< August 5	August 7 >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (speedy of relist per nominator request). After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davina Kotulski[edit]

Self-promotional article that doesn't appear to establish notability. -WarthogDemon 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Self-promotional, yes, but it's not a case of blatant advertising, either (which would violate WP policy). Ms Kotulski seems notable enough. What the article needs is sources to independent media, and a quick Google indicates there may be quite a few. --Targeman 23:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge with Molly McKay. Kotulski is slightly less notable than her partner (100 articles vs. 300 articles), but has received attention for her book outside of the context of the wedding stunt with McKay. --Dhartung | Talk 02:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion. No independent external links. -- RHaworth 08:47, 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, ELIMINATORJR 23:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is notable. The article needs references, but they do exist. Atropos 00:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The fellow is notable.. Though you may not agree with his agenda, he does make the cut for notability. Shoessss | Chat 01:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Agree? Agenda? I did not AfD this because I disliked the agenda and quite the contrary, I am all for gay rights. -WarthogDemon 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sorry -WarthogDemon that I came across as pointing a finger! I am just wondering why this article was nominated for deletion when it clearly was about a notable individual? Thanks for you input. Shoessss | Chat 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No harm done. Well first of all I was concerned with conflict of interest. (It seems the person is writing about themself from the looks of the username.) Second I really wasn't sure about notability or not; an admin declined speedy and later suggested on his talk page that I should take this to afd so I did. -WarthogDemon 02:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when in doubt it is reasonable to ask the community to have a voice. DGG (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a little research before I ran out of time. :) They've got third party sources, including NPR. The article needs more sourcing, but I think she satisfies notability. --Moonriddengirl 14:39, 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 result was redirect to Shizuo Imaizumi. Consensus is, at a minimum, that this style should not exist a separate article. Redirection was suggested, though, and is a good idea. — TKD::Talk 00:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shin-Budo Kai[edit]

I think a case can be made for the founder of this "style" but in reality we are taling about a 4 dojo cluster. The interesting points are already raised in Shizuo Imaizumi. Perhaps a redirect. Peter Rehse 08:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 08:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertation of notability & no 2ndry sources. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:35, 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, ELIMINATORJR 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - I'm not sure. Shalom ^Hello 01:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wavyhay[edit]

This page appears to be an unsourced neologism. ~ Infrangible 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 00:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as something made up in school one day. Atropos 00:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, made up indeed. Also, no sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up. --Targeman 01:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fits made up in school one day exactly. -- Whpq 20:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no google hits besides the article itself, no secondary sources, no sources at all since June. Ealdgyth | Talk 13:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy close, nominator has been blocked indefintely as a single purpose account bent on deleting this page for no valid reason. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Railpage Australia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Blatant commercial advertising, trivia, random unreliable sources that just mention the site and original research from primary sources. Previous AfD was rejected in favor of cleanup but no attempt at cleanup has been made. Tezza2 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 6th discussion.--JForget 00:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I speedy closed this as a bad faith nom, but the nominator undid it. I plan to speedy close this again, as I've asked the nom to take it to WP:DRV if they have a problem. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The issue is for DISCUSSION, not non-admin closure. The nom is valid. No attempt has been made at cleanup. Tezza2 00:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap Shades[edit]

Non-notable person, no sources to verify content. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree…can not find any source remotely proclaiming notability . Shoessss | Chat 01:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information seems to be unverifiable. --Moonriddengirl 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, unless of course, he hacks into this site. :-) Bearian 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources. Alexandermiller 07:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy close as bad faith nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wannarexia[edit]

This is a neologism with the only sources given from a single author. Evil1987 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close obviously not a good faith nomination. No discussion of an article under development on article or author talk page prior to nom only minutes after the article initial creation. That it is a neologism is not grounds for deletion in and of itself. Dhaluza 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TQT[edit]

I wanted to just clean the unverifiable advertorial out of this, but that would just create a drastically smaller article that would still fail WP:CORP. I'm restricted to online sources, but I can find very little independent coverage to support this. Adrian M. H. 22:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Shalom ^Hello 22:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this should be under corporation or software. Doesn't really matter - it doesn't appear that there's much in the way of reliable sources regarding the product. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Carlossuarez46 00:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuotu[edit]

Apparently non-notable software, used in Chinese speaking areas. Speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 by an admin that had checked for English language sourcing. Contested at DRV, where consent to list here for evaluation of any non-English language sources that might be found could be done was obtained. Attention requested from Chinese speaking editors. Absent some sourcing it should be deleted, but I don't speak or read Chinese, so I am only a weak delete. GRBerry 13:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A very short article that does not establish the notability of the application. If it is "used in Chinese speaking areas" then it properly belongs in Chinese Wikipedia. WWGB 13:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That has never been the practice or intention of Wikipedia. Each language edition should seek to be a comprehensive encyclopedia, unmarred by bias. the wub "?!" 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with "bias". Do you believe that every Wikipedia article should be translated into every language? That is the implication unless we accept that some articles are of particular relevance within certain cultural, language or national groups. WWGB 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! And see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. the wub "?!" 11:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - This is a popular software that's been covered in articles/product reviews by newspapers.[1][2][3] But I'm not sure if it's notable beyond just that: that it's a popular software that's been covered by news sources. Note that the article gives the Chinese name in Traditional Chinese. It would be helpful to also search under its name in Simplified Chinese, which is 脱兔. Not much different, but search engines aren't as smart as we are. :p Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Hot-linking to the first article doesn't seem to be working, perhaps the website is preventing hot-linking. So I've changed the first link to a Google search result. Click on the second returned Google result - that's the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable in the English-speaking world. Realkyhick 17:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there some policy on English WP that I'm not aware of that states that notability requirements need to be specific to the English-speaking world? Isn't that a WP:Bias problem? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it is covered to a significant extent in reviews in Chinese sources it is notable. "(Though I cant myself judge in the coverage cited is significant.) Notability anywhere in the world is enough for WP. We are the WP in English, but all language versions of WP are intended as international encyclopedias. DGG (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One article is from People's Daily, one of the most popular news source in mainland China. Another is from Sina.com, one of the largest web portals in mainland China. The third one is from newhua.com - not sure how significant the site is, but it seems to be a technology news site. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As the original deleting admin, what I do know about Chinese media suggests this may have achieved notability by our standards as non-trivial coverage. I would like to hear more from Chinese-fluent editors. Daniel Case 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to hear more about the content of those sources. Are they passing mentions, or do they have substantial coverage of this software? What would an article written solely based on the independent and reliable sources look like? GRBerry 16:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles are written about the software itself. Though to be honest, they read like product reviews. Thus my weak keep vote. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:28, 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, JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 22:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per HongQiGong - if it's notable in China then it's notable full stop. Iain99 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, it is notable in eastern Asia, and there's no reason to delete it because it is not notable in North America or other English-speaking countries.--JForget 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't matter if the software isn't well known in the English speaking world. Also, it seems notable if several magazines have written articles about it. Alexandermiller 07:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for all u r supports. That encourage much. And much thanks to User:HongQiGong for his effort-taking works to prove the notability. Fairness528ele 16:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge There is no consensus here for deletion.. Navou ^banter 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Exposed (Animorphs)[edit]

No evidence of non-trivial coverage by secondary sources, all I see is plot summaries on other sites. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." 17Drew 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is about one book in the Animorphs series (see the navigation template at the bottom of the article). Notability would be shown in the main article, not in the derivative articles. Shalom ^Hello 01:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a plot summary. The presence of other articles about other books in the series doesn't justify this one. Read "What about article x?" and "Notability is inherited" in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I don't see how this book is notable outside the Animorphs books. --Phirazo 03:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am in the process of improving the articles for each Animorphs book, including more detailed plot summaries and lists of morphs acquired/used, offering future 'generations', for lack of a better word, insight about this popular 1990s children's book series. I can't see a huge reason to delete this book, or any other book's article, for that matter; almost all the Goosebumps, and many Sweet Valley High books also have their own pages, and Goosebumps books at least did not have a series-wide storyline that would be affected by books not having articles, which would be the case for Animorphs. I would discourage the deletion of single books from a series; the discontinuity in articles that this would create would be unsightly and would simply result in the article's resurrection.--AniRaptor2001 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What this article needs in order to be kept is not a longer plot summary or a list of individual powers used. Instead, "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." (from WP:NOT#PLOT, emphasis mine). Quite a few of the Goosebumps series need to go too, in all honesty. There should only be separate articles on books in this series if they are notable outside the series and fall within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I fail to see how the other Animorph book articles make this article immune to WP:NOT. --Phirazo 04:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed, no one book can really be considered more important than the others, even the first and final books, but they are part of a series where progressive character and plot development were vital to its popularity; thus, deleting any one book removes important plot points that help a reader follow the series' evolution. --AniRaptor2001 12:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wikipedia is not the place for plot summaries, and the book articles should not take the place of actually reading the books. I'm not worried about removing "important plot points", since this is not the place for them. --Phirazo 01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Animorphs, the series this book is a part of is very notable. This book is one of 54 in the series and all the articles are in the same shape as this one, so if one is deleted they all should be. This says that the entire series was no. 31 in children's top 100 books in 2000, beating books like The Hobbit. A TV series has been made from the books [4]. Hasbro has made toys based on the series [5]. This says that individual Animorphs books were bestsellers in 1998. This list shows that books in this series, including this one, were bestsellers in 1999. Does this mean that each book in the series is notable and deserves an individual article? However, that would cause a clash between real-world notability and WP:N because there are not going to be an abundance of secondary sources for a book for preteens, unlike say a pop album that would have articles in music magazines. ~~So, perhaps merging the individual articles into groups of 10 or so to keep bibliographic information and a short plot summary is the way to go.~~ --Bláthnaid 20:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The series is notable. This individual book is not. Merging all the articles in Category:Animorphs books would still end up as a plot summary. --Phirazo 04:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at the series of articles a bit further, I think that all 52 should be merged into List of Animorphs books with information about publication dates, ghostwriters, whether an episode of the TV series was based on a certain book [6] etc. It's a pity, but sufficient secondary sources for children's books like these aren't available, even if the books have sold millions. --Bláthnaid 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that most of these book articles started out as part of articles that grouped 10 or so books together, such as List of Animorphs books (41-50). We would be returning to that, if that option were chosen. The benefit of allowing each book to have an article is that it allows for a better presentation of cover photos, morphs, trivia, etc. Also, a large number of the Animorphs-related articles on Wiki are character articles, which contain much data gleaned from the books; in effect, the book articles serve as a 'sort' of primary source for the character articles, and it is helpful to be able to link to book articles when describing events in the character articles. Now, as far as the articles being nothing but plot summaries, reviews, screenshots and connections to the TV show's episodes, etc. can definitely be added later. Wikipedia is a framework, after all; these articles are at this moment really only that, but have the potential to become larger over time. I would be happy to put my keyboard where my mouth is and get all this done, but I'm just one user, who's only just re-reading the books. Ideally, a group of people interested in the series, or perhaps wanting to learn more about it, could come together to work on the articles and the portal that could provide an ideal starting point. --AniRaptor2001 12:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me for being pedantic; but Wikipedia is not a framework, it's an encyclopedia. Articles should only be created on topics on which there is enough encyclopedic content for a good article. This would include independent in-depth reviews of the books, for example, published in reliable sources. It would not include, however: plot summaries, trivia, and also not cover photos per se (they can be added to an appropriate article, but creating an article simply for the better presentation of cover photos comes near to a violation of Fair Use, although I'm not an expert there). The book series is certainly notable; but articles on individual books, characters, etc. should only be created if there's enough material from independent sources. There's a good text that describes this principle for TV episodes, which you might want to read; it would apply to this book series accordingly. In this light, the List of Animorphs books (41-50) article is already borderline, where in my point of view it would be on the "non-notable" side of the border. All this should be considered before anybody puts considerable effort into expanding these articles - this effort might be wasted since the articles could all end up being deleted. --B. Wolterding 17:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, and is widely expected by the general public to contain information on pretty much anything they can come up with. Any time that someone searches for something in Wikipedia and doesn't find it, it's a hit against the encyclopedia. Why eliminate these articles, if they're not doing any harm or truly defying Wiki regulations, and will serve as future reference for all those interested? Unless the 60-or-so Animorphs book articles are a true burden on Wikipedia resources, I can't really see reason to enforce the rules of Wikipedia to the point that we should delete them all. WP:NOT does clearly state that articles must be more than just plot summaries: note that the infoboxes (position in series, ISBN, etc.), trivia, morphing charts, do extend these articles beyond simple plot summaries. I'll admit that these book articles are my pet project, and I'd hate to see them removed, but I'm for the improvement of Wikipedia as a whole, above all. Perhaps returning to a 5 or 10-books-per-article structure would be a satisfactory compromise.--AniRaptor2001 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - AniRaptor2001, perhaps your work could be moved to another wiki where you could write in great detail without worrying that the articles could be deleted? An external link to that wiki could then be put in Animorphs. --Bláthnaid 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Such as the Animorphs Wikia, for example. --B. Wolterding 07:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - AniRaptor2001, you might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in particular WP:NOHARM and WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. --B. Wolterding 08:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the series is obviously very notable, so I don't see why the individual books would not be notable. Currently the article may only be a plot summary, but that does not mean it cannot be improved and expanded. --musicpvm 08:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED. Just as a television series may be notable but not its individual episodes, an individual book in a notable series is not automatically notable. If you think there is significant coverage from secondary sources, please show it. 17Drew 21:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. One of a major series. Mathmo ^Talk 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't formally cast a vote yet, so here it is: Transwiki to Animorphs Wikia if the target Wiki wants it, otherwise Delete. --B. Wolterding 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect The series is notable, the individual books are not. List of Animorphs books should be where the books appear.Alexandermiller 07:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Bullock

The result was Keep --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Kantengwa[edit]

Unreferenced biography, originally submitted in French. The subject has about 100 Google hits and does not seem notable. Shalom ^Hello 22:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is a member of the Rwandan parliament, which is a notable position. The article needs improvement. Atropos 01:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What exactly is a "Députée FPR" ? Corpx 01:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, member of Rwandan Parliament, inherently notable. "Députée FPR" means "Member of Parliament representing the Front Patriotique Rwandais" (Rwandan Patriotic Front), the majority party in the current government. --Targeman 01:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but should probably get some sourcing. Ealdgyth | Talk 13:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Members of national parliaments are presumed notable. I made minor edits to it. Bearian 18:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 17:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owned[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang dictionary or a slang usage guide. USENET is not a reliable source; the article cites no secondary sources and may violate WP:V. The article completely ignores the past tense of the word "own" and instead focuses entirely on recent meanings of the word. All of the examples are original research, besides the fact that Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. It belongs on Urban Dictionary or Jargon File, or List of Internet slang phrases, but I don't think it deserves it's own encyclopedia entry. The term is already on the Leet page. This article has no sources besides USENET, Phrack magazine (emails from a Pete Shipley), and Attrition.org mirrors. WP:NEO says Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research—we don't do that here at Wikipedia. The phrase has alot of Google hits, but it's unknown how many of those use the slang meaning. Any slang meanings of the term can be added to Wiktionary. --Pixelface 22:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added Pwned above because it makes no sense to delete Owned but to keep its recent derivative, Pwned. These are both common words in Internet slang. Admittedly, the articles are full of unreferenced junk, but there must be a way to discard the peel and keep the fruit, in Chaucer's insightful analogy. Shalom ^Hello 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - aside from policy, is this really the kind of thing we want Wikipedia to become about? Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, as has been stated, and even if it was, this article doesn't even give the correct definition of the word. Lordrosemount 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It seems quite clear that these are dictionary definitions. --Malcolmxl5 23:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep thoaaving an entry on the 'List of Internet Slang Phrases' page should be enough. Perhaps it's entry over there could be expanded a bit, but it certainly doesn't need its own page. Offkorn 03:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article had a very good explanation of the word pwn and it's uses. I did not know what it meant until I searched it and came upon this article at the top of the list. Thank you for expanding my knowledge, I have heard the word MANY times, but have never known what it has meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.9.156 (talk • contribs) — 76.64.9.156 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I too found this article useful (despite the Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang dictionary or a slang usage guide situattion I find this one of the most usefull things about wikipedia).—Dananimal 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, being useful should not be a reason to keep this article Corpx 05:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The discussion of the meaning of words is encyclopedic. The mere listing--thats for a dictionary. This is well above the bar. 06:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Move to OWND There's no E in OWND. Lugnuts 07:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any discussion of how it used, where it came from, or what it means is WP:OR. The article sources examples of the word in use, but that demonstrates its existence. Not it's etymology, not its cultural significance, not its value to the human lexicon. When those sources start cropping up, then we've got something. But until then, this is just a dictionary entry steeped in editor's opinions, and that is unacceptable. Hell, even people in the gaming culture laugh about this article. Consequentially 07:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has clear potential for an article. Regardless of its current state. Has risen to common every day usage, including in popular media. Mathmo ^Talk 21:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (pwned only), whilst "Pwn" has cultural significence, it is at best a play on an existing term with a wide range of meanings already and should be referenced under the Owned article, which itself should be preserved Dr. R.K.Z 07:11 8th August 2007
Keep, or possibly merge the two articles into one. The terms "pwn" and "ownage" are clearly notable: Word cops take down 'pwn' in The Detroit News, and Dictionary tagged out by broadcasters in The Santa Rosa Press Democrat are examples of news articles about these very words. DHowell 05:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Santa Rosa piece isn't news or even op-ed. It's . . fluff? Someone's just filling column inches with that one. Beyond that, it doesn't answer the questions of etymology that need to be addressed in the article, or the question of significance. The Google News hits are misleading. The first article is about the word (and several others), but it tapers off quickly. The second "PWN" is someone's initials, the third is a company's initials. The next six are typos. The next article is the first article, just reported by a different newspaper. The second page is all initials. The third page is all initials, with the exception of a CNET article that uses the word but isn't about the word. The fourth page is all corporate references, and then a similar CNET experience where a website mentions the word but doesn't address it. I sense a theme here. Consequentially 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable slang term. The article is off to a good start; it can be improved and expanded. --musicpvm 08:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Pwn, and the synonym owned, doesn't deserve to be deleted. It would be like as if you're into deleting all leetspeak stuff here in Wikipedia, although WP isn't a dictionary of some sort. The word, in my opinion, although it's not the one used in proper/formal speech, is notable enough to be in here, so deleting it is unnecessary, although merging the two terms might be needed... Blake Gripling 11:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly servicable little articles. A "word" thats been around for years and used countless times can hardly be called a neologism either. —Xezbeth 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not a big fan of using other articles existance to justify keeps, but if LOL has it's own article, Owned certaintly should be allowed to have it's own article also. Deathawk 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare LOL's 20 relevant references to this article's four. And, as I've mentioned before, they're not even good references to demonstrate notability or significance. Consequentially 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --Isis4563(talk) 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, obviously can be sourced. Neither are neo, per Xezbeth. Bearian 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep are you kidding me? keep! Because some of you choose not to like the word that is now COMMON lexicon. Go google search it. See what happens. You literati don't get it. Wiki exists to describing the world and what is in it, whether you syntactically agree with it or nor. ESPECIALLY when looking at cultural fads the preceding generation will scoff at the latest for ______ insert what the kids are doing these days. Brian3000 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. As the person who provided all of the existing cites, I realize that this is a difficult topic to source without delving too deeply into OR, and the majority of edits to the page do nothing to make it more credible. I think that it can be a good article, but it needs a lot of work and relentless upkeep. Poindexter Propellerhead 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - culturally significant. the article just needs to be improved. Alexandermiller 07:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we seriously debating this? Anyone alive more than 5 seconds knows this is a notable term, and it can certainly be properly sourced as such. (and no, I'm not going to endorce Shipley as a reliable source, for obvious reasons)spazure (contribs) 08:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ursa major (music)[edit]

