct, and B and AB integrated into ABB, then there is now only one species...an integration of two. Further, the 'hybrid' article deals with mostly a scientific phenomenon on a 'current event' timescale...species integration argues for a viewpoint from an evolutionary timescale74.237.28.5 06:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. People are so quick to fling around insults like 'hoax' and 'nonsense'...only at length will they realize that they know less than they think about things. Until very recently scientists believed that parthenogenesis in higher-order animals was impossible...until the 'virgin shark' gave birth. It turns out those who thought they knew it all were, in fact, those were were being both small-minded and, in a word, WRONG.

Likewise, I could explain why the need for an article on most ancient common ancestor...however it was deleted when I was away, and so there was no chance for discussion.

I note that the article on 'hybrids' admits that some plant species don't just 'hybridize' to form sterile plants, but can become a new combined species. It has been theorized to have taken place in birds and even between humans and neanderthals. Likewise, the multiregional hypothesis argued that initial 'founder' populations of homo erectus led to humans evolving into separate species (i.e. Peking Man became "Chinese" people). EVEN IF AN IDEA IS WRONG, I BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT FOR READERS TO UNDERSTAND THAT SUCH IDEAS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE. For example, Lemarck argued that giraffes 'evolved' longer necks by having to 'stretch' to reach the leaves. Even though this idea turned out to be basically incorrect, it is still important from an historical standpoint to note past, failed ideas...call it 'historical science.' To not allow room for such articles is basically akin to saying 'no articles on dinosaurs' because 'they don't exist.' 74.237.28.5 07:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public comment by nominator[edit]

Robert,

Your writing style makes your comments extremely hard for people to follow, and it does not help you. Please make your comments more concise. You should indent them properly to show conversation flow. When you quote text, please use proper tags to indent them. Many people have mention this to you in your User talk:Ryoung122 page. You will not gain any sympathy towards your endeavor among wikipedians by not following rules. I moved and formatted your comments to make this page more readable. It is tedious work and I do not enjoy it. Please make your comment more accessible so we can have a proper discussion on this page. Fred Hsu 14:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are debating your use of the term species integration here. We are not debating whether modern human and Neanderthals interbred. I am sure there could be articles to accommodate the latter. But it is not on this article you created with a name you invented. You added the two references back to the article, and I promptly removed them again. They are not lost; they are still on the talk page where they belong. Thanks. Fred Hsu 14:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrids[edit]

Greetings Fred,

Perhaps a sub-section could be added to the 'hybrid' article or this could be renamed. Would that make you happy? Or, the entire article could be 'rewritten' to conform more closely to the 'use of the word phrase' from the articles published. I didn't invent the term; I ran a Google search for articles on the idea and saw it being used. What is more important, process or getting this right? "Winning" a vote or ensuring that the next generation of readers have a fuller, more open understanding of the evolutionary process? Note in this article, some 30+ years of 'mainstream-establishment' thinking has been overturned:

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1245222007

The concept exists and is notable; what seems to be debated is the 'name' for it. Note this has more to do than simply human evolution; it impacts all evolution. Note that Darwin observed how birds, breeding in isolation in the Galapagos and descended from the same species, eventually evolved over time into slighty-different, separate species...caused by isolation. If the primary cause of the diffentiation was a differential environment, then it stands to reason that a reverse scenario could also happen. These species are genetically similar enough that it is possible that a few simple genetic modifications toward analagous structures can lead to a 'species (re-)integration.' No one is proposing that humans and whales will soon become the same species. It should be noted that the article which allegedly discussed how species 'hold together' seems to be saying more than that: it identifies a force which runs counter to the tendency of species to diverge into separate species. As such, a concept such as this is important, just as 'anti-matter' is important when discussing 'matter.' The name need not be the issue here. In any case, the concept is discussed (but not at length) in the 'hybrid' article (and is barely mentioned). Who added the concept there? It certainly wasn't me. I don't know who put that there or what the sourcing is. If anything, I have identified a 'hole' in Wikipedia that needs to be filled. Whether that hole is filled by a new article or a single paragraph in another article is irrelevant; what is relevant is that Wikipedians reading about various (unproven) hypotheses can follow Wikilinks to explanations. Given that the vast majority of initial voters for deletion didn't even know that such a process was possible suggests a need for such an article. Whether this article survives or not, a fuller and more complete understanding of the evolutionary process (and that is it not as cut-and-dried as many think) is what I am really attempting to accomplish with this and other articles. I have created over 50 articles on Wikipedia and if two out of 55 or so are deleted, so be it.

Please note that I am a 'fan' of Richard Dawkins and we should be on the same page. I realize you are an expert on the subject, but you seem to be zealously guarding your turf and not allowing room for 'niche' articles that would be of interest to those who are interested in understanding evolution.

Have a nice day.Ryoung122 06:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, the news article about habilis and erectus has nothing to do with your theory of hybrids, if you bother to read it. The new findings seem to suggest that unlike previously believed, erectus is not quite a direct descendant of habilis. They may have lived side by side for some time, suggesting that they probably shared a common ancestor earlier. Besides, we are not debating your ideas here, but I can't resist. Mainstream scientific ideas are being overthrown by new evidences every day. I don't know why you are surprised by this news. After all, it is how science works. But wikipedia is not a scientific journal; it's an encyclopedia. Our job is to summarize existing scientific views based on best available evidences. Then, as new findings are reported, we update articles. I must have said this 5 times already to you in the past few weeks. Why can't you sit down and think about it for a moment? Fred Hsu 21:17, 9 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. Daniel →♦ 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madhash[edit]

No assertion of notability, no external sources, no verifiability, WP:SPA who logged in to post here about his band and then never came back, thus WP:VSCA. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No assertion of notability per WP:BAND. Shalom ^Hello 02:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I wonder if this wouldn't even go speedy. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:11, 5 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. Daniel →♦ 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Groupies[edit]

Very little assertion of notability, no independent sources, only claim to fame is having a song that eventually ended up in a Nuggets compilation. If anything, what little text is in this article should be perhaps merged to the Nuggets article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The band is not notable. The song might be incorporated elsewhere, if at all. Shalom ^Hello 02:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability guidelines mentions this circumstance, and if this is the only claim to notability suggests keeping it in the article about the compilation. --Moonriddengirl 13:12, 5 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. Daniel →♦ 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drake the band[edit]

No assertion of notability, no verifiability, no external sources except for a MySpace page, WP:VSCA, WP:SPA. Also, I need to figure out how to write a linux script that'll automate this AfD process for me - my fingers are getting tired. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no assertion of notability. Shalom ^Hello 02:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not yet satisfy notability guidelines for music. --Moonriddengirl 13:13, 5 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. Daniel →♦ 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TimeBomb[edit]

No assertion of notability, no verifiability, no external sources, created by WP:SPA, vanispamcruftisement, purported future album thus failing WP:CRYSTAL. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. Fails WP:V and most likely fails WP:MUSIC --Pixelface 23:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ordinarily I'd suggest merging with band, but given the band's lack of notability at this point, that seems pointless. --Moonriddengirl 13:15, 5 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. Daniel →♦ 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead On The Swingset[edit]

No assertion of notability, no external sources, no verifiability, created by WP:SPA, band spam. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. Fails WP:V and most likely fails WP:MUSIC --Pixelface 23:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 13:14, 5 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undergraduate scholarships at Duke University[edit]

A listing of certain scholarships at Duke University? I do not feel this is sufficiently notable a subject on its own, and I think it lacks significant independent coverage. If Duke University wants to describe their scholarships on their own page, that'd be their business, but is it encyclopedic for Wikipedia? FrozenPurpleCube 22:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all material for an encyclopedia. - Cyborg Ninja 23:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is why universities have web sites, which cover the matter fully. Neither scholarships at an individual college nor lists of them are notable. DGG (talk) DGG (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. This material may be notable enough for mention on the Duke University article, but not as a separate article. --Moonriddengirl 13:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a collection of deeply non-notable material is not notable. --Haemo 21:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability for undergrad schollies @ Duke Corpx 03:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this is useful information and should not be deleted, but probably not notable. — xDanielx^Talk 00:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge where? Duke University or somewhere else? And while certainly people may have a use for it, would not those people who have a use for it be better off looking at I don't know, some Duke University webpage that covers the available scholarships? FrozenPurpleCube 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant merge to Duke University. Where else? The information is available on the university web site, as is almost all the information in the Wikipedia article. It's not uncommon for valuable information to exist in two different places on the web, and it makes sense considering that many prospective students prefer to browse a Wikipedia summary rather than digging through university web pages. If you think the Duke University article is too long (keeping in mind that Wikipedia isn't written on paper), then perhaps a Keep would be more appropriate. I would be fine with either. — xDanielx^Talk 05:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to things existing in more than one place, however, I am unconvinced of the value of listing scholarships that are not themselves individually notable on the main University page. I am not even convinced of whether or not it would be appropriate to even cover the issue at all, though that is mostly because that would add yet another detail to these articles. However, that is a problem that applies to every single university so it doesn't necessarily merit addressing here. Sorry, but since universities tend to have a plethora of scholarships, if students want to find out about them, I feel they should check with the school's scholarship office instead. FrozenPurpleCube 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning for the most part, but Wikipedia is a useful tool for researching academic institutions and I think this information would be helpful if readily available in a summarized form. I would support letting this information have its own article if I could figure out a way to make such a proposal without a clear WP:N violation. But I think it is fully permissible as per content guidelines. I don't think this material violates any content guideline. Of course that doesn't automatically mean that it should be included (e.g. "Bush is the president" shouldn't be in a Chuck Norris article), but I think the information is useful and meaningfully connected to the Duke University article. — xDanielx^Talk 04:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine using Wikipedia to look for scholarships. If you do wish to cover this subject, then given that it is not unique to Duke University, but rather one applicable to pretty much all universities and colleges everywhere (with any exceptions not being relevant), I suggest you seek to start with a broad coverage. Perhaps you might want to work on Scholarship and Student financial aid instead, or in the Category:Financial aid. To be honest, I'd say even state or national scholarships like HOPE Scholarship and Pell Grant need work. Focusing on individual schools scholarship programs is I think the wrong way to go about it until there's a stronger basis to build from. But if you do want to do that, perhaps you might see if there's some interest in developing a guideline at WP:UNIVERSITY instead. I think that would help everybody more. FrozenPurpleCube 05:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing to those articles-in-progress; I'll check them out when I get a chance. I also don't expect anyone to use Wikipedia specifically for the purpose of scholarship search, but I think it's common for prospective students to look up pages like Duke University when considering applying (well... I did). As someone who recently went through the college search process, I thought college reviews which provided a brief summary of available scholarships were particularly helpful, as that was a major consideration for me and others I know. Even just a quick note such as "X college has Y merit scholarships averaging Z dollars. No athletic scholarships are available. Details can be found on X's website [# here]." would be helpful, in my opinion. The information is usually on the school's website (often very limited, though in tis case more extensive), but I think including a summary would be a nice quick reference for those who don't want to dig. — xDanielx^Talk 06:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, too much information. Bearian 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I can see the point xDanielx made and also I think this article could perhaps exist better exist with a slightly different focus instead on the coverage of donations made to create scholarships. Half a second on google suggests such information exists in papers etc... Mathmo ^Talk 03:52, 9 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 19:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mall de las Aguilas[edit]

Non-notable mall, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Eagle Pass, Texas since there is little info and does not assert notability.--JForget 22:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Average mall with no notability and nothing to make it unique. One line mention in city article is sufficient Corpx 03:51, 6 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 to delete. Eluchil404 20:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence G. Costanzo[edit]

Not notable enough for an entry at this time. Freedomeagle 22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure precisely how notable the office is, but the man doesn't seem to have enough coverage to satisfy notability guidelines. I found 20 hits on Google, which made it pretty easy to see that there was nothing considered a good third party source among them. --Moonriddengirl 13:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable by virtue of the office he holds. --Briancua 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Briancua, if it can be verified. It's not my church and it's not my thing, but it's an extremely important position for a Roman catholic layperson. Bearian 19:02, 8 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 19:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic North (group)[edit]

Seemingly non-notable hip-hop group. There's a little bit of media attention, but not so much that I think it's a lock to meet WP:MUSIC. Tagged with ((notability)) since November of 2006. fuzzy510 21:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't verify notability. I don't believe that the sources cited are sufficient. --Moonriddengirl 13:31, 5 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. Daniel →♦ 10:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Island Helicopters[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, can find no reliable, non-trivial sources which afford this 1 helicopter company any degree of notability. Russavia 21:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I doubt they are notable, unless someone can find better sources. I am however a little unclear about the factors involving the notability of a charter airlineDGG (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking clear policy, I believe charter airlines should be held to the same notability standards as any commercial enterprise--like, say, a limo service. This company doesn't seem to qualify. --Moonriddengirl 13:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment as with another flight-related AfD, WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS could be enough to go on - non-trivial verifiable mention in reliable third-party sources would establish notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete - no non-trivial mention in reliable third-party sources is provided with this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:36, 5 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 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allan J. Cronin[edit]

Seemingly non-notable composer who is only notable on the internet. Fails WP:MUSIC. fuzzy510 21:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 13:35, 5 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.. Navou ^banter 01:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania's 13th Senatorial District[edit]

Contested prod. Listing of counties, boroughs and townships in a state senatorial district. Nominator has no position, procedural nomination only. Realkyhick 21:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Update: AfD withdrawn by nominator. Consensus is that the article has been improved considerably since the prod was removed. Realkyhick 01:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the page up, adding sources to the page which includes a link on District infomation and the web page of the State Senator who represents the district. Also I put this page in a catrgory, the category of the Pennsylvania State Assembly. This page does not deserve to be removed as I corrected the situtation. I now consider this matter closed now. 67.142.130.45 22:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Paul Broun[reply]

Unfotunately, whether the matter is closed now is not entirely your call, nor is it mine either. That's the point of this discussion. Realkyhick 22:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you could withdraw this nomination since nobody else has commented on it requesting a deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 22:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has not even been up an entire day. Let's see how it goes first. I think it still merits discussion, as the changes were minimal at best. Realkyhick 22:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merely pointed out that you're mistaken in your inability to withdraw the nomination. You could, if you desired to do so at this point. Now you may have valid concerns about this article. However, I think you're going about this in the wrong way. This isn't about one single district, but rather, one article among dozens. See Category:Pennsylvania General Assembly for the others. And potentially, an issue that is applicable to every state in the United States, since they all have districts. Now we do have Category:United States Congressional districts and I doubt you'd get much support for deleting that, but is a state-level coverage appropriate? I don't know. I don't think AFD is the right place to handle it though. FrozenPurpleCube 23:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After I looked into it, I see you're right — I can withdraw. (I've never had this come up before, but I've only done an AfD on purely procedural basis one before.) So since it seems to be undergoing active work, let's take this off the table. We can always do it again if need be, but suspect that won't be necessary. Realkyhick 01:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have made enough changes on the page that it can be a full fledged page on wikipedia. The original problem with the page is it didn't have no sources to back up the infomation I added, I changed that. I created two links, one that included infomation on the district and one that has the web page of the State Senator who represents the District. Also I lumped the District into a category(Pennsylvania State Assembly)and added the link to the box that has links to all pages on Pennsylvania State Senate Districts. I see no problem with this page anymore after I made the necessary changes to the page. 67.142.130.45 23:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Paul Broun[reply]

Suggest Withdrawel The articles main contributer appears to be activly improving the article. I would recommend the nominator withdraw this AFD, especially if the nominator has no position. Regards, Navou ^banter 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some material could no doubt be added listing the State Senators for each of these districts and how their boundaries have changed through redistricting. (I assume we aim to cover all districts eventually or none of them.) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep These will always be notable, even as stubs. DGG (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Given that the nominator has no position and the article is being actively improved, I think we should keep it. There is generally enough material from reliable sources to base an article on. Capitalistroadster 01:18, 5 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. Daniel →♦ 10:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Seaplanes[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, can find no reliable, non-trivial sources which afford this 1 5-seat aircraft company any degree of notability. Russavia 21:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentialy an advert for a non-notable local airline. Google search turns up mostly ads and the few exceptions indicate no basis for notability other than good service. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I doubt they are notable, unless someone can find better sources. I am however a little unclear about the factors involving the notability of a charter airline. DGG (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - How about verifiable non-trivial/detailed third-party coverage in articles? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable local business. NawlinWiki 12:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete - no non-trivial mention in reliable third-party sources is provided with this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 03:50, 6 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 02:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a lot of money to look this cheap[edit]

Contested prod. Article about a phrase commonly said by Dolly Parton is already documented at Wikiquote. This article has no sources, very little context at all. Not notable enough for stand-alone article. Realkyhick 21:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, not even worth merging. Possibly A1 (no context). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Euh, this is supposed to be only in the Parton article only.--JForget 22:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the saying is already in the Dolly Parton article; doesn't deserve it's own article. No sources. --Pixelface 23:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an article about a quote? Are you kidding? JIP | Talk 09:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No source, no assertion of notability = no article. --John 19:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is actually quite funny that someone would make an article about this. Stalker in the making? Anyway, it's just not noteable. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletey McDelete. It's in the Parton article, there's nothing more to say about the quote, and nobody's going to type "It takes a lot of money to look this cheap" into a search box. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Be kind to newbies, though. Bearian 19:12, 8 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. Daniel →♦ 10:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Martínez Domínguez[edit]

Non-notable person it seems like he not even played in a game for them and could not ever play for them just being on the roster to be notable enough Oo7565 21:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete perthe reason i said aboveOo7565 21:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable sportsperson. Um, you are the nom, you can't place a "delete per nom" vote. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I created the article before I knew that he wouldn't meet the notability guidelines (since he hasn't appeared for the first team). That said, he may have played in the Primera A in the past or may be playing during Apertura 2007 since I think he was out of contract with Pachuca. Perhaps it's best to delete for now, and re-start the article once we are sure he has played professionally. Jogurney 23:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Jogurney 23:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't played a game in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Medio Tiompo[2] indicates that he has not yet made an appearance for Pachuca and that his previous club was Tuzos, which appears to be a kind of youth academy for Pachuca. Delete per Number 57 but of course bring the article back if he ever does play in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 16:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hope i found on www.playerhistory.com is correct. He played seven games in Clausura 2007 for Indios de Ciudad Juárez. Matthew_hk t c 06:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Seems playerhistory.com mixed with another people, Gilberto Erick Martínez Trejo. Matthew_hk t c 06:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems they were same person. Profle at Juárez indicate Gilberto Martínez also played for Tuzos and Pachuca. And Gilberto Martínez was not listed in Clausura 2007 squad of Pachuca. Seems Gilberto Martínez transferred to Juárez in before the start of Clausura 2007 and made his debut. But the players have different last name (Martínez-Domínguez and Martínez-Trejo) Matthew_hk t c 06:33, 7 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. Daniel →♦ 10:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short Memory[edit]

Article is about a song that was never released as a single, was only "mildly popular" and didn't seem to have much of an independent impact. Only real claim to being anything special is that it was frequently performed live by the band that wrote it (Midnight Oil). fuzzy510 21:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently the band lived up to the song title. Not a notable song. Realkyhick 21:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:notability (music). --Moonriddengirl 13:36, 5 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, patent nonsense.Chaser - T 21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adriel george[edit]

Hoaxed claim to notability — BillC ^talk 21:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a hoax. NO credible sources to back up claims. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 21:45, 4 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. Having analysed the arguments put forward by both sides, I have concluded that there is insufficient consensus in either direction (Keep or Delete) for any other action to be taken in closing this AfD, except No Consensus. Anthøny 12:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autodynamics[edit]

This particular idea has received neither notoriety, mention, nor popular reception as a scientific idea or even notable pseudoscience meme. I suggest deletion per the WP:SCI and WP:FRINGE guidelines as both its content its author and originator are of dubious notability. The only mainstream notice of this idea and its inventor, Ricardo Carezani, has been through a single wired.com article which is not nearly enough to establish notability. (See a previous AfD decision for precedent in this regard.) What's more, this article was started and maintained by autodynamics supporter David de Hilster and therefore much of the prose may represent a conflict of interest or even soapboxing. Please research this one carefully. Nondistinguished 21:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also consider commenting on the related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Carezani. Nondistinguished 21:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's a well-known crank theory, article is well-referenced and correctly points out the crackpot status of the theory. It's notable, despite the nom's claims, but barely. Xihr 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to any sources for your opinion that this idea is "well-known"? I can only find the one wired.com article. Nondistinguished 21:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think Wired isn't good enough? Xihr 21:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a single article only. Note the similarity to a previous AfD decision. A topic that has as its only outside reliable source (according to web guidelines) a single article in a web-based magazine doesn't really rise to a notable or encyclopedic idea. There doesn't seem to be any mainstream interest in the subject nor does there seem to be anyone who actually promotes the idea except the originator of the article. I guess you could try to make the claim that it is a notable internet meme, but I don't see the websites it is based on rising to the level required for even that set of criteria.Nondistinguished 21:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article on the person, below, and merge this one in. I think on general grounds of what should be covered in an encyclopedia that crank theories which are likely to be found on the web are appropriate, if there is enough material to write the article. and i consider the single wired article sufficient for the purpose. The proponents' websites are RSs for what they think. The electric universe discussion was wrongly decided, and we are fortunately not bound by precedent. I am puzzled why many editors who share with me a desire to educate about nonsense pretending as science think this is best done by eliminating such articles. Before the internet, one could hope thatthe public would never come in contact with such theories, but that day is over.
I think the article on the person is the better choice, because there's more to say. There is certainly no justification for both. DGG (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you are insinuating, it seems, is that this person/idea derives notability from prominence on the internet. However, it isn't clear that these ideas rise to the level of notability required for internet-related articles. Certainly the reason that we have an article on this idea is because the people who began writing it were trying to get it promoted on the internet. However, according to our internet notability guidelines it seems that this person/idea doesn't meet our own requirements. I think the last bit of argumentation you use is insinuating that Wikipedia is something it is not. In particular, it is not the job of Wikipedia to "educate about nonsense pretending to be science". If DGG wants to start a website devoted to that, he should. However, that is not the job of an encyclopedia. Nondistinguished 00:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article fairly represents a "pseudo-science" theory and explains why it's not accepted by mainstream science. That makes it educational for a reader who has come across the concept and is trying to learn more outside of AD websites. Frankly, I think the bio on Ricardo Carezani should go; he's notable only for his crackpot theory. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a good rationale for a keep. Just because an article is "educational" doesn't mean that it should be kept. See WP:USEFUL. Nondistinguished 00:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this aspect of WP:USEFUL: “In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful."”? On its own merit, though, Autodynamics, should be considered notable as being one of the few theories positing the invalidity of the theory of relativity, and the only one I know of that claims to base its case on a purported “math error”. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are positing your argument a bit too much on what you are "aware of" rather than trying to be comprehensive in your research. In particular, here are a few other pseudoscience arguments against relativity being due to math errors (and all unrelated to autodynamics):

[3]
[4]
[5]
etc.

Do all those ideas deserve Wikipedia articles too? Nondistinguished 01:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two seem to be nothing more than people trying to call Carezani’s theory their own, and the last is a blog with SF-cruft, so, no, I don’t see any need for articles on them. On the contrary, it seems to underscore the “usefulness” of having an article on AD (and since it appears to have precedence, not those of later imitators or “rediscovers”). Perhaps a better alternative would be to have an article addressing Einstein’s purported math error, but I’m not sure there exists a recognizable “generic” name. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but Carezani should probably be merged here; he has no notability aside from this crackpot theory. Perhaps we should also take a look at User:Dehilster's other self-promotional contributions: Brazilian Street Carnaval and especially SambaLá Samba School. Cool Hand Luke 02:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have heard of this too, but entirely on USENET. The article does not establish notability, as I can find no evidence reliable independent secondary sources which discuss Autodynamics. This theory also appears to be so lacking in support that WP:UNDUE also calls for its removal (even though this could be considered the "ancilliary article" refered in that section of policy.) --EMS | Talk 05:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete It's true that people who pay attention to crackpot physics have heard of Autodynamics. The reason for this is that the theory's booster, David de Hilster, a) posts to newsgroups, b) (once or twice) spams university physics lists, and c) promotes himself on Wikipedia; it is not because, e.g., Autodynamics has a following (like, e.g., Tom Bearden, or even Time Cube) or a public presence (like, e.g., Steorn). 18.4.2.3 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is a wired article on it. Not to mention others. Mathmo ^Talk 00:02, 8 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. Unlike the related AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autodynamics, there has been sufficient consensus established to warrant a Deletion ~ Anthøny 12:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Carezani[edit]

This particular individual is not notable, neither per WP:BIO nor WP:PROF. The only mainstream notice of this person and his "signature" idea autodynamics has been through a wired.com article, which is not nearly enough to establish notability (See a previous AfD decision for precedent in this regard.) Moreover, as an academic, this particular person not particularly accomplished or recognized. There is also a matter of undue promotion made on the part of the authors of the autodynamics website in a possible conflict of interest or even soapbox representing the more gradiose claims in the text. Research this one carefully and you'll see that the sources used are all due to the internet promotions of a single non-notable would-be filmmaker David de Hilster thus you should pay attention to web guidelines for inclusion as well. This is a complicated one, so please be thoughtful in your evaluations. Nondistinguished 21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please comment on related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autodynamics. Nondistinguished 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, since his only notable significance is the development of Autodynamics. Failing that, merge with Autodynamics. Xihr 21:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my argument above. It would seem more reasonable to keep this one, as there is more content--his bio and his other views can be included. But one is certainly enough, and either would do. DGG (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that this person is notable per WP:BIO or WP:PROF? Nondistinguished 00:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is notable only for his crackpot Autodynamics. Merge some basic biographical info into the AD article. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to autodynamics. Individual has no notability outside of his absurd theory. Cool Hand Luke 02:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep as there are sources here.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:33, 11 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. There was sentiment to rename, but no real consensus of what to rename it. Carlossuarez46 19:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stormtrooper effect[edit]

AfDs for this article:

It's another made-up "effect" and another Star Wars-related concept that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The article is all original research. None of the sources contain the phrase "Stormtrooper effect." It doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but rather on a site like Everything2, Urban Dictionary, Uncyclopedia, a different wiki, or WP:BJAODN. It's already on Wookieepedia and that's where it should stay. --Pixelface 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Claims of OR are false, Wookieepedia should have no bearing on whether an article belongs here or not, and your "other" comment makes no sense seeing as Chewbacca defense was near-unanimously kept. This seems to me like a retaliatory AfD because you didn't get your own way in the other one. —Xezbeth 21:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If information is not verifiable and doesn't cite reliable sources, the information can be assumed to be original research. I mentioned Wookieepedia because if this article is deleted, the information will still be available on another website (with different policies). Just because someone puts "effect" after another word, that doesn't make it a topic worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The article could *maybe* be renamed "the principle of evil marksmanship" because Roger Ebert is cited three times, but that's still just a joke — material suitable for Uncyclopedia. I understand many Wikipedia editors like Star Wars, but articles should not be kept merely because people like them or think they're funny -- articles need to follow Wikipedia policy. --Pixelface 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this article has very little to do with Star Wars, if you actually read the thing. It is a cliché that spans multiple forms of media, Star Wars is just a notable example of this. If this page does require a rename then that can happen completely independent of AfD. —Xezbeth 22:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly something commonly referred to in popular culture, although I've never heard it called that before. Weak keep or perhaps merge to Imperial stormtrooper, although that article is rather hefty already. the wub "?!" 21:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there's sources attesting to at least the effect but not in name by Roger Ebert, not us. At the most, redirect it to the title that Ebert gave or merge it with Imperial stormtrooper. Will ^(talk) 21:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Imperial stormtrooper per Will/Sceptre. Doesn't seem to be a very notable term yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging an unrelated topic into a huge article really isn't helpful. —Xezbeth 21:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and "Rename", especially since there's been enough confusion by some who think this is a spinoff from "Imperial Stormtrooper". Merging is even worse than "Delete", since that's not what the article is about. It should be called "The Principle of Evil Marksmanship" since Ebert noticed it. And it sure as hell didn't start with Star Wars... every spring, I would watch Toto flee from poorly thrown spears, and wonder why the Wicked Witch didn't hire some talented people. Stormtrooper effect. What an idiotic name. Mandsford 21:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd say keep if notability could be more clearly demonstrated - Haven't had time to check yet for tertiary sources, but Ebert alone does not suffice, if he coined the neologism or the synonym thereof that's discussed in the article. Relies excessively on primary sources. MrZaius^talk 21:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into character shield, since one is derivative of the other.--_ZXCVBNM 23:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is sufficient reference to make it clear that this is not OR, and it is certainly a notable feature of such films. I'd rename it after Ebert, Principle of Evil Marksmanship. DGG (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Wl219 02:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references dont have to use the phrase to be included. We have references to "War in Iraq" and "Iraqi insurgency" all grouped in the same article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename "Principle of Evil Marksmanship" per Ebert's original formulation. There is no available reference for calling it the "Stormtrooper effect". –SESmith 04:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an established sci-fi term. JIP | Talk 09:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above. Faithlessthewonderboy 11:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DGG. Stoic atarian 23:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Nomination's main argument seems to be that it's WP:OR because the Ebert sources don't refer to it as the "Stormtrooper effect"; this can be resolved by renaming the article to "Principle of Evil Marksmanship" and rewriting for context. --McGeddon 09:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it would be better to reduce dependency on Star Wars. This cliche has been frequently employed in propaganda movies about WW2 (not in all and not in that absurd way). Example: Four Tank Men And A Dog, a Polish TV series. Pavel Vozenilek 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- as by many of the above. The effect is notable across genres, and often associated with the Stormtroopers(thus justifying the name), and has been noted by published sources long before Wikipedia even existed (ref. Ebert's line about the "Imperial Stormtrooper Markmanship School"). SAMAS 13:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename (or rather not rename as the current name appears to be (Ebert's) Principle of Evil Marksmanship). Perhaps the "(Ebert's)" could be dropped. // Liftarn
Weak Keep and rename The topic seems silly, but I think it's an important enough movie staple to merit inclusion. Needs some clean up. Ddevlin 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with rewrites if necessary. Definitely worth an article.SEF23a 07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. The article can be improved in some areas but no strong reason for deletion has been presented. Burntsauce 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've opened a section on the article's talk page for discussion on a possible new name, since there appears to be a large amount of support for a move. æ² ✆ 2007‑08‑09t21:09z
Keep This article belongs where it is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.87.87.19 (talk • contribs) 06:13 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but rename, as the principle extends clearly beyond star wars. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:09, 10 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 Article speedy deleted just as AfD was opened. I'm sure you can request salting from an admin. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie walker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I know this meets CSD G3, but I was wondering if this page could be WP:SALTed as this 'ellie' vandalism is getting ridiculous, and I doubt a serious encyclopedic article will be written on the subject. RichardΩ6 12 20:19, 4 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. Daniel →♦ 10:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Rot (album)[edit]

Non-notable album which fails WP:MUSIC. Notability claim doesn't extend beyond the inclusion of a song in Guitar Hero II. fuzzy510 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean in Guitar Hero II. the wub "?!" 21:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks for pointing that out. --fuzzy510 21:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no sources, no verifiability, no independent review. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently is going off as well, but if the band's article survived this should be merged.--JForget 22:58, 4 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. Daniel →♦ 10:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Rot[edit]

Non-notable band which fails WP:MUSIC. Claim to notability does not extend beyond having a song in Guitar Hero II. fuzzy510 19:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no verification, a stub for quite some time, no notability. Realkyhick 21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no sources, no verifiability, no independent review. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with the band's article.--JForget 22:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--JForget 03:29, 5 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:MUSIC and the non-single purpose anon keeper couldn't articulate which prong of that notability guideline the band met. Carlossuarez46 22:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Acro-brats[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Band fails WP:MUSIC, with no evidence of notability beyond an appearance in Guitar Hero II. fuzzy510 19:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Notable because of release in a popular videogame. - Cyborg Ninja 20:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no independent sources, no verifiability. Regarding having a song used in a video game - notability is not transient. Is there something they've done, at all, other than having a song used in a video game? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For more information on notability from video games, look at the first nomination for this article's deletion. - Cyborg Ninja 23:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for further information, check the AfD for Drist, another band in the game. In addition, there wasn't a keep consensus at all - the AfD was closed for there being no consensus, which obviously defaults to keep. --fuzzy510 05:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Drist is considerably more notable than the Acro-brats, as Drist's guitarist actually recorded most of the covers for the GH games. That's not my rationale for wanting deletion of the Acro-brats article (I would urge deletion either way), just a note that Drist (or at least their guitarist), along with having songs in both titles, was actually instrumental (no pun intended, I swear) in the creation of the games. -- Kicking222 13:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just having two songs in (albeit extremely popular, fun) videogames and lacking all other notability does not make a band worthy of a WP article. -- Kicking222 13:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two albums available in retail stores, online, on iTunes, etc. Website shows extensive northeast touring history and national and international reviews/interviews. Top myspace ranking for garage rock bands in their area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.94.234 (talk • contribs)

— 68.236.94.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. There were additions, but they were trivial mentions. I'm not really sure how much winning the Gospel Choice Awards weighs in notability. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny Praise[edit]

Only sources for this article about a praise and worship group are their Web site and their Myspace. No independent sources at all. Possible WP:COI issues as well--author is Destinystyle (talk · contribs). Blueboy 96 19:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete - completely unsourced, and blatant spam. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, spam, COI. --Targeman 20:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Obvious copy-and-paste, spam, and WP:YMINAR. Realkyhick 21:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Im kinda new to this, Im still working on it. I still dont know how to source things yet. This group is well documented and I just need to figure out how to do that. Destinystyle 17:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 20:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karma Pilot[edit]