A music band for which I have not found indication of notability; my searches have uncovered some music albums with the same name, but not from this band. The article reads a bit self-promotional. I prod'ed the article a couple days ago but the tag was removed so I list it here now. Schutz 21:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent references found, no evidence of notability. --Finngall ^talk 22:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no notability given, spammy article, no sources. Also, I've never yet heard of the genre "dreamscape", even though I should have. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wow, I don't think I've had many other band searches that have come up as dry as this one did. No WP:RS available, can't define any notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn, no delete calls. Non-admin closure. -- saberwyn 23:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Ullman[edit]

I am nominating this page for deletion because of my ongoing concern that Wikipedia is used to promote marginally notable figures in pseudoscience. I cannot find any independent reliable sources demonstrating this individual's notability, beyond the 20/20 interview alluded to in the text, which is certainly not flattering. A little digging shows that Mr. Ullman is not on the advisory board of Columbia University's center for alternative medicine[7]. I cannot find any reference to Harvard Med School even having a formal alternative medicine program (please correct me if I am wrong), nor the medical school of the University of Alaska. Finally, the article has strong COI problems, having been created at the behest of the subject (read the edit history) and having been edited by the subject himself. Skinwalker 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination per WP:SNOW. It is difficult to assess the notability of these people online due to extensive self-promotion. I will rewrite the article in the coming days using some of the references Pixelface cited. Skinwalker 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The fellow has numerous articles written about him. And more to the point pseudoscience is a WP:POV in many Incidences, not a reason for deletion. However, the piece does need a rewrite. Shoessss | Chat 21:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, strong keep. I don't believe in any of this bloke's stuff. But he's certainly noteable. Your grounds for AfD are flawed- if there are COI or POV problems, they can be fixed. It is already fixed as the article mentions his being disciplined for practicing medicine without a licence etc. Of course wikipedia shouldn't be used to "promote" "pseudoscience"- but you counter it by NPOV editing, in that way you can get the message out to readers. These sort of things should have articles if they're noteable/well known. If they're deleted due to bias, that's a dreadful shame and content lost that could be appreciated by readers that want an NPOV view of someone.Merkinsmum 21:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. COI and POV aren't reasons for deletion. This person seems to be very much notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the person could very well be a "kook", but I can find sources such as ABC News, mentions in Natural Health magazine and Whole Earth magazine, a newsletter of the "North Texas Skeptics", and a mention in Skeptical Inquirer magazine. A search in the Google News Archive turns up an article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, Salon.com, TIME magazine, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times 1987-05-03, Deseret News 1991-03-14, New York Times 1992-08-30, Philadelphia Inquirer 1992-11-02, Boston Globe 1993-02-26, Chicago Sun-Times 1993-07-19, Deseret News 1993-10-13, Washington Post 1995-12-05, Mothering magazine, and O magazine. I think some of those articles may cost to view online though. It looks like the article needs a heavy rewrite to make it NPOV, but the author appears notable to me. --Pixelface 22:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 06:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INSTAMATIC KARMA[edit]

Unsourced article about a book which doesn't exist yet (although by a notable photographer). Corvus cornix 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs major work, but otherwise keep. Faithlessthewonderboy 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Changed to "Speddy Delete" Shoessss | Chat 21:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it's published (how do we even know it will be?). Lordrosemount 22:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and it's a very short article with no context. — Wen li ^(contribs) 23:40, 6 August 2007
This page should stay as the official website is up www.instamatickarma.com I am in process of getting a copy of the cover to put it up. Sixstring1965 02:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't this be a merge and redirect to May Pang, clearly a notable individual? Even after its published, its a long road to notability as a book so the author's page would seem to be an appropriate place. Montco 04:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Billy Ray Cyrus, which was way more accurate. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Ray Cyrus[edit]

The page is basically a duplicate of the Billy Ray Cyrus page WAVY 10 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Just in case somebody gets confused about who Robby Ray Stewart and Billy Ray Cyrus are, let's just go with the cheap redirect solution. FrozenPurpleCube 21:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Why have two different articles that say the exact same thing? James Luftan ^contribs 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Prooth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete Seems like self-promotion, plain and simple. Written by a possible sockpuppet (User:Calvin&Hobbs12), of a user (User:SebastianProoth) who is aware that he should not be writing articles about himself.[8] AlistairMcMillan 20:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he appears to be a notable blogger and writer, see [9]. To be honest, I am a sci-fi fan, winner of awards thank you, and I have never heard of him. But it is a big universe out there. Please report violations of WP:AUTO on WP:COIN. Bearian 17:21, 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, Caknuck 20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not buying the notability. Not seeing any third party sources discussing him, just a few other blogs linking to his blog. Maybe that counts for something. But in the event I have any doubts, the conflict of interest usually pushes it towards a delete. Montco 04:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 00:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaoh (band)[edit]

Almost nothing in the way of sources; appears to fail WP:BAND. -WarthogDemon 20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and mummify. Another non-notable band. --Finngall ^talk 20:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ransack his grave and steal the idols per Finngall. Shalom ^Hello 20:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, and his curse will be upon us - ecch, everyone's a comedian. No assertion of notability, no independent sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No multiple, reliable, third party sources asserted. Spellcast 08:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was uncontested delete. Singu larity 00:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Cannon[edit]

Non-notable - at best - average minor league player, per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 21:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reason. --Truest blue 21:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. According to baseballcube.com's records, he never made it to the Big League. Shalom ^Hello 20:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might be worth keeping some mention of him on his brothers page. Spanneraol 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete First several pages of ghits are on the cusp between passing mentions and actual sources, but nothing good enough to make me shout "keep!". Unfortunately, no sources in article to back up notability. --Fabrictramp 23:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Doesn't appear to have played in MLB just yet.--JForget 00:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I do think he is worth a mention per Spanneraol.Ravenmasterq 22:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dmirkin 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical persecution by Jews[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The first sentence says it all, really. The sheer banality of "There have been incidents of persecution committed by Jews" says volumes. The very first sentence gives the lie to this attempted laundry list of grievances, rather similar to Historical persecution by Muslims - except this one runs out of steam, for a good reason. There's no evidence offered that there's anything to write about: that is, that anyone has actually looked at Jewish persecution as a thread in history, as opposed to isolated incidences of Jewish persecution - which is why Persecution of early Christians by the Jews is somewhat more impressive. I see no reason for this article to exist. There's no reason to think there's anything to write about without descending to unverifiable original research. Essentially, this fails WP:N. Moreschi ^Talk 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with historical persecution by Muslims - Pheonix 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Yeshivish 20:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also historical persecution by Muslims and historical persecution by Christians also should be AfDed - all are POV laundry lists of no value. The topics themselves, may well of value; however, the articles are not. Bigdaddy1981 21:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)(edit conflict)[reply]
- Comment please visit the Historical persecution by Christians AFD --PEAR (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the topics are of value the articles should be kept and improved, not deleted. Mathmo ^Talk 21:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bigdaddy1981. Fails WP:V and consists of too much OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand that this is in the spirit of getting rid of similar articles alleging persecution of others by Christians, persecution of others by Moslems, etc., but this article is sourced, and it doesn't strike me as being anti-Semitic. Should we also delete articles that speak of persecution of Jews by others? I've got Jewish ancestors, and I've always been aware of the patronizing portrayal of Jewish people as pathetic victims throughout history; it's refreshing to some of my kinfolk could kick ass every once in awhile. What's wrong with documenting incidents of persecution by our forebears? We can't be proud of everything that they did. Vote delete if you must, but be sure you're doing it for reasons other than thinking that someone will be offended. Mandsford 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the article is obviously anti-semitic and, as I state above, the topic may be of value. However; this article is nothing more than a laundry list with nothing linking the incidents (aside from the fact that Jews carried out the act) and as such isn't encyclopedic. Bigdaddy1981 00:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a full-fledged gentile, I find this article deplorable. Anyone with a basic knowledge of history knows that throughout history the Jews have been smacked around by their gentile neighbors. An article (notwithstanding its attempt to sound scholarly and non-npov) entitled "Historical persecution by Jews" rings of anti-semitism of the highest order. --Truest blue 23:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mandsford. ~ Wikihermit 23:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The question should be whether or not the concept of "historical persecution by Hebrews/Jews" is one of any note in the academic/popular world. There is the clear (though disputed) concept that Israelis have and are persecuting Palestinians but the idea that Hebrews/Jews have done so historically is not as established. A couple of isolated incidents over the course of six thousand years of history does not constitute a pattern. --Richard 00:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These persecutions should be mentioned in articles of that time period (like in Hasmonean Dynasty), but not separately like this, where it looks like an agenda against Jews Corpx 01:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete this and similar articles (see other AFD from today). It's a breach of WP:NOR because it synthesizes events (Hasmoneans, early Christianity) that are otherwise unrelated. Shalom ^Hello 01:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears well referenced, and is part of a long series of persecutions by people, and of people. Its no more of an agenda than the articles on persecutions of Christians, and by Christians. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bad faith, POV nomination. Nominator did'nt afD Historical persecution by Christians but did the other two. More so, in the template ((Religious persecution)), how are the Persecution of articles less worthy of an Afd as compared to the Persecution by group? This is not synthesis or original research. Everything is sourced. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is so lacking in scholarship it omits the entire persecution, subjugation, extermination, and/or enslavement of the Caananites during the conquest by Joshua. Edison 02:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Bigdaddy1981, et al. --Targeman 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatent WP:V and WP:NOR--Miamite 03:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, per User:Richardshusr. This article is composed primarily of minority and unestablished opinions, (that I suspect) violate OR. I also suspect that this article is created solely to advance a POV, as opposed to creating an informative and NPOV article.Bless sins 03:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then can you say the same about Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Jews? Why are we leaving these articles aside? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, thoe articles have not been nominated for deletion. Nor have I bothered to check the sources of those articles. However, should you nominate them for deletion, and request my input, I shall give it to you.Bless sins 02:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pile-on delete. OR, inherent POV-pushing, etc., etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I recreated this article after its second deletion, but I now think this article should be deleted. The reason is that the recorded events date back to thousands of years ago (e.g "The Hasmonean Dynasty") where the social norms and the life structures were different and such events may have been normal of that historical period(accepted practice of all). Not that we can not define persecution(i.e. against the common practiced law) in those contexts, but I haven't seen any scholarly source have made any investments about it. --Aminz 05:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you actually read the sources used in the article? The first one listed refers to these incidents as persecution on page xix, and continues to use the word persecution throughout the book. These are perfectly adequate scholarly sources. JulesH 10:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - those are well-respected, academic sources. Banality isn't a reason to delete. ←Ben^B4 06:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article should NOT be deleted because "bad things happened to Jews" or "it was the social norm back then". It could be deleted if articles like "persecution by Muslims" or "persecution by Christians" are deleted as well. The article may be short, but it is well sourced. -Hrothgar19

This article should be deleted even if the two other articles are not deleted. This is not because "bad things happened to Jews" nor because Judaism when practiced by ordinary people could not be abused into persecuting others, but because historically for thousands of years, Jews were not in power and therefore state persecution by Jews or in the name of Judaism could not happen.

The two other articles can potentially exist but I think only if original research and abitrary definitions of persecution are strictly avoided and a good number of sincere editors watch and join in their discussion pages. --Aminz 10:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced, notable concept. I quote from the introduction of the first book in the references section:

It seems, therefore, that monotheistic religions in power throughout history have felt it proper, if not obligatory, to persecute nonconforming religions. Thus, it is not surprising that medieval Islam should have persecuted non-Muslims, just as medieval Christianity persecuted Jews (and also Muslims), and as Judaism - briefly in power during the Hasmonean period (second century BCE) - should have persecuted the pagan Udemeans, forcibly converting them to Judaism. (emphasis mine)

That persecution is an important enough phenomenon that it should be discussed in the introduction of texts like this really suggests that it is a valid subject for an article on Wikipedia, which is free to cover subjects much more broadly than a general textbook like this one. JulesH 10:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I first re-created this article based on such points about monotheistic religions but I've been recently reading a book about the religion of semite people(it includes Jews, Arabs and some other ethnicities) that in a way qualifies this quote. According to the book, the gods of ancient semites were mostly the gods of that particular tribe. They don't care about how their tribe deals with other tribes (justice, for the gods, is a point of concern only when an issue comes up between the tribe-members). In contrast with the religion of their neighbor tribes, Judaism stands out in its much broader concept of Justice.

In any case, these are all theories. Cohen calls the incident of the Hasmonean period "persecution" because he wants to advance a particular theory. In fact, were this understood as persecution in its historical context, its record should have been somewhat removed by the Jewish scribes. I can't see this has been the case.

The best place to discuss these theories are articles like Monotheism and Tolerance etc etc but not here. --Aminz 11:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article as well as the other similar articles as per nom and Corpx. accusing the nominator of bad faith is simply out of order. ITAQALLAH 15:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR forbids novel narratives, such as this article. This just ties a bunch of supposed cases of persecution and presents this as a unified phenomenon. The Behnam 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see nothing here that implies any such thing. Can you point me to the text in the article that suggests this? JulesH 18:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough here for separate article -- anything useful can go in Hasmonean, etc. NawlinWiki 18:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, notable concept. Mathmo ^Talk 21:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although theoretically a valid topic, there is simply not enough information to warrant keeping it. --Hemlock Martinis 22:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Folantin 07:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not more than a sum of its (few) parts. Also delete all other "persecution by" articles. Beit Or 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article appears to have been recreated to prove a point; its creator now agrees that it should be deleted. The real trouble is there is no relationship at all between its two sections, "The Hasmonean Dynasty" and "Jewish persecution of early Christians" besides one that we're imposing upon it here. Other articles with the same shortcoming should also be deleted.Proabivouac 21:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sparse sources used appear to be a "synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position", one of the definitions of original research. In fact, none of the sources provided indicate a historical trend of persecution by Jews, the theme the article attempts to put forth. --MPerel 05:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT. Xihr 16:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete - Articles that allege horrific things about a race or religious people are not encyclopaedic, and they all should be deleted. This one is no more worthy of deletion than any others alleging racial or religious bias. They all should be deleted. If the others remain, then this one should be kept too. Otherwise its demonstrating an unreasonable bias. 123.2.168.215 18:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Historical persecution by <religious community>" is always POV. Who defines who is religious? --Raphael1 03:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, interesting. Muslims, Christians, Hindus have all persecuted more than Jews (as a function of population if nothing else), but, I am not sure how much persecution much take place to make it a valid article. I would definitely feel very odd about deleting this article while keeping the others, but this article clearly needs help. I tend to think that there is more POV in removing a religious community--saying that they have not persecuted enough to deserve such an article... and I think problems with how the article are written can probably be fixed if the consensus is that persecution by X articles are accepted. User:Grenavitar 00:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LaVerne Ray Fromberg[edit]

No supported assertions of notability (i.e. no references). Google brings up zero hits. Oli Filth 20:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per WP:BIO this person seems to have 'received critical attention'. However this article reeks of POV, and if the author intends to keep it they should definitely get some sources and clean it up. -- Naruttebayo 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It makes me very nervous when an article is just one big copy and paste without any attempt to format to Wikipedia.--Truest blue 21:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO without sources. There is always monster.com for his resume.Montco 04:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as she exhibited at MoMA and the Fulton Gallery in NYC, which was once a big deal, but is not my cuppa tea. No assertion of notability, and Ghits probably won't work, as she's long dead. Any art historians out there? We could use an expert's opinion. Bearian 18:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedied. android 79 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangarang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not notable. Fails every step of WP:MUSIC. Pure advertising. Page was created by User:Bangarang peter with no reliable content added from any other users. Advertising links that fail WP:EL. Btl 20:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. No different from thousands of other now-deleted self-promotional band articles. --Finngall ^talk 20:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep Eluchil404 18:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Armiger[edit]

Yet another "up-and-coming" non-notable singer. Article has already been A7-speedied three times today. --Finngall ^talk 20:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and prevent recreation. See the deletion log. Shalom ^Hello 21:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know if there's anything I can do to save the article. Also, please read my statements on the article's talk page. -its creator — Preceding unsigned comment added by JM816 (talk • contribs)
Weak delete Delete and salt per Shalom. The "up and coming" bit seems to be telling me, "promotional page of non-notable". -WarthogDemon 21:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC) After reading the content below by the article creator, I've decided to examine the article closely, looking at everything including red links. I am now convinced this is NOT intended to be promotional as I recently believed. However, as it stands I still do not feel that this article meets WP:BAND . . . yet. The record company does appear to be a notable article-needing-creation, as Trick Pony is associated with it. One of the red linked bands have had their article deleted twice for blatant self promotion. So Cold River Records isn't something nobody has heard of. However, even though this does not seem to be self promotion, I still can not say keep as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Maybe if things go well for her, she'll have one in a year or two. But not now. - WarthogDemon 22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't promotional whatsoever, I just noticed that there was no article for, what I've perceived based on its media, a notable subject. I thought it would be a good contribution to Wikipedia. If you read the article you'll notice that she is pretty notable, she's not just a nameless myspace act. -JM816 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JM816 (talk • contribs).
Why is this being deleted? I hear Katie Armiger on the radio all the time. I'm suprised this is even an issue. Movieguy88 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC) — Movieguy88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - I can't find much media buzz about this artist; her name gets nine Google News hits, and I just don't see anything in a regular Google search that indicates she has the notability to meet WP:MUSIC at this point. I do see a lot of very similar postings on various other artists' discussion boards asking of "you guys have heard of" her, so I suspect there's some astroturfing going on. When she gets some reliable sources that we can verify, then an article may be fine, but right now it may be a bit WP:CRYSTALly. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's fair enough. If it ends up getting deleted, at least thanks for the due consideration. Also, sorry, I'm not sure how to sign things that I post, or they wouldn't be "unsigned." - JM816
Also, how long do I have until the article will be deleted? - JM816
Normally these discussion run five days, but they can run shorter or longer depending on the strength (or lack thereof) of the consensus. --Finngall ^talk 06:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many much less "notable" artists around here. LHOON 09:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not a valid argument. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put up sources and such, let me know if the page seems more acceptable now. - JM816 15:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the links in the article still include only one independent media mention, the Houston Chronicle piece. Press releases and promotional websites are generally not considered to be reliable sources. Other independently written articles that aren't on a website associated to the artist or one of the people working on the album would be better. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just bought her single on iTunes. They don't just put random people on the iTunes Store.Movieguy88 05:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC) — Movieguy88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep. She has tons of Ghits [10] but her 1st albumn will not be released until next week, see [11]. I am tempted to say, "Leave it up for two weeks, and let's see if she charts." Nothing like the Sword of Damocles to get editors working harder to clean up messes. Bearian 18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I found two decent references and a third mentioning her. There might be more. She seems to be on the move as far as reliable source material is concerned. I think we should give the topic another three months to develope. Here is what I found:
- Guerra, Joey. (May 30, 2007) Houston Chronicle Katie Armiger, 16, dreams about a career in music.
- Hughes, Kim. (July 12, 2007) Houston Chronicle Faces in the crowd/Sugar Land teen spends summer on the road/Katie Armiger promotes first CD of country music. Section: This week; Page 2.
- Broadcast News (August 8, 2007) Prep-Country Road. (reprinted by WQDR-94.7 FM).

The result was Redirected to Press Your Luck per FrozenPurpleCube. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whammy (Press Your Luck)[edit]

Article is almost entirely quotes -- uncited and unverifiable, violates WP:NOT. Remaining info is already available at Press Your Luck. This article was AFD as Redirect on 29 Nov 2005 but reverted by an IP user on 20 Mar 2006. Propose redirect be restored. HalJor 20:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP! at a redirect per nom. The Whammy is a very popular aspect of Press Your Luck, but not so popular as to have his own article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and Redirect it then. It's not hard to restore one. FrozenPurpleCube 21:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. The boat was the subject of a third party source. Per WP:NN, "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --DarkFalls ^talk 03:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Terror (boat)[edit]

Non notable boat. No sources are provided aside from those connected with the group that restored it. Daniel J. Leivick 20:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge I think we shoul d keep it with a link from Chichester Harbour. If not, a merge is good - Pheonix 20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like just another boat. And like an add. - Nabla 21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The boat's restoration was the subject of a BBC article. Since a neutral third party source described the event as "Crowds lined the banks for the launch of Terror", I think we're talking about a notable boat, and an article that requires cleanup, not deletion. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Eluchil404 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Best New Talent Awards[edit]

One of many "Pay us to participate in our talent show. Agents and Casting Directors might show up!" organizations geared towards stage mothers. Article is strictly advertising copy.Richfife 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant advertising. Shalom ^Hello 21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as blatant advertising, created by a WP:SPA. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was a contestant in 2004 and don't understand why all of you are saying such things about this event. It changed my life! There were over 60 Agents, Managers, Casting Directors and Record Companies in attendance, and I got callbacks from 7 of them! I was offered a record deal by Jayson Perry who was with Oak Records at the time. I was being considered by Mozy Mosanko of Jive Records. Ron Harris with Who's Harris Entertainment, who engineered some of Christina Aguilera's first albums, was interested in doing some demo work with me as well as Robert Robinson with Bubba Groove, who gets singers for many of Disney's soundtracks.M2J

Anyone saying anything bad about this event does not have all their facts! I have personally spoken with many participants in Best New Talent Awards who have gotten their start in the entertainment industry from the contacts they made at this event. I have spoken to people who have gone on to work in television, film and on Broadway because of being seen by agents and casting directors while competing at this event. It is all that is says it is and more! They claim that this single event has changed their life and started their career when they normally could not have done it on their own. I have also personally spoken with agents and managers from the industry who look forward to attending this event every year because they know they will find the new talent and fresh faces they are looking for! (NLE)

For the article to stand, you need to prove all of this using reliable sources. Saying "I have spoken..." is meaningless. Sorry. No reliable sources, no article. - Richfife 01:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See News Story video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn8xS2VfwKk Also http://www.starsearchcasting.com/html/talent_convention.php and http://www.starsearchcasting.com/html/your_agent.php and http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=116247090 (read the About Me section)

Sooo... I cut the article way back to things that are encyclopedic. Here's the thing. There are now two uninvolved sources for the article: [12] and [13]. The first is good, the second seems to satisfy WP:CORP under the "published reports by consumer watchdog organizations" clause, but it seems a bit lame to use as the second source to establish notability. Thoughts? - Richfife 14:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the BBB has to be cited, however here's the problem with the statement on the refunds. The BBB is citing Civil Code 1812 which does not apply to this company. How do we fix that? They claim that Best New Talent falls under laws pertaining to Employment Agency, Employment Counseling, and Job Listing Services Act, which it doesn't.

You fix that with the BBB, not Wikipedia. - Richfife 21:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because of the controversy section. Mathmo ^Talk 04:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was unanimous delete. Singu larity 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christofascist[edit]

Strong Delete No references, no assertion of notablity, obvious POV pushing & original research PEAR (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEO violation. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to have been coined and used by one person, and in the context of the article is used to advance a POV. Acroterion _(talk) 20:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per sheer lack of evidence that anyone cares. Moreschi ^Talk 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Wen li ^(contribs) 23:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a neologism coined by a single author which didn't catch on. <<-armon->> 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the above reasons, even though I am a queer Episcopalian. Bearian 18:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 17:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MiniEgo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Whoops. Article was already deleted in 2006 (I hadn't seen that when I tried to submit for AfD). Request speedy deletion. Non-notable website, article reads as spam, re-creation of deleted page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like spam --PEAR (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a non-notable website. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Toms[edit]

Zero proof of notability in this article. A guitarist who plays for a red-linked band. No external sources, spammy, created by WP:SPA. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Active since 2005? Musical genius? Speedy it. Acroterion _(talk) 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per nom, NN.

Delete Per nom. --Truest blue 23:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. He gets three Ghits under his real name [14]. Sorry, dude. Bearian 18:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 00:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightspeed Media Corporation[edit]

Strong Delete Not notable: only 2 references, no assertion of notablity. Contains 4 links, all of which are link spam. PEAR (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Isn't this already discussed here Shabda 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, that was a discussion about the article on Tori Stone (which is even less notable) one of the 'Lightspeed' prostitutes. --PEAR (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable internet pr0n company. Owner has been written up in the Wall Street Journal. Link added to article. PS PEAR, I think your comment above reveals a bias.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AllGlory. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Tori Stone, Tawnee Stone, and Jordan Capri were merged into this article, past XfDs of interest include

(and possibly others) -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - No evidence of multiple independent reliable sources giving coverage to allow verifiability for most of the article. Valrith 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - evidently notable. Such organizations will be hard to have reliable proof of notability, but just about every hard drive in the free world will have some Lightspeed media on it. Well, 50% at any rate ;) — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 23:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per AllGlory and MapsMan Mathmo ^Talk 23:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just silly. A Google search shows 222,000 hits for "tori stone," 1,080,000 for "Tawnee Stone," 1,130,000 for "Jordan Capri." How many hits do we need? Binky The WonderSkull 16:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google searches for porn stars do not show evidence of notability. Valrith 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep the rewritten article, which is substantially improved from the one that received recommendations to delete. — TKD::Talk 00:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grieg's music in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Grieg's music in popular culture

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. Listed items have nothing in common past happening to use some of Grieg's music. Tells us nothing about Grieg, the music, the items which included the music or anything else. Oppose merger to any other article that touches on the topic. The list was clearly split off from another article, most likely because those editors realized it was unsuitable for an encyclopedia article, but unfortunately they didn't simply delete it. Otto4711 19:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT#DIR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabda (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom -- loosely associated topic indeed. DO NOT MERGE, way too indiscriminate of a list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, listcruft, trivia-filled, it has it all.

JForget 00:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was originally part of the Edvard Grieg article. I split it off to improve the Grieg article. I agree it can be deleted; nothing of really interest here, especially since Griegs music is so famous that it has been used on countless occasions. Karstein 07:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The use of Grieg's music in movies etc., especially as a major theme, is about as important a topic as anything else about his music. Some of the items, such as the second (the film M) even discus the reasons for it. Bring the other entries up to the same standard. The nom clearly says he considers that this information does not belong in WP, and i wonder why. The nom is clearly uninterested in the opinions of anyone who actually knows the usic , for he made no notifications of the AfD. DGG (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important to who'? Not any third-party, reliable sources. There are literally millions of artists who's work has been included in a soundtrack at one time or another, and without a source that explains why these are significant on a cultural level, it's just a list of times where his music has been played with moving pictures. Consequentially 08:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Bravo to User:Bearian. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say popular culture articles should focus on the work's recognized continuing significance to the art in which it is used. Keepers. Consequentially 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no WP:RSes saying that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Keep Oh gosh, Carlos being fickle? Hardly. User:Bearian asked to reconsider my statement in light of the substantial edits that he has made to the article, which is vastly different than it was when nominated. It has WP:RSes not only about the re-uses and citations which form the vast majority of these "in pop culture" articles, but that there are WP:RSes showing a significance (and notability) to Grieg's music in popular culture. Citations to the New York Times, Metropolitan News Co (publisher of many Southern California newspapers), and University of London. Carlossuarez46 22:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Important to music lovers and college students doing research. Get rid of the cruft, get some cites, make it so. Bearian 19:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., folks, I did it myself. In a very short time, I found over 20 cites. Some are blogs, some are reviews, some are more substantial. With a bit more work, this could be a featured article. Strong keep per WP:HEY. Bearian 20:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And many of them are sourced to the work itself. You cannot use a work to justify its own importance. --Eyrian 20:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

An article should not be judged by cherry-picking one or two of 38 sources, most of them very unique from one another. That's like reading that Bush is a cheerleader and subsequently nominating his article for deletion. — xDanielx^Talk 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyrian, have any of these ever been sufficiently close for you to accept that with editing it could make an acceptable article? (In contrast, I've !voted delete for a good number of the articles nominated when it seemed that it would not be practical to fix them fairly quickly, or there might not be sufficient usable material. ) DGG (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will both note that I have not said this article should be deleted. --Eyrian 04:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Note for the record, and stating the obvious perhaps, the opportunity for improvement of any of these pop culture articles along the lines that User:Bearian has done is always available: it's probably tough work and for many of these articles IMHO improbable to impossible to be more than a citations list which is what has prompted the deletion tide. But the opportunity has been and remains available: before the afd nomination had been placed upon the article, during the afd process, and afterward by simply asking an admin to restore an article to your userspace to be worked upon and resubmitted. As best I recall, none were deleted for BLP or copy vio's userfication is non-controversial and I would certainly do it -even ones where I voiced support for deletion, and no doubt several other admins would as well. Carlossuarez46 00:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD is not cleanup, but for anyone who disagrees Bearian has done a wonderful job improving the article. Regardless, the subject is clearly notable, with popular events around the world and what not dedicated to him. The WP:NOT#DIR accusation is just about the most vague and generic argument that appears on the AfD forum. A similar case could be made for just about any other article, pop culture or not. — xDanielx^Talk 00:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- A very good job, despite some stilted English. Not just an indiscriminate list. Rhinoracer 01:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been radically improved since its nomination and WP:NOT#DIR no longer applies.--Father Goose 04:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 17:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landcrawler[edit]

Article seems to be based on inventing a neologism. It asserts that a "landcrawler" is a type of vehicle in sci-fi, giving an example from Star Wars (the thingie the little guys drove around in on Tatooine). Unfortunately, do a google search and you'll find the first link is to a real estate website; the second is to this Wikipedia article; and further down is mention of a "landcrawler" as being a beastie in Final Fantasy V. Basically, imprecise neologism, not notable, no sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete attempt to create a neologism for the sandcrawler used by the jawas in star wars (it already has its own article). Bigdaddy1981 19:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merely repeats information found on the Sandcrawler page but attempts to create a new label or category for similar vehicles to fall under. Not verifiable. --Pixelface 22:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete due to unsatisfied concerns about reliably sourced notability. — TKD::Talk 10:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Life Left[edit]

Non-notable per WP:WEB. Doesn't contain any reliable independent sources Me5000 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important article even if it isn't very good; It is notable for being Europe's only radio show on video games - Pheonix 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (Forgot sig)[reply]

Comment Doesn't it need a source that it's the only video game radio show in Europe? Me5000 19:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly Britain's only one. Douglasi

Delete unless sources are found to attest notability. Corpx 01:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. One sentence an article does not make. Wizardman 22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Maris primary school[edit]