Tagged for notability and COI since forever. No assertion of notability, band-spam, no sources whatsoever. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article does not meet WP:BAND. --Evb-wiki 19:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable musical act, no sources at all. Realkyhick 21:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 13:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has over over 1,200 Ghits [6]. There must be a review or two in there. Their band sounds vaguely notorious. Bearian 19:22, 8 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Liaisons (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dangerous Liaisons (song)

fails WP:MUSIC - no sources desribing the release of this single, or even, the name. I could not find a reliable source to support this article. This means that this article also fails WP:NOTABILITY. — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's like looking into the future. --Evb-wiki 19:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googling reveals a number of sources stating this is the next single, and a number stating it ISN'T the next single. None of them appear reliable though. the wub "?!" 21:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, with no prejudice to re-creation. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:07, 4 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 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Handsome Devil (album)[edit]

Non-notable album which fails WP:MUSIC. Extent of the notability claim is the inclusion of a song in Guitar Hero II. --fuzzy510 19:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no independent sources, therefore unverifiable. And even if the band was notable, this album is not - notability is not inherited. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Band is notable, therefore per WP:MUSIC#Albums their album is as well. Though I would prefer merging with the band article itself. - Cyborg Ninja 20:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, that is incorrect. "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." Is there independent coverage? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because there is a lack of references in an article, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Work should be done to add references. You can easily see the album by doing a Google search and viewing it on other, independent sites. - Cyborg Ninja 23:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The first 20 or 30 listings were for self-submitted review sites and places like Myspace. Wikipedia was #10 in the list. None of the first 30 or so links were from a site that would generally be accepted as a reliable source. I'd suggest the onus is on someone interested in a "keep" to source this article - not someone who agrees on a delete. Hey, during an AfD discussion, a little bit of encyclopedic sourcing is often enough to turn people's delete votes into keep votes. But, as the article is now, my opinion hasn't yet changed. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into band article and Delete per WP:MUSIC. --Moonriddengirl 13:39, 5 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. The only WP:MUSIC that may have applied is 10, which says that if that's the only claim to fame a redirect is appropriate. It is debatable whether they technically meet #10, because there's is a bonus track in a video game that has dozens of tunes. #10 seems more directed to a group that writes a theme song for something, rather than as one of cast of thousands (or dozens). Redirects are cheap, so that's where it goes. Carlossuarez46 22:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Handsome Devil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable band which fails WP:MUSIC. Extent of their notability claim is an appearance in Guitar Hero II. --fuzzy510 19:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Easily passes WP:MUSIC. Band has at least 2 published albums, is on a tour, is in Guitar Hero 2, has a professional website. Easily notable. - Cyborg Ninja 19:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any and all of that would be helpful to, you know, include in the article. And check WP:MUSIC again - those don't necessarily meet the claim for notability. Plenty of bands release albums and tour and are by no means notable. --fuzzy510 19:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no independent sources in the article, therefore completely unverifiable. We don't typically have an article on a band just because they have a professional website. "Published albums" - please explain what that means and why that's supposed to be notable. What label are they on, how high have they charted? Have they done anything besides having a bonus track on a video game? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Handsome Devil. It is the same band, is it not? Oh and I did read WP:MUSIC and they need at least two albums published by a major label and they certainly pass that. - Cyborg Ninja 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nevermind. I finally saw that the two bands are separate on my own after wasting my time. - Cyborg Ninja 19:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable because of appearance in a popular videogame, also the creator of a new genre though that needs better references. - Cyborg Ninja 20:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Band seems to lack notability for stand-alone article at this time, though they certainly merit a mention on the Guitar Hero 2 article, along with the other non-notable bands featured. (Indie alternative is a new genre? :)) --Moonriddengirl 13:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, they invented "indie alternative"? Is there even any proof of this? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it even mentioned in the article? I'm truly confused now. --fuzzy510 16:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm fairly neutral on the issue. They do seem to meet criteria #10 of WP:MUSIC, though that is, as far as I can tell, their sole claim of notability--which is weak for a standalone article. I had been hoping others would have come up with more info by now, but no one has come forward with any useful, verifiable info. Exerda 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:50, 4 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. Daniel →♦ 10:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark One Light[edit]

Tribute band. Puts out tribute records. No external sources, no notability, no verifiability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, easily fails WP:BAND, no sources. Realkyhick 21:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 13:47, 5 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute Sounds, LLC[edit]

No assertion of notability, absolutely no sources, not verifiable, a non-notable record label that puts out tribute records. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails to establish notability. Lugnuts 20:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable label that apparently reps the non-notable band above. Realkyhick 21:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 13:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). — Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul is dead[edit]

Delete - Popular urban myth that's been looking for sources for 1 year. Although very interesting to read, I just don't think that it's noteable. The 2 articles are riddled with original research and all the infomation here is specified on the individual album/single articles anyway. In no way am I trying to be controvesial by AfDing these. Thoughts? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (re: Paul is dead). It is indeed notable. The article is undergoing intensive restructuring at the moment which has involved the removal of all the non-sourced "clues" and will continue to focus upon shortening the article to a referenced, encyclopaedic entry rather than a place for followers of the myth to post their theories and clues. Certaintly there are plenty of sources out there regarding this, it's just no-one has gotten round to it yet I guess. Liverpool Scouse 19:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There may be pleanty of sources, but are they reliable. If "nobody's gotten round to it" after 1 year, doesn't that make the article very un-important. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not that it's unimportant, it's that content issues such as those I listed above have been seen as primary issues to be resolved. We've just started doing that, and the article is being hacked and trimmed, with references presumedly to follow that. Within WP:BEATLES, it's been rated as High on the Importance scale and B-class on the assessment scale. Liverpool Scouse 19:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep there are two entire books written on the subject which are mentioned in the references section thus I don't see how WP:NOTE comes into play. I just did a quick Nexis search, it's been mentioned hundreds of times (almost two dozen in the New York Times alone), so there's plenty of material out there to fix it. The article needs oodles of work, but not deletion. --JayHenry 19:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the Clues article (linked to near the end of the article) would be considered Original Research, not this one. This talks about the media stir surrounding the hoax. It definitely needs better references and hopefully this AfD nomination will wake up the contributors. - Cyborg Ninja 19:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No issue of notability or WP:CITE based on the 5 inline citations and 2 book references. Looks like some OR in at least one section, but OR issues are generally a cleanup issue, not an AfD one. I'd say the "Clues" article is the more specious of the two, any useful information there should probably be merged into this one. The topic of a hoax that made international news is the article, not the trivial minutia about that hoax. -Markeer 19:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the "Clues" stuff was originally in the main article but was farmed off into a new one, as the clues were original research and attracted all the conspiracy theorists to come and add new "clues" they had "found" themselves into the article. Seperating them reduced article dispruption however taking into account the above perhaps the Clues article should go altogether, or be reduced to the most notable ones that can be referenced to several sources. Liverpool Scouse 19:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both, they need work rather than deletion. Darrenhusted 19:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well known urban legend, article is well-documented. Corvus cornix 19:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references and links are there, but not in the favoured inline style. No matter, we are not trying to get this article to GA but save it from the chop. Further, how is any source regarding a rumour ever going to be reliable? Also, there are over 300 articles that link to that page - that is a lot of potential redlinks. LessHeard vanU 19:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Very notable urban legend, article needs cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources are given. Beorhtric 19:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely not non-notable. —METS501 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember looking up references for this urban legend within the last year. Was there a similar article up for AFD? I do not see that this one was previously put up for deletion. It was widely written up in mainstream press numerous times from the year the hoax or urban legend was launched to the present. Edison 20:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: One of the most famous urban legends of the last century. As mentioned above, the nom has confused "sources" with "inline citations." WP:V requires the former, and does not require the latter. One of the sources listed is a book about this rumor. RGTraynor 20:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Notable urban legend. Multiple books about the topic, hundreds of other media articles and references. John Cardinal 20:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep obviously. Extremely notable. However, Suggested clues for the rumour "Paul is dead" is a problematic article because it doesn't cite a single source and probably includes a lot of original research. Make that a priority for WP:BEATLES. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can tell who was born after 1980 in this one. Mandsford 21:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to get me to change my mind...? ;~) LessHeard vanU 21:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beatles-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - even I've heard of this. Books were written about it. I guess it is trivial, in a way, but deserves an article due to the attention it received for years. If the article needs improvement, it's still no need to delete. BTW, regarding inline citations - I think it's reasonable to require them on any sourced article, to prove that the Wiki editors haven't simply been injecting WP:OR into the article willy-nilly. And as Paul McCartney is still (purportedly) a living person, W's biographical rules require that we be very strict in requiring everything to be well-sourced. And hey, also, Wikipedia's an encyclopedia: footnotes make our articles look better. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All of which are reasonable points, but the fact of the matter is that an increasing number of people appear to feel that a dearth of inline citations, even when the article as a whole is unimpeachably sourced, constitutes grounds for deletion. This curious notion has no basis in policy. RGTraynor 05:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep both. The first three words of the nominator's own comments at the top say it all. Many articles, books, etc. Clear case of WP:SNOWBALL here. 23skidoo 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mandsford hits the nail on the head here. Nick mallory 00:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. It's so notable that it's even cited at WP:FRINGE as an example of a fringe theory that deserves an article! Vashti 03:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Keep. This is one of the best-conceived "hoaxes" of the 20th Century. There are many books and websites devoted to this construct. If it happened today it would be called "viral". WWGB 05:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for the main article per almost everybody above. No opinion about the "clues" article. --Metropolitan90 05:57, 5 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Boy Red Omega[edit]

Even less notable than anything else on Wikipedia. This is supposedly a band, but they've never released anything; there are no sources whatsoever. Fails WP:V and WP:N. However, the article is so nuts that I'd like to nominate it for BJAODN, so please don't edit anything out. :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - also, it's created by yet another (registered) SPA. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not-notable. This vote brought to you by the Society to Eradicate Single-Purpose Account Spam, a/k/a SESPAS. (I just invented that. I wonder if it's notable enough for an article yet?) Realkyhick 21:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you start an article on it? Oh wait.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd say speedy except for the reasonable desire to incoporate it into BJAODN first. This is what is meant by no credible claim to notability. DGG (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's in BJAODN now, or part of it is, so now nothing holds us back. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. 4 hits on MSN [7] and 9 Ghits [8], all of which are WP or mirrors. Must rate as the least notable band ever, or a hoax. Bearian 19:27, 8 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 06:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bootstrap Venturing[edit]

Non-notable commercial terminology. Der Google test yields 28 hits, the vast majority of which are Wikipedia mirors. Bootstrap Venturing has its own wiki, but for all its discussion of history and a vast global network, there aren't any references to support it. The wiki is written for the most part from the first-person, which makes me wonder if it's a network at all, or just one man who really wants it to be one. From the history section of the bootstrap wiki.

I started the group to save myself some time - I was meeting with my fellow-entrepreneurs for coffee and lunch and thought it would be easier if we all just met up together!

Wikipedia is not for things made up ~~in school~~ at work one day? Aside from the wiki, the term is showing up only in RSS feed lists and Wikipedia mirrors. Consequentially 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources for the buzzword, and the concept is old hat. I don't see anything other than user created content. The only external link is an ultra-low content one that seems to be a COI (per above). Kuru ^talk 19:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO as a protologism. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. -WarthogDemon 23:22, 7 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. Daniel →♦ 10:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pageant Agency[edit]

Non-notable company not covered in reliable sources. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't even win Miss Congeniality. Not notable. Realkyhick 22:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As they had 2 national winners. Randall O 11:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Randall O[reply]
Delete. Where is the notability? Fails WP:N, WP:ORG, and WP:RS. Vegaswikian 02:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as even if true, notability is not inherited. Bearian 19:29, 8 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 06:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar 2117[edit]

Only one hit for this on Yahoo--a bulletin board. No hits on the authors. Either this is a hoax or something made up in school one day. Blueboy 96 19:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe speedy-able, maybe not. Still, definitely not notable. Or real. Consequentially 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply seems to be a personal project. No references to the author's names found, either. Kuru ^talk 19:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Space elves? Space dwarves? Surely no science fiction setting would be that lazy... oh wait... the wub "?!" 21:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable, likely hoax or something made up by someone in school one day. Realkyhick 22:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Strange that this made it to AfD. Hoax CsD shoulda gotten it. Completely unsourced, lacks any real context, completely and utterly absent case for notability. MrZaius^talk 22:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - WP:SPA, no external independent sources, no verifiability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, but note that there is no CSD for hoaxes. (CSD G1, patent nonsense quite explicitly excludes hoaxes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmdgold (talk • contribs)

Actually, G3 includes obvious hoaxes (as they are by definition "nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages"). This one isn't so obvious ... otherwise I'd have slapped a G3 speedy tag on it. Blueboy 96 03:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, yet I would be very leary of going down that path. I suppose, that I would say that if one has to resort to a google test (or any other research outside of the article itself), to determine if it the article is a hoax then it is no longer "obvious" vandalism. Dsmdgold 10:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, someone's personal project, not notable by a long shot. JIP | Talk 09:05, 5 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. — Scientizzle 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RPM Productions[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, as there are no reliable sources that discuss this company. The beauty pageants it runs are notable, but it is not. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been meaning to put these together into one article of the history of Miss USA state directors (for which there are quite a few reliable sources) for a while now but just haven't got around to it. I'll make sure I save this stuff and it can go. (see this, though. Of any of them, Paula Miles' RPM Productions is probably the most notable).PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:00, 4 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 on second thoughts speedy delete under A7 (no assertion of notability). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, consider this your lucky day. the wub "?!" 22:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinzie[edit]

This is sad, even compared to other bands that I bring to AfD. Read the article. They haven't even accomplished anything yet! But seriously: no external sources, the only links are to MySpace and a band website, not verifiable, not notable, blatant spam, should probably get speedied but I've never had any luck with that. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the article, "Their first gig was at a small party in a suburb of Chicago, with only few people watching the band, while the rest was getting hammered on the 2nd floor." They haven't come much further since then. Non-notable. Consequentially 19:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to their web site, they've only written five songs, and have released no albums. (There's one slated for release later this summer, but that's still not "two or more albums on a major label".) Fails every WP:MUSIC criterion for notability. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: No resume. No contract. No production. No big gigs. No albums. No nothing. No passing WP:MUSIC. Oh, wait. They have a Myspace page. Gosh, the Billboard Top 100 is next! RGTraynor 20:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion A7: Not even an assertion of notability. --Huon 21:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:59, 4 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, band with no assertion of notability). the wub "?!" 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legubitron[edit]

Seems to have been a band from Davis or Sacramento? Article has no assertion of notability, and the only outside sources are a Davis wiki and a local newspaper's record review - this doesn't even meet WP:MUSIC, and it definitely doesn't meet WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:00, 4 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. Daniel →♦ 10:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Pageants[edit]

Non-notable company not covered in reliable sources. The beauty pageants it promotes may be notable, but it is not. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been meaning to put these together into one article of the history of Miss USA state directors (for which there are quite a few reliable sources) for a while now but just haven't got around to it. I'll make sure I save this stuff and it can go. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 03:47, 6 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. Daniel →♦ 10:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exit Clōv[edit]

No assertions of notability whatsoever. Unverifiable - only links are to their webpage, their myspace page, and AMG. Also, the article is spammy. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: On the one hand, they're an indie self-produced with only 51 Google hits and a stupid name. On the other, they have a work for sale off of the Virgin Digital site. What I wonder is how difficult is that to arrange, and how discriminatory is Virgin Digital? RGTraynor 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently Virgin isn't discriminatory at all. Not notable. Realkyhick 22:04, 4 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. Daniel →♦ 10:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flipsyde (Minnesota)[edit]

Non-notable band. Two releases on tiny indie labels. Not verifiable - only 2 links are to purevolume and their soundclick site. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND guideline; WP:NOT#MYSPACE. -- MarcoTolo 04:10, 8 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. Daniel →♦ 10:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset (band)[edit]

Non-notable indie band on minor label. No assertion of notability. No independent verifiability. Only 2 links are to the band website and the label website. Strangely, no MySpace link! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If they're not notable enough for MySpace, they're not notable enough for WP :-). Realkyhick 22:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the pageants may be notable, notability is not inherited and the arguments on lack of reliable sources dealing with the company were persuasive. MastCell ^Talk 04:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future Productions[edit]

Non-notable company. The beauty pageants it runs may be notable, but it is not. I couldn't find a single reliable source that discussed it and the only mentions were obvious reprints of press releases ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the beauty pageants are notable, and there are more than a couple (there is) then by default they are notable as the company who puts them together. The pageants are what makes them notable. Being a household name isn't required. Pharmboy 18:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Potential notabilty of pageants does not confer notability on company. No reliable sources found that discuss the company on its own. MikeWazowski 18:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been meaning to put these together into one article of the history of Miss USA state directors (for which there are quite a few reliable sources) for a while now but just haven't got around to it. I'll make sure I save this stuff and it can go. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 19:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and throw these other pageant managers in the trash with it. I fail to see the importance of recording the history of pageant management for state pageants. Not notable by WP:CORP. Realkyhick 22:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As most pageants go to higher pageants. Randall O 11:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Randall O[reply]
- Comment As a side note, why are only Terrans allowed to compete in Miss Universe? Kinda like baseball's World Series I guess. And...it just seems to me that in this case, the notable acts of a relatively unknown company is what makes them notable. Notable does NOT have to mean well known, it means "worthy of notice" per WP:N and it applies. Pharmboy 12:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrans? Pft. Only humans are allowed to compete! A true "Miss Universe" should allow all species to compete - as long as, I guess, they come from a gendered species. Cos, after all, if it has no gender, how can it be a "Miss"? So, I guess a megalovirus would get left out, but a housecat definitely should be allowed to compete! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Majorly (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Flair and The Four Horsemen[edit]

Nothing more than a list of matches, as are all the other DVDs on this list. Darrenhusted 18:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.

I am also nominating the following related pages because most are nothing more than match or chapter lists:

Any information on these pages can be put on to the subject's page or already is. Darrenhusted 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once the "AFD process" has started don't slap more articles on it, you've done it before added in articles after people have started to vote. Make out the full list of articles you want to AFD and put them on when you create the original AFD, then tag the articles with the AFD tag instead. Otherwise people vote, then you add more and it's implied that they voted for those as well. MPJ-DK 19:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was checking two categories (Professional wrestling direct-to-video films and WWE Home Video) at the same time, and the final four on the list were not in the WWE Home Video category, as they should have been. In my defence MPJ-DK, if I have added articles to a group AfD (as I did with List of WWE Divas and PCW) I have always contacted the editors to make sure that they wanted to keep their vote the same. Darrenhusted 19:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright fair enough, sorry if I came off a bit gruff there MPJ-DK 22:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Darrenhusted 22:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I remember a discussion on WP:PW about this that they should forward to the main article and have a "media" section, but since that doesn't seem to be happening maybe deleting them all will get the message across? MPJ-DK 22:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Individual DVD's which are simply recordings of matches are not notable on their own. Realkyhick 22:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to the respective wrestler article, they are only notable for those articles.--JForget 23:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A combination of Merge all information into respective wrestler pages, Create a section on the main WWE page for "Media" as somewhere for all this crap to go (or even as far as its own page), and Delete all of these articles to hell. Its been said once and it shall be said again - enough with the DVDs! --SteelersFan UK06 02:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, I don't really see a point in merging anything. Articles for wrestling DVDs are usually pointless (I can think of maybe one exception, and it isn't even listed here). A one sentence mention on a wrestler's page acknowledging the existence of a DVD is more than adequate enough. Nikki311 04:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if I'm not mistaken it was agreed a while back to merge the text part into the various main articles, drop the match listing and then have the DVD page redirect to the main page - but nothing ever came of the discussion. I'd support it if that became the outcome, that we could get a lock on editing the DVD titles so the redirects stay in place and we can keep an eye on the main articles for crufty list addition. MPJ-DK 04:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My above comment did not mean any further mergery than a sentence acknowledging the existence of a DVD on a wrestler's page. I think that MPJ-DK's above suggestion on what to do in future would be a very, VERY good suggestion. Maybe a mention over at WP:PW? --SteelersFan UK06 04:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I might offend some people with this vote, but this is just needless wrestlingcruft. JIP | Talk 09:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per nom and ample precedent of deleted DVD articles (Pillman, Billy Graham, Jake Roberts, Roddy Piper). A line about the release in main subjects article is ok. I hope that something is also done with the articles on TNA DVDs, which are far less notable than WWE releases. Biggspowd 18:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to appropriate articles per JForget. JPG-GR 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all After reviewing a handful of the nominations, it appears that these articles are unable to stand on their own and as such, are using notable subjects as COATRACK-like tools to justify their existence. --Aarktica 11:52, 11 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. — Coren ^(talk) 00:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: non-admin close

James Dudley Fooshe[edit]

Procedural nomination; I am neutral. PROD tagged; tag removed by editor who was not original author with reasoning in edit summary; PROD tag re-added several months later. The latest reasoning for deletion reads "non notable Confederate soldier, wrote a few newspaper articles as his memoirs." The objection raised when removing first PROD tag was "Article claims notability ("noted Confederate veteran"). Isn't taht usually consiered reason enough not to PROD it? AFD it if you like." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Wrote many published articles on the war, has many references (in print media), was one of the oldest living survivors of the Civil War, also wrote on philosophy and other topics. We even have a picture of him and it is a well written article (unrelated to keep but always nice for this old of a topic) AND his history seems to be documented well. Don't see why there was ever a prod or AFD. Passes on all accounts. Pharmboy 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pharmboy. - Cyborg Ninja 20:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. Johnbod 22:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable individual.--JForget 23:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I admit putting on the prod, because I honestly do not think it is sourced. (had I thought it would be contested, I would of course had brought it here directly.) Though the article is interesting, the only source given is an unpublished manuscript deposited in two libraries. This does not count as a RS. Not having been published, there is no basis for assuming it to be any more valid than if it had been posted on a blog--it's the earlier equivalent for it. Perhaps his autobio is referred to by historians, but I couldnt find any evidence of it--there is nothing in Google Scholar. How is one to know that the entire thing is not fiction? DGG (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to go with DGG here, even though I believe everything is basically true see obit, because I don't see any particular notability here. Served in war, check, made prisoner, check escaped, check, wounded, check, wrote about it afterward, check -- all these are quite common. He was locally notable but even being one of the veterans at the 75th anniversary of Gettysburg -- 1800 of them -- isn't a particularly special claim. There are no indications that his service was distinctive or merited an award like the Medal of Honor. There is no indication that beyond his local community his accomplishments were exceptional. There are, alas, thousands and thousands of comparable Civil War veterans. --Dhartung | Talk 12:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were perhaps hundreds rather than thousands with equal claims to notability - only a few wrote series of published articles on the subject. But how many do we have articles on, or are likely to get articles on? In the field of 18th century black ex-slaves in Britain - a population probably also running into the thousands, we have some articles that might not meet a very strict standard of notability, but are well worth having because so few lives are documented. Essentially they earn their place as representative figures. The same can be said of some articles on medieval people not from the upper class, and I would suggest this one too. Johnbod 13:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment on the edit summary quoted in the nomination. An assertion of notability is enough to prevent a speedy deletion. A proposed deletion is for "uncontroversial" deletions, a much broader category. It is enough to remove the tag to dispute it, although if you do not improve the problems that caused the nomination you are pretty much guaranteeing a trip to AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 12:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Prod tag was added, prod tag was removed, prod tag was re-added (a couple of months later by a different person) - re-addition of the Prod tag led me to bring it to AFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my Strong Keep I have been doing some more homework on this one. Admittedly, it is very difficult to find independent information on this individual on the web, which doesn't mean he didn't exist or that he is not notable. "Verifiable" doesn't mean just through internet sources, after all. I also haven't found the book "Soldier, Planter, Philosopher: The Life of J. D. Fooshe" by Samuel Taylor Geer, although I have found enough evidence about the author from his (few) other books, mainly geneology and related, so book is very plausible. It seems that most of the books by Samual Taylor Geer are the sort that would be in a limited number of regional libraries. It is too complex and convoluted to be a hoax, and the more I research, the more I believe the article is true. "Proving" it, however, would require a trip to Augusta Georgia. Because of this, I think we have to default to KEEP as it is very likely that the information is correct (all that can be corroborated has been). If all else fails, WP:IAR would apply if needed because it is unreasonable to say that 100% of the time, you must be found on Google to be included in Wikipedia. I would tag the article to show there is a problem checking the references (unless someone wants to drive to Augusta or lives near by...) but I just don't see how we can delete it because "checking the references would be really inconvenient". Also meets WP:N, see article. Pharmboy 15:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book "Soldier, Planter, Philosopher" by Samuel Taylor Geer is held by the Library of Congress, but it is shown in their catalog as self-published. In my view, that makes it NOT a reliable source. Wikipedia is not suitable for all topics. It seems that Fooshe may possibly be notable, but an historian is needed to work over the primary sources and create a proper secondary account, so we have something to work from. If no historian ever steps forward, that can validly be counted as an argument against notability. The rule of 'no sources, no article' continues to apply here. EdJohnston 19:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Keep Self published does NOT automatically mean it isn't a reliable source, according to WP:RS because it isn't autobiographical or about a living person. Also, being held in the Library of Congress doesn't hurt either, so the main criteria is if he could be considered an expert in the field, which multiple books would indicate so. In this instance, the book would be considered a reliable source. Also, there are over dozen newspaper articles from the 1930s written by James Dudley Fooshe that are verifiable. The problem is you need to go to Georgia to verify them as it is a very old newspaper and they don't put articles from the 1930s online. The fact that verification is hard does NOT mean it can't be verified, particularly with a subject this old: it is expected. I understand the arguements, but it is breaking down into "you would have to go to Georgia to verify, so delete it" which is NOT a valid reason to delete the article. Pharmboy 20:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, I would have no objection adding the EXPERT tag on the article. I am not trying to say there are no issues with the article, I am just saying they don't justify deleting the article when much of the content can be corroborated. Difficulty in verifying alone should never be the reason to delete. Pharmboy 20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of us recall the Arbuthnot controversy, one that led to many AfD nominations. These involved a series of articles on very-hard-to-research 19th-century British guys, where you would have to fly to England and look things up in the one archive library that had any information. Many of these articles wound up being deleted. If you have to travel to Georgia before you can even look at the sources that might establish notability then I think you don't have a case for keeping the article. For one thing, the article will never improve, because no-one can add anything to it without flying to Georgia first. Some things are just not meant for Wikipedia. EdJohnston 00:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, it appears to be a matter of threshold. I understand what you are saying, but "improvibility" isn't a reason for delete either (I don't think you were using that as reason for del, but still). But you are spot on regarding verification being a problem and why many times this would mean it should be deleted. I can't speak for the last round, but much of the references HAVE been checked out: the author exists and has self published several similar books, the book exists, it is registered in the Library of Congress, and no one has pointed to anything that doesn't add up yet. I would argue that someone CAN add to the article. Some people that read wikipedia live in Georgia, so it isn't fair to say "can't". Augusta is actually kinda nice, just not this time of year. It would be nice to see some of the articles he wrote and cross reference it more, and it can be done. It just isn't easy. Many articles on Wikipedia exist with only paper book references, and otherwise they would be potentially AFD candidates, too, if you can't find someone who has read the book. I know its a fine line, but I still feel we have exhausted every possible source, found the sources themselves are real and have no evidence it is a hoax or that the info is incorrect. In this case, the path of least resistance is keep and tag that it needs independent verification. Pharmboy 01:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that an article "will never improve" is a strange reason to delete it entirely. It will certainly never improve then. We have people in Georgia (US state) for heavens sake - the other one might be more of an issue. Some of us do not actually have to "fly to England" either. Please improve your World-wide view! Johnbod 00:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You don't have to fly to the state of Georgia to get the research done. You need to find a willing Wikipedian who is already in Georgia (or even Augusta) to conduct some research. See Category:Wikipedians in Georgia (U.S. state). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment William Dudley Geer was also created by the same user, User:SamuelTGeer. I get the sense that all three are relatives. 3 years since creation, and no other articles link to either page. Besides style edits, no edits have been made to either page by other users. I'm no expert on notability guidelines, but I have a hard time seeing the importance of either figure. Alcuin 21:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems more of a WP:COI issue, since the article is NOT about Mr. Geer (any of them) I am not sure it is a conflict. Also, User:SamuelTGeer is NOT a single purpose account and the entries, while not "wikiperfect" seem legit, and no one has been able to find anything incorrect. Your note is the closest I see to a potential conflict, while I would recon it is a relative that is making articles, likely correct, and we simply haven't found an easy way to verify them. We need a local and some time to look it up. Pharmboy 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI comment. I would argue that when Samuel T. Geer submits an article about a man whose biography he wrote and published himself, and is probably a relative (see the people named Geer in Fooshe's obit), that would normally be considered a COI. If the article is neutral and well-sourced, few people would complain. However, as some of us have argued above, 'well-sourced' would be an exaggeration in this case. No-one commenting here has reported that they have laid eyes on any of the claimed sources, because they are rather inaccessible.

Normally we don't allow a book or article to be listed as a reference unless the editor has seen it himself, and checked the contents. Some have argued here that we could keep the article, but place a tag to denote the absence of checking. Unfortunately every source would have to be tagged in this case, so we would be taking a great deal on faith. (Essentially, we would be trusting Mr. Geer for the truth of everything). That seems contrary to our normal desire to have references for what we assert. EdJohnston 03:05, 7 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 06:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear hat[edit]

obscure slang, no hits on google; was prodded NeilN 18:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This definition and classification of Clear hat both informs White Hat hackers as well as other ethical security professionals about this type of hacker. This is an entry for White Hat hackers (and the respective types), academia, Wikipedia members, and users. It purpose promote understanding, and identification of this hacker type. It disambiguates the definition of a "Hacker" on this page Hacker (disambiguation). The basis of the edit was described as jargon from Google. Google, a valuable and complete source of information to the world, is not the quintessential source of all information and knowledge. If it was, then Wikipedia would only be a subset of the information found on MSN, Yahoo, Google, Dmoz AOL, and all other search engines. This also includes books, publications an countless academic papers and magazine articles. I believe this is an appropriate classification and reasonable definition based on the criteria stated in the current definition. A 'Clear Hat Hacker'

Please see Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_on_neologisms --NeilN 19:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Speaking on behalf of all beige hats, mauve hats and paisley hats, this article need to be deleted as "stuff made up in school one day". Pharmboy 20:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can only find two or three instances where it's been used online (Google search). While I recognize that not all things are found online, there's no plausible reason that this term could be used heavily offline but hardly ever mentioned online, given the technical nature of the subject. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO as a protologism. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism. --Haemo 21:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not been used, not been coined, so it's not even a neologism. And the article openly admits that it's original research. ("This is an entry intended for White Hat hackers (and the respective types), academia, Wikipedia members, and users. It disambiguates the definition of the general term 'Hacker'.") --rtc 16:36, 7 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. Even the keep voice (identified elsewhere as a SPA) doesn't contend that this Album meets 2 criteria on Music, just that the band does. Carlossuarez46 23:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Have Another Wank And I Have Another Cry[edit]

Transfer from prod. as two related article is currently on AfD. If we're going through AfD for two of three, let's do it for the third one as well. Prod reason was "Non-notable album by non-notable pub band whose main article is also up for deletion" KTC 18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable album. This alleged musician should go home and fantasize more about Carol Vorderman. And now here's today's Tea Time Teaser: "DON TEELI", with the clue, "It's what should happen to this article." (If you have no idea what I'm taking about, see Countdown (game show).) Realkyhick 22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.As per reasons in Kunt and the Gang (band). Hits at least 2 of the criteria on WP:MUSIC--Catten666 21:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Realkyhick. WP:NN and no WP:RS. Heck, no sources at all. --Evb-wiki 11:46, 9 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. Daniel →♦ 10:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold's Trousers[edit]

While there still is some attribution in this article, and while I cleaned up a bit of the blatant promo, this still seems nothing more than a promo article on a non-notable local band. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Record amount of weasel words to boot. When you have to explain how cool you are, you aren't. Pharmboy 20:21, 4 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. Daniel →♦ 10:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acute (band)[edit]

Completely non-notable band. Only links are to their MySpace page, the band's webpage, and the label webpage. Article still reads a bit like self-promo (telling us when their next album is coming out), though perhaps it was cleaned up. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --PEAR (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The drummer is an ex-member of Ozma (who are notable themselves), and I think the band was mentioned in Spin. Either way, that doesn't exactly help this AFD. Weak Delete unless properly sourced. TheLetterM 14:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - were they mentioned non-trivially? Also, were they mentioned in Spin because the mag got a press release email and it was a slow-news month? I have little faith in music-mag mentions, and wouldn't consider them automatically to be an assertion of notability since it's very easy for you to get your band written up if you have the right promo people behind you. A feature article in a music mag might be acceptable, as long as the magazine hasn't been implicated in a pay-for-print scheme where a feature article is only written for the band whose label bought a 2-page advertising spread in the magazine. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply - This is the comment from Spin:

"Armed with fuzzy guitars and sharp-as-Ginsu songcraft, [Acute] are the latest gold medalists in the Los Angeles' continuing power-pop Olympics." - SPIN

Ok, that's still not exactly going to keep the article from getting blammed. It's certainly only a passing mention (although one I do remember reading this in a Spin issue though that's not gonna hold up in court), and for anyone who hasn't read the Spin mention, for all they'd know, that line could be just fabricated. Because of the lack of evidence of notability, I'll change my say to a regular Delete. TheLetterM 17:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if all they got was one sentence full of hyperbole, that doesn't do much for their notability level. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:30, 6 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. Daniel →♦ 10:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Miller[edit]

Non-notable winner of teen beauty pageant and losing contestant on !reality show. A few publications wrote very short articles about the beauty pageant that she won, but those are the only mentions of her in reliable sources ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable enough. --PEAR (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep national titleholder of second most notable Teen pageant in the country, sister titleholder to Miss America. Add to that she appeared on America's Got Talent. She might not have been as notable on the latter as Cassandra Whitehead, but please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead which was kept... she was only a local titleholder (with many placements at state) as well as appearing on ANTM... Meghan is a national titleholder so deleting this is crazy. Needs references, which I can do. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought Cassandra Whitehead was notable either and the comparison is simply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nevertheless, if you can find sources that do more than mention her in passing (which was all I could find), feel free to use those to establish notability. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is more than OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... it is that consensus deemed the article notable enough for conclusion. Whether you disagree with that is irrelevant. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even accepting your assumption that a prior AfD forms some sort of precedent, Whitehead's notability seemed to stem mostly from a controversy on her show. Nothing similar happened with Miller. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winner of a notable pageant. It is current consensus that the state winners are not notable, but this should not be extended to the national winner. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winning the national pageant makes this an easy call. Realkyhick 22:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PageantUpdater. Nick mallory 01:23, 5 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. Daniel →♦ 10:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgeous Frankenstein[edit]

Totally unattributed unverifiable article on another band created by an ex-member of the Misfits. Apparently Glenn Danzig mentioned them once in Spin, but there is no source in the article. Is being mentioned by Glenn Danzig sufficient to demonstrate notability? Even this has to fail WP:MUSIC! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete another band with a myspace page and an official "coming soon" website. wp:n Pharmboy 20:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Very little is known of this band" sums it up. And per nom. AndrewJDTALK -- 22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. Bearian 19:36, 8 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. Daniel →♦ 10:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genuflect band[edit]

This article contains no assertion of notability, and no sources. It reads like a diary entry. A Wikify tag has been in place for several months. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. no notability, no verification, nothing but self back patting. Pharmboy 20:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Rambling essay, too. Bearian 19:38, 8 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. — Coren ^(talk) 00:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: non-admin close.