This school no longer exists and does not really satisfy Wikipedia notability criteria Sloman 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..note this afd has been listed at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive Gnan garra 06:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V and WP:N. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established--JForget 00:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Uplands, Swansea - I have already carried out the merge. TerriersFan 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 01:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Uplands, Swansea. Article as it stands makes no claim of notability and barely provides a description of the school. As additional material becomes available to establish notability, the article should be recreated on a standalone basis. Alansohn 12:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, VanTucky, JForget. --ForbiddenWord 13:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Uplands, Swansea is the best possible solution in my opinion. Burntsauce 18:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as has already been done (endorse merge). Silensor 07:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WP:OR concerns haven't been addressed - the sources listed do not appear to be relevant and new sources have not been presented here. --Core desat 04:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical persecution by Muslims[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Sweet Jesus, what a rubbish article. It stinks to high heaven. If it weren't years old, I'd have speedily nuked this pile of excrement. Where do I start? For starters, it's unreferenced, it's original research/synthesis, and it's a massive violation of our policy of neutrality. It's a veritable NPOV free-zone. Blatant content fork. It's a whopping great laundry list dedicated to "proving" the crimes of Muslims, with no sense of balance whatsoever. It selectively "cites", not academic works, rather random quotations from God knows where and a couple of news reports. For heaven's sake, get rid of this thing. It's a horrific blot on the face of Wikipedia. Moreschi ^Talk 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it. I'll bring the stick. Phil Sandifer 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke from high orbit. Blatant NPOV violations, issues with WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally stupid - Raze to ground, burn rubble down, feed ash to pigs, jettison pig excrement into black hole - Pheonix 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep there are 17 references. If you feel there are POV issues you should edit the article rather than delete it. --PEAR (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 17 irrelevant references. Moreschi ^Talk 20:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They sure look relevant to me -- why do you say they aren't? Also, if this is a POV fork, what is it a fork from? ←Ben^B4 10:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There is abosulutely no way to make a neutral point of view article out of things done to muslims that were wrong. Also, consider the possible buffeting and/or pummeling of the author(s)' personal computer(s). (Unsigned, by Danieltiger45)
- Comment better delete these to then: Historical persecution by Christians, Historical persecution by Jews --PEAR (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This text is a really amateurish way to decribe a complex historical phenomenon. Pavel Vozenilek 19:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An extremely bad case of selective sourcing and original research and synthesis. Although the subject is notable and deserves an article, I can see precious little salvageable content here. This has to be re-written from scratch. --Targeman 19:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impossible to make this NPOV without a total rewrite and a change of topic that avoids "historical persecution by group x against everybody else". Acroterion _(talk) 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with HPBJews, it's sourced. I love the irony of the nomination: "Sweet Jesus, what a rubbish article." Mandsford 23:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is taking a bunch of facts and calling it "historical persecution". These should be mentioned in the appropriate articles, but not here (like Mughal Empire) . Corpx 01:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. The article is well sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not synthesis or original research. Everything is sourced. Bad faith, biased POV nomination. Nominator did'nt afD Historical persecution by Christians but did the other two. Here's the question I ask every single one of you who did a delete: In the template ((Religious persecution)), how are the Persecution of articles less worthy of an Afd as compared to the Persecution by group? Please go nominate the 20 persecution of articles too. We want to stay neutral, right? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because other similar articles weren't nominated doesn't make this nomination a bad one. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Phirazo 03:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then lets remove the other crap too, like Persecution of Muslims. Does everyone agree? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment This is a wiki, there is nothing stopping you from nominating that article for deletion as well. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion#How to list pages for deletion. --Phirazo 17:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is well cited and not open; the afd nom seems ill-conceived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briangotts (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This article has been around for long, yet no serious attempts have been made to improve it. Although it has 17 sources, many aren't even relevent to the topic of this article. Thus much of this article is OR.Bless sins 03:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do you agree that we should we get rid of Persecution of Muslims too? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said (on another AfD), if you nominate it for deletion, and ask me to review the sources, I will and (perhaps) support its deletion.Bless sins 02:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unsalvageable, POV-pushing mess. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nom says unreferenced, article is too, didn't look any further. But, seems like a legitimate topic even if susceptible to bias. No need to chuck the whole thing. ←Ben^B4 06:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should have an article on this topic, but I see nothing that can be salvaged in this one. If we're to have an article on historical persecution by Muslims, it needs to be historical (i.e., sourced from history texts -- not present day news articles). The current article is more about modern civil rights in Islamic countries. JulesH 10:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe this would have to be completely rewritten to be encyclopedic. It raises the question of how 'group crimes' should be organized in articles. For example, we would never have an article 'Persecution of short people by tall people,' we would have much more focussed articles on individual crimes or groups of crimes. Also we would follow the lead of historians who had written credible books on a topic similar to the article title, to be sure we were not guilty of WP:SYN. The references in this article seem very weak, for anyone concerned about synthesis. EdJohnston 14:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as has been discussed on the talk page, a number of the entries in the article constitute original research. all of the "Historical persecution by..." articles are highly unencyclopedic, and Corpx raises a very valid point. ITAQALLAH 15:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has sources and is well cited other issues can be discussed in talk pageHarlowraman 15:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments advanced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination). Bigdaddy1981 16:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the refs are to be accepted, it seems history is primarily defined as being in the 20/21st century! A lot of it seems to be OR too. Would require a complete re-write to meet WP:V and WP:NPOV. → AA ^(talk) — 17:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absurd WP:OR-violating "novel narrative." The Behnam 18:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No one is responding to my query: What about Persecution of Muslims? If this article goes, then this one should also go. The same arguments can be applied there too. --Matt57

^{(talk•contribs)} 18:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment feel free to nominate it for deletion. It certainly appears to suffer many of the defects of this article - notable topic but a laundry list of unrelated grievances of various importance presented with an implied common theme which is not shown through verifiable refs. Bigdaddy1981 22:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is certainly a lot of room for improvement though. Many important historical issues such as Dhimmi status or Banu Qurayza and Granada massacres have not been mentioned. Heja Helweda 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Large bodies of literature deal with this, a page like this belongs. It meets WP:rs and WP:V.Baka man 20:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, notable concept. Mathmo ^Talk 21:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article can exists only if original research and abitrary definitions of persecution are strictly avoided and a good number of sincere editors watch and join in its discussion pages; neither of these has been the case as far as I can remember. --Aminz 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material in the article is as it has been pointed out well sourced, and the subject the article is discussing to both notable and important. -- Karl Meier 15:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - i'd have to disagree on that point, it has been tagged with ((More sources)) since February 07 (~ six months). this article consists of a string of unrelated events. could you refer us to any reliable sources dedicated to this specific topic? ITAQALLAH 16:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not more than a sum of its parts. Also delete all other "persecution by" articles. Beit Or 18:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — The topic is notable, but the article needs a lot of clean up. There are too many lengthy quotes, for one, and these just kill the readability. — RJH (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no relationship at all between many of the events covered here except that their perpetrators were Muslims and we define them (rightly or wrongly) as persecution. It's the OR logic of "List of…" making its way into mainspace. Such titles prohibit neutrality from the start: were there anything positive about the way these various Muslim groups treated others, it wouldn't belong here as it's not an example of persecution. Contrast this to Dhimmi, which though intersecting some of the topics in this article, references a real historical phenomenon.Proabivouac 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research per nom and Pavel Vozenilek. --MPerel 06:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable topic; article is well-referenced. --musicpvm 08:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete - Articles that allege horrific things about a race or religious people are not encyclopaedic, and they all should be deleted. This one is no more worthy of deletion than any others alleging racial or religious bias. They all should be deleted. If the others remain, then this one should be kept too. Otherwise its demonstrating an unreasonable bias. 123.2.168.215 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic of the article is highly unencyclopedic. It's main purpose seems to be to denigrate members of a religious denomination. Just in case you wonder: Yes, I'd vote for deletion of any Historical persecution by ... article. --Raphael1 03:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete without prejudice against recreation if reliable sources are later found. — TKD::Talk 09:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peacefully In Their Sleeps[edit]

Wikipedia is not a TV/radio/program Guide, nor a crystal ball. This is a press release disguised as an article. Pharmboy 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising for a program that will soon be broadcast. Shalom ^Hello 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisement with no references. — Wen li ^(contribs) 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was trying to provide information about a programme, not promote it. I've removed the transmission details and will try to work out how to include more acceptable external references.Mr colin anderson 23:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI think you are always going to get into trouble when you pre-announce a program/song/book unless it is reaaaaally being anticipated. Even songs and such get the same pounding unless there is 3rd party coverage from the big media on it. Having an article on a show that is running seems ok to me as long as it is not promotional, and *really* should be written by someone not affilated with the show itself, via WP:COI policy. It is still a bit early for the article, although it airs in 24 hours, but I have considerable less objection to the current version than the original version of the article. Pharmboy 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Dudley. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrens Nest Primary School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. Quentin X 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every article can be improved; some people from the area in question may want to look up this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheonix15 (talk • contribs)
Delete "This could be..." is not an acceptable argument. The school fails to assert and verify adequate notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Elementary schools are not inherently notable + this has no sources attesting to its notability Corpx 01:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 01:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dudley - I have already carried out the merge. TerriersFan 01:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect this and Sycamore Green Primary School both to Dudley. Chris 02:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per terriersfan. Mathmo ^Talk 21:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..note this afd has been listed at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive Gnan garra 06:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Dudley. Article as it stands makes no claim of notability and barely provides a description of the school. As additional material becomes available to establish notability, the article should be recreated on a standalone basis. Alansohn 12:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dudley per Alansohn and others above. Burntsauce 18:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested until this can be fleshed out. Silensor 07:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete (A7) No assertion of notability whatsoever.--Hús ö nd 01:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rossiyane[edit]

Russian language dictionary definition (word usage in Russian language), and original research, too `'Míkka 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dictionary definition. --Durin 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; maybe merge into Russians. I'm not sure. Shalom ^Hello 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to merge. This word has a perfectly adequate translation: "citizens of Russia" and nothing more to it. `'Míkka 02:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 01:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Vida Locash[edit]

"Stockholm-based pop cultural movement". No sources, reads as spam, created by spam purpose account. No proof of notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless RS are found to establish notability Corpx 01:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllGloryToTheHypnotoad and Corpx. GlassFET 16:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Uthbrian (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line Line, Dot Dot, Operation Cootie Shot[edit]

Article on a purported saying, but no sources given. Google provides 3 links for the full phrase, and 19 links just for the phrase "operation cootie shot" of which most are blogs and answers.com-type links; given this, I doubt this article can ever be referenced from independent third-party sources. Thus, non-notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- Doesn't seem to fit any precedents of 'neologisms' or even as a quote. Also seems to talk as if this person believes in cooties. -- Naruttebayo 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My best guess is that this was created from someone who remembered it in the context of the song Circle Circle Dot Dot. Some variation of this is genuinely a children's playground song, so perhaps this should just be redirected to Cooties or Playground song both of which reference the rhyme without as much original research. --JayHenry 23:27, 6 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 01:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO; this doesn't appear to be a notable phrase, and is lacking references. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced original research, not notable. Mel sa ran 11:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greater european pygmy eagles[edit]

Probable hoax - Google brings up nothing, and I find it unlikely that an eagle is related to a pigeon! Oli Filth 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 100% pure hoax. Pigeon-sized eagles in England killing sheep and cattle, my aching ass. Obviously, 0 Ghits. That was some fast work Oli Filth, 3 minutes from creation to AfD! :-) --Targeman 19:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent hoax. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Obvious hoax. 'Reek' havoc on this one. Acroterion _(talk) 20:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Totally fictitious. Chris 21:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reason number 837 why obvious hoaxes should be speediable. Iain99 21:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one marches right up to the borders of patent nonsense/unsalvageability, but I certainly agree that hoaxes of this sort should be speediable on grounds of blatant hoaxing alone. Acroterion _(talk) 21:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in the "shoot hoaxes at sight" squad. --Targeman 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This hoax could have been so much better. Not that I blame anyone for attempting one, considering all the authentic stuff that gets deleted, but a good hoax is designed not to be discovered immediately. Mandsford 23:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Come on. "Killing small livestock." It's a really obvious hoax. — Wen li ^(contribs) 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Now that the second part of the article has been sourced, most of the deletion arguments have been countered. The article needs much work, and there is a merge proposal to resolve, but these are post-AfD editorial actions. TerriersFan 03:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of ancient Greek religion[edit]

Obvious, unreferenced, original, and poorly-written essay here purely to push a particular point of view. Blatant content fork of somewhere-or-other. A rant that will not be missed. Moreschi ^Talk 18:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major Greek religious groups hve experienced many issues from the modern Greek government, Orthodox Greek Church, the Athens Olympics, etc. etc. BBC News, The Guardian, Herald Tribune, The Age etc. etc. Zidel333 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't disagree. I'm just saying that this article is not the way to address that. Moreschi ^Talk 18:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you suggesting then on creating a new article based on my and other refs about the contemporary religion's "persecution"? Frankly, I don't think this falls under Decline of Hellenistic polytheism as the Decline more or less was over and done with when modern pagans began to open practice again. but I'm willing to listen. Zidel333 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Decline of Hellenistic polytheism per suggestion on article page. This article begins with unsourced information about 'ancient times', and then skips to modern day. Otherwise should be rewritten as article about modern day Hellenistic religious freedom, per citations of Zidel333. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete obvious POV fork with no referneces. --PEAR (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, alternatively split into ancient- and modern- parts (the current text looks unsalvageable, though). Pavel Vozenilek 19:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article discusses two entirely different things, the introduction of Christianity in Ancient Greece and the present-day legal struggle of a fringe Hellenic revival group. There is a clear conflict of interest here and the article pushes its PoV through a totally skewed analysis of several sources (Greek law prohibits "proselytism" = need to "de-criminalize" ancient Greek religion? Huh?) --Targeman 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's not much here among the POV, but the first part's already covered by Decline of Hellenistic polytheism (which is no gem), and the last part can be boiled down to a paragraph at the end that attests that it's still around, albeit barely, in the 21st century. Acroterion _(talk) 20:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The biggest problems I see with this article is the lack of early history and the gap between the Roman empire period and the modern period. Ancient Greek religion has faced several attempts to supress its practice, and I don't see why that shouldn't have an article seperate from the decline of hellenistic polytheism (since persecution of the ancient Greek religion has occured in periods before and after the main period of decline).(RookZERO 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Weak keep, Edit and Rename There are actually two articles here, one that has no cites and should be deleted. The other is not so much about "persecution" (what's up with that?) but about modern-day people who state that they belive in Zeus, Hera, and the other Greek gods. That one is sourced and is intriguing, if it is as notable as suggested. Sorry to persecute the author, but why sandbag this with some complaint about polytheist persecution in ancient times? It's like writing about Michael Vick, and then tossing in a section about animal cruelty in ancient Rome. This one could be good, if you could decide what you want to write about. Mandsford 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment personally, I think a better comparison would be an article on the history on animal cruelty, but which, newly created, only contained sections on Michael Vick and ancient rome. Some time to come up for the article's creators to come up with information from other times and places is not unreasonable, seeing as we all know its out there.(RookZERO 21:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

An obvious keep (or failing that merge (altough then the merged article probably need a better name since it's not about the declime, but the revival as well). As far as I can tell there are several sources given. Are we reading the same article? I have now fixed the references so they should be more obvious. // Liftarn
Merge into Decline of Hellenistic polytheism. There simply isn't enough information for an article. --Hemlock Martinis 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 01:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frout[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable dicdef, unsourced. --Finngall ^talk 17:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Made up. Chris 20:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No references given, either. — Wen li ^(contribs) 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article creator Zeitfrout replaced the discussion page with the following comment. --Finngall ^talk 15:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frout is a real presence on the social and business scene in Washington, DC. It exists among a small but influential group of government and business leaders. The fact that it is largely a viral phenomena does not detract from its significance, nor should it be a factor in determining whether or not it is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeitfrout (talk • contribs)

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Medias Res (band)[edit]

Fails the notability guidelines set out by WP:MUSIC. All their releases are issued under the "In Media Res Music" label, suggesting they are self-releases. Also, they self-produce all their material. Their MySpace lists them as unsigned. I think the anon who created the page is a band associate. LuciferMorgan 17:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - was originally a really spammy article, but POV material has been removed in many successive edits. There is still no assertion of notability, and no independent sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no indication that they're notable, and while I find a few mentions of them, I can't honestly be sure they're the same band. (Seems to be at least three of them mixed in to the Google searches.) Tony Fox (arf!) 03:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, single purpose accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Campbell (video game journalist)[edit]

This article is about a guy who wrote in videogames magazines about 10 years ago. These days he's an entirely unnotable freelance journalist who seems to struggle to get anything published at all. Many of the incidents described in the article are pretty irrelevant, and the sourcing and overall written style of the article is pretty poor. I believe the entry itself was first created by Campbell himself, otherwise it wouldn't exist at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mayor mike haggar (talk • contribs)16:26, 6 August 2007.

Keep - You miserable bastards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.17.227.76 (talk • contribs). — 82.17.227.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - Not notable. --81.178.249.75 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)— 81.178.249.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete not notable. --PEAR (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is not temporary, so the fact that he's less successful now than he used to be is irrelevant. However, the lack of secondary sources and the general shabbiness of the article make it hard to make a case for keeping it. Iain99 21:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the article is in awful shape at the moment. In fact, I'd say it's one of the worst I've read. It is a bit aggrandising, and it does reek a bit of conflict of interest. But an article being a bad one is not a reason to delete. There is no doubt that this person has been notable. As Iain99 says, notability isn't temporary. So what if he isn't doing much nowadays? Neither is Margaret Thatcher. Right now, the article has no sources. But is it an article "that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources"? I'd say not. He's been interviewed quite a lot. So I say, keep it. Put a ((rewrite)) on it. Re-stub it if needs be. But to say that someone who wrote for many national magazines, and for teletext for numerous years isn't notable is ridiculous. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom He's no more or less notable than any other videogames journalist. His having had work published in national videogames magazines is not in itself something noteworthy, and he really doesn't meet any notability criteria at all. --Mayor mike haggar (talk) 12.06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)— Mayor mike haggar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Poorly written article for a non-notable individual. Mr. Scare 11:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a videogames journalist is not in itself especially noteworthy. There are thousands of people who have contributed to magazines over the years, it would be lunacy to suggest they should all have their own page. I would suggest anybody who knows his name would know who he was, and would not require a page like this anyway. Also, the article is clearly written by the subject himself and is little more than a one sided propaganda piece. Look at the section on copyright, and especially the section on "Cannon Fodder". I don't think offending a load of old soldiers is anything to be particularly proud of, as he seems to be. -- Henry Of Monmouth 12:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC) — Henry Of Monmouth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Because of course that's the entirety of the situation. "Offending a few soldiers". That's all that happened. Of course. Obviously keep it, it's a perspective on some of the golden age of gaming and the Cannon Fodder incidents was one of the first rumblings of an effect that now leads us to have adult games like Manhunt 2 completely banned because "well games are for kids aren't they". Duds 2k (logged out as 87.194.49.241) 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, games are for kids, aren't they. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.17.92.104 (talk • contribs). — 82.17.92.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep These complaints appear to be entirely personally motivated. Very similar entries such as that for Julian Rignall have not been subjected to such requests. The claim that the subject created the entry himself is entirely unsubstantiated. As for the standard of the entry, I have now edited it to supply citations from various sources for most of the challenged items. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.217.135 (talk • contribs). — 83.67.217.135 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment This entry has being flagged for deletion clearly as part of a vendetta by someone who is not a "fan" of the entry's subject. There's no rationale for deletion while other journalists from the era have unchallenged entries, and as such it should be recognised that this challenge is a personal grudge, and not something relevant to Wikipedia's qualifications for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Botherer (talk • contribs). — Botherer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment You have absolutely no proof of that, and the article should be reviewed no differently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.66.131.125 (talk • contribs). — 79.66.131.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Not notable, and it's irrelevant to point out other instances of where another non-notable individual's article has not been AfDed. 81.178.249.168 03:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC) — 81.178.249.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Are we to assume, then, that every journalist, and by extension every magazine and newspaper, is to be deleted? Because this particular subject is unquestionably one of, if not the, most notable in his field, and if his entry is to be deleted then it's hard to see how a case can be made to keep ANY periodical publication. It would be a lot more convincing if any of the people arguing for deletion had also taken the simple steps to request the deletion of similar other entries, many of which are linked from this very article and are therefore easy to find. The justification for claiming this to be a specifically personal attack is equally easy to observe - for example, the highly offensive recent editing of the subject's name to "Stuart 'Raper' Campbell". From that and several other edits it is abundantly obvious that this request is malicious in nature, rather than concerned for the integrity of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.217.135 (talk • contribs).
Comment Hello. I am Stuart Campbell, something which Wikipedia is welcome to verify via the email address supplied to create this account. I have no intention of debating my own "notability", but wish to absolutely deny the claim that I was in any way responsible for the creation of my entry here. I did not create it, did not request anyone else to create it, and have no knowledge of who did. This debate seems to me wholly motivated by personal animosity, and I do recognise some of the usernames of those involved as people who have previously shown hostility towards me on internet forums and the like, but the issue is clearly for Wikipedia to decide.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rev. Stuart Campbell (talk • contribs). — Rev. Stuart Campbell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Claiming the AfD is some sort of vendetta against Campbell is just as baseless as the accusations that Campbell wrote the article himself, and is irrelevant in any case. Whether or not the article should remain, rests entirely on the notability of the subject - not on the motivations of whoever nominated it for deletion. 81.178.249.168 09:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)— 81.178.249.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - I wanted to find something out about Cannon Fodder 2, and I did. So, for me at least, it's useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 135.196.136.138 (talk • contribs).
Keep - He's clearly notable in his field and has amassed lots of credits for a host of notable UK publications, and his work with FairPlay is also pretty notable. I don't think it's correct to say the "he wrote it himself" claims are irrelevant - despite being proved false, those claims are the only justification for deletion provided by some of those voting "Delete" above, and this should probably be taken into account. Also, there are quite a few articles which reference him by name and link back here. Finally, it's been here for a long time without anyone raising the issue before, which does suggest that this nomination may not have been done in good faith. Fosse8 10:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, on further investigation of this article's What Links Here page, there are some very interesting comments on the nomination for Web Boxing League - [15] - where an article by Campbell is suggested as something which could be an example of a sufficient supporting source. It seems very inconsistent if Campbell having written about something affords it notability, but the article about Campbell himself is to be deleted. Fosse8 11:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article requires further cleanup, but as a former editor of a national magazine he has notability within his field, and the article is now somewhat better sourced than it was. Iain99 11:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable person. This AfD is clearly proposed by person(s) with a grudge, evidenced by the amount of anon "Delete" nominations (that have made no other edits I notice). --The internet is serious business 11:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the anon keep nominations? Which are most likely from Stuart's own forum [16]. 81.178.249.168 11:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yet another entirely groundless, unsupported allegation. Is there any evidence whatsoever for this claim? The link provided shows nobody either being asked to edit the entry, or claiming to have done so.83.67.217.135 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even ignoring his video game writing surely the creation of the Fairplay campaign which lead to a change in the law makes Stuart Campbell notable. 213.235.43.217 12:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC) CD[reply]
Comment It's becoming increasingly obvious that the edits made to the article by the user with IP 81.178.249.168 are malicious in nature. Their most recent edit removed a number of clearly factual pieces of information (such as the chart placings of two videogames) under the claim that they were "POV". Such things are clearly anything but "points of view", and are instead abundantly-documented, empirically verifiable and relevant facts, since the chart success of games created by a person is of clear significance when determining that person's "notability".83.67.217.135 11:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment In the context they were in, they were totally superfluous and made the article read like Campbell's promotional material (or rather, even moreso than it currently does). All those that have been linked here from Stuart's forum should be aware of WP:CoI. 81.178.249.168 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So should those who came here on behalf of the nom from forums - Just because you're not from his site doesn't mean you lack a conflict of interest in the matter. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability, "notability is not temporary". -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Is there a mechanism by which the unjustifiable and repeated vandalism of this entry can be stopped pending Wikipedia's decision? The un-named complainant here repeatedly removes verifiable facts which are clearly pertinent with regard to the subject's notability, from transparently personal motives.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.217.135 (talk • contribs).
- If you feel the page should be protected, see WP:RFPP. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That page made my head spin :( 83.67.217.135 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Responded at user's talk page. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wording such as "extremely popular" aren't verifiable facts, they're peacock terms, used to push your POV. It's also just poor writing. That is why your edits are being reverted. 81.178.249.168 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry, 81., but I feel I have to agree with 83.67.217.135 and lament the fact that semi-protection would have been counterproductive due to the IPs working here. ~~Besides, it's been pointed out that you seem to have an exclusivity to this article.~~ -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)-Text redacted by Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)}[reply]
        It's called a dynamic IP. I've been editing Wikipedia for over four years. 81.178.249.168 21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then perhaps it's time you registered an account. 83.67.217.135 11:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        He doesn't have to, 83. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Then accept my apologies. Redacted the last sentence above.
Keep - article asserts notability with independent mentions. Admin: Notice the abundance of SPAs in this AfD ;) Giggy ^Talk 02:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from the single-purposes trying to prove a point, I note that there are several external links scattered throughout the text of the article that would need to be made into references via the <ref> tag. Further, if notability was temporary, as nom suggests, then why the heck do we have articles on people who would've stopped being notable long ago?-Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 05:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is not temporary. Andre (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe the subject passes one or two points of WP:BIO (under 'creative professionals'); his involvement with Amiga Power, for example. Has this AfD been pointed to from a forum, or something? That's an awful lot of unsigns and IPs up there. Marasmusine 07:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forum is likely...hence the usage of ((not a ballot)), and my subtle wink to an admin! By the way, this has also been noted at WT:VG. Giggy ^Talk 07:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reasons given for deletion by the nominator have all been rebutted here. Notability is not temporary, quality of an article is not a reason for deletion, the article wasn't written by Campbell himself, etc. UnaLaguna 11:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteYes, notability is forever, that point has been made again and again and again. But is the subject actually notable? From the article it seems that he's mainly notable for giving out harsh review scores, which in itself is hardly worthy. While he has written for a large number of publications, so have a large number of other freelance journos, why does any of this make him notable? It also seems odd that he is mentioned as having worked with the fairplay campaign, which doesn't have an entry itself. If it is to stay, then it probably needs some cleanup. Whilst the references have been improved, it still reads as much like a resumé than an encyclopedia entry. And surely direct quotes from his own forum don't have a place here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.185.248 (talk • contribs).
- Comment Most people who have voted keep surely agree that the article is in need of some cleanup. May I also take this chance to ask why your recent edits seem to show some kind of grudge against Campbell, removing mention of him in articles [17] [18], and referring to him as a "noted murderer" [19]? Such edits probably won't help bring the closing admins to see your deletion rationale as neutral. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously, this is a bit silly. Not many games magazine editors have managed to enrage the national press as Campbell did with the Cannon Fodder poppy thing and its resultant front page headlines. That's notable in itself. He's probably the single best known games journalist in Britain in the last 20 years. Miremare 01:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reason for nomination is as logic as deleting Babe Ruth because "he was a guy that hit homeruns eighty years ago." - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be a somewhat notable game designer/writer. --Pixelface 09:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy A7 by User:MZMcBride. Non-admin closure. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Kraham[edit]

I feel that this page should be deleted because it serves no purpose to the Wikipedia community. I am certain that the page was created for future vandalism and is about an unimportant local political official. Also the lack of information provides an empty article about an unimportant person. Inertia16 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Changed to db-bio Shoessss | Chat 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep - no deletion reason given, and nominator has voted 'keep' below. Non-admin close. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Ice[edit]

Keep – Hey it introduces Mr. Freeze:-) Shoessss | Chat 17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Emmy award winning episode of a notable series. the wub "?!" 18:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though i nomed it i only did it to confirm, there was a noteibilty tag on it that is the only reason i did AfD. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the notability concern, you can just remove it. There is some disagreement as to whether individual episodes of television shows merit articles (I think in most cases they unilaterally do), but I think winning an Emmy is sufficient individual notability to warrant some coverage. FrozenPurpleCube 19:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. per above uses. The nominator doesn't even want it deleted. Plus, if it were to be deleted, wouldn't you have to delete the other episodes aswell? James Luftan ^contribs 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 00:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Scott[edit]

While I sympathize with her family, she is not notable other than being a victim of ~~a violent crime~~ the Columbine massacre. Most of the article consists of things her relatives have done subsequent to her death. If their actions are notable, they should have their own page(s) Cap'n Walker 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Not only being a victim of this tragic event but the first victim, I believe lends itself to notability. Shoessss | Chat 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The charity named for her certainly appears to be notable. Perhaps a move to the name of the charity might be in order, but not deletion. -Chunky Rice 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I somewhat agree with you on a move to the name of the charity, but it would need to be a completely separate article. An article entitled "Rachel Scott" should be about Rachel Scott, and Rachel Scott should be a notable person. This article should be deleted, and perhaps the original author can come up with a new article regarding the charity itself. Cap'n Walker 17:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure I understand why. Why waste all the work that's already gone into it. A few minor edits are all that's needed to change the focus. -Chunky Rice 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be honest, I believe they should be separate articles. Rachel Scott is not only the subject of several books. That in it self brings notoriety. The charity has also gained its own notoriety.Shoessss | Chat 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, it looks like those books were written by her parents, so i'm not sure if they can be considered independent of the subject of the article. -Chunky Rice 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Rachel's Challenge Foundation and rearrange the article. Although I have enormous sympathy for the girl and her family, being the first to be shot in a random killing rampage doesn't make you more notable than the other victims. --Targeman 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Shoesss. Victim history important for understanding the case, details not found (or would fit) within the scope of the Columbine article. Victim notability similar to the articles found in other famous mass murders such as Mary Ann Nichols. Notable figure and often referenced by faith based groups, who occasionally cite her refusal to deny her religious beliefs even knowing it would ultimately lead to her death. May actually still be referred to as a martyr by some, despite the witness testimony. Controversy surrounding her final words significant. Trippz 20:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rachel Scott merits this article, based on Wikipedia Notability requirements. She has indeed been the "subject of multiple published works...television and newspapers...". Just since the Va. Tech. Massacre, for example, Rachel Scott and the Rachel's Challenge Foundation were again mentioned repeatedly on major U.S. TV networks and magazines. As such, Wikipedia would certainly be deficient as an online reference work encyclopedia if it had no entry on this person. Secondly, if this article is deleted, then Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold should likewise be deleted, too. JGHowes ^talk - 20:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that reasoning holds up. Harris and Klebold are the perpetrators of the incident. They are fundamental to understanding what happened. Sadly, Scott is merely incidental. Who she was and her motivations have little bearing on the notable incident which led to her death. Of course, the activities, like the charity that have occurred after her death may impart some notability, but it would be a mistake to think that all victims who have received media attention are notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial, after all. -Chunky Rice 20:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right -Chunky Rice in that Rachel Scott would not be notable, if left to live out her life under normal circumstances and of course given that opportunity to do so. However, the circumstances that led to this discussion taken place are not normal ! She was the first victim in a tragedy that gained notoriety worldwide. She is the subject of numerous arterials of “Notable" authors and news agencies and lastly a “Foundation” is named in her memory. If this does not rise to the qualifications of NOTABILITY what does? Shoessss | Chat 21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misreading me. I've already argued to keep the article, given the notable charity established in her name. I'm merely stating the fact that the circumstances of her death alone do not make her notable, as is well established under the policy Wikipedia is not a memorial. -Chunky Rice 21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure I would agree that victims are incidental in a crime. Who they were and their motivations often has a large bearing on the incident. In this case the perpetrators did seem to make a selection (in some cases, but not all) of who they would kill. In Rachel Scott's case she may have met some unfortunate criteria in the minds of two very diseased teenagers. Victim/Killer relationship and personalities is vital in understanding motive. You are correct that WP in not a memorial, however I agree with JGHowes that Rachel Scott mets Wikipedia Notability requirements. Trippz 21:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I just want to reitterate, once again, that I am not arguing for the deletion of this article. I am merely pointing out that the media attention received as a victim in a notable mass killing does not make a person notable. This is why we don't have articles for the vast majority of victims of Columbine, Virginia Tech shootings, 9/11, etc. So saying that she is notable because of that is simply a bad argument and not in line with Wikipedia policy. That's all I'm saying. -Chunky Rice 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Difficult one to remain neutral about. But her name does cross my path every once in a while and it is good there is an article about her when I can't place a person with a name that it mentioned. Trippz 21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep~~Delete~~ The article is a memorial to a young lady who was apparently a random victim of a pair of psycho killers, as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The foundation and the books are attempts by her family to memorialize her. ~~I do not see sufficient reliable and independent references to satisfy WP:BIO.~~ Trying to say the article is about the foundation seems unconvincing. Alternatively the article could be Smerged (reduced in length and merged) to the article on the Columbine shooting. Edison 02:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)(edited to add)Rachel Scott is somewhat famous as a victim and as a diarist, like Anne Frank. Her family has published books containing what the School Library Journal called fictionalized adaptations of her journals, in a review reprinted at Amazon,com [20]. The Time magazine reference in the article says that her father was receiving $1500 per speech about her. There are reports of "visions" foretelling the shooting which might make skeptics question the authenticity, but a Google search did not show much skepticism. I will change to a weak "keep" on the basis of the family's dogged publicity campaign and industry built around her in the form of the campaign against school violence. Edison 15:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorryEdison can you point specifically to which area of the "WP:Criteria for notability of people" as posted below in Wikipedia the young lady does not fall into. Thanks for clarification. Shoessss | Chat 03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==WP:Criteria for notability of people==

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; however, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