Triple Crown (beauty pageants)[edit]

From the article: "In pageantry, the unofficial title Triple Crown winner is bestowed on a woman who wins her state title in each of the Miss Teen USA, Miss USA and Miss America systems." Who bestows this title is not clear, as there do not appear to be any reliable sources discussing it. The term "triple crown" is used to refer to three Miss Commonwealth pageants. Google and Google News Archive searches for "Triple Crown" and "beauty pageant" turn this up. Other Ghits come from the fact that the Miss USA pageant and the Belmont Stakes are televised on the same weekend. There just don't seem to be any sources discussing this particular title. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - you obviously didn't look hard enough (although you shouldn't have had to, as I should have had these in the article... what a shame I don't have endless time) [9], [10], [11], Kelly Lloyd's pagenat business is called "Triple Crown consulting" after this, [12], [13]. This term is one that is extremely important within beauty pageants because it has only been achieved six times (out of the hundreds who have one two of the titles). Obviously is isn't as notable as Bill Clinton or George W Bush, but Wikipedia has articles on a number of (notable) smaller facets of things where there isn't a clear place the stuff can be merged to and I think this is a good example of that. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of those, the only two that are reliable sources are the Roanoake Times and (possibly) New York Post. They each use "triple-crown" (uncapitalized) to refer to two of the models, but this does not establish that it is an actual title used by mainstream publications in describing beauty pageant winners. I can accept that this is of interest to hardcore beauty-pageant fans, but that does not make it notable. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (ec*2) - I trust PageantUpdater will place those sources on the article shortly. As far as who bestows it... the answer is no one and everyone, but basically, the media and general public, because it is an unofficial title. I think that you will find this similarly true for the other Triple Crowns as well. Most of these are all unofficial titles which are used by the media and the general public. This should be sourced and I think that if PU adds these sources as she indicated above this article should stand fine. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I trust her too. The problem is, the sources don't establish that the term is used by the media or the general public. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Pageant has located sources, that was my only objection to the article. Nearly every form of competition where awards are made has its standard for a "Triple Crown", whether it's Derby-Preakiness-Belmont or Runs-Average-RBI. Wikipedia has a (soon to be nominated, no doubt) article called Triple Crown. Mandsford 21:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, those other two you mention actually are notable. But that does not meean this one is. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, original-research product of one editor's beauty pageant obsession. The "keep" voters' faith that PageantUpdater will somehow gin up references is touching, but based on her history I'd prefer actual fact-based rather than faith-based sourcing for Wikipedia articles. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if she does have an obsession with this particular topic, surely the suitability of the subject for a Wikipedia article should be judged on its own merits, not her history. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:14, 6 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. Daniel →♦ 10:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Murp[edit]

Non-notable drummer. He played for a band formed by ex-members of the Misfits? Even the article says he only ever publicly appeared with them (this other band, NOT the Misfits) once. Unfortunately there is absolutely no attribution in this article, so we'll never know. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Wikipedia is not a listing service for everyone who has ever played drums in "some band". Pharmboy 20:25, 4 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 06:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! Say the Roses[edit]

Non-notable band. No assertion of notability. The only link is to a Myspace page. It even fails WP:MUSIC, so you know they're not notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, CSD A7, no assertions to notability or passing WP:MUSIC. The only things close are those "scheduled releases", one of which is past-dated, and both of which are crystalballery and not even on notable labels. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 17:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speediest delete possible. How did I miss this one? Not notable. Realkyhick 22:20, 4 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Antrobus[edit]

Strong Delete - Failed Reality TV contestant. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N-the list goes on and on. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hate to just say "per nom" but there isn't much to say about the article, as there isn't much to comment on. no notability, verification, etc. Pharmboy 20:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Generally speaking, winners of Reality shows are notable, and finalists (sorry, losers) are not, unless they have done something else. Bearian 19:40, 8 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. --Aarktica 12:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC) _{Non-admin closure.}[reply]

Mister World[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable competition. You can find a few mentions of this on the web, but it is not covered in reliable sources beyond mere mentions in passing or short blurbs. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, despite the box to the right, this is really only the first nomination for this article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the official news service of China includes coverage, that seems to me to pass notability guidelines. Otto4711 19:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that too, but does one extremely short article add up to notability? The only reason the Chinese news service had even that minimal amount of coverage is because the event took place in China. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is run as a sister pageant (I guess that term doesn't work, but...) of Miss World, one of the "most widely attended and broadcasted of such events". Yes, on itself it hasn't received much acclaim, but it's a relatively new pageant, in a very small category. Mister Intercontinental is the only direct competition, as IFBB Mr. Universe and Mr. Olympia are both intensely focused on body-building. -- Zanimum 19:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, why do we consider this the "second nomination?" The first is still active, and for Mister World 2007, a separate article. -- Zanimum 19:50, 4 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 straight-out delete. Daniel →♦ 10:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherhood 2.0[edit]

Seems to be a vanity project by two brothers, one of whom is an award-winning author (John Green). A related deletion listing (with which I am not connected) is for the article about the other brother:

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Green

This project was featured on YouTube, for what it's worth, but doesn't seem to have any other merit. I believe it's covered briefly in the John Green article. Perhaps a smerge mentioning that Youtube listed the site might be merited. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated Hank Green for deletion. In theory, I'd be more comfortable with a page about the project than the person. But, as it stands, what we have here is a complete violation of No Original Research. The only independent source is the Publisher's Weekly article, which is about authors blogging in general, with John Green as an example, and basically all it mentions about B2.0 -- in the second to last paragraph no less -- is that the video blog exists. --JayHenry 19:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Full disclosure: I was involved in a dispute with the original author, who became rather upset that I tagged his very thorough article with a speedy delete, which seemed appropriate given the lack of notability and the fact it had been speedied three previous times since April or so. The dispute was handled by informal mediation. I actually removed a prod for this article, mainly to make way for a full AfD. Author claims he is just a fan of the vlog and has no direct connection. I have nothing to prove otherwise, but the article does seem to be very detailed. I still maintain that the subject simply does not meet notability standards. Reliable sources are very sparse, as most Google hits seem to be posts on other blogs and forums of the "hey, check this out" variety. I think a section in the John Green article would be more appropriate. As I have said before, the best-written article in the world can't overcome a subject's inherent lack of notability. Realkyhick 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A remarkably stupid project, known only on YouTube--fortunately, one of the two brothers is a notable author with an article, so the rest of the material can be appropriately included there, as tony suggests. DGG (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having read the article, my only thought was "How nice for them!". This information belongs in a family annual letter, not in an encyclopedia article. Even if the participants were both notable, about 2 sentences would cover it all, and inside their own articles. Bielle 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Green (author) I'm a fan of their's, but I don't think this project is that notable enough for its own article yet (even with "Accio Deathly Hallows" :)). However, I think it's probably notable enough to include in the article for John Green and when (I should probably say 'if') it attains notoriety, it should get its own article. So, after the merge, delete with prejudice to recreation faaaaaar down the road. CaveatLector^Talk 02:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't merge and delete. If we merge we should maintain the history and redirect for license purposes. --Tony Sidaway 02:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love this project, but it's not for the encyclopedia. Major violation of the wiki-rules. Link from John Green's page should be sufficient. 1:35, Aug 8, 2007 (EST)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 07:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of enemies of Harry Potter[edit]

Pure listcruft. There is no objective criteria for labelling someone an "enemy." This list includes people like the Dursley family and Snape. Rather than argue over the specifics of inclusion, I think it's more important to demonstrate that this list is fundamentally subjected and should be killed. Savidan 17:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete belongs on some sad fansite and certainly not here. Lugnuts 17:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see no problem with this article at all. Doesn't fail any guidelines etc. And read Lugnuts, read WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, OK to put it another way, it's not encyclopedic, it's all unsourced and listcruft as per the original nom. Lugnuts 17:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability by real world sources on "enemies of Harry potter". Its acceptable to have a list of minor characters, but making a narrow list which lacks notability is not Corpx 17:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I love HP, but too much. :D OR, inherently subjective as per nom with no real world sources. KTC 17:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --PEAR (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, listcruft, fancruft, just plain crufty. Realkyhick 19:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, arbitary, list. - Cyborg Ninja 20:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subjective. This isn't a video game with designated enemies. This is a work of fiction where there's more gray involved. Crystallina 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The respective articles are enough to explain they are HP enemies.--JForget 23:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No objective criteria on "enemy". This ranges from mortal enemy (Voldemort) to annoyance (Rita Skeeter) to rival (Draco Malfoy). Useight 02:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Above post says it for me. For example, Snape isn't actually Harry's enemy, but he's in the enemies list because one believes so up until the end. I'm not saying take Snape out, just delete the whole thing. A list of death eaters I can understand, but a list of enemies makes no sense. Alex9788 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and then redirect to List of characters in the Harry Potter books. --Metropolitan90 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely redirect... Savidan 19:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that not all the characters in the books are Harry's enemies, but all his enemies are characters in the books. So redirecting to the list of characters would be redirecting to a broader topic, without requiring the editors to decide everyone who is truly an enemy. --Metropolitan90 05:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant: not likely to actually redirect anyone (because no one would type that in). Savidan 05:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, needless list. JIP | Talk 09:08, 5 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—no sources to establish notability, as discussed below. — Deckill er 13:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Turkey[edit]

Non-notable male beauty pageant not covered in reliable sources ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey, that was my math teacher back in the 70s Mandsford 21:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Sara Lee as Mr./Mister Turkey is more known as a brand of that company. Nate 10:06, 5 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 23:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Scandinavia[edit]

Non-notable male beauty pageant not covered in reliable sources ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 18:30, 4 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 23:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Sweden[edit]

Non-notable male beauty pageant not covered in reliable sources ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 18:30, 4 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 speedied android 79 19:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock 2009[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Seems to be a non-notable article, full of original research and even if it did assert the least bit of notability which it doesn't seem to, it is talking about something in 2009 which may not even happen. Ds.mt 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore this AfD, I have tagged it as it was deleted three days ago via AfD. Ds.mt 17:12, 4 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, sources found. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 07:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Gay Europe[edit]

Non-notable competition, no coverage in reliable sources ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --PEAR (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has received coverage in The Budapest Sun, The Spenborough Guardian and others. Appears to meet notability guidelines. Otto4711 12:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources found thanks to Otto4711. -- Whpq 19:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711 and Whpg. Bearian 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search generated more than 100,000 hits, well over the 1,000-hit threshold and remarkable for a competition that began only in 2005. Valerius 01:56, 9 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, note that I have discounted the wax arguement. However, it was suggested to expand the article, this AFD does not preclude that. There is no consensus for deletion here.. Navou ^banter 22:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mister World 2007[edit]

Non-notable event, a few sources mention it in passing but none really discuss it ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mister World. Otto4711 19:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, "Mr. World" is relatively new compared to "Miss World" or "Miss Universe", but this is a combination of athletic competition and "manliness", apparently gives equal time to the worse half, watched on TV around the world; not my cup of tea, but then, neither are the Chippendales. Mandsford 21:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto4711.--JForget 23:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. With an estimated audience exceeding a billion people, this was a notable event. It does seem to be an instance of Mister World, so merging makes sense to me. Valerius 02:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Expand If female pageants such as Miss World and Miss Universe can have an article for each of its editions, then Mister World should have one too. Urcolors 17:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand using what? The female pageants are notable because they receive significant coverage in reliable sources. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt that the WP:WAX argument will work here... --Aarktica 12:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mister World. The event may be notable in its own right, but this is a far cry from The Oscars. --Aarktica 12:29, 11 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. — Scientizzle 20:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Paul Day[edit]

Autobiography, of a person who appears to be the leader of only a somewhat notable organization. The Evil Spartan 16:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, violates original research rule - "ongoing research project". Bearian 19:45, 8 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, with one redirect having already been created editorially. However, consensus is to delete the histories behind said redirect, so that is what I'll do. Feel free to turn the rest into redirects as you please. Daniel →♦ 10:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If someone desperately wants to merge these into one article and try their luck with that, I will undelete and userfy for such purpose. However, it must be noted that there's no clear consensus that merging would be effective here, so this AfD can't be considered a mandate for a merged article if it ever goes up on AfD. Daniel →♦ 10:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plan II Honors[edit]

Plan II Honors is a major at U. of Texas - Austin. Majors (and similar programs) do not meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. I tagged it with {notability}, and the only response was that it was mentioned in the student newspaper, the Daily Texan. If that's sufficient, then we should include every major, professor, student body leader, campus protest, etc. at every school, all of which are mentioned multiple times in the student newspapers. Guanxi 16:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating these other U. Texas majors and programs:

Delete per my nomination. Guanxi

Question: Do I somehow list the 'bundled' nominations in the deletion log? If so, how (I don't think the template will work)? Guanxi 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As a UT student, I agree that these should not have its own page, but I'll be glad to merge them all into Honors Programs at the University of Texas Corpx 17:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm ... I don't think Honors Programs at the University of Texas meets Wikipedia:Notability standards either. Can you cite significant coverage in independent, reliable sources? For example, if they were a widely cited innovation in academia, then they would be notable. Guanxi 18:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Found one article about the honors programs in general. Corpx 20:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - oooh, found some more and ~~one more~~ Corpx 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One more Corpx 20:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first two (at dallasnews.com) open to blank pages, the 3rd is about a grant to U. of Tennessee honors students, the last is about a "Reception to launch UT endowment campaign". Guanxi 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not sure why you cant open the first two (they work fine for me), but they're titled "UT hopes to open new doors - Honors program needs cash infusion" and the second is "THE HIGH COST OF LEARNING Texas honors programs compete with the Ivy League" and the fourth link is about fund raising for the Liberal Arts Honors Program, which I would say counts as "significant coverage" for the Liberal Arts Honors program Corpx 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        These articles are about fund-raising, not the honors program itself. What do we learn about the honors program from them, besides that it needs more funding? I think they justify an article on the endowment more than one on the program. But it raises another issue -- what is the scope of Wikipedia?. Something notable in one small town is not notable to the English-speaking world; does that count? Guanxi 23:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sure the articles give significant coverage to the honors programs, but I'm not 100% because these are pay to view type links. From the first link, "Plan II, an elite universitywide honors program, has been around since 1935 and has a stable of supporters around the state and beyond." and it cuts off there. The 2nd link is comparing UT's honors programs to those of the ivy leagues - that's "significant coverage". The last article is about the creation of the Liberal Arts Honors Program through endowments. Wouldnt that also count as "significant coverage" ? Turing Scholars program also has coverage from this report done by the State of Texas Corpx 00:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This information should be covered on Wikipedia. I think the easiest organization is to keep them as separate pages. My second choice would be to merge them into one page. That would make sourcing very simple.

Our notability guideline states primarily that "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Programs such as Plan II Honors and Dean's Scholars are notable.

If we decide to merge the honors programs together, then I think the Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory would be outside of that merge. As far as I know it is not an honors program but a program of study under the classics department. Merging to University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts would not be possible until that article is created. Johntex\^talk 19:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The primary notability criterion is met: multiple, independent reliable sources. I maintain that two separately-authored articles in the Daily Texan, which like other public university newspapers is generally editorially-independent of the institution, is both multiple and independent for WP:N purposes, and the paper is a reliable source in matters pertaining to the basics of the university (as opposed to, say, the cutting edge of particle physics or what is happening in the Middle East today). I'd be OK with a "merge" result, but "delete" is out of the question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: There's a logic problem I have with the nomination's wording; is uses a slippery slope fallacy to suggest that under a "keep" rationale that if a student paper simply mentions something a few times, such as a professor or student body leader, that this would confer notability. That is not what is actually being suggested here. Coverage with depth, on the one hand, and bare mentioning, on the other, are not the same thing; WT:N has gone over this again and again, and I'm pretty sure that WP:N makes the difference very clear unless someone changed it yesterday while I wasn't looking. As for majors, most majors at most universities are almost totally equivalent; I wouldn't have any problem at all with there being an article about, say, anthropology or fine arts as majors, what the typical requirements are sourced from various universities, the employment statistics of aggregate numbers of people who graduate with a degree in that major, etc. Those would probably be quite valuable articles. Which further suggests that unique/innovate degree programs at major universities are probably also valid articles, if they are non-trivial and reliably sourced. I have to note in this regard that there are numerous majors that have evolved out of general computer science degrees in the post-Internet age, many of them multidisciplinary (mixtures of c.s. and business, c.s. and communications, etc.) that could easily support separate articles about them, again given that they are not silly and can be reliably sourced. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that mentions was the wrong word, but the conclusion is unchanged: The student newspaper likely publishes in-depth articles on all the subjects I listed -- student leaders, professors, academic programs, but I don't think the student body president of any university, for example, belongs in Wikipedia (unless notable for another reason). My local community paper, circulation 2,000, might publish multiple articles about the corner grocery, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. No matter how much we discuss it, Notability requires objective evidence, that meets the standards: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Daily Texan does not suffice, nor do resumes or our personal beliefs about the notability of the subject. Either we need to find objective evidence that meets the standards or we should delete the nominated articles. Guanxi 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, but the Daily Texan isn't a sufficiently third-party source to indicate to me that these programs are sufficiently notable on their own. While the paper may be editorially independent, there's still no doubt to me that its coverage is focused on the university. Sorry, but if this needs to be covered anywhere, mention it briefly in the section of the university's article describing the programs it offers, and link to whatever location they have on their webspace. FrozenPurpleCube 19:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's a merge rationale, not a delete one, and your main thrust seems to be "merge", so I wonder at the "delete" !vote. Regardless, I have to quibble with your reasoning. Of course the university itself is the principal area of coverage of the university paper; that doesn't lead logically to a conclusion that the research isn't independent of the university. That's like saying that Billiards Digest is not an independent reliable source about billiards because it focuses so exclusively on billiards, or that the Oxford English Dictionary is unreliable as a source about words because it is too tied to the topic of words. Also, I can't find anything about any Wikipedia criteria for a "sufficiently third-party" (emphasis added) source. Either it is or it isn't. The Daily Texan satisfies WP:RS: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight"; I can't think of anything that could possibly qualify for that description, in this very narrow context, better than the editorially-independent paper in question. University newspapers take verification and editorial review at least as seriously as commercial newspapers (perhaps more so, because they write all of their own stories, rather than relying upon AP and other newswires, and assuming that the newswires have the story right). Because of the often student union-tied investigative nature of a lot of university paper reportage on the internal goings on at the university in question, most university papers are far more reliable about that subject matter than the local commercial newspaper would be. It is unwise to confuse a public university paper with a high school paper, which is typically a rigidly institution-controlled house organ (per US Supreme Court decisions that have, for better or worse, drawn a sharp line between the two). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing especially needful in the way of merging. I don't even see a need for a redirect. Sorry. As for what makes an independent source, I suggest you consider that Wikipedia is not a collection of rules. Using a wikilink that describes something for you isn't a substitute for actual reasoning. Sometimes I think the tendency of people to use Wikilinks detracts from that, but that's another problem. In this case, the claimed independent sources are the school paper. Not what I'd call an independent, third-party source. For all we know, the people writing the articles (And I can't read them, the links are broken on the page itself) were in this program and assigned to write about it. I don't know, it's hard to tell for something written over 50 years ago that I can't even read today. However, it's nowhere near say, having coverage in say, a national journal or even a gov't survey. That might mean something, but even then, I'm doubtful of the value of an article. FrozenPurpleCube 22:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment: Re: "in this program and assigned to write about it" - That's simply not how public university newspapers work. I'm sorry you think that it is, but it's just not. This is pretty much precisely the distinction between such papers and those at high schools, where teachers and school administrators have total control over content and scope. Re: "I don't even see a need for a redirect" - Well, if there were no merge, there would pretty much necessarily be no redir. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see evidence of it being otherwise, because you've only asserted your position on the subject, which is fine, but doesn't mean anything since my experience is quite different. BTW, you do know we're talking about something written in the 1930s? You may be confident that the papers are truly independent, I'd say, no, they're not, because they're still going to write about things related to the school far more than anything else. Really, that's part of their existence. Maybe there's something valid there, but without being able to access it, all I can do is trust my gut and say, this ain't good enough. FrozenPurpleCube 02:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment You don't seem to be reading what I'm actually writing; I've already addressed this. Saying that the u. paper is unreliable because its writes about the u. a lot is like saying that Newsweek is unreliable because it writes about the news a lot. Topic focus isn't relevant to reliability. I'm tiring of this debate and am unwatchlisting this, BTW. I've said what I felt needed saying, others and doing likewise, and an overall consensus will emerge. Next. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where on earth you got the idea that I thought it was a question of reliability. It's not. The question is not of that nature, but rather the question of independent demonstration of notability. Accuracy is one thing, and I honestly don't see it as a problem here. What I see is the problem of a general lack of wider significance. The school paper probably writes about a lot of things related to the university. Most of them do not merit articles. Your example of Newsweek is highly inaccurate, the problem is not writing about News (which is a broad, highly-inclusive subject), but the nature of the publication. If the Daily Texan was as widely sold as Newsweek, it'd probably be a much better demonstration of notability to cite it. But I do not believe that to be the case. FrozenPurpleCube 06:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I note that every last source on these pages is a utexas.edu domain. That doesn't indicate independent coverage to me. FrozenPurpleCube 19:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's confusing the medium with the message, not unlike saying that nothing published by the Oxford University Press, one of the most respected publishers in the world, can be used as a source for something about Oxford University. Domain names do not speak to editorial independence; the actual nature of the author and the editorial entity have to be considered. The university newspaper is not akin to the university registrar's office. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of independent third-party sources is evident here. Argue that all you want, I don't consider a school paper to be even as independent as a separate publishing arm might be. Which might not be very much at all, depending on the circumstances. And that's only two sources. The others are quite clearly SPS. They may be true. That's not in question here. The question is really notability. FrozenPurpleCube 22:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm willing to go to bat on this one, because I think that the reach of the precendent that could be set here is wider than at first it seems. There are a great number of university-related articles, about teams, student societies, specific buildings, etc., etc. that could be affected by the outcome here. Also, I think it is remarkably unlikely that neither the academic industry press (i.e. the sorts of magazines that university administrators subscribe to and write editorials for), nor the local Austin newspapers have never signficantly discussed these programs; it would probably only take a visit to the Austin library to find such stuff (or a non-Austin library with a really good periodical collection on microfiche or whatever), if the consensus is that the university press isn't quite good enough for WP:N purposes. As already noted, I don't have a problem with a "merge" result, but the case for "delete" is far too weak. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC) PS: A quick Googling shows that numerous professionals, especially attorneys, but also academics and others, mention the Plan II Honors program in their CVs, suggesting that it is a widely-recognized program and at bare minimum notable enough to support a redirect to a merged section at the UT Austin article. I.e., it's should not simply disappear off of Wikipedia, because readers will certainly be trying to find out information about it after encountering mention of it in "the real world". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what's mention on people's CVs isn't evidence of notability. I can't even understand why you're bringing up the idea. They're very much self-published sources, and nowhere near independent. If people want to know what an entry is on the CV, then I say it's up to the relevant body to describe it, not Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 22:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment: That wasn't the point; it was a hint to people who actually care about this article surviving as-is rather than being merged (or deleted) - I care more about the precential aspect of the issue - to go look and put some additional sources in there. They can't be all that hard to find if the program is recognizable enough that practicing attorneys all over the place are bothering to put it in their bios. I was not at all suggesting that the bios themselves establish notability. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no belief that what any of these attorney's choose to put in their CV's means anything overall. It's a self-published source, and its usage could be nothing more than kitchen-sink credentializing. FrozenPurpleCube 02:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you do not appear to actually be reading what I'm writing at all. The passage was not intended for you. It was intended for anyone who actually wants to work on this article and prove notability better, as a hint that there is probably material out there. The program would not be well-known enough to credentialize over it, if it weren't, well, kind of well-known, which almost automatically means there will be something very third-party about it in the academic industry press, etc., if someone takes the time to look. I don't care enough about the article myself to do so, but whoever wrote it might. I'm moving on now. Bye. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the passage was not intended for me? Um, ok, so I can't reply to what you write or something? It seems like there's a bit of a hostile attitude, and not conducive to a discussion. I'm sorry that it apparently offends you that I don't agree with their being any merit in people's including this program on their CV's. It's just not exactly something I consider a meaningful act. It doesn't mean there's any notability, or even a hint of it. If it were somebody writing a biography of people who had completed the program, that would mean something. FrozenPurpleCube 07:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I';m willing to go up against McCandlish on this one, because of the precedent. This is a individual specialized undergraduate program at a single university. Every college and university has dozens of majors and undergraduate programs, some with names matching those of departments, some not. A school the size of Texas probably has another 50 or so that could be unearthed from its website if the effort were spent. All of them will at one point or another be mentioned in the campus paper, all of them will be listed on cvs. Very few of them will have special notability outside the university. I see no evidence that this is one of them. I would suggest holding the bar very high on these. I certainly support very full coverage of notable academic people and institutions, but I would do so by not including things such as this unless there were major significant outside coverage amounting to clear notability beyond what the significance for people in the school or for its alumni. There isnt the least need for WP to describe these programs, the unv ersities do it well enough by themselves.

This isn't even distinctive--it's the name they chose to give their interdisciplinary honors program. It's so generic, apparently, that as the article itself says, it isn't even well known within the very university itself "Plan II Honors is often unfamiliar to those not affiliated with the program" If there were to be articles on interdisciplinary programs, they should be on distinctive subject oriented ones, about which there is something more to say than "the top 5% of the class" The program requires the usual distributional courses, and then it requires a thesis. All honor program require a thesis as the main characteristic. This is very much of a slippery slope, and slippery slope arguments are valid when there is no demarcation line, when the tendency to go downhill is apparent--and in this case actually defended-- and the consequences would be massive. But in any case this would still not be notable--this is all the way at the bottom of the notability slope. I call it a metoo program. DGG (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment: If that's the way consensus goes, I can of course live with that, but I don't think I see a reason to not merge. The article on a university should probably the degrees and majors it offers, I would think. Alternatively, if there is an article on this sort of honors program, then perhaps it simply needs a list of such programs and what universities offer them. I.e., I'm arguing for inclusion of the information, not of the article per se. (Same goes for the co-nominated related deletion targets.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I think the University of Texas article might mention these majors/programs (but which ones? there must be hundreds or more at a major U.), but not in the depth they're currently addressed. Also, honors programs in general might be notable -- perhaps there are studies on the design, outcomes, history, etc. -- but an Wikipedia article could not list every honors program in the country. As I responded to Corpx above, if one of the UT programs was a widely cited innovation in academia, then they would be notable. Guanxi 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As SMcCandlish points out above, this might set a precedent (if there's not a precedent already?). It was not my intention to set one, but here we are ... When SMcCandlish proposed an article on honors programs in general, I thought I'd double-check that it doesn't exist. My search turned up many articles similar to those nominated for deletion, even some for high schools. No matter what we determine here, we probably need a broader standard for this issue.Guanxi 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on the broader standard here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. Guanxi 21:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. It is against the heart of the notability guidelines to claim that a single university paper constitutes multiple sources independent of the topic. --Haemo 21:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: I do not see multiple, non-trivial coverage independent of the subject for any of the nominated articles. Also, per DGG above, a precedent for keeping this sort of article around wouldn't be helpful: Wikipedia is not a course directory. — mholland (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm seeing no sign of real-world impact or attention -- and no, the school's own student newspaper is NOT anywhere near sufficient, no matter what handwaving goes on about its independence. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Copied from Talk:WikiProject Universities) I find it difficult to believe that many schools/colleges/department within universities that currently have their own articles fulfill the notability requirements, to say nothing of majors or programs within a school/college/department - it's simply too fine a level of detail to have any non-original research, NPOV coverage. It's the same issue as the oft-cited example of having individual articles for each Simpsons episode or Pokemon character. Call me a reductionist or exclusionist, but the preponderance of these school/college/department stub articles that say nothing more than "The School of Something is one of n schools at Somewhere University" followed by uncited and unverifiable claims of prestige, exclusivity, or quality and a list of previous administrators is information that could easily be condensed into a single article/list. And were such entries in a list juxtaposed with each other, the laughable nature of their content would all the more readily obvious. I broadly support merging school/college/department-level entities into lists and support the deletion of any academic projects/groups/entities at any finer level of detail. Madcoverboy 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The notability issue is discussed here: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) Guanxi 23:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School is a special problem. In US usage, it is often synonymous with college, the first level subdivisions of a university: there is found equally X University School of Medicine, and X University College of Medicine. It cases like this, it is usually notable. Almost any such place will be talked about by RSs in a significant way--if long established, there are likely to be even books. But if it is used to mean anything much less than that, it is less likely to be notable--but many still will be. How we can discriminate effectively between a really major university and an ordinary major university is a little difficult. for some reason, some of the best & best known known US universities do not seem to have an organized group of WPedians there writing about the university. Perhaps the people here have better or at least more conventional things to do. (irony). 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to University of Texas at Austin. Redirects are cheap. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it'll snowball into a delete, with two people (including myself) wanting to redirect or merge. I've went ahead and redirected it -- can't hurt. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:34, 8 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 23:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Have A Little Wank And I Have A Little Cry[edit]

Non-notable album related to non-notable band Kunt and the Gang (band) (also listed today in AFD) Liverpool Scouse 16:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'd also suggest that this is a WP:HOAX and WP:Vandalism. --Evb-wiki 16:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not vandalism, definately exists. [14][15] Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still non-notable, though. The name is so specific it's bound to throw up whatever sites they are mentioned on and whatever images they have on the net as the first results on Google. Liverpool Scouse 17:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The band AfD is further down this page, and the other album has been transfer from prod to afd. KTC 18:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that these album AFDs are held off until a decision is reached regarding the band. SamBC 18:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per reasons in Kunt and the Gang (band). Hits at least 2 of the criteria on WP:MUSIC--Catten666 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Band is notable and receiving attention in the media. I found this article useful to me when looking for information on the band and so I wouldn't like to see it go.--Suttonpubcrawl 11:14, 9 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webgah[edit]

Page was already deleted once as spam. Was recreated, perhaps is better. However, I still believe it's not notable, and there is a clear conflict of interest problem in its creation. The Evil Spartan 16:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's kept, it needs serious copyediting. My inclination would be delete unless it can be rewritten by an independent editor.kateshortforbob 17:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speedy-deleted once as a G11, was immediately re-created. The username of the creator of the article, Webgah, is the same as the website. The article has two items in the reference list but neither one mentions Webgah, so it has no reliable sources to show notability. The creator has not responded to any messages left on his Talk page about the apparent spam issues. COI by itself is not a reason for deletion, but lack of notability is. EdJohnston 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. The Evil Spartan 18:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletions. The Evil Spartan 18:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. The Evil Spartan 18:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. The Evil Spartan 18:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB and the obvious COI problem doesn't help. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably speedily, as per above. --Yamla 19:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I already did once, as spam per creator behavior. Daniel Case 02:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per kateshortforbob as possibly fixable and remotely notable, but really spammy. Bearian 13:55, 6 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. Daniel →♦ 10:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call U Out[edit]

The article begins, ""Call U Out" is the rumored third single by singer Cassie..." — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There are no sources cited (let alone reliable ones), and there's nothing to merge into the album article. Extraordinary Machine 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete! Crystalballery! Unsourced! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:17, 4 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. Sean William @ 21:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kunt and the Gang (band)[edit]

Appears to be non-notable local pub band. Also, user that created article has same username as the "record company" the band are signed to. Liverpool Scouse 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from looking at the article creator's talk page, it appears to have been deleted once before for similar reasons. User talk:Disco minge ... Liverpool Scouse 16:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~I'd also suggest that this is a WP:HOAX and WP:Vandalism.~~ --Evb-wiki 16:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Related AfD : Album 1 & Album 2. KTC 18:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bad news: this disgusting one-man "band" really does exist, although most of the proof thereof is his indefatigable self-promotion, so it's neither a hoax nor vandalism. Good news: there are only 175 hits on Google UK [16] and no evidence this fellow passes WP:MUSIC. RGTraynor 21:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, spam, COI, take your pick. Realkyhick 22:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep:Band do play pubs and clubs but have a sizeable following across the UK. As proved by a nationwide tour. The lyrical content may not be to everyones taste but thats no reason to delete. Artist has been reviewed by national magazines and newspapers including The Guardian and NME. Also has a cartoon in Knave which again, although pretty smutty, still has national exposure. --Catten666 23:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC) — Catten666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The point that I have not made much contributions is irelevant. I have ammended a few articles anonomously as they were only minor changes. A wrong link on the Rugby town and a wrong discography for Danger Danger's Live album. I don't have the time to contribute all the time. However when looking for information on this band I thought I'd try here and found your information was limited. As I had more information I decided to add it to help other users as I had a spare 30 mins. I will state again, this band hits 2 of the prequistes you have set. 1. they have been on a nationwide tour and 2. they have been written about in respectable publications including the Guardian and NME. Therefore this article should be kept. The band is real so it isn't a hoax, or vandalism. If needed I can provide photographs and venue flyers from all over the country as well as scans of the press this band have got. The people who have said to delete seem to find his music offensive, which is fair enough, but that doesn't detract from the fact that he does exist, and he does make music and people will be looking for information on him. Surely the fact he says some rude words isn't a reason to delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catten666 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 August 2007

For proof of said tour and a scan of an NME review and a "Whats playing on the NME stereo" check out the bands myspace, link in the article. The current tour has taken in London, Milton Keynes, Cambridge, Birmingham, Leicester, Doncaster, Blackpool, Edinburgh and Glasgow. This is nationwide.--Catten666 15:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability has been asserted and no sources have been provided which support a claim - the ones already mentioned prove the band exists but nothing more. • nancy • 14:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group passes WP:MUSIC 1."has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Sources can be found on this press page. dissolve ^talk 16:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well, I'm sure that someone could use those cuttings to reconstruct the original references to put into the article to establish notability. If that's done, I'm sure we'll end up with a keep result. Well, pretty sure. SamBC 03:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (sighs heavily) I took myself out of the Delete column on the strength of that. Sskin mags, college papers and indy weeklies aren't impressive as sources, but there are a lot of clippings there. RGTraynor 12:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, one of those clippings was from the Guardian, one of the major national dailies in the UK. SamBC 13:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hundreds and hundreds of bands get into small indie music papers from time to time, and over a few years could probably collect a few to scan, as shown on the band's website here. Hundreds of non-notable bands also go on "national tours", it doesn't make them notable (I'm in a Liverpool band that has played in many other cities including London, I'd never dream of putting us on here). Also it appears the Guardian article was a mention in a piece regarding obscene lyrics along with other non-notable bands, rather than any general musical notability for this band in particular.Liverpool Scouse 19:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The band also has a regular mention in adult magazines Fiesta and Knave. I don't think these can be deemed as respectable publications though. However I would imagine both Knave and Fiesta are read by thousands of people of each month. I would hardly call the NME a small indie paper. I thought it was one of the leading weekly publications on music.
    - You're quite right about the NME - it's not a small indie paper, and it is one of the leading publications on music. They do cover more fringe and indie bands/artists/events than, say, Q, but that doesn't alter the status or reliability of the publication. Remember our definitions of notability - fringe does not imply non-notable. SamBC 20:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dissolve ^talk. Mathmo ^Talk 21:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment - You know this place really is the pits at time. Both albums which link to this article have been deleted, despite the comments in them saying "keep for same reasons as this article", and "may be an idea to wait until a decision has been reached on this article". People waste there time submitting relevant information, trying to get as much information about an article as possible and then someone deletes without first reading the comments on it. I wasted a good 10 minutes per article filling in details, finding running times and such just for someone to delete it. This article still exisits however, probably because it does pass WP:MUSIC, so why were its related articles deleted? Seriously I don't know why I bothered. Not a good first impression of someone new to wiki. --Catten666 09:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per the existence of multiple reliable published sources about them, although they're possibly trivial.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep NME coverage counts as reliable, if only barely. National tour (both england and scotland) is a enough of a tour per WP:MUSIC imo. Adult Magazine coverage is reliable. They fall on like a 2 out of 10 as far as my keep scale goes. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:30, 11 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, it seems. Daniel →♦ 10:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian nationalism[edit]

100% original research and unreferenced specuations. No reliable traces in google for "siberian nation" or nationalism. `'Míkka 16:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article is not about "Siberian nation" but about "Siberian nationalism".--MariusM 11:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article was created on July 31st, seems to be in good faith. I suspect your nomination may be motivated by a desire to suppress the Siberian Nationalist movement, tiny though it might be. Online refs may be limited by Putin's repressive gov't. Speciate 16:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So there cannot be garbage created on 31sts? And how much about this movement you have read? And Putin repressing internet, especially in America, is kinda thick conspiracy theory. `'Míkka 16:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't worry, Siberia is not going to become independent anytime soon; China is scary. Speciate 17:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a promising article, although it obviously needs more work. On the basis of a quick Google search, I believe there are references available (several books, and a couple of papers). Mikka, I think Speciate's point was that the article was only created recently, and we might like to give it a little time. Is there a way to flag this article for potential interested editors? kateshortforbob 17:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs source citation pronto. Googling "Siberian separatism" finds enough details that check out to show it's not OR. Viktor Pepelyayev and the short-lived Siberian government in the civil war are also worth mentioning: see Provisional Government of Autonomous Siberia. Gordonofcartoon 12:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources per Gordonofcartoon. It's a real phenomenon, noteworthy, but little known. In fact there have been and are several trans-Ural separatist movements that are worthy of further encyclopedic attention. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --PEAR (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: someone has deleted and banned a link to a Siberian nationalist forum. --I have a dream81119
Keep It's only been up for a week; author needs to learn a little more on how to display sources, but I can't see why this wouldn't be any less of a secessionist movement than Chechnya. Mandsford 21:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Siberian nationalism seems to be a notable phenomenon. Article is poor but can be improved (or stubbed, removing unsourced speculations) Alex Bakharev 22:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite. The phenomenon do exist and a quick search through Google Books do yield results. However, the term "Siberian nation" is bogus and the article is inaccurate in that the Siberian movement is not entirely pro-independence. Many Siberian nationalists/regionalists advocate autonomy within the Russian Federation. See Nation-Building and Common Values in Russia by Pål Kolstø, Helge Blakkisrud. ISBN; also Nations Without States: A Historical Dictionary of Contemporary National Movements by James B Minahan. ISBN. --Kober^Talk 09:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I don't believe a Siberian language exist and probabily this movement has only a minority support from the inhabitants of Siberia, it is notable.--MariusM 11:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably needs more sources though. Buckshot06 18:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about any sources, at all? Especially some that back up the notability of this topic? Because I sure can't find any, and this article isn't sourced at all. Delete and chide people for assuming bad faith on the part of the nom. --Haemo 21:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: remove the part about Yaroslav Zolotaryov et al. The article about his "Siberian language" was deleted and if he didn't convince even WP that his artificial language is notable then it is unlikely to present himself as notable nationalist. The category Category:Siberian nationalism should be deleted. Pavel Vozenilek 22:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tamokk 05:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of notability. Not a single reference to prove the author's claim. --Irpen 06:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about basic Wikipedia policies like WP:V? There must be references. If none can be found and cited, this article just cannot exist. Conscious 11:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference sourches are being deleted by this user Mikkalai because of a personal grudge he has with the author of this page. Please make sure he does not delete any references, links or the chapter about non-european nationalism.The proof is right here deleted references--I have a dream81119
  - The deleteed sources speak of many things but not about the article says. `'Míkka 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You deleted links to books and articles about the political climate in russia.

Let me analyse the references: [17]: Right when you start reading this article it says: To a great extent Kennan owed his change of opinion to the influence of the Siberian patriot, Nicholas Mikhailovich Iadrintsev (1842–1894), and his wide circle of friends and acquaintances, both inside and outside of Siberia. Aparently George Kennan was an American reporter who was influenced by a siberian patriot. Then it goes on about Tsarist Russia's role in siberia; it says for example. “...Russia is among States the monster criminal of the nineteenth century. There are no evidences in Siberia or elsewhere that can be legitimately, or even decently, adduced to indicate before Americans either the humanity or the justice of that empire. this pertains to the colonialist role tsarist russia took when expanding into Siberia. Even though serfdom had ended, to Armstrong and others, the Russian Empire continued to deserve the approbation of civilized people because of its policy of imprisoning and abusing large numbers of its people in Siberia, for actions which would not be illegal in democratic societies Here we see past acts of agression and violation against siberian people who where ethnically slavic.

This [18] is a review of a book written by a well respected publishing house called Cornell Universite Press. I can't quote directly from the book because i have to go to the library in Rotterdam to get it, but the description of the book has the lines. This story includes Genghis Khan, who sent the Mongols warring into Russia; Ivan the Terrible, who conquered Siberia for Russia; Peter the Great, who supported scientific expeditions and mining enterprises; and Mikhail Gorbachev, whose glasnost policy prompted a new sense of ‘Siberian’ nationalism. It is also the story of millions of souls who themselves were conquered by Siberia. . . . Vast riches and great misery, often intertwined, mark this region.”—The Wall Street Journal I don't think we have to doubt the honesty of this website.

Again; these two are books. [19], [20] Both mention siberian nationalism, but i have to get a list of references about this book in order to prove that to someone; who might not actually live in an english speaking nation or near one. But if you do; you can ask me what chapter to look.

[21] this is a rather large balkan website. I can't find any russian sites about siberian nationalism, because i can't read russian well enough and neither do most people here. But you can help me with that.

Again this article [[22]] speaks for itself with keywords like secession movements, internal interethnic relations and various national bids for sovereignty. Despite similarities, due to legacies of Soviet nationality policies and hierarchical structuring of ethnically-based regions, each case within the Russian Federation requires description and analysis in its own historical and cultural context. Certain strategic cases, for example that of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) of Eastern Siberia (the Russian 'Far East'), can help to reveal the messiness and non-inevitability of secession movements. A social anthropological approach is taken here, to demonstrate why the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) case is particularly significant, how its internal interethnic relations have developed, and what this case demonstrates for larger issues of Russian federation survival. Rather than assuming that Russia is an analogue of the Soviet Union, or that Russia's recent nationality politics consistently resemble the imperial polarising style of past multi-ethnic empires, judgement is suspended.(1) We argue that various national bids for sovereignty or even full independence have been intertwined in the centre-periphery dynamic. Claimed injustices must be reviewed, indigenous leaders heard, and inter-republic relations assessed before generalisations can be made about whether a given Russian federal republic is likely to become a secessionist 'nationalist' domino or the site of interethnic conflagration. Also, i am not going to quote from this article again, because its very long and it talks about a lot of political and economic policies of Russia, and i have to read for 20 minutes before i get to another good quote. What the article describes is ofcourse very positive news and should be placed in the article about siberian nationalism.

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

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

Mister Belgium[edit]

Non-notable male beauty pageant; not covered in any reliable sources ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as my reasons for Miss Teen Queen UK. No multiple, reliable sources that assert this competition apart from the official website. Spellcast 17:59, 5 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. Kurykh 00:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moonpod[edit]

This article was originally speedy deleted under A7. The deleting admin reversed himself at DRV, but there remain concerns regarding notability and lack of independent sources. Delete, pending reliable sources and other comments. Xoloz 15:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no significant reason to delete this article. Both published games by Moonpod have Wikipedia pages that warrant notability within the independent gaming community. The awards that those games have received are from established publications/websites. The fan base for both published games are current, significant & substantial. -75.130.90.56 16:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)-[reply]

Keep Seems to be about as notable as an indie developer can be. See, for instance, [23]. Rl 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Games from that developer meet notability requirements (e.g. Mr._Robot and Starscape). This in turn causes the developer to become at least as notable. Going with a delete would impact these other articles, and there's already a request to improve the assertion of notability. --Sigma 7 05:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sigma 7's rationale. --Aarktica 14:14, 11 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 23:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Universe[edit]

Non-notable online beauty pageant. Its website is down now and I can't find any reliable sources that cover it. This competition is different from a now apparently defunct meatlife competition that had the same name back in the 60s and 70s. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Googling Lady of Universe (the original title) produces one press release, but I can't see any indication that the contest has actually taken place kateshortforbob 16:10, 4 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. Daniel →♦ 10:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Daley (politician)[edit]

Subject's only claim to notability is being Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley's brother. He's also a mayor of a Chicagoland suburb himself...and I've just restated the entire article. Speedy was declined. --Finngall ^talk 15:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Suburban mayors are not inherently notable, and the reference to Richard M. Daley is inaccurate. All of Richard M. Daley's siblings are listed at Richard J. Daley#Early career and none of them are named Jim. In fact, Jim Daley of Homer Glen claims to be Richard M. Daley's third cousin, not his brother. [24] --Metropolitan90 16:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scope of notability is so small in this case that I dont think it warrants inclusion into WP Corpx 17:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, at least not yet. He's not really a son of Dick Daley or brother of Richard Daley, and he's been mayor of Homer Glen for only 3 months. He's appropriately mentioned in the Homer Glen article. --orlady 18:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, falls far below normal WP:BIO requirements. Relation to Chicago Daleys would not meet notability standards even if it were significant. --Dhartung | Talk 19:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Richard M.Daley as content is very limited.--JForget 23:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He's the man's third cousin. That tenuous blood connection is not significant enough to merit mention there. --Dhartung | Talk 12:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, does not meet the WP:BIO requirements. Burntsauce 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, he is the mayor.... Mathmo ^Talk 22:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....which all by itself is insufficient under the criteria for politicians under WP:BIO. --Finngall ^talk 00:44, 9 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 23:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Power's[edit]

Main ghits are wikipedia and myspace, notability, verify issues. Pharmboy 15:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 17:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until and unless reliable sources can be found. Eluchil404 21:00, 10 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 23:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being the Further of the Adventures of a Woman of Pleasure[edit]

This is an imaginary book title in a movie. Not notable on its own and offers no context outside of the movie. I first req. a merge, original contributor didn't seem interested, so here we are. Pharmboy 14:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as far as I can tell, this is not a fictional book, but an upcoming book (or part of one). Sources are scarce and effectively limited to the quotes given in the article, and I doubt "Being the Further ..." is really going to be the title. Currently fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:FICTION (in case it really is fictional), WP:NOT#CRYSTAL (otherwise). Huon 22:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears the nom is a bit off, but was based on the actual article at the time nom was made, which says it an imaginary book named in the movie Pharmboy 23:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of this article, yes I totally agree it should be deleted. But not wishing to be a pain, I want to correct a few points in the previous postings; the article is about a fictional book extracts of which will be appearing in a _graphic novel_ not a movie as the above contributor has suggested, it's called "League of Extraordiary Gentlemen: Black Dossier", AT NO POINT IN ANY VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE WAS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT THIS ARTICLE WAS REFFERING TO A MOVIE, there is plenty of information about Black Dossier both on and off the web, e.g. I have a page at http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/League/loeg0025.html, just google "Black Dossier", it's coming out Oct 2007. The title "Being the Further of the Adventures of a Woman of Pleasure" is totally correct and will not changed as some of the above contributors have suggested, this graphic novel is completed, and I have personally seen the title as is in proofs. Anyway to cut a short story long, yes, it should be deleted, thanks for the discussion Damiantgordon 00:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC) damiantgordon[reply]

Keep It's no different than having a page on a single-issue comic (of which Wikipedia has plenty) and furthermore, the fact that the nom has no idea what he's talking about really bugs me. Kuralyov 01:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the article history at the time the nom was made, it all gets a bit clearer. Pharmboy 12:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I don't want to be a pain, but all this article history shows is that at the time the nom was made it was stated that this fiction book was appearing in LoEG: Black Dossier, clicking on the link would lead to the main "LoEG (Comic)" page. Damiantgordon 15:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC) damiantgordon[reply]

Comment I just noticed that the only source I found is hosted under http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/ , showing a possible conflict of interest given that the page was created by Damiantgordon. --Huon 15:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original contributer requested delete See above. He has politely requested delete, so the issue seems a bit moot. Pharmboy 19:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor element in upcoming comic book based on a flight of fancy by Alan Moore. Utterly not in need of an article, this would serve much better as a redirect. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:46, 7 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. Eluchil404 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pa Cronin[edit]

Doesn't seem to fulfil WP:BIO requirements for sportspeople. However, I don't know much about hurling, or if this league in which he plays is the top league, so I'm neutral on this. Nyttend 14:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a 20 year old who recently made his debut in the top league. Every other member of the Cork team with a squad number of 21 or under has an article (Cronin is No. 12). Beorhtric 19:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pa is a Senior player in the Cork Hurling team. He essentially has played several games in the games top competition. Very notable and often is included in Sports coverage in the national press. Volvic2 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's Comment — What these two people have said is enough: I withdraw this nomination. Nyttend 00:39, 6 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 23:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Jacobi[edit]

AFD: reason:

a user called Jonas.Jacobi initially created the article about Jonas Jacobi,
the subject JJ wrote zero computer scientific articles,
JJ has acquired zero computer scientific awards,
JJ has written zero comma five book about Java/AJAX/TLA that is so blatantly erroneous, that when a WP:editor tried to surf into a web page made according to this book, that WP:editor was forced to kill his internet browser by a very gruesome and almost evil unix command,

Article subject fulfill all of the following ignorability criteria (inversed from WP:BIO):

zero secondary sources,
zero biographies,
zero awards,
zero wide recognition,
zero widely recognized contribution to CompSci, unless hanging one mozilla counts,
one commercial endorsements of exactly zero comma five demonstrably dangerous and destructive products.

Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement seems to be the one perfect axe to calmly "attach to the neck" of the article. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I see no assertion of notability. Even if it did assert notability because he wrote a ...for Dummies book, I'd say that it still isn't notable. There are squillions of those books, and co-authoring a single book (assuming the book itself isn't highly remarkable) is not particularly notable. Whilst I don't think the quality of a personal website really matters, it is important that the guy seems to have no notable, high-profile, contribution to anything whatsoever. Add in the fact that this is a vanity page and the only external link is to an Amazon.com book page, and I think we're quite safe to delete this one. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 15:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'd like to see a more thorough and cited discussion regarding this person's notability. I'm not a big fan of the ghit argument, but I would say that 46,000+ ghits warrants further investigation, as does industry notability indicated by things like this. Groupthink 19:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, going by his promotional bio here (warning: popup & noisy ad), seems to be only marginally notable. If there were independent reviews of his books found or the company becomes notable we could reconsider. --Dhartung | Talk 13:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. (1) is not a reason for deletion, there is zero evidence for (2) or (3) (and they are not reasons for deletion, and I am nearly positive that (2) is blatantly false), and I have no clue what (4) says. This person is a notable writer and speaker, and very well-known. Pro JSF and Ajax seems like a fairly popular book as well. He has attracted significant attention from credible secondary sources, e.g. this, this, etc. Remember, the proper qualification is verifiable, not verified. — xDanielx^Talk 06:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this:

Mr. Jacobi is a frequent speaker at international conferences and has written numerous articles for leading IT magazines such as Java Developer's Journal, JavaPro, AjaxWorld, and Oracle Magazine. Jonas is co-author of the recently published book Pro JSF and Ajax: Building Rich Internet Components, (Apress).

Can I retract my own AfD? Even if I have a "scientific" bias and regards IT magazines as not ensuring enought quality in all cases, the articles in question may actually be good enough for what I regard as "scientific-quality" articles: read first, estimate afterwards. As regards hanging mozilla on Linux – just a crude (and slightly sadistic) estimation on the techniques used. I would like it if someone replaced my AfD with a Request-to-Improve/Debias. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can rescind your own nomination, in which case the current AfD discussion will be closed (although someone else can AfD nom this article later on). If you don't know how to do a non-admin closure, just post a message here stating that you withdraw your nomination and someone will close this AfD nom for you. Groupthink 04:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darn! Now it happened again? killall -KILL mozilla. What is it that makes my mozilla hang on just this guy?? Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, down with spam. Burntsauce 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. per xDanielx^Talk, also smells of potential personal bias towards this person? (when you take into consideration the potentially blatantly false statement in the nomination) Mathmo ^Talk 22:01, 8 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 23:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick.Cms[edit]

Article has twice been ((prod))'d and the templates have been removed. Concerns are that the article reads like an advertisement and does not assert its notability. Non-notable web software. Also, apparent WP:COI issues. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 14:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unable to find any reliable sources JulesH 15:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Then please explain difference of Quick.Cms.Lite article and CMSimple, Cubecart? For me it is unfair to delete one but more other stays. Maybe article about Quick.Cms.Lite must be changed but what must changed etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opensolution (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 August 2007

CMSimple should be kept due to the existence of independent reliable sources about the software (e.g. [25]). If you can show sources about Quick.Cms.Lite that are similar to this one, then it should be kept. I looked for them, but didn't see any. Cubecart might also warrant deletion; a quick scan doesn't turn up any independent reliable sources, although the one million users claim suggests there should be some sources out there -- something doesn't become that popular without being discussed. JulesH 18:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Google Test. 145K vs. 1 to 2 million hits. Also, if you don't think those two articles should exist, you can always submit it to AfD. Also, please see WP:WAX. KTC 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable sources; appears to be relatively unknown. Allow the product time to become widely used and then include it. At the moment it does little more than attempt to drum up interest in the product. --NMChico24 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has already been speedy deleted before. Jmlk 1 7 06:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explanation. We will give some independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opensolution (talk • contribs) 13:05, 5 August 2007

Comment - Just a note. The trick here is finding credible, secondary sources. If you can do that, I'll withdraw my "delete" for this. Please see WP:V as well. I looked, couldn't find anything. And best of luck to you. Into The Fray ^T/C 14:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One book have chapter about Quick.Cms but in polish language (http://helion.pl/ksiazki/cmswww.htm). As You see there is Quick.Cms in a list of chapters (http://helion.pl/ksiazki/spisy/cmswww.htm). We can put this source with pages numbers etc but we dont know that it is ok for You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opensolution (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 August 2007

Non-English sources are fine, if that's all there is. Changing my opinion to weak keep on the basis of this source. JulesH 21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then we will read article and translate some of text from this book.

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

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

Bulia Byak[edit]

Uncited stub biography of pseudonymous individual; associated with a notable software project but no assertion of personal notability made in article. Eleland 13:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable person which even the article admits virtually nothing is known (and nothing at all can be reliably sourced). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, even though I love Inkscape. Realkyhick 19:32, 4 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 (no clear consensus) Nabla 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daqing Radio and Television Tower[edit]

Contested prod. This article is about a telecommunications tower. It gives it's height, location, and year of construction, but doesn't say anything about why it is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. It's kind of tall, but it's not the tallest tower in China or anything. The Storm Surfer 12:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Structures this huge are inherently notable. This building is as tall as the Trump World Tower in New York! It is also remarkable as an enormous building stuck in one of the poorest regions of China. The article needs expansion and sourcing, not deletion. --Targeman 13:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a tall structure, but it's not clear from the text that it could really be considered a building. — The Storm Surfer 14:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it isn't a building because its structure is a steel skeleton? I suppose that means the Eifel Tower isn't a building, either? Besides, what difference does it make what we call it? --Targeman 14:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, appears inherently unexpandable. If there's an article here, I'm not seeing it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am. I believe this can be quite easily sourced, illustrated and expanded. This is a short article in the making, not a permanent stub. I've contacted WikiProject China for some input. --Targeman 14:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The tower is listed on the this website [26]. The article also exists on the Portugese wikipedia [27] and the Japanese wikipedia [28] although this is probably irrelevant. The tower doesnt seem to be hugely noteable, unless anyone can find some reliable sources proving that it is.Tbo 157 17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk -

Contribs) 15:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no inherent notability for structures and this one is lacking coverage from independent sources Corpx 17:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you done research in sources in the relevant region of China? Beorhtric 20:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I was just going by the lack of sources in the article. If you can provide any, I'll be glad to change my mind Corpx 20:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its height makes in notable. Anyone in the rather populous vicinity might wish to look it up. Beorhtric 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no inherent notability for a utilitaritain and fungible TV tower of 260 meters, with over a hundred taller structures in the list of towers. It would have to have substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources to show it is notable. Edison 20:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that this tower is deep in the sticks (almost in Siberia), sources are likely to be in Chinese only. As my Chinese is strictly limited to profanity, I'd wait a few days for a zh-speaker to dig up something. --Targeman 20:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sentence makes for a serviceable article, albeit a short one. Seems more notable than the masses of tower articles that were deleted a while back. —Xezbeth 21:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I have to come down on the side of keep for now, as many smaller towers in the list of towers seem to have articles, and sources in Chinese may yet be found. However, if nothing changes, the article may need to be deleted.--Danaman5 06:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have suggested a keep, but with out a single source the article is untenable. --Joopercoopers 17:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Searching for 大庆广播电视塔 returns quite a few hits; I've added the fact that it is the highest steel broadcasting tower in China. Someone with Chinese expertise should easily be able to expand this article using reliable references. Warofdreams talk 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not a zh speaker so I can't read the citation but if the claim of "the highest steel broadcasting tower in China" can be confirmed then it would give it some architectural importance. I suggest asking for expert advice from WikiProject Architecture. Dbromage 05:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep，tall enough.We had already kept so much Category:Towers by country,if we must delete this tower,we should delete the majorties of towers in the category.Try to nominate Afd the Bicentennial Tower--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/keep. Finding online English language sources for an article like this might not be very easy. Looking for printed works such as Chinese newspapers, books etc. would most likely get much more results. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just as a note - I don't know if this particular building is notable, but it may be useful to note that in recent years, a lot of newer buildings in China were designed to look impressive and non-traditional. A lot of these were designed by famous Western firms whose native countries have stricter building restrictions. But right now the Chinese government is out to impress to the world that the country is modernising, that's why these firms have been allowed to design very non-traditional looking buildings in China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. This photo seems to show the tower. It seems to be quite a prominent landmark in a major city... --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does, and it is. --Targeman 18:16, 7 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 Eluchil404 21:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Bliss[edit]

Borderline notable band, has released several albums and signed to Capitol Records in June but don't appear to meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC. In addition, a few paragraphs of the article were copied verbatim from the band's website so I removed them. The unexpurgated revision is here. CIreland 18:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of this is cribbed from their MySpace. They don't seem to be at #36 on the Mediabase chart, but this chart shows they're at #132 (previously #85) with a different song. Billboard doesn't seem to acknowledge their existence, however. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was leaning weak delete based on article, and then found their CD on sale on Amazon, and several other mainstream references that are not in the article. Major label, CD at mainstream stores, refs from many sites, seem to quality. The article doesn't reflect this, but that doesn't change notability. Pharmboy 22:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add the refs? I couldn't find any good ones. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using either "royal bliss" band or "royal bliss" rock gets you plenty of ghits, but you have to filter through a bit, many places sell the CD, including:

http://www.amazon.com/After-Chaos-II-Royal-Bliss/dp/B000F3AJQC includes an editorial review and buyer reviews (not many, granted)

At least one article from Deseret News, Over 150 year old daily newspaper of Salt Lake City, UT at http://www.desnews.com [removed broken session info, have to search in archives...]

Some lesser links include http://www.nipp.com/artists/detail/royal-bliss , http://www.answers.com/topic/after-the-chaos-ii?cat=entertainment , http://home.online.no/~kasboe/interviews_royalbliss_int.htm , and I could give many more.

They are most notable in Utah, but have reached out passed their state borders enough to have fans in several states. Again, the article kinda sucks but the band appears to not. I have never heard of them or heard their music, so I don't have a horse in this race, but they really do seem to meet WP:BAND by touring and putting out CDs as Indys before signing. Pharmboy 23:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; the article is a real hash that is difficult to try and pick out the relevant notable bits from. It looks like they're getting some airplay at major stations, but I'm not convinced by the sources from Pharmboy; local newspapers often do cover local bands, and I don't see anything from outside of the SLC area. My own search turned up a few possibles, but most of them were from SLC and needed buying to see the damn things. Mediabase does seem to be a fairly good chart, but I can't see below #30 to confirm the statement in the article. I also can't really confirm that they're with Capitol. I can't confirm they meet any of the WP:MUSIC requirements - I can't tell if their indie releases were on a notable label or not. If someone turns up better sources or clears up any of these issues, I'd be happy to reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the issue is the threshold. Any one of the references alone wouldn't be enough, but imo, they break the threshold with several things going on. They are more than just a local band (don't have a link, but they got press in LA and elsewhere). They aren't Aerosmith, but they are far above "local only band". I never heard of them before I researched them but they seem to be doing pretty well (and meet wp:music) if they are getting major radio play. Pharmboy 18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is that a lot of small bands do get airplay at a lot of stations - I know of one band from the little town I used to live in that had play on stations across Canada, but I'd never try to write an article about them - they haven't toured nationally, their coverage has been all local, and they've no notable label releases. We really, really need sources to indicate the impact this band has made, but I haven't found them yet. Several more days to get them, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. new to the Wiki game so I apologize if the article has flaws, I knew that it would. Tried to keep it to just facts and although I have not been able to find on Capital records website that they are signed I do know for a fact that they signed with them in early June and are recording an album with under that label right now which will be releasing soon. I understand the reasons for what you reference as a "weak delete" but they have much more going than a google search shows. I was very surprised to see that they did not have a wikipedia page already when I searched it out and just though, this is what this website is for, someplace that information can be put up and view by people trying to learn more about a subject. Those are my reasons I think you should keep the page, but if it gets deleted now I have confidence that soon there will be a need for it and it will be brought back then. Thanks brentsmith79 12:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not intended for spreading information about a "new" band or to get the word out about them, and that's what happens sometimes. My opinion above is based on what I've been able to see. I'd be more than happy to reconsider if someone can point out more references. Alternately, if they do record and release under Capital, and get some reviews and coverage from that, then yes, the article might be better then. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Signing to a major label barely passes notability for bands, but just barely. Realkyhick 19:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete - Absolutely no third-party external sources have been added to this article, even though this AfD has been open for days. The band itself is regional, not even continental in scope. If you want to argue from WP:BAND, start adding sources. As it is, this article fails completely. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.: Signed to capitol records [29], [30]. This passes WP:MUSIC. Sancho 03:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also added multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. I just realized that simply being signed to a major record label doesn't establish notability: the band has to release an album under that label. However, the sources that I added should establish the notability now. Sancho 04:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this passes WP:MUSIC - they only signed to Capitol in June - all their albums were released prior to that. Which criterion of WP:MUSIC, specifically, do you believe they satisfy? Also, the references are good, but they are all local coverage which limits their ability to be used to establish notability. CIreland 11:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This is criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC. Criteria 1 does give three exceptions, but local newspapers aren't one of them. All of the sources are reliable, independent, and are whole articles covering the subject, not just passing mentions. Sancho 17:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as having been signed on by Capitol records, they are notable. Bearian 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, band seems to be somewhat notable; they are also signed to a major record label. --musicpvm 18:58, 10 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 RESULT delete. Rlevse 00:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthux[edit]

Fails to show any notability and a bit of time spent searching turns up nothing more than the official sites, a few blogs and a few forums, and per some comments on the prior 'group' nomination, I am relisting this and Ubuntu Christian Edition seperately. Localzuk^(talk) 12:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Onnaghar (Talk) 20:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a page Religiously Orientated Distributions.

a) These (Ubuntu Christian Edition, Ichthux, Ubuntu Muslim Edition, etc) are currently niche distros. They have been reviewed in media that is orienated towards the target religious group.

b) The difference between Linux (religious flavour) and Linux (music flavour) is simply one of what the target audience is. If there is no justification for Linux (religious distribution) because of apt-get, then there is no justification for Linux (music) , Linux (security) etc, becuase apt-get will provide the same functionallity.

c) Ubuntu (or any other "mainstream" Linux distro), is for the general user. Linux (religious flavour) is targeted at non-Linux users within that niche (religious) group.

d) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pseudo_daoist/Religious_Distros is a draft of what Religiously Orientated Distributions could cover.jonathon 21:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that page, as I see it, is that no notability is shown except a single niche (as in specific to only the religion) publication covering a single derivative distro. This isn't 'random pet project linux distro-pedia', we have to maintain notability.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on that page. I didn't expect the AfD for these to come up before the discussion about whether to merge them into Ubuntu (linux Distribution) had taken placejonathon 07:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reasons I outlined in the AFD for Ubuntu Christian Edition: I can easily 'apt-cache search bible' and apt-get install the resulting package names. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apt-get might work as a replacement for this distro --- if users have a list of programs that are Christian orientated. There is a program for tracking prayers for Christians, that was written for Linux. (I don't know why neither Ubuntu CE & Ichthux include it). It isn't in either the Debian or Ubuntu repository. (Neither is the one for determing when to pray if one is Jewish. There is one for determing when to pray, if one is a Muslim. The latter is there because of Ubuntu Muslim Edition.)jonathon 23:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Leave), for same reasons I outlined in the AFD for Ubuntu CE. Whether or not this can be obtained using Apt-get makes no difference as to whether this is a real distro Wikipedia can mention. Kubuntu, Xubuntu and Edubuntu can all be obtained via apt-get after installing Ubuntu - does this make them not real distributions and unworthy of a Wikipedia entry? And who decides what is worth writing about in Wikipedia? There are articles about all sorts of crazy, obscure things here, should they all be deleted? If someone considers it worth the time to write a page on, and the info in the page is true, leave it. Someone else might be interested in reading it. If you aren't personally interested in the distro you don't have to read the article.Sjdennis2 11:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin, the above user has only ever made 7 edits, mostly to this and another related AFD.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That does not mean that their opinion is not valid.--Mhancoc7 02:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well done Localzuk, you have done your research, and once in the past you too had only made 7 edits. If you have any objections to what I actually wrote, please feel free to write this here. Otherwise please refrain from criticising my edit using an irrelevant personal attack. Sjdennis2 15:54, 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, Sandstein 12:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A border case ... producing a Ubuntu or a Debian distro is pretty easy. I think, if the article is for real and not an elaborate hoax like "Jesux", then it definitely doesn't deserve it's own article, but rather a small section in a lengthier article on specializing distros. The distro's official links are obviously in a very bad shape, so it should probably be regarded as a try to start a special distro. I think merge somewhere, but to where?? Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 16:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —Rl 18:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthux is a legitimate distribution. It was originally based on Koppix, not Ubuntu. It was the first religiously orientated Linux distro to be publicly released. My suggestion is to create a new article Religiously Orientated Distributions, and merge it into that. (Depending upon how "distro" is defined, between 5 and 10 religiously orientated distributions are currently available. jonathon 16:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Lacks reliable third-party published sources--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sufficient material to meet general notability guidelines. --Aarktica 14:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. After ten days of AfD, the articles still lack any sources whatsoever. WP:V mandates deletion. As noted in the discussion, the two "keep" votes actually employ arguments for deletion. The articles' fair use images that are not used elsewhere are also being deleted. Sandstein 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AS Alegrías[edit]

Also included in this nomination are:

This is a test case nomination covering the above six articles of a larger article pool in Category:Banpresto Originals, which currently lists 143 articles predominantly on characters from various incarnations of the Super Robot Wars video game series authored by Banpresto Originals. Almost all of the articles in the category are entirely unsourced and thus unverified and concomitantly, are presumptively original research. Though I think they're all probably verifiable, I don't think any of these, or the similarly situated articles in the category, are the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources in conformance with our notability standards, and thus can never be made into proper, tertiary source, stand-alone articles.

Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia:

Major characters and major treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are covered in the article on that work. If an encyclopedic treatment of a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, that character is given a main article. Minor characters and minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters."

And, per WP:NOT#PLOT (the language of which is tailored to articles on fictional stories, but the intent of the section extends quite naturally to things and characters from fictional universes):

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article..

I think articles on fictional universe items and characters, where the material is unverified and the subjects do not appear to be able to meet Wikipedia:Notability, should simply be deleted. But being mindful of the trend to merge such articles into a "lists of characters in..." per the above, I have pre-created a subpage with merged material for all six, coupled with a GFDL-compliant edit summary. Thus, though I'm recommending deletion, were this to close with a merge and delete/redirect consensus, the subpage can simply be moved to the mainspace under the name List of characters in the Super Robot Wars series or List of Banpresto Originals characters, which would also function as a repository for future nominations. I have merged each article's material, such as it is, only in bare summary; that is in keeping with recommendations at WP:FICTION, and since the material is unverified, its current form is not sacrosanct but rather subject to removal at any time. Note that I attempted to redirect a few of these articles to Super Robot Wars already, and was promptly reverted [31], [32].

Evidence: For all six articles I have searched:

Google web: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38];
Google books: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]; and
Google news: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50].

Not a one came back with any results for news or books. For the web searches, as can be expected, I found some listings, ranging from 23 unique hits to a high of a little over 200. I scanned at least the first thirty hits for each article's search and found not one source that appeared to contain significant treatment of the subject and was independent and reliable—indeed, the majority appear to be message boards, blogs, fan sites and the like. Note that I did not cherry-pick especially problematic entries out of the category. These are the first six articles therein that are on stand-alone characters.

Mindful that large, mass AfDs have historically caused problems—especially for those whose exercise of due diligence before stating their opinion would require too much research time—I am nominating just these six. However, as I have stated, this is intended as a test case; I expect, depending on the result, to nominate more articles in separate AfDs, using consensus here for precedential purposes. Thus, though I apologize for the breadth of this nomination, I am striving for exceeding thoroughness--Fuhghettaboutit 05:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you have a problem with works of Fiction, and want to destroy the work that went into creating those pages? Can I infer from this that you'll also be deleting the other 130+ pages in this category simply because they are fiction, regardless if they're based on people, machines or orginizations? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monarch (talk • contribs) 2007-07-29T10:04:56 (UTC).

No, but as Fuhghettaboutit explained, everything in Wikipedia needs to be verified with reliable sources (WP:RS) - basically you need to provide the sources where the information used for the article comes from (look for example at the references section of any of the myriad of Pokemon articles like Anorith to see what is required). As the google results above show, finding sources for the robot wars characters is not easily possible to do for someone else. So that alone is reason to delete them. --Minimaki 11:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps one small issue with finding the information lies within the language and country of origin for this category. Super Robot Wars was created in Japan, and has a huge fanbase over there. Thus it makes sense that the majority of the information you would have to find on them would be in Japanese. For example [51]

Japanese sources should be ok. As long as all the information gets sourced, I'd also say merge then, as described below by Magenta Galaxy. --Minimaki 23:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and here is a list of the six names in their original Japanese form to help you with your searches on the web.

AS Alegrías- ASアレグリアス AS Soleares- ASソレアレス Folka Albark- フォルカ・アルバーク Axel Almer- アクセル・アルマー Alt Eisen- アルトアイゼン Alt Eisen Riese- アルトアイゼンリーゼ

Conversely, the English exposure to this series of games is somewhat limited. Wikipedia, which is a place for people to discover information about a wide variety of topics, has proven to be a place where the translated information can be assimilated. While it may be prudent to condense some pages together (i.e. Alt Eisen and Alt Eisen Riese are essentially the same machine, being the pre and post upgraded forms respectively), there is no reason to simply remove the large amount of information dedicated to each page simply because its fiction from another country. -Monarch

Merge into "List of characters" and Delete. It seems like an important conversation. Presumably each of these could be sourced, though not necessarily with an online source. (I'd guess the game manual or something was involved in creating these pages.) The question is whether each has notability to stand alone. Wikipedia's policy on fictional characters is currently (in short, summarizing from above wikilink) (1) Major characters are covered in the article of the work unless it becomes too long, in which case they are separated out, and (2) Minor characters receive short descriptions in "List of characters"--either in the body of the article on the work or as a separate article. These do not seem to be major characters. Moonriddengirl 13:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Almar is the protagonist for Super Robot Wars Advance, while Folka Albark is the main protagonist for Super Robot Wars Compact 3. The Alt Eisen and Alt Eisen Riese are one of the main machines the player uses in Super Robot Wars Impact, and in the Original Generation series. The AS Soleares and AS Alegrías are one of the selectable main machines for Super Robot Wars Alpha 3. How are these considered NOT major characters if they affect the majority of the storyline in their respective apperances? -Monarch

If they're major characters (and I'm not sure that being a "selectable main machine" qualifies), their articles need to assert that they are. There's not much assertion of notability in "The AS Alegrías is a fictional robot in the Super Robot Wars series. It has appeared as a playable unit in Super Robot Wars Alpha 3 only." But even if they are major characters, they're still to be covered in the article of the work unless it becomes too long. I see Folka Albark was "a playable character" in Super Robot Wars Compact 3--the fictional work apparently doesn't even have a page. Seems like it would have room to cover its major characters. Moonriddengirl 00:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Robot Wars Compact 3 came out in Japan in 2003 for the WonderSwan, a Japanese exclusive gaming system which currently has no plans of coming to the US. As such, the game in question will probably not be translated to english. Therefore, the page for Super Robot Wars Compact 3 would have to be created from information translated from in a manuel or in-game text that comes from the fourth most complex language in the world. It takes time to translate a project of that magnitude, and therefore must be considered a work-in-progress, just like any other page on Wikipedia. Essentially, you are citizing his page for a small grammatical error of 'playable' instead of 'main' (this shall be rectified forthwith). Also, as for the case of the AS Alegrías, accessing the page for Super Robot Wars Alpha 3 would inform you that it is one of the main character's machines as it is the upgraded form of the AS Soleares, or would you prefer the redunancy of a few lines on all the relivant pages? -Monarch

Essentially, I am questioning the need for a full, separate page for each fictional character related to this project. Merging into the proposed List of characters in the Super Robot Wars series seems reasonable to me, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Moonriddengirl 02:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then you think it fully appropriate to keep each article in its full-length form as they currently are, only compiled onto one master list in order to save space? (This is, in essance, to save the amount of work previously translated and compiled to avoid the sheer and utter bleakness that Fuhghettaboutit has proposed.) If this is the case, would keeping human and mecha seperate be acceptable? -Monarch

Well, I'm just one editor here and can't say whether the list would become unmanageably huge if they were combined as they are, but it does sound like it's worth a try. :) Personally, I think it's a good idea to create lists separated by human and mecha if the single list is too long. As a reference guide, I would imagine it would be useful to your audience, too, to have them together. Moonriddengirl 12:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something similar to the way the Japanese Wikipedia handles the situation. Have two seperate "main" listings - one for SRW characters and one for mechs, and then in the cases where particular characters or groups of characters need more information, link to a seperate page. For example, the Japanese Wikipedia has a List of Banpresto Original Characters, which provides minor one-paragraph biographies of the characters, and then also links to a more detailed mass container document (for example, ATX Team). This would allow us to preserve the information in a more easily categorized format that has been established on the Japanese wikipedia already - and hence would allow the information presented there to be more easily translated and transferred to the English Wikipedia. Just a thought. Magenta Galaxy 14:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are all fictional "robots" that severely lack any real world coverage. This would be much more appropriate at a specialized encyclopedia, where it could be transwikied to Corpx 17:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that Super Robot Wars info should be kept in Wikipedia since it's difficult to find information about that game series in English. --Luisedgarf 03:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Luisedgarf; Wikipedia is the main site that myself and many others I know use to look up information about Banpresto Original characters, and if you delete that category altogether, there really isn't any other english site that has information about the characters/mechs. Jonny 04:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:USEFUL won't be a good reason not to merge them like in the Japanese WP. --Minimaki 10:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "difficulty of finding information about them" and Wikipedia being the "main site" to "look [them] up", when they are unsourced here, are arguments for deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still about their relevance, I will establish some more points. 1 - AS Alegrías / Soleares - The Alegrías and Soleares easily constitute one of the most relevant pages in Super Robot Wars. Being one of the protagonists of Super Robot Wars Alpha 3, you can select Selena Recital as your protagonist. In that way, the Alegrías and Soleares will appear in more than 60 different stages, with an extremely personal story that depends only on the mech you choose - It's not just aesthetic, playing with Selena Recital is a different *game* than playing with other characters.

2 - Axel Arma/Almer - Besides being the male lead for Super Robot Wars Advance, where he is either the main character, with one corresponding personality and background, or the main rival, with another completely different one (Also, soon to be the lead of Super Robot Wars i, a conversion of Advance to mobile phones), he is the rival of the undisputed lead of Super Robot Wars Original Generation 2, Kyosuke Nanbu. He also has a large background, being one of Banpresto's most cherished characters.

3 - Alt Eisen / Alt Eisen Riese - Definitely merge. In this case, since the Riese is a mid/late game upgrade to the original Alt Eisen (one of the 2 main protagonists' mech from SRW: Original Generation, the main protagonist's mech from SRW: Original Generation 2, as well as the main mech of Super Robot Wars Impact), it doesn't deserve a page of its own.

4 - Folka Albark - Possibly the most important entry here. Altough Folka is only the protagonist of one relatively unknown SRW, Super Robot Wars Compact 3 for the WonderSwan Color, he is still an important character. In Super Robot Wars Original Generations, he is a late-game rival. In the upcoming Super Robot Wars Original Generations Gaiden (unconfirmed title), he will be one of the selectable main protagonists according to an important magazine scan.

Signed, Kind Anon.

Comment I also do support merging most of the articles to emulate the Japanese Wikipedia format for these said articles. But I noticed that other plot-heavy games such as Final Fantasy 12 & Metal Gear Solid 3 for example, use actual quotes from the game as references, since some Super Robot War games include an encyclopedia within the software I fail to see why that cannot be used as a reference. Furthermore, the main site [52], has plenty of information that can be regarded as references. Most of the articles can also be backed up by [53], unfortunately as a promotional pre-order gift, it lacks an ISBN number due to the fact that it was not meant for commercial release. Is there still anyway this can be regarded as a source? -Another Anon

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Navou ^banter 22:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past CPL Winners[edit]

Subject is non-notable. There seems to be no significant coverage of this list or elements of this list in reliable sources independent from the subject. Sancho 03:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 04:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would compare thecpl to the chess tournaments in their heyday. There's lots of coverage for these competitions and thus attesting to the notability of this list. Lots of coverage of CPL events on google news Corpx 06:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The CPL has been the only consistent electronic sports tournament host for the past ten years. They may have lost a lot of ground in the past two years, but this still is a very important part of e-Sports history. This list is accurate and is really needed for future reference by anyone who wishes to do research on the history of western e-Sports. An article like this is a necessity in a time where a lot of people are trying to re-invent history. The sources may be lacking, but those can be added at any time. -- Laurens Hoek 09:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The subject is notable. There is significant coverage of this list or elements of this list in reliable sources independent from the subject. Zerter 09:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 09:56, 3 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, Sandstein 11:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it CPL was a part of esports which is followed and watched by hundreds of thousands, with the intent to reach millions with CGS on DirecTV. It's an important part of history because CPL was the main tournament for esports for many years, hence its winners are part of history. This page documents that history. Shinobidawn 3:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Comparison to chess tournaments is kind of silly, at least professional chess (while equally dorky) is covered by international media and reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Onnaghar (speak.work) 14:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Corpx. These events *are* covered in media, so I see no reason not to include information about who has won them. JulesH 15:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is fine in the context of the parent article, and was created as a split from the parent which is an accepted practice. WP:PAPER. —Xezbeth 21:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Corpx. --Aarktica 14:45, 11 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Live Curse[edit]

Speedy Delete - Fails WP:NOTE, WP:RS, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV. A pointless article full of speculation. Not much else to say. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and a pox on its house. The references are, in their way, actually kind of funny. Except for the one link to Saturday Night Live's website that actually refers to the curse (obvious a citation with COI issues), all other links are either to the imdb page for the actors or, I love this, to wikipedia itself. -Markeer 12:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every time a former member of SNL dies under bizarre circumstances, this term is used in various entertainment news broadcasts. This superstition has been propagated through the comedian and entertainment business communities since Farley's demise(ref:[54]), it is fairly well documented ([55], [56]). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, arguably, but does that make the subject noteable? Does that make the subject lengthy enough to have its own article? I don't think so. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, with better citations per Anetode this can be considered, but to be honest now my thought is one sentence in the main SNL article ("media has sometimes described the deaths of X cast members as a curse") with a few citations would be more than sufficient, unless someone can come up with some sort of verifiable proof that there is a supernatural agency at work here. I suppose my sarcastic comment above was based largely on the title of this article, since "Curse" is one of those things that always gets the WP Project on paranormal activity in trouble. -Markeer 13:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current SNL article appears to be a 95kb dumping ground for trivia and cast/guest lists. I think that it might be wise to split off Saturday_Night_Live_(US)#Cast_member_deaths and the SNL Curse articles into a List of deceased Saturday Night Live cast members. Most of this information already overlaps, a paragraph or two on the "curse" itself should provide a sufficient context. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Anetode's suggestion; the so-called curse is notable enough to be mentioned in some format, but with rewording, and removal of OR. Zidel333 15:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pitiful and disgusting attempt to twist the sad deaths of 8 real-life people to some kind of "curse", even though their causes of death are varied and not very mysterious: 3 of the 8, for example, died of cancer. The fact that this has existed since April is abhorrent and shows that, very clearly, Wikipedia still has a long way to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew Lenahan. The claim of a "curse" is so weak that Andy Kaufman is included in this article, despite the fact that he was never a cast member of SNL, only made guest appearances, and was banned from the show by audience vote. --Metropolitan90 16:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very weak on sources, lots of speculation. Realkyhick 19:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A TV show now approaching its 33rd season, with hundreds of cast members over the years, none of them yet old enough to die of natural causes... I've seen better curses than THAT. Sports Illustrated Curse, the Kennedy Curse, the Bush Family Curse... sure. But SNL? No. Mandsford 22:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO. There need to be reliable sources about this term, not just sources that use it. Strongly oppose the notion of a list of deceased cast members. It would not stand at AFD, just as lists of deceased wrestlers, lists of deceased rappers and the like have not stood so don't waste your time on it. Otto4711 18:24, 5 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, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hledání antipoda[edit]

Foreign language collection of short stories ~~with which the editor seems to have WP:COI issues~~. I believe it fails notability for books. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 11:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay,why exactly do czech books articles get deleted,though they are detailed enough,but things such as The Survivor and Others ,although being only proclaimed a Lovecraft/Derleth colaboration and not having any significance to Lovecraft and has no text on the books contents, merely the "contents" and information about the edition,are kept?

And dont tell me its not notable,what IS notable on the short article of "The survivor" if there practicaly nothing there?

PS:Conflict of interests?

New Babylon 2 11:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My apologies for the COI comment. I've struck it through. I believe I was looking at three different things at once and thought your edit history had only this book in it. The reason I didn't ((prod)) the article and brought it here instead was because I can't check secondary sources in the Czech language with any authority to establish the book's notability. I am not familiar with the articles that you mentioned above. If they're not suitable for Wikipedia, then feel free to nominate them for deletion. This is simply a process wherein I am asking other editors to review and comment on my feelings about your article, it certainly isn't a guarantee of deletion. And I certainly don't target Czechs or anything like that. I came across your article because of typos, not because I was out looking for Czech-related articles to nominate for deletion. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 11:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The author, Alexej Pludek, was known as a fringe Communist and anti-Semite. He wrote several books, none of which is apparently notable enough to have its own article on Czech Wikipedia. Google produces only a handful of hits, none of them relevant. Google Books yields nada. A search in the Czech National Library catalog [57] reveals this book had only one edition, in 1986. I reckon this this book can be considered not notable enough. The article itself indicates only 63,000 copies were printed. (BTW, that and the book's price are totally useless in an encyclopedia article!)--Targeman 13:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some notable english sentences are in brackets affecting readability. Onnaghar (speak.work) 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Alexej Pludek was a relatively popular Czech writer. His most known work are three loosely connected historical novels (which would deserve an article). He also got engaged in politics obtaining label of anti-semite (and other epithet's) in the process.

My first reaction was to vote delete since this book is neither his best (I'd read it and didn't struck me as a great work) nor he's known because of it. The text would require quite a lot of grammar checking.
On the other hand, the trend (which I welcome) on WP is to cover even books that are not bestsellers. Article for a novel that was read by thousand or more people has a chance to be maintainable and could be useful for a few. In the future, hopefully, it will be possible to systematically link to online editions and WP could then serve as a starting point for readers.
That Czech Wiki doesn't cover Pludek's works is because it is a small Wiki which covers maybe 1% of what it eventually should. Pavel Vozenilek 23:19, 5 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 per CSDs G1 (nonsense) and A1 (no context). Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay guy in famiy guy[edit]

Nonsense page. Easily able to merge into Family Guy. Brianga 10:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 10:52, 4 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, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Police 911 2[edit]

Unreferenced, POV, at some points it proves a bit incoherent... I think this material should be deleted. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 10:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Onnaghar (speak.work) 14:22, 4 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 with University of Queensland (specifically, the Other facilities section). Giggy ^Talk 09:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King's College, University of Queensland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/King's College, University of Queensland

Non notable dorm. Speciate 09:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. KTC 10:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. KTC 10:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of Queensland.--JForget 23:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is so much worse and incomplete than articles on Colleges at Melbourne University, Sydney University and Adelaide University, that a merge to the University seems best for now until someone gets round to witting good articles on the Colleges at U of Q. --Bduke 00:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UQ's article for the moment. The college is sufficiently old/large/significant etc that I'm sure a reasonably-written article could be written about it, but the best idea would be to hive it off from UQ's article after it gets too big there, rather than keep this one hanging around at the moment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify terms here, in case US-English and Australian-English are clashing. The building in question is a residential building at the university, rather than a university itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Queensland. Twenty Years 05:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unsourced and, as such, doesn't meet WP:ORG, but arguably warrants coverage. Break back out when/if it becomes long enough to warrant it and has clear and sourced case for independent notability. MrZaius^talk 21:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete schoolcruft. Colleges shoule meet WP:CORP, this article does not.Ga rr ie 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite completely. The subject matter is notable. The fact that the article is in poor shape at the moment does not mean it cannot be expanded and improved in the future. However as the article stands, it is a copyvio of http://www.kings.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=29803, so it will need rewriting immediately anyway.--Yeti Hunter 00:50, 9 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^♫ 04:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of generations[edit]

The mother of all problems, in terms of generations. It's really sad to see how this table, for example, gets placed on an important page, such as that of the Beat Generation. Looks like many others have expressed concern about this. Seems like the time to act has come. Dylanfly 17:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that these classifications aren't in suficiently widespread use to warrant an article, or do you dislike the article for some other reason? If they are reasonably well-known terms then it seems an obvious keep to me. Though it may have its shortcomings at the moment, it is potentially a very worthwhile and interesting article. I would say, though, that it ought to be renamed to make it clear that it's about Western, primarily American, culture. Matt 02:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

Speedy Keep Not even close to a valid rationale. Possibly this user meant to delete template:generations? There's already a discussion about the deletion of that template: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Generations. If the argument is that this is pseudoscience then indeed the response is to label it as such. Deletion for something as widely discussed and referenced as this is not an option. --JayHenry 03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'comment we don't have any real precedent for pseudo-social science, a much less definable term than pseudo-science, which is difficult enough. What the article needs is some NPOV. Perhaps now that it has gotten some attention this can be done. It's not the labeling that is needed exactly, its the references showing what is thought of it. I've discussed the template at the TfD. DGG (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Agree with JayHenry's point about the nom, but Jay you yourself have not provided a valid rationale for keeping. You reference "deletion for something as widely discussed and referenced as this...", but what exactly is "this?" Are you seriously arguing that this "list of generations" is widely discussed? In what reliable sources is this list discussed? Not the concept of generations, but the list we have developed here. That is, how is this not original research? Most of this list is based upon the generational theories of Strauss and Howe, but they are amply, amply covered in a series of articles as you are well aware. This list does little more than amplify that coverage. Since it violates WP:OR (see my comment below) you have not provided a rationale for keep, much less for speedy keep.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you stop to think about that assertion, you might find that it's somewhat out of sync with how we deal with lists on Wikipedia. Per WP:LIST, we create them for navigation and information. This is a very obvious navigational tool for someone who is interested in looking at different pop-culture theories about generations. But this is no more original research than List of cocktails. I mean, I've never read a newspaper or scholarly paper that talks about that list of cocktails, but if you try to delete it, I think you'd find yourself troutslapped. I've read about cocktails, and it's a valid navigational and informational tool to have the list -- there is no doubt in my mind that the articles linked are actual cocktails, and if they are not real cocktails, then I am confident Wikipedia's policies will delete the hoaxes. Exactly the same here. This is valid for navigational and informational purposes. There is no original research, so long as only theories that purport to describe generations are included and as long as the dates are cited (which they generally are in the articles). It's not original research to say "X is a generation, Y is a generation, therefore X&Y are both generations." And it's not original research to say 1921 comes before 1922. Other problems can be hashed out on a talk page. --JayHenry 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom did not really provide a good rational for deletion, but there is an excellent one--this article, like the template folks have mentioned, violates WP:OR and also WP:SYN. In particular look at the "List of Generations Chart." Where does that come from? It is obviously not based on any reliable sources. Like the whole article it is a mish-mash of Strauss and Howe and, well, other stuff. None of it is cited. Who decided that the Beat Generation was a "sub-generation" and of what is it a sub-generation? Same goes for every other "sub-generation." Obviously someone just made this all up out of whole cloth. The chart is pure, unadulterated OR (thus we get howlers like the idea that the Interbellum Generation--that article itself is pure OR and should be AfD'd--is a group whose main "notable occurence", whatever that means, was the "Roaring Twenties" and not the Great Depression). AfD is not a vote, and keep voters must respond to the point that this violates WP:OR or deletion is a must. Most of this is related to Strauss and Howe and we already have a bunch of articles on their theories, so this "list" article (which because of its very listish nature deserves particular scrutiny) serves as little more than an internal link farm for Strauss and Howe related articles. The Japanese-American generations are thrown in too, but we already have articles on them, and they seem to be included simply because there are names for, and therefore articles on, these generations and therefore they can be put in a list (prove me wrong an add in a bunch of other generations for other "hyphenated" Americans). If someone can explain to me what useful purpose this serves and how this does not violate our core policies on original research and synthesis I'll reconsider my comment, but I'm skeptical that anyone will be able to do that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if "someone just made this all up" then that's obviously quite a different matter. However, the nomination made no mention of this. Maybe it should be renominated with a clearer explanation (or, indeed, any explanation at all) of the alleged grounds for deletion. Matt 02:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that a strong rationale was not provided by the nominator, but I have provided one based upon the policies of WP:OR and WP:SYN. The fact that the nominator did not offer these rationales does not matter really, they are now on the table and should be addressed, so given that you voted keep before these policies were brought up perhaps you can address them now, along with JayHenry. I think I explained why I think this violates our policies against original research and synthesis but if you want me to clarify I can do that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated (more or less), I only voted "keep" on the condition that these terms and the classification thereof have some reasonably widespread recognition. If it's just someone's personal invention then I completely agree with you, though I have no opinion on whether it is or isn't. I just think it would be clearer for someone coming to this page afresh to have this clearly stated upfront as the reason for the nomination, rather than having to read through other people's comments to find it. Matt 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

Agreed, again, that the nom could have provided a better rationale, but it's not uncommon in AfD debates for stronger rationales for deletion to be provided later which is what, I would argue, has happened here. Just looking at this article, I think you should be able to tell that it is indeed someone's (or multiples editors) personal invention, and though you say you have "no opinion" on the question you certainly should since you have taken the time to comment in this AfD. Strauss and Howe are obviously used though not cited, but a lot of other stuff is too, and no sources whatsoever are provided. As I said the chart at the end is particularly egregious. To take just one example, the Beat Generation (which in fact is not at all a generation as is obvious from the article--it refers to a small group of writers and artists) is listed as a "subset" of something called Generation Jones. This is quite hilarious, because the Beats were born in the 1920s or earlier, while "Generation Jones" "describes people born between the mid-1950s and mid-1960s" according to the article. The idea that the former is a subset of the latter is thus patently ridiculous, and quite indicative of the fact that this sloppy piece of OR was invented by folks here at Wikipedia. No reliable source would list a group from the 1920s as being a "subset" of a group from the 1950s, and no reliable sources have been used to construct this article. If you agree with these points (particularly after reviewing WP:OR), I would suggest you change your vote to "delete" which is considered a perfectly acceptable practice. If you disagree perhaps you could provide more detailed rationale for your keep vote.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The idea of a link to different terms (most with their own articles) about which groups fall in which "generations" is an excellent navigational tool. In more capable hands, this would be a strong keep. However, this needs some major revisions, and I won't mind a bit if "delete" wins out. The concept is good. The execution is not. #1 is that this is completely unsourced, which is inexcusable; "The Greatest Generation" is a term that, most people know, was popularized by Tom Brokaw in his book of the same name; in fact, ALL of these generations were named by sociologists, journalists, and historians in published works. #2 is that, because this is unsourced, author seems to have drawn from one source or perhaps even personal opinion. Few would agree that the "Baby Boomers" were only born between "1943 and 1950" only. I like the organization of the list, but the accuracy and neutrality of this one are so questionable that it doesn't belong until an accurate list can be put up. Mandsford 14:25, 1 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, Sandstein 08:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Cleanup and Cite. This is a difficult one, since the current article is completely uncited and needs a rewrite to give itself context. The problem is that every one of these "generation" terms is used not only popularly but in Sociology, often compared and contrasted with each other. In other words, this article is a breakdown of terminology used in a major educational discipline. Notability is not an issue, OR issues can be addressed in the article, so the major problem here is citation even though I'm absolutely certain that there is a wealth of scholarship on the subject of 20th/21st century generations. Possibly a quick fix would be to start raiding the citations of the individual generation articles? -Markeer 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Markeer's comments; the article/list is notable for inclusion in my opinion, but it needs a rewrite, and many, many citations to back it up. Zidel333 15:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a valid organizational chart, though I think there might be an argument for *some* editing cleanup, I don't see it as inherently broken. It could possibly stand to be renamed as list of "American generations" or some such since the focus is US-centric, but that's another matter. I do not see this as OR or SYN since there's no conclusion inherently being made here. This could, and should, just be an organizational list, nothing more. FrozenPurpleCube 17:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of sources that tie all these generations together. As of now, this list is completely WP:OR Corpx 17:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd only need a source tying them together if the intent of this page was to create some theory of generations, which I do not see as inherent to the concept of this page. One need only note that the concept of named generations does exist. The only part I have a concern with is the chart at the end, which uses some odd names in a few places. That might merit removal or cleanup of that section. But the prior paragraphs are acceptable. FrozenPurpleCube 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the chart is questionable, particularly since the linking names (second column) don't even point to trend articles of the same name. But that just means remove that column, and possibly the "experienced" column at the end since that area may suggest influences that aren't necessarily in evidence. No reason to throw out an article for two columns of a chart. -Markeer 19:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks perfectly reasonable to me and a handy reference. Sources can always be added. If kept I recommend changing the title to move it out of "List of ..." namespace, which just like "...in popular culture" is a magnet for AFD nominations. 23skidoo 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as undue emphasis on fringe social science. The article on the theory says all that is needed. Most of the "generations" are terms unique to the creator and his few disciples. The only ones for which there are independent sources are the few that were invented by others and widely adopted and have and deserve major articles, such as Generation X. Everything else is in-world, if the term can be used for non-fiction.

I do agree that this is unlike the other "List of ...articles " The others are about principal things that fundamentally have a very notable existence--whether or not the individual items in the list do. List of characters in X implies that at least X is a really important work--otherwise we do and should delete them. That the theory is appropriately given the one or two articles it deserves is no reason for a list of the details. DGG (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean Up. This is encyclopedic material, but some sources would be a welcome addition. Useight 02:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of generations in the USA. 132.205.44.5 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to serve a purpose per WP:LIST, but is unsourced. Personally I think the concept of the 'generation' is nonsense anyway but we don't choose what our sources choose to make notable...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is unsourced and sort of vague.Harlowraman 00:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't even know where to begin. Surely much of this is salvageable, but not necessarily in this one centralized location. Umm... wow. JPG-GR 03:42, 12 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 arguments to "keep" do not sufficiently address the principal reason for deletion. According to the notability guideline for organisations, an organisation is notable if it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources (that are independent of the subject). Evidence of such coverage was not presented and various comments in the discussion suggest that it does not exist yet. If/when such sources become available, the article may be undeleted/recreated. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Universal Society Union[edit]

Non-notable and not very purposeful student group with a name intentionally chosen to create confusion with Oxford University Student Union. -- RHaworth 07:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or Oxford Union -- KTC

Delete nn student society. KTC 08:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —KTC 08:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable student society. Timrollpickering 10:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete. It is a growing and influential Society which already has several members of Oxford Staff on its books, including a lecturer. Has an official stall at the Freshers' Fair, and holds regular, and well-attended meetings. Crosses between many (or in fact all) colleges and has embarked on a publicity campaign to further raise members. With nearly 200 official members, it is more "notable" than various other societies which have wikipedia entries. Perhaps it is being discriminated against due to its jeunesse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.52.103 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2007

For a Wikipedia article, we need the subject to be Notable and Verifiable by secondary source. Being a big society within the university, have staff members doesn't make it notable outside the unviersity. Neither does official stall at Oxford's FW Fair, that comes part with being a university society. KTC 20:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very minor student organisation. It's not being discriminated against, it just isn't notable to anyone apart from its members. Any articles about similar societies should also be deleted, but Wikipedia depends on volunteers to identify such articles, and they aren't all caught immediately. Beorhtric 20:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's unique precisely because it has "a name intentionally chosen to create confusion with Oxford University Student Union." It's a satirical society constantly growing in awareness that is an anti OUSU/Union. It's unique in not charging a joining/membership fee, and in the method of electing a president (certainly among Oxford University societies). It has promoted the recognition of important issues of equality and discrimination (founder's motion to Lincoln JCR concerning the VP(Women) debate that recently caused trouble within the student union. This article should stay. Wadhamite 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uniqeuness within the university does not necessarily make it Notable. It may be doing great work, or stirring up great interest within the university, the question is does anyone else especially in terms of Verifiable secondary sources care? KTC 20:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there could be a stay of execution until the start of Michaelmas term? Secondary sources won't be available until then, but as another user (sign your name next time?) pointed out, if will be in a verifiable secondary freshers fair and Oxford Handbook material. Wadhamite 14:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But does that makes it notable enough for inclusion? This community decided sometime that being university society by itself does not make it notable, I mean it's currently going in a direction that says the whole student union/guild/association body may not be notable enough for inclusion. It may or may not be the case in Oxford, but there will be at least quite a few university where any and all officially recognized societies appears in the SU's material. That's just come as part of being recognized. Those should not / cannot count as independent secondary source. KTC 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only is this society notable in the fact that it's the first union that is completely free in the sense that not only does it not charge to join, but it does also not use all of your JCR's money (which OUSU does), the claim that it is an article created intended to cause confusion is wrong, in my opinion, as the article itself states that O.U.S.U is not to be confused with OUSU. I agree with Wadhamite that the article should stay. Lessthanthree 07:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourced case for notability, lacks adequate context in the section that attempts to distinguish itself from the rest of the cat. No sources readily available in a news search. Will gladly switch to keep if case for notability under WP:ORG could be made and backed up with secondary/tertiary sources. MrZaius^talk 21:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Primary critereon is that a third party has written about the organisation. As the Society has a stall at the Oxford Freshers' Fair, it must therefore feature in the Guide to the Freshers' Fair with relevant information about the society. It therefore fulfills that criteria. The only objection now can be as to the extent of the coverage - a prima facie case for keeping the page has been established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.243.196.177 (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the exception part of that criterion. The information in a fresher information provided by the SU / university count as trivial coverage and primary source. Being feature in the information is part of being at the FW Fair, which is part of being a recognized society. That and only that does not make the society notable. If we're going down this route, I can list around 200 societies from my university that will immediately qualify for inclusion as notable, and I'm sure there's thousands more if we start looking at other university. KTC 09:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although one could argue there is a lack of tertiary and secondary source information on the society, is this unexpected with it being under four months old? Since it's creation it has had regular meetings, two elections and contains a growing number of members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.72.40 (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until and unless it pass the notability requirement, it's not for inclusion. Read my above comment. If just having regular meeting, election for societies' positions and actually having some members is good enough for inclusion, I'm sure we can then just about include every student societies in existence, plus the many many other non-student body that's going to use the argument. KTC 09:10, 8 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. Eluchil404 21:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tefé Holland[edit]

Fails WP:FICT. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appearing as the primary character for 20 issues probably gives her major character status under WP:FICT. ←Ben^B4 07:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Main character status should be determined by coverage from the real world, which this lacks Corpx 17:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - standard comic character article. - Peregrine Fisher 17:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, a standard notable comic character would have their own book. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 08:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — which Tefé did: she was the protagonist of Swamp Thing, third series (written by Brian K. Vaughan).