The person has been the subject of published¹ secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.²
- If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
- Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.³
- Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.
The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.
The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
The person has demonstrable wide name recognition
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
Comment Your question suggests that she satisfies all the criteria. Note that satisfying one or more does not guarantee an article. Books written by and memorial foundations set up by her family are not independent. I do not see the "widely recognized contribution" or the "significant award or honors" other than memorial praise. The strongest claim would be name recognition, but after the passage of time it becomes hazy. edited to add: Her family has published adaptations of her diaries, and this lends her some degree of notability. Edison 04:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed, meeting one is not conclusive, but it does provide a reason for keep unless there is some real reason otherwise, and the more are met, the stronger the presumption. In this case the continued press coverage and interest is sufficient to justify the article. Over the barDGG (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the article is quite good and she is notable for dying at Columbine. --PEAR (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The strong precedent has been that merely being a victim in a mass shooting or other killing, however notable the event is, does not confer inherent notability. Something more is needed, like playing an important role in ameliorating or exacerbating the violence. In this case, her family has made a case that she led an exemplary life, and they have published their version of her diaries, seeming to show prophetic visions, and have used her life and death as the basis for a foundation which has kept them busy giving presentations on preventing school violence. This is more than is true for most victims of notorious killings. Edison 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Targeman's suggestion. Rather than having seperate article's for both her and her namesake charity, I think it would be more efficient for them both to be under the same heading. Scarian ^Talk 03:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Rachel Scott's significance is posthumous, but then again so is Anne Frank's. Not only is she notable as a victim of Columbine, but also because of the writings her family has shared and the activities the family and others have done since her death, which help keep the Columbine shooting significant to many while many of the other school shootings have been unfortunately forgotten. Renaming the article to reflect the foundation makes about as much sense as changing the Anne Frank article to Anne Frank Fonds.--Brian Waterman

Keep I agree especially with Brian Waterman's comments: like Anne Frank, Scott has left behind her a legacy in the form of diary entries, poems, short stories, and other writings, as well as stories that others have told about her, that have been read and have probably influenced thousands of people around the world. I have read literally hundreds of comments by people posted on various websites associated with her attesting to the influence her legacy has had on them. I myself have read much of her writings even though I am not American and have never been to the USA. Her family may have set up a foundation in her name and published her writings and books about her in order to memorialize her, but that is also true of Anne Frank as it was her father who had her diary published and who set up the Anne Frank-Fonds. What is important is the effect that an individual's legacy comes to have on the world. Regarding Edison's and Targeman's comments that Scott was a "random" victim, there is evidence that the killers targeted her deliberately. On one of the basement tapes, Klebold, who knew Scott personally, says: "I don't like Rachel and Jen. They're stuck up little bitches, f***ing Christian, godly little whores" (it can be heard on this webpage). It is highly likely that the Rachel he refers to is Scott. I strongly believe she deserves this Wikipedia article. Marsoult 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only person now who wants the article deleted is Cap'n Walker, who is evidently the one who nominated it for deletion in the first place. He is clearly outvoted. Can we please agree to keep it and end this discussion? Marsoult 16:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Android79 at 07:45, 7 August 2007. -- saberwyn 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Dead Gorgeous (single)[edit]

Absolutely no context, references, or anything. It probably qualifies as a speedy delete for patent nonsense or non-notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, nonsense. Kids, no mind-altering substances before writing WP articles, please. :-) Realkyhick 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, How can I improve on Realkyhick remarks. Shoessss | Chat 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this was for the Republica song, it is a valid single as I understand our policies, and I certainly hope there's no prejudice against a properly sourced recreation. --JayHenry 23:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 00:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfall[edit]

Heavily Lacking in proper notables or notability. Heavy speculation. The darkfall project has been in development for many , many long years with very little notable information released or known about it therefor making it not notable enough to be covered in a encyclopedia at this point in time and should only be covered when it has reached a more notable state such as the point in time when it is picked up for publication by a notable publishing house for example. Tandurin 16:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I'm of two minds. That this project is vaporware is apparent to a neutral observer ... but that it's heavily sourced vaporware is another thing. That being said, massive and lovingly detailed features for a non-existent game puts far too much weight on the subject, and this article could stand to be trimmed back by about 75%. Ravenswing 17:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. It seems foolish to delete an article on a soon-to-be-released MMORPG, given that the article has been consistently edited since January 2006 (see article history). In a few months, the same dedicated editors would need to start over from scratch. I think it's wiser to leave the article alone and let it continue to develop. Shalom ^Hello 01:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the game appears to have alot of coverage at IGN. There are plenty of screenshots at Gamespot. There appears to be video of gameplay in the References section. And I see fairly recent news at darkfallonline. I don't think the article should be deleted just because the game has been in development for a long time or because developers have underestimated the time it would take to finish. There are many Wikipedia articles on unreleased videogames. I think the speculation needs to be removed from the article per WP:CRYSTAL but I don't think the article is unsalvageable. --Pixelface 05:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not a game is vaporware has no bearing on whether it is notable. One of the most recognized games of all time, Duke Nukem Forever, is in fact known specifically for being vaporware. There is obviously some cleanup needed, but at most this article needs a "Future game" template, not deletion. --Trevor 16:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per Trevor. Anyone is welcome to clean up if not satisfied. --John.constantine 08:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Lakes Group[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Organisation which doesn't quite meet the notability guidelines, I don't think. We don't as a rule have articles on the tug companies in Dartmouth, Dover or Antwerp. I'm also concerned that there may be a hint of vanity in the article being created. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I should add that the IP addresses expressing 'keep' arguments are all from the Great Lakes area of the United States.

~~All of the IP Addresses are not from the Great Lakes area and even if they did, the Great Lakes area encompasses eight US States representing about 30% of the U.S. population.~~

I'm withdrawing my nomination, if everyone is agreed - although I strongly recommend the article gets re-written, and that the number of pictures is cut down. Article should also have a close eye kept on it, as it's the only article about a tugboat company. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CMLITC on the re-write and cut-down of the gallery. More encyclopedic, less promotional, and maybe those who have participated here who have the sources could expand the coverage of similar or competing operations. Acroterion _(talk) 03:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To start, I am bias because I am the primary contributor to this site. However, I believe The Great Lakes Group does meet the notability guidelines. The Great Lakes Towing Company is currently in its 109th year of operation which was started by John D. Rockefeller and other notable industrialists. Further, it is the largest tugboat company operating on the Great Lakes and everyone in the maritime industry knows about “The Towing Company.” This Wikipedia site was created after hearing about several requests for it to be created. To address the comment about the lack of other tugboat companies in Wikipedia; Wikipedia currently has a site for Crowley, Foss, and Seabulk (all tug companies), the site also hosts other maritime companies which The Great Lakes Group does business with including Maersk, Canadian Steamship Lines, and the Mathur Museum. Finally, in regard to the comment “there may be a hint of vanity in the article”, I agree to an extent, however, I am trying to clean it up. With some time, I believe The Great Lakes Group article will be a great asset and notable addition to the Wikipedia site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.236.0.82 (talk • contribs)

I'd be wary about saying that 'everyone in the industry knows about us'. I am in the maritime industry, but I haven't. It'd be better to say that some of the people who work in the maritime industry in my area know about the company. Crowley Maritime are a large shipping firm who only deal with tugs slightly, I can't seem to find an article on Foss (although I have heard of them, they do a fair bit of ocean towing), and we don't have an article for Seabulk either. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will regress, not everyone in the maritime industry has heard of The Great Lakes Towing Company because that is an impossible statement. However, I have been in the maritime industry for over 10 years and I have yet to meet someone who has not heard of The Great Lakes Towing Company. Moran, Crowley, and Foss hold the East, Gulf, and West Coats, and GLT holds the Great Lakes. Further, Crowley started with the tug business and its business is still primarily tugs, I used to work for them.165.236.0.82 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you personally know doesn't mean anything to us, as you're nothing but an anonymous IP. Even if you were logged in, the Essjay controversy showed the peril in relying on personal testimony for Wikipedia articles. Thus the request for sources, not your own statements. FrozenPurpleCube 23:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been watching the creation of this article closely as I am very excited about its creation. I do not believe it should be deleted as everyone in the maritime industry knows The Great Lakes Towing Company (The Great Lakes Group). It should be noted that Wikipedia has articles about Z-drive tugs, while Tugz Internation was the first Company in the United States to build and operated Z-drive tugs. I would think if Z-drive tugs is worthy of an article, the first company to build Z-drive tugs in the United States would also be worthy of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:R.Ocasio (talk • contribs)

Again, I'd be weary of some of your points. 'Tugz Internation' may have been the first company in the US to build and operate Z-drive tugs - but then why not have an article for the first UK company? And the first Chinese one? And Dutch one? And Finnish one? Pretty soon we have an encyclopedia full of companies 'that first operated' a type of tugboat that is, in the grand scheme of things, not that important. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The maritime industry is often the forgotten industry. Everyone must remember that almost everything that you use day-to-day was on a ship or barge at one time or another. The Great Lakes Group does barging and tows these ships that transport everything from clothing to cement. If it was not for The Great Lakes Towing Company, massive amounts of cargo would not reach the people and industries in the Midwest and there would be billion ($) lost. I have not personally contributed to this article yet, but I have been watching its evolution and would like to see more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.125.253 (talk • contribs)

Keep – And for the group above…how about cutting down our comments and expressing a definite keep or delete rather than editorializing that never gives a definitive answer. Shoessss | Chat 18:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, folks, please, sign your post by using ~~~~ (that's four tildes), and don't worry so much about the formatting. There's no need to add "comments" to describe things that are better off described as keep or delete. Nor is there a need to number things. Now as to the subject of this article, the best way to make it keepable is to read WP:ORG and provide coverage in multiple third-party sources. So far I'm not seeing it. FrozenPurpleCube 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with this. I am being a bit harsh. But I'd still like to see references in magazines and newspapers - preferably national or international ones - that would make this company worthy of inclusion. We don't want a floodgate opening here - the Great Lakes aren't that special! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a category of industry that is underrepresented in Wikipedia. It is difficult to make an assertion of notability in these cases largely because press coverage tends to be confined to industry publications or incidental mention in the context of a maritime disaster. The most similar article I can find here is Smit International, which has conducted a number of high-profile towing and salvage operations - and that's no more than a stub. GLG could be condensed, but it is sourced - the Detroit Free Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer and New York Times certainly qualify. Acroterion _(talk) 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that they started referencing (New York Times, Detroit Free Press, etc.). Are there any references in industrial magazines such as the Seaway Review or the like? 70.191.125.253 23:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw their coverage in the New York Times and see them all the time in the trade journals, definitely a notable company/article24.239.61.15 14:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They seem to have a near-monopoly on tugboat operations on the Great Lakes. That's important business. The fact that this is a privately held company means it won't have some of the coverage that is typically found for publicly traded companies. Don't delete them for being privately held.--orlady 05:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Great Lakes ARE special to the many people who live here and love the ships, the crews and shipping in general that goes on around us every day. The Great Lakes Towing Company is a notable player in the marine industry in our area. Keep this article please. 69.216.168.1 14:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Truthfully, I'm slightly taken aback at the statement that the Great Lakes aren't that important. Not only do they hold 20% of the world's fresh water, they facilite a robust shipping economy between the east coast ocean ports and the bulk of the United States, especially the industrial sector. But, I digress. To the task at hand. The Great Lakes Towing Company, even if it weren't the most prevelant maritime towing establishment, is still notable enough to be worth mention on Wikipedia. Towing is a huge part of maritime shipping. Getting finished goods and raw materials from place to place efficiently is of great importance to the economic success or failure of a region. Without tow boats, barges and freighters which carry many different raw materials for industries along the Great Lakes could not deliver their cargo. I understand a lot of modern ships are equipped with bow thrusters, which allow them to manuever more efficiently, but even these boats need a push or a tow once in a while. Since it has been addressed, let's put the history of the company aside and focus on what ways this company works to keep the American economy moving. Taking a purely economical standpoint, this article, though it needs much attention and editing, is worth keeping. 84.115.137.214 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Lakes aren't that important. Whether or not they hold fresh water is irrelevant. They serve as bulk shipping route between one part of a single country, and another part. Towing is of importance to shipping, you're right - but they aren't large international towing firm - indeed, they are a single towing firm that operates solely on one system of lakes, and are no more important than Baltic, Chinese, or European towing firms. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, isn't Canada still a country? Anyway, ocean-going ships can and do traverse the Great Lakes on a regular basis. The Saint Lawrence Seaway permits ocean-going ships to reach Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago. I've seen German cruise ships going through the Soo locks. I believe a major portion of Canadian grain exports go through Thunder Bay, Ontario. Acroterion _(talk) 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone going around deleting articles about Baltic, Chinese, and European tugboat operators???? If there are no articles about those tugboat operators, it's presumably because they have not yet been written. A lack of articles about Baltic Sea, Chinese, or European tugboat operators is not a reason to delete articles about tugboat operators in other bodies of water. --orlady 21:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that The Great Lakes Group does not just serve "one part of a single country" but actually have serviced (and still service) San Juan, Pearl Harbor, various ports along the U.S. West Coast, Port Everglades, Norfolk, and when vessels are under distress various ports in Canada. Further to the previous comment, servicing of forign vessels / companies (non-U.S. vessels / companies) makes up well over 50% of the Great Lakes Group's business. 165.236.0.82 22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student health advocate[edit]

Orphaned, unreferenced article, which I do not believe satisfies the requirements of notability through coverage in independent third-party sources. If there is an article to be made about this subject, it's clearly not limited to just this university, as I can find programs of the same name at many others. If somebody wants that article, it's going to be entirely different from this one anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 16:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable as written. Plenty of schools have similar services, perhaps one article covering all of them would be appropriate, but just one about UCLA is not. Cap'n Walker 16:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:V, WP:ORG, WP:NN. The measure of this program's importance at the one school offering it is that the majority of its eleven unique Google hits come from the University's decision last fall to terminate it. RGTraynor 17:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN and the above, my Google search came up with the same. Programs offered throughout various schools are not automatically notable. ^Ariel♥Gold 22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Wen li ^(contribs) 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete program offered in all colleges in one form or another . nothing notable about this one--at least nothing notable in the article.DGG (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jerome Schneider[edit]

Notability not asserted, ~~almost~~ all edits suffer from a conflict of interest. Yamla 15:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only information I was able to find was his biographical information written by the law firm he currently works for. Non-notable. Shoessss | Chat 16:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Shoessss, there seem to be no independent sources that would allow him to pass WP:PROF or any more general notability standard. The article suffers from extreme reference abuse — e.g. it claims he was a Professor at the University of Cincinatti, but lists as its reference only the main page for that university, and I have been unable to find any page anywhere on that university's web site that documents this claim. (Incidentally, what it says in his vita is that the position was Assistant Professor, rather than Professor, and that it was in Mechanical Engineering.) —David Eppstein 15:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability has been asserted by the subject of the article. If you drill down one the included links the information in the article is confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iplaws (talk • contribs)

Comment Please explain which specific criteria under WP:PROF that you believe the article currently fulfils. That is, which of the six specific criteria, and which links currently in the article provide evidence of this? --Yamla 17:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant Professor is correct. The year was 1969 and the current online information for the University of Cincinatti does not go back that far. Iplaws 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC). The subjest would not be regarded as an important figure in academia by independent academics for such a short teaching carreer. However in business and law this person's collective body of work is significant and well-known and this person has received notable awards and has been often nominated for them. His achievements are not all easily found via online searching. For example he is listed in current edition of Who's Who in the World 2007 and Who's Who in American Law, as well as many prior editions, but the listings are not posted online. He is also well know in the legal comunity and the Toy Industry for protecting and promoting the inventions of Howard J. Morrison, Ralph Bear and Marvin Glass and Associates, all of whom have listings in Wikipedia. Much of this is disclosed in Patent Office records in the U.S. Europe and Japan.[reply]

Comment In that case, you are asserting notability under WP:BIO and should explain how you are notable under those criteria. Who's Who in the World 2007 and Who's Who in American Law are not sufficient as per WP:BIO and I can find nothing in the article that fits, but you may be able to make a case as per WP:BIO. --Yamla 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedied. android 79 16:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britishpride clan[edit]

Organization set up 6 days ago -- no claim of notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Misses about half a dozen critical policies by a country mile, most importantly WP:V. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - Chaged Shoessss | Chat 16:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wholly unsourced, it fails WP:V and a search I carried out failed to produce any sources to underpin WP:ORG. Incidentally, there is also the issue of copyvio with a major part of the article a straight lift from the club website. TerriersFan 04:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southport Waterloo A.C[edit]

Advert with no claim of meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Previously speedied and recreated. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORG and WP:V. Looking through the article (created by an SPA to boot), it's the local youth rec league. Nowhere remotely close to notable. RGTraynor 17:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP w/ strong recommendation to merge, or redirect. - Nabla 15:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Johnson (Rent)[edit]

This article is ridiculous. It has no cited sources, it's redundant and it looks like a teenage girl wrote it. There isn't a reason in the world it should still be standing. BaronessofBud 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one article at List of Rent characters and clean up as necessary. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and the other two Rent-related articles into List of Rent characters, per Matticus. Also, be aware WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deletion.--Sethacus 15:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Ditto. James Luftan ^contribs 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As above. The character has established notability by the fact that the play is notable. Shoessss | Chat
Merge Per above. ---The Bethling ^(Talk) 01:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rent (musical). On its own, this is not notable enough a subject for a stand-alone article. Combined with the other characters, there's not much to be said that isn't already in the article for the musical. Merging a bad idea as it will reiterate the main article. — MusicMaker 5376 16:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP w/ strong recommendation to merge, or redirect. - Nabla 15:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Collins (Rent character)[edit]

The article is poorly written, and is unecessary. BaronessofBud 14:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one article at List of Rent characters and clean up as necessary. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As above. The character has established notability by the fact that the play is notable. Shoessss | Chat 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. ---The Bethling ^(Talk) 01:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rent (musical). On its own, this is not notable enough a subject for a stand-alone article. Combined with the other characters, there's not much to be said that isn't already in the article for the musical. I think a merge is a bad idea: it will just reiterate the main article. — MusicMaker 5376 15:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP w/ strong recommendation to merge, or redirect. - Nabla 15:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Marquez (RENT)[edit]

This article is poorly written, and does not establish any notable characteristics. BaronessofBud 14:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one article at List of Rent characters and clean up as necessary. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As above. The character has established notability by the fact that the play is notable. Shoessss | Chat
Merge Per above. ---The Bethling ^(Talk) 01:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rent (musical). On its own, this is not notable enough a subject for a stand-alone article. Combined with the other characters, there's not much to be said that isn't already in the article for the musical. Merging a bad idea as it will reiterate the main article. — MusicMaker 5376 16:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this character isn't really notable outside of the play. Crystallina 17:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No-one has bothered to add any sources whatsoever to this article during this AfD. WP:V, a core policy, overrides all "keep" arguments. If someone finds a reliable source for this list, they are welcome to merge it to wherever, provided there is consensus for such a merger. Sandstein 21:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Primary Schools in Barrow-in-Furness[edit]

Primary schools themselves are not notable, nor is Wikipedia a directory. Ki | jog 14:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR - WP is not a directory (of primary schools) Corpx 15:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx VanTucky ^(talk) 19:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Convert to a category. TerriersFan 01:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

~~Note: It can't be converted to a category without writing separate articles on each item. Categories and lists are not interchangable.~~

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 01:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming a reference source can be found and cited. There should be a government source for this. Dhaluza 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Barrow-in-Furness. Separation of this list into its own article appears to have been a less-than-ideal effort to reduce size of the Barrow-in-Furness article, which is currently 49 kilobytes long. In the context of an article about the place, the list of primary schools would be a good contribution to knowledge.--orlady 17:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Barrow-in-Furness. TerriersFan 17:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My move to delete this was on the basis that the information was not notable in itself, and so it didn't require a separate article either. The eventual aim is to bring Barrow-in-Furness to good article status, other similar settlements who have reached that level don't feature such a list, merely saying something along the lines of 'There are xx number of primary schools in the town etc..' (c.f. Runcorn) Ki | jog 19:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At the moment the Schools and colleges of the Barrow article is a bit of a mess and far from GA standard. Let me make a suggestion. That section would be better with some sourced text over-viewing education in Barrow, how it is structured and administered, and pointing out notable features (if any) of individual schools). You could then replace this List with a subsidiary article Education in Barrow-in-Furness. Such an article would list all the schools but, more importantly, should summarise each school that has its own article. This would accord with the precedent that has been established for articles on each of the US school districts. TerriersFan 19:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge for now, once there are a few articles about the schools then I'd like to see this article been used again to point to them. Mathmo ^Talk 21:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Education in Barrow-in-Furness; copy across some of the other details from main article. Kappa 06:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I said before, bringing Barrow-in-Furness to good article status is an eventual aim, I haven't even scratched the surface of some parts. I'm quite happy to merge the info and in the long term write an overview of education. That should still mean this article is deleted. As to the suggestion of Education in Barrow-in-Furness, I would disagree. A more fitting match to the precedent set by the US school districts would be Education in Cumbria, as a shire county the county council is the local education authority, not the borough. Ki | jog 09:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FWIW I would maintain Education in Barrow-in-Furness as the best merge. Though Cumbria is the educational authority it is really too large to have school summaries. TerriersFan 15:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Barrow-in-Furness with ultimate goal being either Education in Barrow-in-Furness (per Kappa) or Education in Cumbria (per Ki), whichever makes more sense for a potential reader's comprehension of the subject. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barrow-in-Furness as suggested above. Yamaguchi先生 04:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above.Harlowraman 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natland (ward)[edit]

Non notable. Wards in general are non-notable, no other ward in South Lakeland has an article Ki | jog 14:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Towns no --- wards yes. Shoessss | Chat 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There does not seem to be a whole lot to write about this place. There is the Higher House Farm, a 17th-century beamed farmhouse in the village of Natland and there is the Natland Mill Beck Bridge, a historic, grade 2 listed limestone canal bridge in Natland. That's about it. It probably would take someone located in Natland to visit the local historical society to find WP:RS material to develop a WP:V article on this topic. Until then, there should not be a Wikipedia article on this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik michaels[edit]

Sourceless; seems like a hoax Od Mishehu 13:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's been deleted once already, subject lacks sufficient notability (even his book turns up zero relevant GHits outside of Wikipedia), and there are WP:BLP issues from start to finish. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above --NeilN 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either a joke or bad attempt at self-promotion. Jmm6f488 15:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this can qualify for an A7. Spellcast 15:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No claim of notability, other than a (possibly self-admitted) failed book.--Sethacus 15:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above uses. The surname is not even capitalized. James Luftan ^contribs 16:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be a hoax or a prank page, but certainly not notable. Hut 8.5 16:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, smells hoax-y. Realkyhick 17:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per G10, probable attack page. RGTraynor 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for oh so many reasons: Notability, self promotion, lack of references, questionable intent, etc. ^Ariel♥Gold 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wen li ^(contribs) 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above.--JForget 00:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - if you think it's a hoax, and it's a living person, and its content is racy, it must be deleted immediately, no? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that it does refer to a real living person. DGG (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does no harm to presume it does and speedy it, however in error. The contrary isn't the case. RGTraynor 13:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Mean Girls. Not much content to salvage. Pascal.Tesson 04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Plastics[edit]

Per WP:NEO and WP:N. Not much else to say-non-noteable term. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Info on the film can be merged. The info on its wider use, if notable should also be merged, but as it's currently unsourced I would suggest deleting it. John Hayes^talk 13:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per John Hayes. -Lemonflash_(chat) 13:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability for this group of characters Corpx 15:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having seen this film myself, this definitely can't be expanded into a proper article. At most, it deserves a mention in the Mean Girls article. Spellcast 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Mathmo ^Talk 21:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mathmo. Harlowraman 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - this is an uncomfortable marriage of pop psychology and film review. There is no meaningful content to merge into an already comprehensive article on the film. Clearly OR, it fails WP:V and should go. TerriersFan 01:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Rent (musical). — TKD::Talk 09:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will I?[edit]

This article is poorly executed and redundant. There's no point to an article containing information that's present in another. BaronessofBud 12:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Songs from musicals are not inherently notable enough for their own articles, and the content here (an unsourced anecdote about the origin of the song, plus mindnumbingly mundane original research such as which songs follow and precede it during the show) do not assert or establish notability. (In fact, the latter indicates a lack of it, since such trivial details are all that can be produced about the subject.) Lest I be accused of bias, let me add that I love Rent. Propaniac 14:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge I've not seen Rent, so I don't know of the song, but if any relevant information from this article isn't in the main article already, I'd say merge, and delete. ^Ariel♥Gold 22:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rent (musical). This article is not notable enough to stand alone, redirection will allow the search to be brought to the main article where the song is covered. Furthermore, it may dissuade future recreation. — MusicMaker 5376 20:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted by user:RHaworth. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Legend of the Roses: The Shadow Walkers[edit]

My research of this novel has concluded that it has not yet been written, nor is the author well-known (or known at all). Nancy Vandal 12:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons:

Nancy Vandal 12:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete due to no assertion of notability, which is not surprising since, as the articles explicitly state, none of them have been published. (From the Orb of Souls one: "Not a single word has been written about the book, and Hardin does not know when it will be available.") Propaniac 14:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per Propaniac. "The author, Adarius Hardin, has written a few pages of the book, but has not completed a single chapter." And the protagonist is a twelve-year-old evil-fighting wizard who happens to be an orphan. Oh boy, stop the presses. Probable WP:COI and WP:SPAM as well, as the creator is an SPA pushing these "books." RGTraynor 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Rent (musical). — TKD::Talk 09:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Song Glory[edit]

This page is poorly written and executed, and the information on it can be found on the RENT page. BaronessofBud 12:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my above remarks on "Will I?" Songs from musicals are not inherently notable enough for their own articles, and the content here consists of original research simply describing the song's place in the show, trivia that does not assert or establish notability but instead indicates (but not proves) a lack of notability, since more worthwhile information has not been produced. Propaniac 14:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rent (musical). This article is not notable enough to stand alone, redirection will allow the search to be brought to the main article where the song is covered. Furthermore, it may dissuade future recreation. — MusicMaker 5376 19:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Rent (musical). — TKD::Talk 09:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye Love[edit]

This page is poorly written and executed, and the information on it can be found on the RENT page. BaronessofBud 12:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my above remarks on other nominations of songs from Rent. Songs from musicals are not inherently notable enough for their own articles, and the content here consists of original research simply describing the song's place in the show, plus an unsourced anecdote about why it was not included in the film version, neither of which does anything to assert or establish notability. Propaniac 14:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when you cut the original research out, the only thing that's left is the first sentence, which is ((db-empty)); that information can be found in the article "Rent (musical)". Mel sa ran 15:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rent (musical). This article is not notable enough to stand alone, redirection will allow the search to be brought to the main article where the song is covered. Furthermore, it may dissuade future recreation. — MusicMaker 5376 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Pargon[edit]

This article does not assert the game's notability, and does not provide external sources. Shalom ^Hello 11:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion or establishment of notability. Propaniac 14:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V, WP:ORG. I've a soft spot in my heart for combat fantasy LARPs, but very, very few of them pass the notability bar. RGTraynor 17:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Jaleco. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Pop![edit]

Fails WP:CORP, apparently. No secondary sources have been given for this video game since PROD was contested in last December. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If any sources can be found to confirm that this game was released by Jaleco, then redirect to Jaleco and add it to the list of games there (which would effectively be merging the entire content of the nominated article). Otherwise, delete. Propaniac 14:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Propaniac. Doesn't appear to be notable/important enough for its own article. --- RockMFR 15:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jaleco. gamefaqs.com lists this as being put out by Jaleco, and not much else--Sethacus 15:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Propaniac. It doesn't look like this article has any potential to grow. Verkhovensky 16:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Man is Five[edit]

Oprhaned page, and the group is non-notable. It reads like a press release, and I suspect the anon who wrote the article was associated with the band. LuciferMorgan 11:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Notability is higher than most of the bands that end up in AfD, they arguably do pass WP:MUSIC (if just barely), and to be fair the dreadful puffery in the last section was only introduced a couple of months ago by an apparent SPA. It has remained unsourced for two years though; a preponderance of MySpace links topping their Google results is usually a warning sign, and while I have located one apparently independent review of the band ([21]) that does not satisfy WP:V by itself. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The review you cite also shows that the release being reviewed was self-financed, and it seems all their other releases are self-financed. This fails the notability criteria for musical ensembles, and the band also fail to meet all the other criteria. I agree to disagree, but I'm of the opinion they do not pass WP:MUSIC. LuciferMorgan 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability to come, and, per LuciferMorgan, it seems their "label", Black Azul, is one of those places where you plunk down money to record your own album. Has a minor entry in All-Music Guide. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC.--Sethacus 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations about the 2000 Fijian coup d'état[edit]

An encyclopedia deals with facts, not allegations. We have extensive coverage on the 2000 Fiji coup already; however, this article starts by mentioning conspiracy theories, and has exactly zero sources. Looks like original research to me. >Radiant< 11:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Your claims about "exactly zero sources" are blatantly incorrect. The sources - Fiji Sun, Fiji Times, etc. are named in the article, and in some cases are linked. All these are daily newspapers in Fiji. Besides, if your claims that "an encyclopedia deals with facts, not allegations" is true, I hope you've nominated John F. Kennedy's assassination theories for deletion also. That way I could at least give you marks for consistency. David Cannon 11:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there are in fact no sources. There's not even a "sources" section at the bottom. >Radiant< 12:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But I'd like to see the sources in text provided as references at the bottom. Also the article needs to be streamlined somewhat. Recurring dreams 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename, improve citations. This title is vague, it should be something like Conspiracy theories surrounding the 2000 coup d'état in Fiji (which the article clarifies in its first sentence). I also agree with Recurring dreams regarding the sources. --Targeman 15:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hadn't realized there was already an appropriate section in the main article. In the light of this, the nominated article looks like a PoV fork indeed. --Targeman 19:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend anyone reviewing this AfD read the article: There is exactly one linked source. There are numerous quotes, but zero links.; I would also like to point out that the mentioned allegations have been popularized by two individuals. The two individuals were, according to this article, involved in the political party who implemented the 2000 coup. But they have been the sole spokespeople related to such allegations. In my opinion, to produce a proper NPOV encyclopedia article, one should not simply take two individual's quotes at face value. We aren't a collector of primary information (or quotes from newspapers) – that is what newspapers and scholars do. We don't judge what others say to be true or false – that is what scholars and experts do. What we do is produce an encyclopedia, which relies upon reliable, verifiable sources, generally from respected scholars, books or, in the case of modern or popular culture, leading publications in those areas. Many of our popular or modern culture articles have significant coverage in more than one newspaper. The allegations discussed here appear only to be mentioned in the Fiji Sun.; Based upon the abject lack of sources; upon the notion that we are an encyclopedia, not a soap box for the unscrutinized POVs of two individuals; and upon the notion that we should not compile quotes and suggest that they are "true", as that is the role of scholars and experts (upon whose work we base ours), I recommend that this article be deleted. --Iamunknown 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims of adequate sourcing notwithstanding, the vast majority of this article is indeed unsourced and does appear to be largely original research. As Radiant! points out, these kinds of "allegations of" articles are a dangerous precedent - and this one here is no different. It is primarily a POV/soapbox type article that lends far too much undue weight to the subject. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Let's review. (1) We have an article that mirrors an already existing one, which is (2) almost completely unsourced, and lacks any sources we can readily verify, and (3) makes some serious allegations against a number of living people. Failing WP:V and WP:BLP should be good enough, and this absolutely blows holes right through WP:SOAP. Ravenswing 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per Arkyan & Ravenswing and is a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight Harlowraman 20:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Golfcam 18:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What I see here is that this is one of 11 articles about a coup d'etat seven years ago. Not that I want to prevent someone from recording a major event in the history of Fiji, but at 850,000 people, it's about the size of Detroit; and we're getting an article the size of the Warren Commission Report. Give it a rest. Mandsford 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for disproportionate inadequately sourced BLP detail. This should be extended to the other subsidiary articles DGG (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 19:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials[edit]

This is essentially original research, and an arbitrary list. It states that certain USA politicians have been accused of war crimes but not convicted of anything. That's hardly novel - politicians are accused of random bad stuff all the time. For some reason this list focuses almost exclusively on the Bush administration, which means it's probably created for POV pushing. But a List of politicians who were accused of stuff without strong evidence is not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 11:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If the bounds of the article were more strict, then it could be a keep. But as it stands, merge salvageable content to Human rights and the United States. Recurring dreams 12:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dubious original research to push a partisan political view. Nick mallory 12:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant POV pushing. Jmm6f488 15:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but ensure that the individuals' articles cover the allegations if they are properly sourced. The info is notable, just not in an article of its own, as that strays into synthesis problems of trying to tie disparate administrations into a whole for indictment. Tarc 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just an FYI, but this is apparently the article's 2nd nomination. The first was under a different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged U.S. war criminals. Tarc 15:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slapping together some facts to make a broad point is WP:OR, in my opinion Corpx 15:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the present article is a bare-faced PoV pusher, it could conceivably be re-created the instant a US official is actually charged with war crimes. (That, needless to say, is extremely unlikely ever to happen). --Targeman 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Recurring dreams - if this were something more coherent in scope there might be an article here, but as it stands it is little more than a lot of original research with little focus or goal. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN --PEAR (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. So only people from the Johnson Nixon and Bush2 presidencies have ever been accused of war crimes by anyone? Utter pov nonsense.
Delete this is a synthesis and probably a POV driven one. The article is an absolute violation of WP:OR--Cailil ^talk 17:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is clear POV pushing Harlowraman 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a documented, neutral article about allegations might be worthwhile, this one is poorly researched and written. We have that Robert McNamara is the "prime architect" of the Vietnam War, and that Henry Kissinger was guilty of being Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, followed by some factoids about how the Iraq War might be a war crime. Mandsford 23:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that such an article would be potentially valuable. It must; however, not be so myopic as this one. Allegations of war crimes have been made against American officials in a number of conflicts including the American Civil War, the Second World War and Korea. I find it amazing that (even given the POV pushing) allegations re Hiroshima/Nagasaki being a war-crime are not mentioned. Bigdaddy1981 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious POV pushing - it would require a substantial rewrite in order to become a decent article. — Wen li ^(contribs) 23:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 00:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Camaro[edit]