Keep but add references from reliable sources (e.g. interviews with creators and the like). Character is definitely notable: a Google test gets 32,100 hits. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little bit from Silver Bullet Comics, there's a good amount more. - Peregrine Fisher 01:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it asserts notability, just needs cleanup. Bearian 19:55, 8 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 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Winters[edit]

Non notable per WP:N. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - if he is a TV personality of that stature, he should have an article; on the other hand, it's an obvious autobiography with no reliable sources. ←Ben^B4 09:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero results on Google News Archive outside of his own website. None of his TV jobs have warranted an IMDB entry at all. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 09:51, 4 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 00:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece: Grand Line Bout[edit]

Non-notable video game. Weregerbil 07:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. ←Ben^B4 07:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this called a "non-notable home-made game"? There's a fairly large team of people working on the game, and it is a large project in relation to other M.U.G.E.N projects. As well, the game actually has something to show for itself, since a second beta should be released soon that adds more characters and stages to the game. Megadoomer16 9:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There doesn't seem to be any sources from outside the project so it fails to assert notability. Keep only if it gets coverage from a reliable source (magazine, website, etc.). ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of multi-instrumentalists[edit]

Unmaintainable list per WP:LIST - there are many, many notable artists who play more than one instrument, and if vocals are included (as the list seems to indicate), this number just skyrockets further. Crystallina 07:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too huge to even be a category. Speciate 07:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom Harlowraman 10:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of this page, I feel I should comment on this. I created this page to curb additions to a very short list on the main Multi-instrumentalist article. People kept coming to that article and adding whichever artist they were a fan of, whether or not they qualified as a multi-instrumentalist, and especially whether or not they were notable. Eventually, I created the List.. article, and another user chopped out the list in the main article and replaced it with a short paragraph and about ten names of musicians people have actually heard of.

As for it being 'unmaintanable', I have made great effort to maintain the list and keep it as tidy as possible. I recently removed all red links and all artists who listed two instruments and vocals, since vocals don't count.

There are many, many lists of musicians on Wikipedia, and many of them are a lot larger than this. The List of 20th century classical composers list is incredibly unwieldy, having something like 700 names, many of which are red links, and is inaccurate - one of the 'composers' included is Nigel Kennedy, who is a famous violinist and not a composer at all. This list (the multi-instrumentalists one) only has about 100 names or so, and many of them can be safely discarded.

I see no good reason for this list to be deleted unless all other lists of musicians are to be deleted also. --Steve Farrell 11:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF; just because other similar lists exist doesn't mean they, or this one, necessarily should. Crystallina 16:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. What I'm saying is that the reasons people are giving as to why it should be deleted are flawed; this is not 'too huge' when compared to other similar lists, and it is certainly not 'unmaintainable'. If there's a Wikipedia policy that states that arguing that because there is a list of A1 there should be a list of A2 is a Bad Thing, then fine, but the argument still stands. There are thousands of lists on Wikipedia and while some have been deleted, there are a lot still out there that serve no useful purpose or are far larger than they should be and full of inaccurate additions. My vote for this article, in case you hadn't guessed, is Keep. --Steve Farrell 16:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the pool of candidates for inclusion into this list is so big, I think this is a list of loosely associated items Corpx 17:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because (i) the ability to play multiple instruments is certainly notable; (ii) being able to play more than one musical instrument is a verifiable and realtively unusual characteristic; (iii) the sub-group is large because the main group (i.e. musicians) is vast - that is not reason in itself to delete, and indeed, sub-groupings of a such a very large group are useful for research and classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatest hits (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 12:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jose "Beeftips" Marraschino[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jose "Beeftips" Marraschino

I'm calling WP:HOAX on this one too. Absolutely nothing on it, and the only claims to notability are either vague or completely unsourced. On the off chance that this isn't a hoax, the article subject would fail WP:BIO anyway. Crystallina 06:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - second obvious accordionist hoax today. ←Ben^B4 07:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually found them both doing the search rounds for the misspelling "accordian". So it's not as much of a coincidence. Crystallina 07:34, 4 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel Hills Mall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Another mall without notability. Result of previous AfD was speedy delete. Vegaswikian 06:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good stub on a major metropolitan mall. This deletion nomination is bogus. Rebecca 06:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bogus? Kindly assume good faith. Vegaswikian 07:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I reading the history correctly? Did you remove the AfD tag from the article after a vote to delete? Vegaswikian 07:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, what the hell? I haven't touched the article since removing the bogus speedy tag. Rebecca 07:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like your average mall - ie, nothing that makes it stand out and there's no "significant coverage" mentioned of this mall. Just listing a group of buildings for just being buildings would seem like a violation of WP:NOT#DIR Corpx 17:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:RS. I found one article on the closure of the mall's ice rink but that's about it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a super-regional mall, with approx 1.2 million square feet of gross leasable area. Shopping malls says "A super-regional mall is a shopping mall with over 800,000 square feet (74,000 m²) of gross leasable area, and which serves as the dominant shopping venue for the region in which it located." Malls of this size have been kept in recent AFDs, per a list of AFD results kept at the talk page of the rejected guideline WP:MALL. Edison 20:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because other super-regional malls have been kept isn't a very solid reason. I agree that it's a very sizeable mall, and it has a ton of anchor stores, but I really don't think size is enough for notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Edison.--JForget 23:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep size isn't everything, but it counts. I'm not sure what the border is, but this is above it. DGG (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - super-regional malls this massive would be a notable local landmark. In any event, there does seem to be some news coverage of this such as [58]. -- Whpq 21:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. Major super-regional mall. --Oakshade 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course a super-regional mall is going to be notable. Burntsauce 17:35, 9 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 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and Shopping[edit]

Non-notable documentary. Ye old Google test yields 197 results for "'Sex and Shopping" documentary -wikipedia". The first is an IMDb listing, the next is about sex and shopping, not the documentary. Then you have a few sites selling the video, then a couple more database hits, and then you get into the articles that are in no way related. Consequentially 06:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can imagine that someone would want to look this up, and the article is okay. ←Ben^B4 07:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - it was aired on the BBC, which establishes notability. In case that wasn't enough, it was the source of some controversy in the news. Crystallina 07:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject seems to have more than trivial coverage in secondary sources, the controversy as reported by the BBC, and a number of documentary google hits. Passes the notability bar. – Dreadstar † 08:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --PEAR (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, this is not a vote. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable because it aired on the BBC. --PEAR (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nomination fails WP:GOOGLE in first sentence alone. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 11:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While it is notable, I have WP:NOT#NEWS concerns Corpx 17:27, 4 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 flushed. DS 15:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boborama[edit]

Try as I might I cannot find any information on this person, which is unusual, considering the large amount of famous people name-dropped here. Therefore, I believe it to be a hoax. Crystallina 06:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - reeks of hoax, no ghits on [Boborama accordian] or many other terms from the article. ←Ben^B4 07:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. Quite amusing, though. --Targeman 13:56, 4 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. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of an American Family Tour[edit]

Yes, the band is notable. But this page just lists where they went on tour. How is this interesting? Nothing out of the ordinary happened. Speciate 05:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not being able to A7 songs is bad enough. If we start getting articles for tours or performances, yuck. ←Ben^B4 07:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed the tour dates and I dont see why it cant stay as a stub now, since notability is established Corpx 17:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But it will stay that short forever. All the article says is that MM went on a tour to support an album. That info belongs on the band's and/or the album's page. Speciate 17:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand or delete if that's not possible.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both. Carlossuarez46 23:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chief medical officer (Star Trek)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chief of operations

Similar to this AfD: while characters who hold this position are notable, the job itself is not. This is the same rationale I gave in a previous AfD, where the consensus was to merge it into some "more appropriate" article along with Chief operations officer (Star Trek) (which I'm also re-nominating here). Six months later, however, I'm interpreting the lack of additional action on these articles as a sign that no more-appropriate article is to be had. Rather than have these in-universe stubs linger, I think it is better to remove them. --EEMeltonIV 05:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - These could be categories, but little else. They are very (and permanently) thin. Speciate 05:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed. The lack of independent resources that deal specifically with these two concepts in the Star Trek universe is going to leave this article pretty slender for the rest of its existence. Beyond the obvious already stated in the article, we've got nothing but WP:OR to look forward to. Consequentially
Delete per lack of real world coverage attesting notability to these positions Corpx 17:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excise both warts per nom. Clarityfiend 18:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everybody wants to create a Star Trek article, and this is pretty lame. Leonard McCoy might well have said, "I'm a doctor, not a 'chief medical officer'." Mandsford 22:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into an article discussing command structure in Star Trek. Reliable sources discussing leadership in Star Trek and leadership style exist (here's one), and I suspect that there are also reliable sources which compare, for example, the characters of Dr. McCoy and Dr. Crusher and the dramatic role each fills in the respective series. (Books like this and this, which discuss the portrayal of doctors in Star Trek and other popular media, may be useful.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Neither of these articles contains any real-world, out-of-universe information that relates to such topics -- and the modicum of plot summary that such an article would entail can be hammered out by looking at Wikipedia's articles on those notable characters, or raising a flag and asking for help on the wikiproject. I don't particularly see the utility of retaining these articles as "scratcpads" for a yet-to-be-if-ever-created article. --EEMeltonIV 04:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Josiah. — Deckill er 13:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles like this make Wikipedia out to look like a joke rather than an attempt at a real encyclopedia. Burntsauce 17:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and redirect per Josiah. Mathmo ^Talk 01:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent, reliable sources and no useful information not present in the articles on the notable characters. Eluchil404 21:20, 10 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 14:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bado[edit]

WP:NN. I do not have belief of the existence of it... I searched some words, for example,"Bado", "ばど", "ばどう" or "馬頭", but I could not find it as Japanese traditional confectionery (wagashi) on Internet and reference book. Nightshadow28 05:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it's true, it's a dicdef in a non-English language. ←Ben^B4 07:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nightshadow28 and Ben. --Targeman 14:32, 4 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 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bar Radio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was previously deleted in this discussion, but that was long enough ago that a speedy deletion as recreation of deleted content would not be appropriate. The subject is a podcast, and there may be sources that establish its notability under WP:WEB, but they don't appear in this article. The article has no independent sources, and contains a lot of content of no particular significance such as lists of former co-hosts of the show and pop culture topics that the hosts have talked about. Based on the current state of the article, a non-speedy delete would be appropriate. Metropolitan90 05:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page lists who they make fun of, fer the love of pete. Nothing else at all notable appears on the page. They have had months to find citations. Is there a way to prevent them from recreating the page? Speciate 05:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage from independent sources Corpx 05:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any independent, notable coverage. - JNighthawk 03:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several independent sources that testify to the notability of the subject; moderator User:Stormie was sufficiently impressed by the material offered to recreate the article after it was deleted by him. I do agree though, the article does need to be rewritten with sources included. Instead of a deletion order, the article needs to be cleaned up before it can be properly assessed for its notability. I'll do that shortly, so I ask voting and action be held off until then. DeusExMachina 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and the evidence that was on Stormie's talk page has been posted to this article's talk page by him. Thanks Stormie. DeusExMachina 03:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Haha yes indeed, I saved that, then got distracted before I could save my comment here pointing to them. See Talk:Red Bar Radio#Notability. --Stormie 04:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Striker and Big Daddy V[edit]

Prodded, then hangon tag added, which I interpret as a contested prod. Prod reasoning: Non-notable wrestling stable. As of right now, their roles are just the same as The Great Khali and his translator. I have no opinion yet. Chaser - T 05:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete under CSD A7 as a group without an assertion of notability. ←Ben^B4 07:17, 4 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 Transwiki to Harry Potter Wiki and delete. CitiCat^♫ 04:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wandlore (Harry Potter)[edit]

Transfer from prod. I can see this as a major (sub)plot-notion of the book, so can be controversial to its notability. Prod reason was "Unencyclopedic, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Fiction, real world usage etc. etc." KTC 04:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim & Merge into main Harry Potter article. Baring that, Transwiki to Harry Potter Wiki. -- Jelly Soup 05:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely in universe content with no coverage from real world sources. Transwiki would also be appropriate Corpx 05:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:FICTION is right on. A truly encyclopedic article that adheres to WP:V and WP:RS isn't possible here, as the only "real world" content that references the topic is Rowling's fiction. Best to Transwiki to the HP folks. Consequentially 06:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify would be my opinion. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 07:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. --PEAR (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wingardium Leviosa to the HP wiki. It's not badly written but not appropriate. AndrewJDTALK -- 22:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
just Merge with Magic_(Harry_Potter)
Merge with Magic_(Harry_Potter) CharlesMartel 02:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)CharlesMartel[reply]
Transwiki full article to the Harry Potter wiki, and merge summarized content into Magic (Harry Potter). Incidentally, it's not impossible that an encyclopedic article could be written someday on this subject, once the corpus of secondary sources discussing the world of Harry Potter (books like this, for example) reaches critical mass. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Harry Potter Wikia and merge—the updated WP:FICT makes it clear that deletion is a last resort if merging and transwiki are unavailable. Let's get the ball rolling ASAP and start with this as an example. — Deckill er 23:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 00:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Transwiki per Josiah Rowe. Smokizzy (talk) 04:19, 12 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 14:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Your Own Business Podcast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable subject & advert. In the first AfD, all 4 editors voting “keep” were SPA’s who have worked only on this article; likely COI. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those links do not give "significant coverage" to the topic. The host might be notable, but notability is not inherited Corpx 05:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the sources is a blog, another is only a passing mention. The two remaining have identical ads and formats -- some relationship between them? And the podcast was mentioned only in passing. --Fabrictramp 12:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertisement masquerading as article --Xorkl000 05:46, 9 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 closed per WP:SK, WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple cider[edit]

Transfer from prod. This article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod reason was "There is a more in depth article available at Cider" KTC 04:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect No reason to delete, if there's more information elsewhere, then redirect to that location. FrozenPurpleCube 04:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are different beverages, one is alcoholic and this one isn't, and this is clearly stated and disambiguated and both articles. --Canley 04:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close I don't think the nominator read either page. Two different concepts completely. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Canley and Richard Norton. It's not clear to me whether the nominator is endorsing the PROD; if not, this discussion should be speedily closed. --Metropolitan90 04:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't, I didn't / not taking a side. KTC 05:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep - perfectly notable and prominent subject, poorly reasoned prod. WP:SNOW should apply here. Crystallina 06:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - Apple cider? Damn! Close it. ←Ben^B4 07:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This and the cider article are completely different things, which even a brief glance at both would have indicated. Both are definitely notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. --Targeman 14:36, 4 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, sans copyvio material. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Hall[edit]

No notability has been established even when notice has been expressed through ((notability)). Article contains content, although unverified and largely un-encyclopedic in value. Very local in notability. Common deletion outcomes suggests that classrooms (and campus buildings) are generally not notable. Luke! 04:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A google search shows up quite a number of hits for this subject. Moreover, can this webpage be used as a reliable source for this article? --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, your quoted source is more helpful against the article and not in support. As other editors may notice, the first six paragraphs of the source your provided makes up the entire en.wiki article. Equating virtually to copyright infringement. Luke! 05:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as copyvio. ←Ben^B4 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The campus building, in itself, looks historic enough that I'd support keeping it. However, since it's mostly a copyvio of this source, the article would have to be rewritten to make it acceptable. I'm going to go with a delete on this one but without prejudice to recreation. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Luke! 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The building, from what I read, is historic and notable. If the concern is about a copyvio, remove those parts. That's not a reason to delete the article. Delete if the copyvio isn't cleaned up. --GreenJoe 01:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historic buildings are perfectly acceptable topics for Wikipedia articles whether they're on university campuses or not. No university should have every building on its campus written up on Wikipedia, certainly, but particularly historic buildings are permissible. Keep if cleaned up for copyvio; delete otherwise. Bearcat 01:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cast out the copyvio per GreenJoe. --Gpollock 02:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with copyvio clean-up as per Bearcat. Not all university buildings are notable but its claims to fame seem to go beyond just the Queen’s community and are verifiable: CBC called it “The centerpiece of Queen's University” in TV listing for Canadian Antiques Roadshow [59], the national museum has cigar boxes with its image on them [60], it’s a venue for performances and events like granting Governor General a honorary degree [61] or the annual Rosen Lecture known for hate-speech debate [62] , role as military hospital THE EARLY HISTORY OF PATHOLOGY AT QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY AND HER TEACHING HOSPITALS (until 1966). Canuckle 19:56, 8 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Cummings[edit]

Porncruft. Notability not asserted for this porn actress. Not much else is asserted for that matter. wikipediatrix 03:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A google search shows up quite a number of hits for this actress. Moreover, there is an entry for her in IMDB. The contents of this article is also verified easily from third-party sources as well. There is also quite a number of hits on this actress at amazon.com as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:PORNBIO, Google results are not applied to articles about the porn industry. An IMDB entry doesn't confer notability: most of the hundreds of thousands of people listed on the IMDB are not on Wikipedia. Ditto Amazon. wikipediatrix 05:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, it must also be noted that WP:PORNBIO should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. I am sure that this subject is indeed an exception as well, isn't it? --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any porn star (female) will have a ton of Google hits Corpx 06:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - No "significant coverage", no awards that I can find Corpx 05:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 05:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there have been articles in the San Francisco press (Bay Guardian and Chronicle IIRC) about her animal activism, I don't know if it extends any further, but she is a local celebrity somewhat apart from her porn career. ←Ben^B4 07:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - unless you can cite the articles and they show her notability as a porn star, I don't see how that merits a keep... Valrith 12:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote: she is notable apart from her porn career. And though I tried and failed to find the articles amid thousands of hits on porncruft, sources aren't required for AfD votes. ←Ben^B4 18:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure local media coverage is enough. Epbr123 11:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reluctantly, I must vote delete. No coverage in reliable sources to show either notability or verifiability. Valrith 12:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She seems to be a fixture, lots of films and appearances, but a reliable source writing a non-trivial article about her would help a lot. Her film Faster Pussycat[63] won an AVN award,[64] but she wasn't the only star. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is one of the most known and most successful adult film performers with over 17 years of performances and production career life which exceeds almost everyone in the adult industry. Not only has she established herself as a success in that area, but she is well-known in mainstream events for her appearance in Boogie Nights as well as her animal rights activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.80.229 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - none of what you've just said is true, unless you can provide reliable sources to back it up. I like it is insufficient reason to keep an article. Valrith 18:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - It is true and can proved that
    1. she has been performing OFFICIALLY since 1990 (some say since 1986 but that is disputed) as that was when Take out Torture was released and she performs in that film;
    2. she is still producing and releasing films TODAY that are being bought and distributed by other production houses such as her current ongoing series "Fetish Fairy Tales" she produces and stars in these films; and
    3. is one of the few adult stars who is known by the "mainstream" in part for her appearance in "Boogie Nights" -- unlike say Spantaneeus Xtasty who appeared in Kiefer Sutherland's Freeway and several other adult performers who do cameos in commerical films -- as well as her continual noises on animal rights issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.80.229 (talk • contribs) 20:16, August 4, 2007
- Comment - You have not understood anything I've said. Where are the reliable sources to back up your claims? Valrith 20:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the films themselves are not verification then? The date stamps on those films are not acceptable proof either then? Nor is the fact that she is producing films herself today is not proof to your standards then either? Nor is the fact that she and Skye have their own companies as stated in MANY different trades either. Evidently the only "legitamate" sources you accept are the Washington Post and NOT the adult trades.

You obviously have an axe to grind against this lady for whatever reason. What you want is PERSONAL information that meets YOUR POV, NOT imperical factual information which has been provided as the films are not acceptable and adult trades which are confirmable are not "proof": to your standard level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.80.229 (talk • contribs)

You're supposed to sign your posts with four tildes. You're supposed to assume good faith of your fellow editor's motives. And the words are spelled "empirical" and "legitimate". wikipediatrix 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable in her genre, prolific enough to meet the WP:PORNBIO guideline, plus she's appeared in mainsteam cinema as well. And content/citation issues can be handled within the article. 23skidoo 23:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which genre? Epbr123 23:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete. Needs sourcing, but is very prolific RE: WP:PORNBIO #3, and apparently #1 as well.Falard 23:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which genre and which award? Epbr123 00:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In retrospect, having viewed WP:BIGNUMBER, this is probably not notable enough to warrant inclusion, since the award listed above is for a film, not individual and there is no mention of her importance or innovation other than a large number of films.Falard 13:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm going to assume good faith on what Ben^B4 said is right and vote keep based on that. Plus the other comments regarding appearing in mainstream movies. Mathmo ^Talk 22:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ben. Dismas|^(talk) 12:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do articles in the San Franscisco press count as mainstream media coverage? Town councilors get local media coverage, so should they all get articles? Epbr123 12:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are sources and there is some notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:04, 11 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Distance Training[edit]

Notable subject, but “how to” manual. Unencyclopedic essay-style rendering and doesn’t appear recoverable without total rewrite. Also appears to be copy of part of a personal article by single-contribution creator or other author; possible copyvio of article not found online. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essay. KTC 04:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely WP:OR Corpx 05:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Fabrictramp 12:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious essay, couldn't we have prodded this instead of bringing it here? --Xorkl000 05:51, 9 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. A few comments on the close

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, a free encyclopedia is not an encyclopedia where you are free to write whatever you feel like. There's no such thing as the freedom to maintain on Wikipedia the lists that you personally find worthwhile.
There is a growing ping-pong phenomenon between CfD closing as delete and listify and AfDs closing as delete and categorize. At some point a wider debate has to take place about what sort of overlap we want between lists and categories but if this debate is any indication, it won't be a pretty one.
There seems to be a possible compromise to break down the list into more manageable subject-specific pieces. In which case the article could be renamed as Lists of Iranian Women. I believe that this solution would be a fairly consensual one which would satisfy both people who care deeply about the list for navigational purposes and those who worry about its current unmaintainability. Furthermore, subject-specific lists would clearly have encyclopedic merit and would more easily accomodate accompanying context. Pascal.Tesson 09:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian women[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was listed for deletion on July 8, with no consensus reached. That AfD can be found right here. The previous AfD seemed to lean heavily on emotional input, rather than a practical view of the list itself. Eventually, a list like this becomes unmaintainable. Categorization is a much more practical solution for a list this vague - it brings together all of the notable Iranian women on one page, and splits them off into their appropriate subcategories automatically via the use of templates on the individual pages. This way, the editors who seem to want to keep this list based on WP:ILIKEIT can focus their energies on expanding the list by adding notable Iranian women, without the immense task of maintaining and patrolling this article. Therefore, I believe the best and most efficient solution is to delete this page after categorizing its contents. Sidatio 03:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am dumbfounded by the persistence of those who wish this entry to be deleted! Less than two months ago we discussed this proposal and I believe that it was overwhelmingly rejected. May I propose that those who wish this entry be deleted come forward and declare their rationale? --BF 03:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus is not an overwhelming decision to keep. Please don't confuse the two. I have stated my rationale - in essence, the list itself isn't deleted. Rather, it is turned over to automation. This way, the list itself is maintained as a category, which automatically updates every time a new article is added on Iranian women - all you have to do is add the proper template. This frees up manpower to add articles on notable Iranian women who don't already have them, and takes away a target for vandalism at the same time. Best of all, it eliminates the need to patrol and maintain a list that has strong potential to spiral out of control as more and more notable Iranian women get their due here. It's nothing personal - it's an advocation for more efficient addition and maintenance of a list of notable Iranian women. What's the rationale to keep that satisfies guidelines? Sidatio 03:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, in this particular case you are talking about hypothetical events. I strongly believe that Wikipedia can have a future only if common sense prevails and common sense tells me that all these discussions about deletion, and the like, are simply a waste of time. The less we spend time on these discussions, the better, both for us personally, and for Wikipedia insofar as its contents are concerned. Strong Keep! --BF 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my above text prior to having seen the text by Sidatio. I disagree with him/her on all accounts. What was "emotional" about the previous input, and even if there was some "emotional" input, since when have human emotions become inferior to other human qualities? Are we to become robots before our views count? Further, as for "Eventually, a list like this becomes unmaintainable", let us wait until that time arrives and then we shall have a serious discussion as to whether the entry should be maintained or deleted. For now, the list is so short that I know almost all the names on it by heart, and I am sure that I am not an exception in this matter. --BF 03:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep due to lack of proper AfD nomination criteria given by nominator. Sounds like sour grapes. wikipediatrix 03:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, now! Let's not forget civility here. I may not know all of the "proper" procedures for doing things around here, but I have seen AfDs relisted for lack of consensus. As far as sour grapes goes - what's your basis for such a claim? I never even participated in the first debate!

As far as the author's response - the goal is to make this list more efficient. Instead of eliminating it altogether, I offer an efficient compromise. Taking it personally, as you seem to be doing, is certainly an emotional response. Sidatio 04:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer citation of policy, though: The list seems to violate WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#LINK. A great argument could be made also for WP:LC under criteria 1, 6, and possibly 7. In the interest of diplomacy, I was trying to offer the compromise solution first, but hey - what can you do? Sidatio 04:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also overlistification. Granted, it's not as open-ended as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Europeans, but it is still pretty open-ended. Sidatio 04:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my previous vote what seems like just a week ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was July 8th. Sidatio 05:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The delistor brigade is waiting to demolish the "List of Indian women" also which by the way was inspired by the brilliant "List of Iranian women". The delistors in the garb of widening the traffic efficiency are trying to bring down heritage structures all in the name of rules. They don't understand the emotional sentiments and value of heritage structures. They want to commodify information and make this FREEencyclopedia a freeENCYCLOPEDIA.

moon 04:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer me this - if it's converted into a category, how is the list lost? Sidatio 05:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization is like dismantling a building , keeping it in different showcases and saying that where is it lost. Its all there. Have a heart Sidatio !

Have you visited the Taj Mahal. It is not the dome, the minarets, its exquisite calligraphy, its, wonderful symetry that makes it a beautiful structure. It is all of it put together and seen as a whole that makes it one of the Seven wonders of the World.

moon 05:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not a battle of attrition, by which I mean "per previous AfD". Maxa megalon 2000 05:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It's a good thing I have a thick skin.

For starters (and this is important), I am not proposing this list goes the way of the dodo. The aim is to get all of these notable women categorized so the system can maintain the list, which frees editors for a far more meaningful task - expanding that category with more notable Iranian women.

Secondly, I wasn't a participant in the first AfD. This isn't a "war of attrition" for me. The article drew my interest because of a similar AfD on a list of Indian women where consensus seems to be leaning toward categorizing the list and deleting the actual article. The only reason I even nominated this one for deletion is because the first AfD was a no consensus. If there was a clear keep, I honestly wouldn't have bothered. If this AfD goes to a clear keep, hey, that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

Finally, this isn't some personal crusade against women, Iranians, Indians, Hufflepuffs, or orangutans. It was just a suggestion. If you feel the need to be uncivil and not assume good faith, feel free. I'm married. I'm used to being yelled at. ;-) I can assure you, I only had the project's best interests in heart. If it's a keep, fantastic. If it's a categorize and delete, equally as fantastic. My only interest is in the efficiency of the list on the whole.

I guess this is a by-product of being bold! :-) Sidatio 05:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All bold decisions have beautiful results. That's why Bold and Beautiful always go together. Sidatio be bold enough to recognize the beauty of lists. We recognize the beauty of categorization but that's for the less ambitious projects. Leave the heritage structures alone. Thanks !

moon 05:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep, if the redlisted entries are removed. Also, why are some women listed as "Plastic Art" just above "Artists"? Shouldn't they all be listed as "Artists"?Speciate 06:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the List and Categorization too. I appreciate the Utilitarian point as well .I think the best solution for both List of Iranian women and List of Indian women would be to keep them in both the formats :

Lists as well as Categories ( Beauty and Utility ). Long Live the spirit of Wikipedian togetherness. moon 06:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sidatio, again with all due respect, this elimination of The Iranian Women's page seems to me to be your personal ambition, and I strongly believe that you are being disrespectful of people's opinions. Truly, I have no time to waste by getting involved, every 8 weeks, in such exercises as this one. Please just have a look at the material accumulated hereabove: you seem to be the only person in favour of bringing down The Iranian Women's page, and have the temerity to speak of "lack of consensus last time". Please just realise, almost all entries have provoked a reaction from you. Why is that? It signifies that you must be feeling, and rightly so, in total isolation. May I therefore request you to be kind enough and just close this page? It will be best for everyone concerned. Thank you. This is, incidentally, my last contribution to this page. --BF 08:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was pretty much forced to set the record straight on a great amount of comments that seemed to have my reasons for opening this AfD completely wrong. And then, of course, there are these comments that address me directly. As far as feeling "isolated" - what? To me, an AfD isn't a popularity contest. It's an attempt to find community consensus on an article. Nothing more, nothing less. As to having the "temerity to speak of a lack of consensus last time" - that was, in fact, the result of the previous AfD on this article.

As to your request to withdraw: No. As I stated, the aim of an AfD is to find consensus on an article that may or may not be in violation of a policy or policies. You just can't gain consensus in a matter of a few hours. We'll see what happens, say, Monday.

Finally - my "personal ambition" in life is to become independently wealthy and retire young. I don't believe it's possible for me to care any less about the existence of this or any other article (or, for that matter, Wikipedia itself) than I do right now. I had an opinion on the article, I took it to AfD. If community consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it, you can be comfortably certain that it won't affect me personally in the least.

I don't think I can contribute anything further. Honestly, if anyone else out there mistakes my position, they simply haven't read what I've had to say on it. Sidatio 11:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I was wrong. There IS something else I can add. For all of the fluff this page contains, NOT ONE PERSON HAS BOTHERED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED BY THIS AfD. Those issues are:

The list seems to violate WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#LINK.
There also seems to be issues with this article as listcruft - it seems the list exists just for the sake of having it; it is unlimited or unmaintainable; and that the list has no content beyond links to other articles. (1, 6, and 7 on the listcruft criteria, respectively)
Finally, overlistification - specifically as an over-extensive list. From that guideline:

"When a list is prone to having many listees that can never have an article written about them, or that simply fail notability, the list can usually be deemed as over-extensive and would probably function better as a category. It can equally be called over-extensive if the list is unmaintainably large and generally unnecessary, and thus, would server better as a directory. Wikipedia is not paper but it is bytes." (emphasis added)

So, instead of wild speculation or namecalling, I don't suppose it's possible to address the technical merits of the article for a change? Sidatio 11:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize and delete per Wikipedia:Overlistification. The interest of a list of people who only happen to be born in the same country and are women is beyond me. --Targeman 14:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with most worthwhile lists, this collection of loosely related articles can be better presented and maintained with a category. --Evb-wiki 16:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after categorisation. I think Sidatio's reasons are good ones; Iranian women seems to be a broad group which would be better served by a category. It may also be more easily maintainable.kateshortforbob 16:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I wonder when AfD's turned into a forum for people to bicker, squabble, and scream about how wikipedia is 'freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee', I advise Sidation to create the category and the admin to Keep this article. Sorry, I agree with your position in almost every way, but two months is simply not long enough to wait to relist and AfD. Wait another month, after you've populated the category, and bring this up again. CaveatLector^Talk 17:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is the problem with being new to a project as complex as Wikipedia. I wasn't aware that there was a proper timeframe for relisting a debate - I was just going by what I had seen before in the AfD logs. I don't have a problem in the world with beginning to categorize this list starting tomorrow. As far as bringing this up too early, that wasn't my intention in the least. Does anyone have a link to the timeframe for relisting so I can become less ignorant on the topic? :-) Sidatio 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not policy. Since the last AfD ended without consensus, it is perfectly proper to relist after a resonable time. If it had ended with a consensus of keep, on the other hand, it would be very poor form. If it had only been a couple of days after a "no consensus" closing, that may also be bad form. If there is a policy that states otherwise, I have not seen it. --Evb-wiki 17:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Consensus can change, and a month is certainly not "too soon." There is no magic number that prevents someone from re-listing an article. This should be deleted as an obvious list of indiscriminate information. Not only does the title not discriminate as to notability of the subjects to be included, the number of WP:N notable Iranian women is far too large to include in one list. This is just as absurd as a List of Chinese women. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize. I've notice that Indian women had categories in various professions. I don't see any problem doing multiple categories per profession here.--JForget 23:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I like lists. The organization does not add anything, the amount of information given for each is minimal, there is no particular reason for grouping them together, we do not have similar lists such as French Women--the only one I see is List of Indian Women, also up for AfD. -- the category and subcategories would do as well and be much easier to maintain. We do not have articles for all of them, especially the academics. For a few, e.g. Afsaneh Najmabadi, Professor of History and Women's Studies at Harvard we clearly should have articles, and I'll make sure they get started if the list is deleted--for some others, we should probably not, --they are lecturers or assistant professors , and are likely to fail WP:PROF.

I usually dislike repeated nominations after two or three weeks, but this was only the 2nd nomination, and it had been closed as a no-consensus. As I see it, no-consensus closes should be relisted fairly soon in an attempt to get consensus--and then of course should be stable, keep or delete, unless there are errors or new information. I therefore do not see how it justifies the strong complaints expressed above. DGG (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Comments: Instead of concentrating on delistings , it would be better if we focus on things that are working rather than assume the non workability of a project in in its infancy. All off beat enterprises are not understood, opposed when they are conceived. What was the use of conquering the Everest, why man had to go to the moon, why oh why the need to build the Great Wall of China, Why was the Taj Mahal built, Why Shakespeare had to write his immortal plays, why the computer had to be built. all inventions, new structures, philosophies have been opposed, ridiculed with very rational well meaning people with honourable intentions. Yes Goodness is the rival of Greatness. Goodness is standardization. Greatness is setting new standards. Like life, standards too should be allowed to evolve. And evolve they shall, with or without opposition. As Hugo said " No force can stop an idea whose time has come'. Wikipedia too as an idea would have been ridiculed a decade back. The idea of a mobile telephone was scoffed at in the late sixties. Ofcourse Wikipedia needs standards but it needs to be protected from the well intentioned do-gooders. Oscar Wilde has put it so beautifully: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Freedom to do your thing is the right of people until and unless it seriously infringes on the right of others.

PS : The viability of list should be left to the "market forces". Wikipedia admin may consider an automated delisting of archaic articles that are not visited , improved, edited for a certain period of time. This de-listing would be automatic ,genuine and largely unbiased.

moon 07:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make Category then Delete Wikipedia:Overlistification talks about this exact circumstance, and the previous noms that have been turned into cats. and deleted. This article seems like a text book example of this. Pharmboy 12:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with categories. Wikipedia:Not#Dir: "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." --Moonriddengirl 12:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that this list does not comply WP:NOT and WP:LIST was not adequately addressed in the last debate. It seems that people with non-encyclopedic reasons for keeping this page (such as "makes me proud") were able to stack the last AFD well enough to yield a no consensus "keep." I'm once again in support of deletion per my reasoning in the previous AFD. This nomination's reasoning is good too, of course - perhaps even better than mine. I'm sorry, but this is plainly a collection of loosely associated people. The Behnam 17:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BF. --Mardavich 17:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's about vote-stacking. At least, I hope it's not. This AfD just seems to be emotionally charged based on the treatment of women in the Iranian culture - just as I suspect it was during the AfD for List of Indian women. In conversations with some of the proponents of this list, I've come away with the feeling that they believe this to be "another blow" to an already battered gender. That is in no way, shape, form, or fashion the case here. Those who are in favor of removing this list do advocate the categorization of its contents. It's a list, just a list that is maintained automatically. There are several other benefits that I already outlined at length, but I digress. This isn't some "battle" that has to be "won" or "lost". It's a discussion about a list and whether or not it would be more beneficial to turn that list over to automation. I am of the opinion that the topic is best discussed based on the merits - and the merits alone - of the list's maintainability. Emotion far too often clouds the all-important neutral point of view.

Sidatio 17:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after categorization. It is an obvious case of Wikipedia:Overlistification.Heja Helweda 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the List and Categorization too. Mathmo ^Talk 21:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists and categories serve separate purposes. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes and Wikipedia:Categories vs lists. This list is annotated and structured, which cannot be done with a category. There are only 128 articles in Category:Iranian women, easily within the realm of maintainability for this list, even if the number of notable Iranian women were double or triple this. Per stand-alone list naming conventions, a "List of X" is generally a list of only notable X; any non-notable entries which get added can and should be removed. List of former members of the United States House of Representatives is a far more extensive list than this, and it was speedily kept recently. DHowell 05:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the best argument I've heard for a keep yet. Still, there's a few differences that should probably be highlighted:

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, the List of former members of the United States House of Representatives is not, nor will it ever be, as open ended as a list of notable people of a certain gender from a country. Why? Inclusion on the former list is a great deal more exclusive than inclusion on the latter - only 435 people from a country of 300 million are Representatives at any time. Inclusion on the latter is effectively half of a country's population, provided they do something notable. Also, you'd have to take in account historical figures as well - and the recorded history of the Iranian area is one of the longest.

It also bears mentioning that the AfD for the US Representative list was withdrawn by nominator in less than 24 hours. Is 24 hours enough time to gain community consensus?

Still, the points raised are a valid argument. Not enough to change my mind on the subject, though. Sidatio 11:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization is complete. Special thanks to Moonriddengirl for helping to categorize, and to BF for his learned discourse on this and other matters in regards to entries on this list. Sidatio 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Up for deletion again so soon? I'll say exactly what I said last time, very informative to have a list like this available. A lot of the names included already have Wikipedia articles so they are probably notable. No reason to delete, just as valid as any other list.Hajji Piruz 00:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--that's kind of the point, I think. Wikipedia:Not#Dir: "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." --Moonriddengirl 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just wished to place here what I wrote earlier to Sidatio:

"... as they say (it comes from Proverbs), the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The problem with Iranian women, in particular, is that the transliteration of their names is not unique. Consequently, if you do not know the exact spelling of their names, then soon you will conclude that the particular name that you were looking for has no entry in Wikipedia (for instance, "Forough", "Foroog", "Forouq" and "Forooq" are all transliterations of the same Persian name; multiply this number by the number of the variant spellings of "Farrokhzad" and you will readily realise that the chance of correctly guessing the appropriate spelling on Wikipedia of "Forough Farrokhzad" is indeed very small). This makes the List of Iranian Women indispensable: knowing merely the sound of the name is sufficient to find the name from the list by looking through it. This has happened to me almost always. This problem is not unique to Persian; in principle any language which does not rely on Roman letters is confronted with the same problem on the English Wikipedia. You should realise that my advocacy of the page is largely for its functional utility which cannot be compensated until such time as the search engines have become so clever that they can correctly guess a name even if one may have used an "incorrect" spelling (the search engine on Amazon.com, for instance, is rather clever in coming up with a list of relevant books even if one has typed the name of the book, or of its author, incorrectly); the search engine on Wikipedia is at present one of the worst of its kind."

--BF 15:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You did, indeed, say that as evidenced by the our conversation on the subject. However, I think it's prudent to point out two things here:

You've already voted once. We know you want to keep it, but voting multiple times can be confusing to readers.
The situation to which you refer would be best remedied by the use of ~~disambiguation pages~~ redirect pages. For example, say someone searches for one of the incorrect transliterations you pointed out above. There's a solid chance they won't find your list altogether, or the article they're looking for. By creating ~~disambiguation~~ redirect pages for these variants, you can redirect them to the proper page. The list in question wouldn't be able to help you in that regard. Sidatio 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you have a good point, BF, but wonder if the categories wouldn't address that in the same way. It seems just as convenient to me to glance over Category:Iranian women as it is to glance down the list. --Moonriddengirl 16:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, my apologies for multiple voting (I was certain that it would be noticed). Secondly, what you (i.e. Moonriddengirl) are suggesting would indeed have fulfilled the task of the List under consideration were it not for the fact that that is not the way a typical user of Wikipedia approaches things; one clicks on a category only when one is reading, or has already read, an entry; for instance, one clicks on Category:Iranian women while reading, or after having read, the entry on, for instance, Forough Farrokhzad. Furthermore, not everyone who comes to Wikipedia is technically minded; people type a name and they leave for a different source, it at all, as soon as they have been redirected to the search page. You could of course argue that such individuals are also most likely exactly those who would not try such thing as "List of Iranian Women" (please note that I am using "Iranian Women" here as an example; I know for instance three Russian brothers whose names are entirely different in English, all thanks to the difficulty of transliterating names from one language to another); you may be right in a very general sense, but in any system design one must allow for some redundancy in order for the system to function in all kinds of circumstances that one cannot foresee beforehand --- humans are very similar, but their thought precesses are very different and this should be accounted for in Wikipedia. Be it as it may, personally I have found the List very useful mainly because of this difficulty of transliteration. Lastly, the disambiguation pages have almost never proved useful to me in the present context. I hope that this will be my last message on this page. --BF 18:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I meant redirect pages. Sorry for the confusion. Also, I took the liberty of striking out the second vote and adding Comment, which is more appropriate. The redirect function would definitely do what you're wanting, and would work in conjunction with the categories as a redundancy measure, and all autonomously so that you and other individuals interested in Iranian subjects can spend more time creating those articles and working on the issues of transliteration. Sorry for the confusion! I'll strike out my erroneous comment and replace it above.

I may be misunderstanding something, but alternatives such as "Cambridge University" and "University of Cambridge" belong to an entirely different category of problems (please think about it, since this is not a casual remark), leaving aside the fact that such alternatives are both highly predictable and restricted in number. I can think of about 20 equivalent but different ways in which Forough Farrokhzad can be transliterated, and this only because I know both the original name and the underlying languages; for a typical user of Wikipedia the number of alternatives is considerably larger. In this light, I hope that you are not saying that for some mysterious reason writing several thousand redirections are preferable to you than maintaining a list containing less than hundred names. Lastly, I must be frank with you and express the fact that I consider your direct reference to me "and other individuals interested in Iranian subjects" as highly patronising --- you should know better, that I at least am not specialising in "Iranian subjects" and even if I was, I am not here as a representative of some individual, group or nation; why do you believe that you can categorize people like this? I am just advocating something which I happen to have found useful through my experience and not through my specific interests, whatever they may be! Please ponder on this, in view of the fact that we are communicating through a medium where words count for everything (there are no voices and no visual impressions, only words). I have sometimes the feeling that perhaps Iranians are considered as intruders on En.Wikipedia (if you read your sentence, then you will know what I mean; your sentence contains a biting element, which is unmistakably there and which you may not have meant to say). This is truly my last time on this page. --BF 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why? You're bringing up valid points. First off, though, I can understand the patronization remark if I had referred to you and the unnamed others as "esteemed" or "experts". I mean, let's face it - it's pretty clear by now that you have an interest in the topic of Iranian women, do you not? Id think it's a reasonable conclusion that anyone else who puts as much time and effort into Iranian articles would share the same interest. But I digress.

Anyway, in the case of two similar topics that are completely different, as you mentioned above, then yes, a disambiguation page would be the ticket. If used in conjunction with redirect pages for multiple transliterations, the probability of an individual ending up on the "wrong" page is quite low. Throwing a list in there when the topics already have multiple categories (a category for Iranian women, Iranian women by occupation, etc.) just wouldn't be necessary in my view.

If you took my comments above as somehow insulting, I apologize. That certainly wasn't the intention - I merely intended to respond to your concerns. Sidatio 20:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Answer me this - if it's converted into a category, how is the list lost?" It's lost because right now it gives an overview of what notable Iranian women there are, whereas with the category system you would first have to dip into a category, and then randonly pick names from inside it. Eventually this will get kinda big, as has been pointed out - I believe the most informative way to split it then would be by time period along the lines of List of philosophers born in the twentieth century. Kappa 11:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, dumping people into Category:Iranian women to try to duplicate this list seems to go against what it says on most other categories of women by nationality, eg Category:American women:

This category exists only as a container category for other categories of women. Articles on individual women should not be added directly to this category, but may be added to an appropriate sub-category if it exists.

Please note that categorisation by gender is acceptable in wikipedia only in limited circumstances which are set out in Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. New categories by gender may be deleted if they do not meet the tests set out in that guideline.

Kappa 11:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally, I prefer categories by occupation & gender, but I do think that the argument for ambiguity to Western readers in Iranian names is applicable to general category and makes a adding women directly here far more useful to many users of the English Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl 12:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anyone would find it useful in telling male from female names, they would be looking in the lead of the article for that, not in the cats at the bottom. 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've never seen the date and time stamp without a name. :) It's useful in this fashion: Categories can be accessed directly or from another page. If you are researching Iranian women in politics, for instance, and read the page on Goli Ameri, you can follow the category link to Category:Iranian women in politics to see a list of other Iranian women in politics. --Moonriddengirl 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, too many squiggles ~~~~~. I'm asking about the people who are right there in Category:Iranian women rather than in subcats like Iranian women in politics. It produces an alphabetical list of all notable Iranian women, and that doesn't really seem very useful, certainly less informative than this list which explains who did what. Kappa 21:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't so much the list's usefulness, as it is its maintainability - besides the usual issues that go with WP:USEFUL. Sidatio 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK if any wants to explain the purpose of having people directly in the cat I've asked over at Category_talk:Iranian_women. I notice that Category:Indian women is nice and empty. Kappa 02:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my view, an argument could be made to keep the category "as-is" in light of how women are treated in the Iranian and Indian cultures (among others) - because women have the proverbial deck stacked against them, I would consider that gender has specific relation to the topic. That's just my take, though. If challenged, the women on this list are already subcategorized by occupation and would be found in their relevant categories.

To me (and to several others, apparently), the list as it is really isn't maintainable. However, if there were other lists created like List of Iranian women writers or List of Iranian female singers that conformed to guidelines, I'd hardly see that as objectionable. Lists like those would definitely be easier to maintain. Sidatio 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This thing already contains a sublist of authors and poets, you are saying it would be easier to maintain that separately? Kappa 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I was referring to was your suggestion that the list be broken down into smaller, more maintainable lists. Even if sublisted, the article itself would almost certainly become unmaintainable. I can see separate, smaller lists - by occupation, time period, etc. - being easier to maintain, but sublists? It seems to me that would add even more to maintain! Sidatio 13:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That list you mentioned could probably use a review itself, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Sidatio 13:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question is, why can't we just take this list, which is already divided into sections like "authors and poets", and "politicians", and copy/paste them to make the separate smaller lists? Kappa 13:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THERE we go. I have to have it dumbed down for me in the mornings. ;-) Sure, I'm all for that. It seems those lists would be far more maintainable, and would be of much more use to individuals researching work on these notable women. I'll be happy to help out with that this weekend. Any objections? Sidatio 14:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I feel (assuming we have this kind of list at all) that Activists and Artists should be split off now and the others could stay there until they get longer. I must give this more thought. Kappa 14:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I think you're on to something here. A short list isn't necessarily a bad thing, and most of these lists would have enough names to be justifiable - except for maybe Iranian women athletes. This would probably end up being the shortest list to come out of this proposed compromise, as the two Nobel laureates could easily be merged into different lists based on their occupations. Still, I wouldn't be opposed to its creation, once more notable women athletes from Iran got their Wikidue. Further, the lists could actually have proper lead paragraphs, and their newfound maintainability would allow for better descriptions to be written about each person and their claim to notability. Also, having a smaller list would, in my opinion, foster research into the relevant topic and could result in more notable Iranian women in a given category being unearthed and represented properly. Finally, these lists would have proper inclusion criteria, instead of being about just any notable Iranian woman.

It's a solid idea, and one that could be implemented at any time since the entries on this list are already categorized. Sidatio 14:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what objection to this list do you have that doesn't apply even more so to list of Iranians? Kappa 02:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None. I was glad to see that List of American women is a redlink. But List of Americans? How about List of humans? --Evb-wiki 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I bet this somewhat overlaps with List of famous Persian women.~~ Oh, I see now it's a redirect. --Evb-wiki 02:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that list existed, but that's even MORE open-ended. Sidatio 10:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the call for "categorization", when Category:Indian women film actors was (successfully) nominated for deletion, the result was "listify". [65] and it ended up at Women in Indian film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappa (talk • contribs) 03:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly strong delete. Totally, totally unnecessary for Wikipedia. Are there lists of women of other nationalities? (Please don't try to create these as it'd warrant the existence of lists of men and women from each country, which would be a huge unsourced unmaintainable burden.) Doesn't serve any purpose per WP:LIST, totally indiscriminate collection of information. I can't believe people are actually voting to keep this.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re categories--as Kappa notes above, the Category:Indian women film actors was deleted, and so was the Category:Indian women artists. I'm certain some categories by occupation will stand per policy, but there are others--like authors, for one--that probably will not. While personally I believe the policy needs to be overhauled, since I think that a category of Indian women artists is more useful and maintainable than a list of them, this isn't the place for that. I'll just say that if the consensus is that this list is inappropriate, Kappa's recommendation of making smaller lists seems like the best solution consistent with current policy for topics like artists, authors, directors and that sort of thing. --Moonriddengirl 11:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the main arguments (that categorisation is a better alternative) is on rather shaky ground since there is a strong precedent at WP:CFD for deleting "by gender" categories. I think there's a good chance that Category:Iranian women will be slowly dismantled over time. Also, the list provides biographical information which no category could hope to include. Another argument revolves around the list's scope. Yes, it's not a finite list and so will never be a featured list, but that's not a deletion criterion. I think the option of creating more focused lists is a viable one, but see no need to push for it until the need arises (i.e., until we have enough articles on Iranian women to justify more specific lists). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It is also inaccurate not clearly defined Benazir Bhutto is described as Iranian women when she is clearly a Pakistani lady.If this is allowed we would have articles for all the countries in the world.Further the team Iranian is not described.Some of those mentioned have never even kept foot on Iran.Harlowraman 00:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm Bhutto's in the category too, maybe some could add a note to the list explaining why. Kappa 00:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like she belongs in Category:People of Iranian descent rather than Category:Iranian people, I'll go move her article. Kappa 01:02, 12 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams (drummer)[edit]

Very dubious claim to fame. A fan might be "culturally significant", but a single trivial source is not sufficient to establish that. — Coren ^(talk) 03:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The man has his own Bobble~~head~~arm, for crying out loud. - EurekaLott 03:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bobblehead dolls dont confer notability. I cant find any reliable sources giving this person "significant coverage" Corpx 05:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but feel free to put the information on a related page. Speciate 07:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure that being a fan is really WP:BIO-level notability, but there is significant coverage over a number of years, and he's sometimes shown briefly during game broadcasts. If someome wanted to improve this article they could. --Dhartung | Talk 10:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look through those sources finds mostly incidental or trivial "social interest" coverage. I agree it's very much borderline— I still think it stands on the delete side of that border, but it wouldn't take many reliable sources to change my mind at this point. — Coren ^(talk) 16:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Cleveland Indians. Adams is listed in the official Cleveland Indians template, so I assumed it was okay to create the page. It obviously could be a better page, and I really think he is notable enough, because he is mentioned frequently on Indians games on TV, and occasionally on Cleveland news. However, a section of the Cleveland Indians page explaining who John Adams is would probably say about the same amount of information. 11kowrom 16:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment More people will read about him on the Cleveland Indians page than on his own page anyway. Speciate 23:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So merging would probably be the best solution. 11kowrom 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cleveland Indians I guess the decision has already been made, so this just says I agree with it. Rhino131 21:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the google news coverage is prolific enough for me when comnined with a booblehead. It indicates local notability. -- Whpq 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Hes an improtant part of Cleveland Indains culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.81.24 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 23:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Anchoress[edit]

Blog that I'm not sure is notable. Alexa ranking is 428,646 [66] Neutrality^talk 19:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alexa ranks are fairly useless for blogs. A better ranking is The Truth Laid Bear's ecosystem, which currently has theanchoressonline.com at 222.[67] I suspect that counts as a non-notable ranking. If so, the blog's only claim to notability is that the blogger was invited to write a column for CBS's Public Eye series. Hmm. CWC 12:04, 6 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electrostatic Magnefield Powered Engine[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things invented in school one day. Unsourced, non-notable. — Coren ^(talk) 02:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Corpx 05:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this case it is so obviously nonsense that the speedy delete seems justified, and I'm not sure why the nom did not do that initially. Part of a number of equally absurd articles added today from the same source. DGG (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because it was the first such article from that source I saw. And I agree it's full of hoaxy goodness, but there was a discussion very recently on CSD talk where concensus was that obvious hoaxes could not be speedied (even though I felt they should). — Coren ^(talk) 15:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not meet the definition of patent nonsense or any of the other speedy criteria, so cannot be speedied. However this clearly does not meet notability criteria. Dsmdgold 12:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:MADEUP. --Targeman 14:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete per WP:MADEUP & WP:HOAX. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course neither of those are speedy deletion criteria. Dsmdgold 02:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right; amended. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article advertises itsels as being subject to WP:MADEUP. --EMS | Talk 21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it is very funny. Bearian 20:01, 8 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 (keep)—the AfD is split evenly on a borderline topic, and a user has expressed a serious interest in researching the subject. The article should be re-nominated at a later date if sources are not included. — Deckill er 16:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LRG clothing[edit]

This non-notable clothing line gets only 713 unique hits on Google, and a full two-thirds of those are spam, blogs, and spamblogs. Only reference is their own website, and claims of celebrity endorsements are unverified. wikipediatrix 02:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC) I actually see LRG stuff in department stores all the time. Jmm6f488 04:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [68] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: found notable sources here, here, and maybe here. Sidatio 04:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are WP:GHITS and poor writing deletion criteria anyway? It doesn't look like much now, sure, but there's enough out there to write a proper article. Sidatio 04:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That they did some design work for T-Mobile is encouraging, but still not sure that satisfies WP:CORP. wikipediatrix 05:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that particular version of the Sidekick was named after their company bears a little weight, I'm sure. There are also the other notable sources, plus their involvement in lawsuits in New Jersey [69] and Nevada [70], and more notable news articles here and here, where we can confirm they were (and apparently still are, from what I can tell) one of the clothing sponsors for Kanye West. Sidatio 05:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does a case filed by them give them notability? Where is the significant coverage in the fourth link? Corpx 05:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth link helps to justify a claim for a celebrity endorsement, it seems. As far as the court links, it's hard to say without seeing the full document, but it's possible there's something there. Anyway, Richard's Google Archives link turns up enough notable articles - I think I found some of those as well. What else is needed to suit WP:CORP? Is there a number of secondary sources they need? It looks fine to me, source-wise. Sidatio 05:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity endorsement do not grant notability. There are lots of celebs who do ads for local businesses, but that does not grant notability to the businesses Corpx 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that. I was talking about one of the nominating criteria - the nominator was concerned about being unable to verify celebrity endorsements. That's all. :-) Sidatio 05:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do not still think they are notable.Company founded only in 1999 does not meet WP:CORP. Harlowraman 00:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, are there specific sources rather than trivial mentions? Robert Granot 09:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay, let's address a few of the issues raised here:

We do, indeed, have sources. Again, we have this from WWD, which deals with the women's fashion industry. We also have this writeup from DNR, which is a men's fashion magazine. If you're concerned about that publication's notability, here's some background on it. Finally, this list of articles found on Google by Richard Arthur Norton turns up a whole host of articles. Yes, they have to be sifted to find viable sources, but the fact remains that they're there if anyone would just take the time to do some research.
Simply being founded in 1999 isn't enough to kill notability from what I can see in WP:CORP. If I'm wrong, point it out to me and I'll be happy to correct myself. Furthermore, the sources provided meet WP:CORP standards. And I quote:

“

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

”

The sources provided are from secondary, reliable sources, are featured exclusively in at least two of the aforementioned articles (and quite probably more once proper research has been undertaken), and since we have established attributable, secondary sources, we can use primary sources to bolster the content if need be. In sum, the subject of the article passes WP:CORP with flying colors. Again, if I'm wrong, present your argument.

To end, I feel it prudent to remind everyone of The Heymann Standard. Except this time, I'm going to put my money where my considerably large mouth is and do the work myself. TO THE REVIEWING ADMINISTRATOR: I ask that you give me 3 days to complete this work.

That's all I've got for now. If anyone is willing to address the issues I've raised, feel free. Sidatio 16:06, 12 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 speedied. android 79 02:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Spider Pig[edit]

Might be worth a mention in The Simpsons Movie, but not notable enough for an article of its own. — Coren ^(talk) 02:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Not notable. I have a feeling that just about every bit of minutae from this movie will end up in new articles over the next few days. Shields up on new-page patrol! Realkyhick 02:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FSM has it's own page, why not this?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Championship Wrestling[edit]

Small wrestling club with no apparent notability and no sources. — Coren ^(talk) 02:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local scope of notability (if any) and such should fall under WP is not a directory Corpx 05:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More advert for non-notable club than anything else. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:24, 10 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beelzebub in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

trivial and unreferenced. Another WP:POPCULTURE article like the first AfD ~ Wikihermit 02:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds that the topic (that is, the appearance of the name 'Beelzebub' in anything and everything and NOT the mythological figure Beelzebub) lacks notability. CaveatLector^Talk 04:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List of loosely associated topics/not a trivia collection Corpx 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beelzebub (disambiguation). RandomCritic 07:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beelzebub (disambiguation) per RandomCritic. ←Ben^B4 07:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you merge this into Beelzebub (disambiguation), what then? Are disambiguation pages supposed to contain text in addition to the navigation? I can't tell whether the characters in the classy literature are intended to be the "real" Beelzebub, or someone with that name. My favorite pop culture reference, however, is that Dan Aykroyd got really mad at a producer on SNL named Rick, so he spray painted a bunch of curses on the wall, including "You are BEEZELBUB, Rick!" I'm not dyslexic, but I had always misread it, misspelled it and mispronounced it as "Bee-Zul-Bub" and it was a surprise to learn from Queen that it was "bee-ELL-ze-bub". Mandsford 23:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - awesome vote, I used to think it was pronounced that way too. ←Ben^B4 09:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Very strongly oppose merge. The content at Beelzebub (disambiguation) is already what is appropriate to be there, and it would be a poor idea to merge any of this there. What's worse, having "Beelzebub in popular culture" point to a legitimate disambiguation page will only encourage the kind of decay that took place here before, and I'd like to point out that the merge comments are just votes with no justification for their positions. For those not familiar, this actually used to be a disambiguation page, until it degenerated into a trivia page. It was then renamed to the current title, something I agreed with at the time but much regret now. This article does not have any value, and I am one of the editors constantly having to clean up even more trivial additions to it. CaveatLector is right: the topic is not notable, no one writes about this topic in reliable sources (or, probably, at all). Mango juice^talk 15:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beelzebub (disambiguation). And redirect. Mathmo ^Talk 22:01, 7 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 an unsourced game guide. Eluchil404 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual server rules in Four Square[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is entirely unsourced and appears to be original research. Chunky Rice 02:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved it over from the original Four Square page as it was cluttering it up. As for WP:NFT, we've been deleting any list item that was obviously written in from a student in school. You might want to make a note of this deletion nomination on Four Square and/or Talk:Four Square as well to let the regular users know. How long do we have to find sources if an article is put on the delete list? --Goldrushcavi 04:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can these rules be attributed to somewhere? Corpx 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia not being a game guide. The important bits can be merged in the main article, the vast majority of this is playgroundcruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rules do not qualify under the game guide thing - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rules_of_chess Corpx 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This goes a bit beyond rules. Basic overview rules are at the Four square article. This definitely gets into game guide territory. -Chunky Rice 17:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be trimmed a little then, not completely deleted. Unlike the chess rules, this is completely unsourced though Corpx 17:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and recreate redirect to List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey. The concerns about the veracity of the info have not been addressed and in any case, if anything there is salvageable I'd rather have it re-introduced to List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey by users not blocked for sockpuppetry and multiple hoaxes. Pascal.Tesson 06:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in My Gym Partner's A Monkley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in My Gym Partner's A Monkley

List of non-notable characters from a cartoon series. I think these minor characters may not even exist, considering the creator's created another hoax article and the misspelling of the cartoon title in this one, but I haven't watched My Gym Partner's A Monkey so I wouldn't know. If it isn't a hoax, at least delete per WP:FICT as lacking notability for minor characters. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 02:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd much rather have this than each individual character with its own page. Then again, this is completely in-universe content with no citations Corpx 05:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (formerly Keep) this is actually the way minor characters are *supposed* to be handled. Needs to be moved to the right title though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated to delete per assertations below that this is a possible/probable hoax. I'm inclined to trust the opinions of those who actually watch the show (kids, huh? sure...) and even if they're wrong, this is hardly such an essential article that we should take chances on keeping a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - standard way of organizing minor characters who don't need individual pages. - Peregrine Fisher 17:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into My Gym Partner's A Monkey. I'm sorry, I don't buy the argument that this article is needed because it's preventing individual pages from being created for each minor character. There's no reason that all the characters can't be described in a section in the main article, with links to separate articles for the "important" characters. I think that people have been spoiled to expect that they have a right to create articles for any episode, character, and innovation for any television show broadcast on any television network, broadcast or cable, at any time in history. As with most shows on Cartoon Network, I can safely predict that this one will be gone and forgotten two years from now. Ever wonder what happened to Cow and Chicken? Yeah, neither have I. Mandsford 22:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There certainly is enough room in the main article for inclusion of any true information contained in this one. --Evb-wiki 23:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was created by a User:Danny Daniel sock. All the info, I think, is either false, in the main article, or from List of Minor Students/Celebrities from My Gym Partner's a Monkey which was merged back into the main article. ELIMINATORJR 00:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a regular watcher of this show(I have a kid I swear!) and I do not remember many of these characters save for the last one because he came on the episode that debuted today. This is possibly a hoax. Gorky malorki 02:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the users above based on a combination of non-notable minutiae and probable hoaxiness. Also, if this article is kept, clearly, it needs to be moved so "Monkey" is spelled correctly. -- Kicking222 13:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant info into List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey and delete this typographically challenged page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think this is a hoax. I looked for a few of them on imdb, and they're in the cast list. Johnny Grizzly [71], Eddie Panther [72]. - Peregrine Fisher 14:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peregrine Fisher and their above comment. Mathmo ^Talk 21:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. These are trivial characters, and if merged into the main article, would be unsightly as most of these descriptions are simple sentence fragments. Yngvarr 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriate information (as a tidier bulleted list) into the main characters page. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources provided to establish the notability of minor characters in My Gym Partner's a Monkey, or to provide real world context. Jay32183 05:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 20:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the main list of characters. I'm leaning toward deletion, mostly because the characters on this list are simply too trivial. If merging, do as BillPP suggested ("a tidier bulleted list"). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or, if that is unnecessary, transwiki per WP:FICT. — Deckill er 23:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 00:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete as appropriate, per Josiah Rowe. JPG-GR 03:44, 12 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. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bayou Pierre Alligator Park[edit]

Kl4m 02:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was a stub and 5 minutes old when it was nominated for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD should run for 5 days, so that's enough time to establish notability. Looked through google news and the hits there are trivial Corpx 05:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per C.Fred -- give it a chance. Guanxi 23:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CFred and Guanxi. Looks notable to me. Bearian 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that this article was young when AfD'd, I decided to hold off a few days before giving an opinion. However, like Corpx, I cannot find any reliable sources discussing it in sufficient depth to enable a decent article to be written. It's a standard tourist trap, similar to others in Louisiana. It is also promotional, as its claim to be a "base for the conservation of alligators" is risible. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a U.S. state or national park. It is a privated-operated tourist attraction where alligators are kept on display; something like a private zoo. As such, I would expect to see its significance proven through extensive third-party references before I would vote to keep. The two reader opinions given on tripadvisor.com are the best-quality independent sources I could find (and they are unreliable since self-published). One visitor said it was dirty and smelly, and the other said it was fun for the whole family. EdJohnston 01:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no sources have been provided Corpx 02:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Elementary School (Seattle)[edit]

Insufficient notability. Clarityfiend 02:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related dab page because other than this article, the entries are redlinks:

Delete both - WP is not a directory of elementary schools and I dont see how that first school stands out from any other elementary school. Corpx 04:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NOT#DIR and as lacking any assertion or independent verification of notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Elementary schools useally fails that.--JForget 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourced. this particular school seems to have received grants from major foundations for its arts program, so there should be sources for that. DGG (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the Ballard News-Tribune article, "A Gates Transformation Grant funds three artists to work with the school for four years. A John Stanford Foundation and Alliance for Education grant supports tutoring at Adams." Not substantial enough funding in my opinion. Couldn't find anything from McDonalds. Clarityfiend 06:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why are these elementary schools notable? Ddevlin 18:18, 8 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 and kept, looks like WP:SNOW in August. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CA-39[edit]

This is a disambiguation page for three things that are obscurely known as CA-39 - particularly, California's 39th Congressional District, a sunken WW2 destroyer, and a numbered highway in California. The problem is that I don't see the need for such disambiguation - the Quincy is gone, the congressional district is usually only used in political mapping, and highway 39, being a surface level full-access street, is generally referred to by street name. In short, it's a dab page that I see as superfluous. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Usefulness to you may be nil, usefulness to somebody else may not be zero. If there's no dispute that there's a valid usage, I say keep. Not sure that AFD is the best place to discuss this, but I don't know a better anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 02:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The Quincy is not just some "gone" heavy cruiser lost in some obscure war in the obscure Battle of Savo Island in an obscure world war. Jmm6f488 04:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Redirect - Redirect to the page about the warship, but keep the page for disambiguation purposes Corpx 04:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. a standard disambig page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problem here. Maxa megalon 2000 05:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not redirect: abbreviations like this are very useful for some state highways wikiprojects, whether as disambiguation pages or as redirects to the highways. With other things also referred to under that name, it's definitely a useful disambiguation page. Nyttend 14:46, 4 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 speedied as copyvio. android 79 03:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L.S.[edit]

Fails WP:Music. Definite POV issues. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 01:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Self-promoting puff piece with Myspace as the only reference. wikipediatrix 02:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyvio of http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=70396783. It's a cut-and-paste of his myspace page. I've tagged it. --Evb-wiki 02:18, 4 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. Deletion is unnecessary and the merger of any content is left to editorial discretion. Eluchil404 21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's looking at you, kid.[edit]

It's half a plot regurgitation of what's in Casablanca, half "X in popular culture". I recommend a redirect to the film. Clarityfiend 01:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per nom. wikipediatrix 02:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
! Per above. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect, per recommendation by nom. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom Will ^(talk) 02:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Oysterguitarist 02:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, it's a famous enough title that I'm sure it would be quite a useful redirect. Nyttend 14:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Casablanca, which includes a discussion of the film's modern impact. Mandsford 22:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Casablanca or delete, we don't need separate articles about individual film quotes. JIP | Talk 09:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely we mean Casablanca (film), not Casablanca, which is about the actual city the film happens in. JIP | Talk 18:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I want this damn thing sent over to Morocco. Mandsford 23:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But it seems that this quote will be redirected to its film, regardless. I could really fix up this article to be completely in line with Wikipedia standards, but I don't have enough time to fix up this article as the issue is now and am currently trying to hurry up and fix up some soap opera couple articles before they are tagged for deletion, though I have asked editors on the talk pages of those articles to hold off on tagging those articles for deletion, since I will get around to fixing them up as soon as I can. I'm not all that keen on having articles on Wikipedia about quotes, but such an iconic quote as this, I feel, deserves its own article. Oh, well. Flyer22 04:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With this article seeming as though it will be redirected to its film, I'd prefer merging the Influences, parodies and spoofs section of this article into its film's article though. Flyer22 05:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But then again.... if anybody wants to put the effort in of merging and redirecting they are free to do that too. Mathmo ^Talk 21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was voted fifth in the American Film Institute's 2005 poll of the "100 greatest movie quotes of all time", according to the article. Burntsauce 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Casablanca (film); I think that a worthy encyclopedia article might be able to be written on the line, but it's unlikely. A redirect will keep the history in case anyone decides to write that worthy encyclopedia article, so no harm done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:47, 10 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti North Korean Sentiment[edit]

Badly written, no references, and chock-full of original research. If there's a legitimate article to be written on the subject, this is not it. PC78 01:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is WP:OR and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In addition to the problems cited above, the article has severe problems with bias. --Metropolitan90 03:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This should be briefly mentioned in the Racial segregation in the United States, because it doesnt have the notability or references to stand on its own Corpx 04:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about that. There is nothing in this article about North Koreans being subjected to segregation in the United States. --Metropolitan90 04:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above (except the "racial segregation" argument). Drivel. --Folantin 08:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pure WP:OR. It's also awfully written and the author is a vandal. --Targeman 15:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You'd need a pot of alphabet soup to detail the problems with this article--WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:OR, etc. Pity there isn't a speedy for stuff like this. Blueboy 96 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is poorly written, even if one overlooks the fact that English is a second language for the author. In other words, even if it was on 위키백과, and I could understand it in Korean, it would be poorly written because of its rambling style and POV. You could polish it all day and it wouldn't shine. Mandsford 22:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although in fairness it is merely an extreme example of the Anti-foo sentiment/Criticism of.../Allegations of... articles. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - along with every other "Anti-X Sentiment". This is only getting the chop because it's barely written in English. The rest should go too. Moreschi ^Talk 15:25, 5 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris M. Gent[edit]

Chris Gent (disambiguation) - adding this to the AfD --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims to fame are for small local awards, and unsourced. Does not otherwise appear notable. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weak claims for notability plus the article appears to (at least before it was wikified) to be a direct copy of [73].—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mendors (talk • contribs).
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 02:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. Oysterguitarist
Speedy delete - even after I removed the copyright-infringing material, article fails WP:BIO. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not applicable for speedy. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 20:11, 4 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corner pocket (webcomic)[edit]

Previously CSD and Prodded, they were removed. No assertions of notability. Nothing from a google search has any coverage by people independant of the topic, just some deviantArt and list of webcomics. i ^{(said) (did)} 21:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I remember reading about this in MSNBC a few months ago - they had one of the sample comics. 72.24.121.153 20:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage on MSNBC doesn't count. Non-notable webcomic, no indie coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The comic is extremely popular on IMDB due to its movie-based humor. People pass it around more than insults. 63.228.182.132 14:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 01:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although I wouldn't agree that MSNBC coverage "doesn't count", it's certainly not enough. wikipediatrix 02:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this seems to be a very well known web comic as it seems to have its own fan-following [74], the article could however use a cleanup to make it sound less like an advertisement. Tarret 03:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Myspace groups do not grant notability. Delete, per lack of coverage from reliable sources Corpx 04:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and wikipediatrix. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:V. --Boricuaeddie 18:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MSNBC reference is unverifiable. Nothing else listed to confer notability. MikeWazowski 18:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just stating some facts, as I wrote the article. I guess I wasn't really clear - the MSNBC coverage was on television, not as a written story. I've looked on youtube and veoh to try and find a copy of it, but so far, nothing. In any case, I tried. Angerpeas 19:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some third-party reliable sources are added to establish notability. SamBC 03:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing suggesting notability. --Dragonfiend 07:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per tarret. Mathmo ^Talk 21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power abused, power healed[edit]

Non notable book whose majority references are the authors own website. Q ^{T C} 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't received coverage or reviews enough to meet reliable sources guidelines at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 01:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete That review site doesnt strike me as a reliable sources. Corpx 04:38, 4 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 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La Resort & Spa, Boracay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shangri-La Resort & Spa, Boracay

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable aside of hitting approval snags (not unusual). Russavia 19:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT. Future building. Luke! 02:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 01:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article asserts that it would be notable when it opens if it is even built. Vegaswikian 02:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunway Lagoon Resort Hotel[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. Russavia 18:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete one sentence entry with no information for notability.DGG (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 01:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Hotel brings up lots of hits on google news, so it is notable. Corpx 04:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as empty. Google hits are not notability. Vegaswikian 02:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are google news hits Corpx 03:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not empty and not a candidate for speedy deletion. One sentence doesn't equal empty. It's a stub. --Oakshade 07:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Carlossuarez46 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Mahal Hotel[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable apart from being confused with a famous hotel in Mumbai. Russavia 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no information for notability. DGG (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Delhi, India as there are no indications as cited above of notability from this hotel--JForget 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If merge Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces should be the merge destination. --Russavia 23:14, 2 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, Kurykh 01:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per source1, plus there's more hits on google news Corpx 04:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that "source 1" only mentions the hotel in the following sentence: "At midnight on a Saturday, Rick's bar in the Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi, is packed with affluent young people enjoying beers, cocktails and '80s music." I'm not sure how you hope to build anything resembling an encyclopedia article if this is the only kind of reliable third-party coverage you have. Pascal.Tesson 20:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces per my comment above. Pascal.Tesson 20:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces. Vegaswikian 02:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Carlossuarez46 23:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La Hotel, Beijing[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. All hotels have an award or two or twelve. Outside of awards there is nothing notable about this hotel, just the same as having a good review in Zagats doesn't need inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Russavia 18:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to a list at Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts Ga rr ie 21:42, 1 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, Kurykh 01:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts. Vegaswikian 02:56, 8 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melia Cayo Coco[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 01:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. No claim to notability other than just being a hotel - WP is not a directory Corpx 04:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Vegaswikian 02:57, 8 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playa Costa Verde[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article makes no effort to evidence its notability. Useight 00:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 01:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete ? No notability established and just being a hotel is not inherently notable? Corpx 04:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as empty. Vegaswikian 04:05, 8 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. --Ixfd64 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai International Hotel[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 01:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 04:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. "Dubai+International+Hotel"&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8 Google News search returns mostly press releases. Guanxi 23:04, 6 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 based on Kappa's ref. — Scientizzle 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Le Méridien Cyberport Hotel[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure where I stand but could very well be deleted on sole spam concerns. Pascal.Tesson 19:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of The Independent's five best high-tech hotels. [75]. Kappa 01:00, 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, Kurykh 01:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 04:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:17, 4 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inner terror[edit]

Delete as unsourced neologism. Google search for "inner terror" brings up many references to a band, but not to the phrase as described in this article. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICT, unless someone can rewrite it with sources. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. Oysterguitarist 03:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef, neologism, original research... Fightindaman 05:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fightindaman. --Targeman 15:46, 4 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel anderman[edit]

I very much doubt that having written a letter to a US president is enough to make one notable. Otherwise, we'd have millions of grade-school students to write up articles for. — Coren ^(talk) 01:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -makes no assertion of notability. Greswik 01:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, I’m not sure why, but a Google search for Samuel Anderman came up with this letter as #2 on the first page. ●DanMS • Talk 01:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the other results, that's probably a combination of lack of otherwise notable "Samuel Anderman"s combined with the high pagerank of the site where the letter is found. — Coren ^(talk) 02:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, the article says he's from Boston, but the letterhead says Kew Gardens, N.Y. Hmmmm. Source? --Evb-wiki 02:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Not even a claim to notability established, so should qualify for CSD Corpx 04:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Writing a letter to a president doesn't make you notable. --Targeman 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete You gotta be kidding ... writing a letter to a president makes you notable? That's stretching it, to say the least. Blueboy 96 19:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So his sole contribution to human history is writing a letter to president Truman? In that case, I'm worthy of an article too, I've e-mailed Martti Ahtisaari (and got a reply too). JIP | Talk 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. --Greatest hits 06:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valve Bar[edit]

The article does not assert notability, and assertions which are made are not referenced. Russavia 17:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable bar. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 01:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable bar. Oysterguitarist 02:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 04:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion or sources lending notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:24, 4 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 08:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tramps nightclub[edit]

Individual Night club which is unsourced and poorly written. Also looks like an advertisement here as well JForget 01:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G11; walks like spam, quacks like spam, looks like spam... — Coren ^(talk) 01:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like author said in the talk page, that he will do some rewriting. We will wait a few hours/days if the changes are good enough, so speedy is not the option for now but I will keep the delete vote for now.--JForget 01:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry wrong page. This is my first entry. I´m working through making it more factual and less advert like. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRAMPSTENERIFE (talk • contribs) Better now?TRAMPSTENERIFE 02:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources to back up its assertions. For a nightclub that's supposed to be known world-wide, you'd think it would have an article in a newspaper or travel magazine somewhere. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The claims are well documented in local newspapers and websites. Made more "netural" changes.TRAMPSTENERIFE 03:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but the article doesn't state that or give links to them. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the whole thing has been rewritten now. Instead of bickering can somebody actually give me some practical advice so that this discussion is quickly resolved please? I´ve based the entry on EXISTING entries now so there shouldn´t be any further problems. Thank you.TRAMPSTENERIFE 03:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bickering. The problem was, and still is, that the article has absolutely no sources to establish its notability. — Coren ^(talk) 03:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 04:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. TRAMPSTENERIFE, you requested advice. Mine is: wait until someone with no COI thinks your club is notable enough for an article. -- RHaworth 07:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the spammy self-promotion was removed all you are left with is an article about utterly non-notable club. The clear COI bothers me too. • nancy • 13:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what about other "utterly non-notable clubs" such as Amnesia nightclub, Tramp nightclub and the countless other Ibizian nightclubs mentioned on Wikipedia?? TRAMPSTENERIFE 17:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Enough anti anti COI References now? I´m assuming biast because my name is same as the club.TRAMPSTENERIFE 22:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second, if this club can make a claims such as "Liza Minelli and Ringo Starr have all had their wedding receptions at the glitzy club", then perhaps it is on equal footing as Tramp nightclub, but otherwise, I don't see the comparison. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be spam, and doesn't satisfy [[WP:CORP[[. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Author may have only good intentions, but to be honest the club isn't really famous, is it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tramps is a highly rated club which is growing in popularity with alot or media interest. Please see references, awards and links.TRAMPSTENERIFE 01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia even has a category Nightclubs in Spain. All I want to do is build on this.TRAMPSTENERIFE 01:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per the addition of sources by User:Wl219. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom deficit[edit]

Neologism coined in 2002. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Perhaps appropriate for transwiki, or brief mention in article such as Human Development Index since its origins are clearly sourced in the article. A cursory Google search suggests this term is not used outside of the field of political science (thus failing WP:N. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 07:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per citations listed by User:Wl219, notability established via coverage of the term in third party sources. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism.VanTucky ^(talk) 23:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 01:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable neologism. Oysterguitarist 03:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UNDP and CFR are proper sources. "this term is not used outside of the field of political science" per nom is basically WP:IDONTKNOWIT and not an appropriate basis for deletion. Wl219 02:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I should clarify: I was unwilling to rule out notability in political science because I am not in the field. However, notability, in polisci or in widespread general usage, has not been established through verifiable, third party sources. If you can cite sources indicating that this terminology passes WP:NEO, I'm willing to reconsider my nomination. Eliz81^(talk)^(contribs) 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've found several sources (most recently December 2006[76]) that all generally define the term as meaning a "lack of democracy," applied mostly to the Middle East but also 1 source applying it to China[dotcom/2007/02/the_trade_defic.html]. Not all the sources cite back to the UNDP report (this does: [77] but these don't: [freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966512/posts], [78], [79]) which suggests to me that politicians and pundits have latched on to it as a generic term and no longer a neologism. Wl219 01:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Kyle XY characters. I'll also update the related navigation template to reflect the change. Pascal.Tesson 06:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Tanner[edit]

Minor character from Kyle XY. Character is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move all useful content to an article such as List of minor character from Kyle XY and delete. --Tarret 03:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a List of minor characters, per Tarret Corpx 04:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The character is adequately covered at List of Kyle XY characters. There is no content worth merging. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom not notable. Harlowraman 00:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if there is nothing to merge. Kappa 01:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Iffy. What about the other minor characters shown here? Smokizzy (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Tom Foss and Adam Baylin play crucial roles in the story but aren't really Main characters (Foss could be considered one though), Hilary isn't too important and she doesn't really affect the plot, so I may AfD her next if I have time. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 04:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I never saw the show, so I'll take your word for it. Smokizzy (talk) 04:54, 12 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 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Breen[edit]

Minor character on Kyle XY. Character not notable enough to warrant his own article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor character, not notable. Oysterguitarist 03:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move all useful content to an article such as List of minor character from Kyle XY and delete. --Tarret 03:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The character is adequately covered at List of Kyle XY characters. There is no content worth merging. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:11, 11 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(nonadmin). Navou ^banter 02:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Jensen[edit]

Minor character on Kyle XY. Not notable enough for her own article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor character, not notable. Oysterguitarist 03:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move all useful content to an article such as List of minor character from Kyle XY and delete. --Tarret 03:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the page List of minor characters in Kyle XY. - Peregrine Fisher 17:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination this minor character fails all notability tests. Burntsauce 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of minor characters in Kyle XY, but keep Andy Jensen as a redirect to that page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The character is adequately covered at List of Kyle XY characters. There is no content worth merging. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every minor character does not need an article feel not notable. Harlowraman 00:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 05:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpotlightPHP (software)[edit]

Procedural nom. Expired prod but sufficient objections on the talk page means AfD. I abstain. Pascal.Tesson 00:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per original prod reason. The last "objection" made on the talk page came from an IP on December 20, 2006, so I won't rate that as "sufficient." —Kurykh 00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I had not checked the dates. Still, I think AfD is preferable. Pascal.Tesson 01:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Carlossuarez46 01:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- KTC 03:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. --PEAR (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the person who left the original PROD tag. Thank you for your interest in these articles, which were all listed in List of Content Management Systems. I am not a self-proclaimed deletionist, if some of the articles related to this list I have PRODed or nominated on AfD, are in fact notable, I would be only to happy to keep them with the correct references. When people have expressed concerns over half a year ago and the notability issue was not addressed, it is time to wonder if the problem is not simply that the software is not notable enough for wikipedia. To anyone who is voting keep, please, please provide the correct sources. Even just one person providing proof of notability can outweigh 100 people electing "delete". Jackaranga 14:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The CMS I wrote is more notable than this one. Yet somehow I'm resisting from creating a page about it... JulesH 16:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 05:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Readworthy Publications Pvt Ltd (India)[edit]

Non notable publisher, founded this year by some guys. The creator of the article is also one of the founders of the company. I cannot find any hit on Google news, and regular Google shows Wikipedia first, their homepage second, and then goes on to mentioning books published by them, and a few lists of publishers. I cannot see any independent reliable source speaking of the actual publishing company. Until (1 == 2) 14:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is advertising for a publisher that hasn't published a single book yet. (per website) --Targeman 14:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like any other organisation or person, first they have to become notable. DGG (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as shameless advert of a non-notable business enterprise. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:22, 4 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 Southington, Connecticut. — TKD::Talk 03:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flanders Elementary School[edit]

expired prod, with a second, based on WP:N; it's been around awhile and this is the state that it's in. However, deletion of schools tends to be controversial, so afd not prod for this one. If schools are inherently notable, which I think the community rejected as a proposition, otherwise, there's nothing here, perhaps a redirect to its school district? Carlossuarez46 00:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe only link to it is the town it's in, and there will be hardly any controvery for only one sentence. There is apparently no district article to redirect. I believe it has been generally decided that high schools are generally notable, but elementary schools never are unless there is news surrounding it. You should have left the prod there and it would have been deleted sooner. Reywas92^Talk 00:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established, and WP is not a directory of elementary schools Corpx 04:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --PEAR (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a pure vote PEAR, you must give a reason for your opinion. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:N. No independent sources provided, and no assertion of notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okily-Dokily as non-notable, but what will Ned say? Clarityfiend 03:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Elementary schools are not inherently notable, and there's no assertion of notability for this one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southington, Connecticut is the best that this article can hope for right now. Burntsauce 18:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per burntsauce. Mathmo ^Talk 22:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:LOCAL as burntsauce suggests. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:50, 9 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 23:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caravel CMS[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFY, no third party sources, or reviews of the software. Jackaranga 13:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. -- KTC 03:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Discussed in reliable source here. JulesH 16:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JulesH, can you please avoid posting links to articles we have to pay to view. I don't know if you get a share of the money or not, but you seem to often post links to this site, it is £13 an article! Jackaranga 21:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 05:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molana Zakaria Badat[edit]

No secondary sources that could be used to verify the notability of the subject are given. All content is copied verbatim from [80] and possibly infringes copyrights or is autobiographical. Googling for the name produces only irrelevant results. There are no links from other articles. Reinis^talk 12:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 04:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage that is available does not establish this person's notability, though I admit I do not know the significance, or meaning, of being "considered Hafez of the Qur'an". It would be helpful to clarify this ... to a greater extent than "it is a very important thing". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It should have been deleted by either PROD or db-copyvio by now. Reinis^talk 07:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There appear to be no sources that prove more than the existence of this man. Zocky | picture popups 12:05, 6 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. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Cairns Tigers AFC[edit]

Procedural nom, expired prod; Another Aussie football team, men's apparently this time. Carlossuarez46 00:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Team is in local semi-professional competion. However, Google News Archives does come with over 200 results. [81]. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cairns AFL. Capitalistroadster 01:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - topic has systemic bias issues. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What systemic bias issues? It is a mens Australian rules football team in regional Queensland, barely semi-professional. While I have no strong thoughts either way about keeping it, it should be noted that AFL Cairns has been merged in Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland. Given that the league was merged, is there much chance for the team? -- Mattinbgn/^talk 00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the editor who merged the leagues into Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland - none of the leagues individually meet either WP:N or WP:CORP, so I can only assume none of the teams do either. Match results are only trivial coverage, related generally to the league not to the teams discussed.Ga rr ie 22:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources and a fragmentary article, not even a proper stub. Without sources, it's hard to see how the article can be improved. I haven't seen any proposed criterion for notability of football teams in Australia, for instance at WP:AFL, but I wouldn't object to creation of a new article if this team met that criterion and if sources could be found. EdJohnston 02:05, 11 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. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cairns Saints AFC[edit]

Procedural nom, expired prod; Another Aussie football team, men's apparently this time. Carlossuarez46 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Semi-professional team with over 500 Google News Archives hits mainly from the Cairns Post. I have flagged the issue at the Australian Wikipedian notice board as to the notability criteria for sports teams. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment those results would consist to a large extent of match results: ie would be trivial coverage.Ga rr ie 22:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cairns AFL. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - topic has systemic bias issues. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What systemic bias issues? It is a mens Australian rules football team in regional Queensland, barely semi-professional. While I have no strong thoughts either way about keeping it, it should be noted that AFL Cairns has been merged in Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland. Given that the league was merged, is there much chance for the team? -- Mattinbgn/^talk 00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the editor who merged the leagues into Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland - none of the leagues individually meet either WP:N or WP:CORP, so I can only assume none of the teams do either. Match results are only trivial coverage, related generally to the league not to the teams discussed.Ga rr ie 22:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Garrie and Mattinbgn. The article on Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland seems to be about the right level of aggregation for this kind of a semi-professional team. While that article is not polished, and it has more low-level detail than needed, it has some explanatory text and gives the general feel for the competitors and level of play. The present article is hopelessly telegraphic and too local, and it's not clear there are any sources to make it better. I didn't find a notability criterion for football teams in either WP:FOOTY or WP:AFL, but others could have more knowledge of those projects. EdJohnston 01:53, 11 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 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of BPEL engines[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory for finding non-notable software. Also pure spam. Better as a category. MER-C 09:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not really spam, but definitely a repository of links, which is a no-no.. A category would be nice for this, and perhaps a few very notable pieces of software could be mentioned in the BPEL article.--HAL2008talk 10:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really spam, but does provide a overview of what is possible BPEL software/engines. Helps to define what BPEL is (as definitions themselves for BPEL are problematic at best)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HAL2008. KTC 04:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but trim spam. We do have a List of web browsers. Ab e g92contribs 06:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not spam, please do not delete It's a useful piece of information. At least find any other location for this page, can it be merged in the BPEL page ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.80.52 (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — 75.5.80.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 05:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Albans Spurs[edit]

Procedural nom, expired prod for another women's Aussie football team. Carlossuarez46 00:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seventy-five Google News Archives hits mainly from suburban newspapers but that reflects the lower profile of womens sport in Australia. [82]. Capitalistroadster 03:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable sports team. We don't delete articles just because they're on a topic which suffers from systemic bias issues. Rebecca 03:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per Rebecca. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The team plays at the highest possible level in its sport. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 09:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darebin Falcons[edit]

procedural nomination, expired prod on women's Aussie football team that someone may find notable. Carlossuarez46 00:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While there are 100 news hits for Darebin Falcons, not all of them refer to this team. [83] References are mainly from suburban newspapers in Melbourne but this generally reflects the lower profile of women's sports teams. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable sports team. We don't delete articles just because they're on a topic which suffers from systemic bias issues. Rebecca 03:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per Rebecca. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The team plays at the highest possible level in its sport. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 00:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see from the article that this is the highest level of Australian Rules Football. And I don't see from the article that they are a notable sports team - while they may well be notable in the smaller definition of the world of Womens' Australian Rules Football, that isn't the same as WP:N - notability.They fail WP:CORP - it isn't an article about a sportsperson, it's an article about a team, so WP:BIO should not apply.Ga rr ie 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not mean to apply WP:BIO although I can see why my wording would make it appear so. I concede that it is unlikely that the team meets WP:CORP. Despite this I think it should be kept for similar reasons as Rebecca. The article states that the team plays in Division 1 of the Victorian Women's Football League, "the oldest and largest Australian rules football league for women in the world". As there is no national womens league, to my mind this is the highest level available. Australian rules football is one of the largest sports in Australia both by participation and public interest. Given the above, I feel it is appropriate to have articles on clubs playing this sport at the highest level available, regardless of WP:CORP, which is only a guideline and is not (and should not) be an inviolable rule. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 03:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am convinced by the arguments that this is the highest possible level in Aussie Rules for women. --Bduke 03:54, 8 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. If anyone's got the overwhelming urge to merge something that hasn't already, contact me & I'll get you a copy of the page. — Scientizzle 15:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of places beginning with Costa[edit]

WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated topics and indiscriminate information. And before anyone says keep, this is a disambiguation page, see WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists, which both specify that these examples shouldn't be listed together on any type of disambiguation page. Saikokira 00:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "Costa". I see it as a good example of a well needed disambiguation page, despite the vague rule cited. I can see not creating a page for "John" or "Dave" but "Costa" will help when you are looking for that island called Costa ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Nothing "vague" about that, though you seem to be having trouble understanding it. Fortunately for Wikipedia, most editors do understand it. Saikokira 02:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a list of loosely associated topics. Nothing different than a list of towns/cities that start with "St" or any other prefix. Corpx 04:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as page creator. I started this page when I cleaned up the Costa disambiguation page per MOS:DAB, but wasn't sure if some of the places on the new page were just called "Costa" (which would qualify them to be merged back), and I also thought it might be helpful for someone who can't remember the correct spelling and capitalization of a place or is looking for a redlinked place. Thinking back, I should have just dropped them on the talk page of Costa, but I thought if something is wrong with the new page, someone would just ((prod)) it and I wouldn't have disagreed. Under no circumstances merge back in full (per nom). – sgeureka ^t•c 06:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This serves the same purpose as a disambiguation page or, more to the point, an index, particularly in those cases where you have similar sounding places. Wikipedia doesn't have a feature like Google where your typo is met with "Did you mean ____?". There should be some way to disambiguate between articles about places with similar prefixes, the "San _____", or "Fort ______" or "St. _______" You can go to a category called "Rivers" and find all the articles about "_____ River" or the "Rio ______", but there's no disambiguation for coastal locations, nor beachfront communities. If this isn't the solution, there ought to be another one. Mandsford 22:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is ((lookfrom)), which would produce All pages with titles beginning with Costa. The problem is that is doesn't include redlinks and additional info about the country for example (which were also among the reasons why I created the page.) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of places on a coast On second thought, just delete it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's next List of places beginning with Port, List of places beginning with San, and ultimately 26 others of the type List of places beginning with A. Carlossuarez46 17:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per mandsford. Or alternatively merge and redirect into costa. Mathmo ^Talk 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into disambiguation page Costa. --musicpvm 08:37, 9 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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Near Death Experiment[edit]

delete – the subject of this article is not notable. No secondary sources are provided. A google search reveals no other references outside the single website. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Would WP:Per Norm be a policy or a guideline? - perfectblue 16:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article even admits that everything in it came from these people's own web site. wikipediatrix 02:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 04:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to be a credible experiment, or remotely notable. There is nothing there to convince me that it is anything more than an untried hypothesis on how one might carry out an experiment into NDE. No funding, no backing, no scientific or medical language, I think that this can be deleted under as per WP:NFT. As far as I'm aware, such an experiment would also be illegal under US law (the domain is registered in the US), as well as European laws, too. Makingit unlikely that this topic could ever grow into something more substantial. perfectblue 12:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could easily be a hoax, including the website. The lack of independent confirmation says a lot. Mandsford 22:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Detailed description of an event that has not happened, is unlikely to happen & has no independent coverage seems to meet WP:Crystal ball. Espresso Addict 17:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 05:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rear Stable[edit]

expired uncontested prod, but the article has been here awhile with multiple editors, so afd not prod is the prefered method of deletion. Prod concern was WP:N, with with I agree. Although some of the actors are blue-links, some of those blue-links go to people who are probably not intended barring a second career. Carlossuarez46 00:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NN, and no WP:RS. Possibly ((db-nocontext)). --Evb-wiki 02:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe article lacks context and additional sources that assert the importance of the subject. It appears non notable.--Stormbay 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is a list of models at a porn site - bordering advertisement. Corpx 04:23, 4 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 g7, author request. NawlinWiki 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People Known By One Name[edit]

List on non-notable topic. Composed entirely of original research. Chunky Rice 00:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unmaintainable, unsourced, original research and probably non-notable. Who decided who is "usually referred to by only one name", as opposed to occasionally referred to by one name? Iain99 00:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the original author of this article, which I created when I was very new to Wikipedia. I thought this was deleted a long time ago, but apparently I created a duplicate that was deleted: List of People Known By One Name (Unambigiously). Now that I have become a highly-active editor, I know this article is in violation of original research, loosely-associated list, and collection of internal links. The list is also difficult to maintain. It's sad to see one's own work go, but it's time to say good-bye. Useight 00:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G7, author requests that it be deleted, seems to be the one. --Malcolmxl5 01:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G7. wikipediatrix 02:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G7. Oysterguitarist 02:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use G7 when other people have since contributed to the article? I don't think it applies. -Chunky Rice 02:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, very true. But let's speedy it anyway ;) wikipediatrix 02:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think no one else has made any substantial changes to the author's text so it should be OK. --Malcolmxl5 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if a G7 is appropriate. I didn't start the AfD and there were other editors, however, "substantial" is questionable. But maybe. Useight 05:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List of loosely associated topics WP:NOT Corpx 04:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this list could include up to 80% of the world, by the way it is named. Even if was notable people, there would be too many missed out. WP:NOT. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Johann Sebastian Delete Here I was, expecting a list with Prince, Madonna, Christo, Halston, etc. Next time I hear about "Beethoven" I'll know that people don't meet Timmy Beethoven. Mandsford 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford. I thought it was a list of people who only use one name, which in that case might be valid. Almost anyone is known by just one name in certain contexts. Should Jimbo be on the list? --JayHenry 23:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people known by one name. The list survived AfD but was later variously redirected and is now a redirect to Stage name, although its history is still available here. Fg2 02:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My goal in creating this list was to compile the names of people who, if I asked you, "Hey, do you know anything about Beethoven (or any other single name)?", it would be obvious who I meant without any specific context. Obviously if I was already talking about football and I mentioned Montana, people would know I meant Joe Montana. However, if it was just a stand alone question, "Do you know anything about Montana?", people would probably infer that I was talking about the state. That's what I was going for. Useight 02:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate that, but you can see our misgivings on this, I hope... the list could go on endlessly if you were to compile a list, essentially, of surnames that might be unique enough that it's likely that only one person is referred to. It's comparable to listing brand names that are so famous that we expect that most people use it in place of the original word, like Band-Aid or Q-Tip. Even though people would, theoretically, be free to add and delete what's on there, it still comes down to a person's observations (which are referred to in Wikipediaspeak as "original research"), not to mention arguments (take Gandhi, for instance-- passive resistance man or aggressive authoritarian woman?) over uniqueness. Generally, there are exceptions to every rule. Don't let the experience deter you from contributing. My own introduction to AfD was an article that I thought was "great" and, looking back on it, wasn't that good. Mandsford 03:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand original research now that I've been around Wikipedia a long time. I was just trying to explain what my motive was for clarification. Of course having my article deleted won't deter me from editing (I've lost Operations Technical Support Services and List of Nonhuman, Animated Disney Characters, as well). All of these I originally created a long time ago before really getting into Wikipedia policy. I have since created other articles that conformed and they have not been deleted. I was new when I made this, and let's get rid of it. Like I mentioned above this list is a violation of original research, loosely-associated list, and collection of internal links. Not to mention it's unmaintainable and POV. Speedy Delete per G7! I request deletion for the improvement of Wikipedia. Useight 04:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaq per G7, as Usesight requests deletion. Delete either way. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 07:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the list is needless, unmaintainable, subject to POV, and would eventually include every classic Greek person. JIP | Talk 09:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I've tagged it for a G7 per author's request. And note to the closing admin: I think this redirect can be deleted too, List of People Known by One Name (Unambiguously). Spellcast 00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 09:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Carr (Florida politician)[edit]

Procedural nomination. This is an expired prod but I'm almost certain that some will see value in the article and AfD seems a more proper choice. I abstain. Pascal.Tesson 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayor of midsized city is not notable - so not notable that we cannot pinpoint his birth year other than "presumably before 1938" which was probably subtracting 18 years from the start of his mayoralty. There are probably thousands of cities towns that are as large as Orlando was in when he was mayor, are all their mayors notable? If this guy was responsible for bringing the theme parks to Orlando, one would expect sourced statements to that effect in his bio, and that would make him notable. That there are none, seems like he's a run-of-the-mill mayor of a mid-sized city. nn. Carlossuarez46 00:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was mayor of an important city. Orlando is a major city in Florida and the US and plenty of articles about mayors of cities of similar size do exist.--JForget 01:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNN. Not this one. Only relevant ghits are for the performing arts center or his son, a political candidate. Ghits are muddied by the inclusion of the more notable Australian politician.--Sethacus 01:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one line into Bob Carr Performing Arts Centre Corpx 04:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - using other articles exists is not sufficient for an article. Service in behalf of one's city is a worthy accomplishment, but there should also be some notoriety to the way in which one served to have an article. If something can be found, let the article return. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The guy is notable. He was mayor of a now-major U.S. city for 12 years and he has an important building named for him. There's not a lot of web content about him, but that's because he left office 40 years ago. The article was a bit ridiculous, with the statement that he presumably was born before 1938 (probably written by someone too young to know that 21, not 18, was the voting age in 1956) and a reference to his having judged a beard-growing contest. Removing that silliness makes it a reasonable stub article. Keep it; maybe more information will be found to expand it.--orlady 16:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete only for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the above comment based on review of the article? Although there is no information (and no sources) on his date of birth or date of death, the article cites several sources, including dates for his term of office and his roles in founding the local Community Chest, the state Easter Seals organization, and a local African American chamber of commerce.--orlady 00:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Corpx to the performing arts center. If there is ever enough sourced info to write a good article about him, then it can be split off. No reason to have a stub about a mayor of a midsize town of whom little is known. Lots of people have had buildings named after them without having Wikipedia articles. Edison 21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bob Carr is the mayor who desegregated Orlando and thus a fairly significant figure in civil rights in Florida, which a quick trip to a news archive or a library can confirm. He died in office in 1967, which is why it's hard to google sources on him. --JayHenry 03:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough verifiable information in the article to establish notability. Davewild 08:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per orlady. I'm surprised anyone is mentioning Google results for someone who died in 1967; of course there aren't many. JamesMLane t c 05:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate information and sources are provided to establish notability. Google Hits is a spectacularly poor means in general of judging notability, and all the more irrelevant in this case. Alansohn 05:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he was mayor of a major city for over a decade. As mentioned above, Google hits should be the last way of determining notability for someone of (high) local interest before the 1980s. -- Zanimum 16:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zanimum, JamesMLane, Alansohn, Davewild, JayHenry, et al. Just because he does not have any Ghits does not mean he is not notable. Bearian 13:34, 8 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 per WP:CSD#A7 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bumpmeister[edit]

This seems to be some sort of non-notable neologism invented by youtube users. I can't find credible or reliable sources for it and I don't see how it could meet any of the criteria to be an article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NEO guidelines, and has not received any external coverage that I could find. Crystallina 07:09, 4 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 (for the third time), no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SatNet Radio Wox[edit]

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 SatNet Radio. Was speedied twice under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#A7. Hu12 13:09, 4 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.