Article gives no real evidence of notability to meet WP:MUSIC. fuzzy510 19:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. One of their songs is listed as being involved in a particular video game, which could be taken as passing criterion 10 of that standard. I'll try to find records of how well any singles and/or the album have done as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to coverage at RollingStone.com and the results of a Google News Search. Propaniac 14:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely making some solid buzz right now; coverage at MTV.com, NJ.com, and lots in Boston papers. Involvement with a best-selling game is pretty solid. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep theese guys rock there are on guitar hero and that where i heard of them and they are good i downloaded there cd from itunes

The result was redirect to The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Singu larity 01:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Majors[edit]

This character is not notable and all other character pages from The Rocky Horror Picture Show and The Rocky Horror Show have been diverted to the coressponding articles.--Amadscientist 06:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough information or notability to merit it's own page.--Amadscientist 10:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rocky Horror Picture Show (unless a better target is suggested); this article is entirely original research. Propaniac 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless RS are found to give this character notability Corpx 15:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Propaniac. Corvus cornix 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Redirect or delete I don't really care as long as the article is gone. We really need to start looking into more of these character articles. While some may well be encyclopedic many are a waste of space.--Amadscientist 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Amadscientist -- Kleinzach 10:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rocky Horror Picture Show. NawlinWiki 18:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit, Janet, Redirect to (RHPS as above). Neier 22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Propaniac --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 01:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete; merging at editorial discretion. Sandstein 08:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhigiri[edit]

This article is on a 'newly-coined neologism', a criterion for deletion. Please do not forget that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is recommended that some part of this article be merged into Lage Raho Munna Bhai, especially that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services bit. See WP:NEO. Ranvir Sena 09:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lage Raho Munna Bhai and delete. Sarvagnya 10:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Week Merge with Lage Raho Munna Bhai, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services per Ranvir Sena; this was rather newsworthy several weeks back. [22], [23],[24], [25], [26] etc. etc. Zidel333
Delete - the article admits that its a neologism. Bigdaddy1981 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Baka man 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge with Gandhism or Lage Raho Munna Bhai. Just a recent fad which is already fading away from popular culture. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't have thought so , but the article seems to be a bout a notable subject, and adequately documented. DGG (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well referenced and is on a notable subject.Shyamsunder 20:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Notable subject'? Who/what is the subject of the article? If you think 'Gandhi' is, then why not redirect it to the synonym of the neologism 'Gandhigiri' to 'Gandhism'? You can merge Gandhigiri to Gandhism. That would be the best decision. Defending such newly-coined neologisms would encourage people to start more and more articles on not-at-all notable subjects. -- Ranvir Sena 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gandhism/Lage Raho Munna Bhai. Not much notability beyond the film. utcursch | talk 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No notability beyond the film. -- Ranvir Sena 12:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in line with Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. -Classicfilms 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)_{Note:Merge !vote restored after it was removed by Ranvir Sena}[reply]
Strong keep Yes it is a neologism. But that does not make the article unacceptable per se. It is verifiable from reliable sources. There are articles in newspapers and other media on Gandhigiri, not only using the term Gandhigiri. Avoid neologism states exactly that. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Sarvagnya Harlowraman 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just look at the news articles from all sections of society after release of film, It is true that it was an after effect of the film, but terms gandhigiri infuse so much confidence in many people that they were able to fight and get justice Zareef Ahmed 04:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giri (Sanskrit)[edit]

This article is on a foreign-language word that is NEVER used in English and hence should not be on the English Wikipedia. Ranvir Sena 09:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A similar article Dada (Hindi), created by User:Classicfilms was deleted[27]. --Ranvir Sena 09:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; we certainly don't need an article for every word in every foreign language, and there doesn't seem to be a case presented for why this is an exception. Propaniac 14:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article, referenced to what looks like to be reliable sources, explains one of the epithets of Krishna and a Sanskrit honorific. That strikes me as meeting any reasonable notability requirements and Wikipedia is still not paper. When the Big Hard Drive gets to be 98% full, we might consider deleting some Sanskrit titles that only Sanksrit speakers know about, but that time has not yet come. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not create Giriraj instead of this article? This article can NEVER be rationally expanded any further. This is just a Sanskrit word having NO significance at all. There is a Sanskrit Wikipedia and a Sanskrit Wiktionary (having a handful of articlesfor it. Why don't people put Sanskrit words there? The fact is that they have NO language of Sanskrit. They can't even pronounce 'Sanskrit' (sumskrrt actually)! --Ranvir Sena 16:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. At first glance, the article is a dicdef, or a language how-to. However, the word is significant in Hindu mythology, the article simply needs to be improved so that the reader knows what it's aiming that. And sources other than dictionaries would be very welcome, too. --Targeman 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep The fact the word is Hindi has nothing to do with this AfD Discussion. Transwiki most of teh article to Wikitionary, but keep some of the article for what can and should stay per Policy. Zidel333 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it explains the siugnificance of the word, not merely lists it, and if the article is not adequate philologically, it can be improved. DGG (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge stuff on honorific/title to Giri and transwiki rest of the stuff (etymology and meaning of the word). I wonder what significance are people who have voted keep are talking about. The article doesn't even assert that the word is notable or common like other Sanskrit words such as ahinsa or satya. This is nothing more than a dicdef, and doesn't belong here. The "references" provided are dictionaries. utcursch | talk 12:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. Only learned Indians know that it has no significance here. --Ranvir Sena 12:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 08:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of defunct retailers of the United States[edit]

List of trivia. As was mentioned on its Talk Page, is a virtual duplicate of Category:Defunct retail companies of the United States and does not merit its own article. Fails to meet WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Falard 14:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - A list of every American store chain that no longer exists??? First of all, as the article itself states, that is an "extremely large" number of stores. There's no way to possible maintain a list of such stores. Furthermore, since all of the stores on this list are defunct, almost none of them have articles associated with them, resulting in a list that will primarily be red-linked. There's nothing to say how notable any of these store chains are, either. Bottom line: this is a textbook case of an indiscriminate list. Make it go defunct! --Hnsampat 14:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely not. It doesn't fit any of the headings in the linked policy. So the use of that policy here is spurious and misleading. RegRCN 15:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: It doesn't meet the headings, but it meets the overall concept. A list of every American store chain that has gone bankrupt meets any sane definition of "an indiscriminate collection of information," regardless of if it meets any of the sub-headings.Falard 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better as the (already existing) category. However, should that category ever be deleted for some reason, this should be undeleted/re-created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. Cat. over list. --Evb-wiki 14:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al, better as a category. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 15:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is not indiscriminate, and it contains much information that cannot be presented by a category. RegRCN 15:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would you care to describe what criteria of WP:NOT#IINFO this meets? I can possibly understand a concern that small individual stores will be listed, but I feel that to be a problem solved by limiting it to retailers who would otherwise merit articles. The fact that most of the entries on this list are red-linked indicates to me that this list is actually helpful in developing Wikipedia. Many of these pages might never be developed if not for this sort of thing, as well, Wikipedia's selective Bias to the more recent leads to otherwise acceptable material being forgotten. And there are things that may tell us how notable these stores are, it's called contemporary reports. Just because it's not on the web today doesn't mean the information isn't out there. And note, a category would not include the redlinks, which would be a problem. Seriously, this is a valuable developmment list that should be Kept rather than deleted. FrozenPurpleCube 17:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: None of the subheadings, but the general heading. As I posted above, a list of every store that has gone belly up in America is a perfect example of an "indiscriminate collection of information," even if it is not one of the specific examples listed in the policy.Falard 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't feel that provides a substantive explanation of your nomination at all. (The general heading is completely useless at WP:NOT#IINFO) An indiscriminate collection would be something that had no real connection, or was something minor and unimportant. Retail companies however, are not unimportant or trivial overall, but are instead quite valid subjects for articles. There may be a need to specifically limit this list to companies that would merit articles, but that's a clean-up issue, not a deletion one. FrozenPurpleCube 19:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The phenomenon of retail consolidation and liquidation in North America caused numerous changes in the physical and economic landscape, and the extent of changes create a serious challenge for information management. This list (although imperfect) is very useful for tracking the stories of disappeared stores; a category cannot serve the same purpose. (I also agree with points made by FrozenPurpleCube.)--orlady 17:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Historians and businesspeople look at this list and see cautionary tales, practices to avoid, and experiences from which to learn. Then, there are those people who look at this list and can only see "Places where I can't go shopping". Mandsford 19:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's just a list with no additional information, a category seems sufficient (and equivalent). --Midnightdreary 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the list, it does have additional information, especially since there are redlinks here. FrozenPurpleCube 02:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The implication that this list serves a sociological purpose in tracking the changing economic development of the US is a bit of a stretch; this is a list of stores, the majority of which are redlinks. If the underlying aspect of this list (and the "cautionary tale") is strong enough then it should stand as a separate article, with the category as evidence. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 10:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Defunct retail companies of the United States serves a much better purpose for this. If people are really interested in knowing about a list of defunct stores and why they are inactive, they can simply click on the category and read the selected articles. Spellcast 10:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes why not have them click through dozens or hundreds or articles instead using a single list. Kappa 04:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Categories and lists can coexist and this one has redlinks that cannot be represented by the category. —Xezbeth 11:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. This list contains much information that is not in the category. As for its incompleteness, it hardly matters if it contains all the most important items, as it will or at least can do. Indeed across Wikipedia, you have to adopt the approach of valuing what is there, rather than lamenting what is not, as it is all a work in progress. Golfcam 13:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace this with a category. There is no point in listing every business that ever went out of business. With a category, it could be filtered to the notable ones. Corpx 15:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which you can also do with a list, which also has the value of including those notable ones which don't have articles yet. FrozenPurpleCube 15:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that red links are the ways to get an article created. They should be requested at the appropriate wikiproject or elsewhere Corpx 15:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to suggest this list to moved to an appropriate Wikiproject, that'd be worthwhile. WP:RETAIL was suggested on the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 16:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is already a category, and the list in its present form is totally indiscriminate (it does not, for example, state what class of retailers it lists - above how many employees, above what turnover, above what number of branches/franchises). The large number of red link and non-links proves it. If listing defunct retailers by what they used to retail were really necessary, a category would do the job. --Targeman 16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far better serviced by a category. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fits better as a category. James Luftan ^contribs 16:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It is now notable that you are a failed business? Shoessss | Chat 16:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These are not necessarily "failed businesses". Many of them were successful businesses that became victims of "engulf and devour" corporate mergers.--orlady 18:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or make it the to do list of a WikiProject so that all the work that went into generating the list is not lost. (Ooh, Corpx/FrozenPurpleCube already thought that up, neat.) Then Delete, and make categories. I believe that large failed businesses are notable, but they must each have their own article. Speciate 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I noticed that it was suggested on the talk page of this article sometime ago, and I was just bringing it up here. FrozenPurpleCube 18:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with FrozenPurpleCube --PEAR (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a disgustingly indiscriminate list of trivia. Possibly create category per Corpx VanTucky ^(talk) 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a list that contains F W Woolworth satisfies WP:LISTS, and is not indiscriminate as the title clearly identifies qualifying business. See also the essay Wikipedia:Categories vs lists. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So including one notable retailer like Woolworth automatically makes the list worthwhile? And the title clearly indicates the list is indiscriminate. Untold thousands of retailers disappeared in the US since its independence. Or did I miss something? --Targeman 20:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of a list need not mean anything in regards to the scope of a list. See for example List of Telecaster players. FrozenPurpleCube 21:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per mandsford and Hrothulf. Once notable is always notable. Mathmo ^Talk 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename People are getting hung up on the idea that this is an indiscrimate list. If it was titled "List of notable defunct retailers of the United States", the indiscriminate objection would go away; the population of the list would have to meet notability standards like everything else. Most of the retailers in the list would have met notability standards in their time, and unless Wikipedia only exists to document notability in this moment, they should still qualify. The category is valuable, but many of these retailers await a historian interested in writing their articles. Acroterion _(talk) 21:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Golfcam and Hrothulf. Stefanomione 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the category will be much better then that - create the article for those red links for those who said it will lose some details.--JForget 00:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of valuable information (as well as potential for more) that categories cannot provide Fg2 10:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gives encyclopedic information a category couldn't. --W.marsh 14:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, much better organized than a category, allows for redlinks, etc. If it's too big, it can be split, not deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, better organized than a category and partially annotated. The important thing would be to add the year of defunction and whether they were merged, taken over or bankrupted. Kappa 04:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and ~~rename~~. per Acroterion. This is a useful list, a bit of trimming of the non-notable retailers would improve it though. IronGargoyle 20:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all. Sandstein 08:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Talkshow with Spike Feresten Episodes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete all - Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. The episodes of this talk show do not appear to have any independent notability and lists of guests by talk show are, in the long run, generally unmaintainable. Otto4711 15:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Otto4711 - Lack of notability for individual episodes and I think it'd be impossible to have episode pages for shows that air at such a high frequency Corpx 15:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted within another nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spike Feresten episodes. This one looks to got lost into a WikiVoid. Nabla 14:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lennon (Talkshow with Spike Feresten)[edit]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless some evidence of historical/sociological/whatever significance of this TV show episode is provided. Nabla 21:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Sleep deprivation. Can be recreated as an article once adequate reliable sources for the use and meaning of the term are cited. Note that Radiant's AfD tag was deleted by the article's author. Sandstein 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All-nighter[edit]

Original research. All there is here is a variety of dictionary definitions because people can't seem to agree on what it means, and some vague allusions of things that may hypothetically contribute to it. >Radiant< 09:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having done many all-nighters myself (thanks to a combination of school assignments and procrastination :P), I can actually relate to some of the stuff said in the article. But the page seems to have original research and the Sleep deprivation article should be adequate enough. Spellcast 10:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sleep deprivation. There is no generally accepted definition of the term. The article is WP:OR. --Targeman 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Targeman because the article contains original research. Shalom ^Hello 01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep Not yet fully adequate--but considering the long-=term use of this, it should be sourcable. DGG (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable term that can be sourced easily. The nom is not complete, and no tag is on the article. Bearian 22:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Bakers Delight, where it is already mentioned. The article is unsourced and WP:CSD#G11 material. WP:NOR and WP:V, core policies, override the arguments for keeping, per WP:DGFA. Sandstein 08:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COBS Bread[edit]

Fails WP:CORP; only reference given is the company's homepage. PROD was contested in last October, tagged with notability concerns in last December, but no independent sources have been added since then. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 09:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Speciate 09:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Looks like spam, but the company has some notability Corpx 15:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to the Australian parent company. One or two sentences on that page should take care it. Speciate 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's notable, just needs more references. --PEAR (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Corpx. Mathmo ^Talk

The result was already deleted. >Radiant< 09:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOLAR NEPHELOCOCCYGIA[edit]

To Wiktionary, if it even turns out to belong there, and isnt rubbish. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like Pareidolia to me. Nick mallory 09:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I've tagged it for a G7. Author has blanked his contributions. Spellcast 09:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems the term "nephelococcygia" is used sometimes to describe cloudwatching, and was coined by Aristophanes for the play The Birds, but I can't find anything to confirm that "solar nephelococcygia" is a valid term. If the article was in better shape I might suggest moving to a more appropriate title, but there's nothing worth salvaging here. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. We do not merge unsourced content, per WP:V. Sandstein 08:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santōryū[edit]

Entirely in-universe topic. No reliable, verifiable sources to assert its notability, or any available real-world context. Delete or merge into Roronoa Zoro. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there are multiple, reliable sources that talk about this sword fighting style. There's only the anime series itself. But this seems like perfectly relevant info that can be mentioned in One Piece. Spellcast 11:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt you can find any real world information about a made up sword style to bring this up to par. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 14:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If this is used by one character in One Piece, merge it to that character. If its used by multiple characters... eh, I dunno, don't watch One Piece and don't know what else exists to merge to. Snarfies 22:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roronoa Zoro per nomination, unless some reliable external source can be found to support the article's existence. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable National Basketball Association games televised by NBC[edit]

Although many people seem to enjoy editing this page, its premise of "Notable games" is pure navel-gazing. If the games are so notable, why don't they have articles? This sort of thing is just an opportunity for walking sports encyclopedias to talk to themselves. Absolutely no citations appear in the article, and they would be endlessly argued if they did. Speciate 08:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont see why these games are any more special because they were broadcast by NBC? Corpx 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Notable game" is subjective, and intersecting that criteria with "Aired by NBC" is frivolous. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Why? why? why?!? What makes a game notable, and why just NBC? James Luftan ^contribs 17:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 100% subjective, and as such lists do, the accretion of games which are the personal favorites of numerous editors will gather like barnacles. RGTraynor 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a set of articles about NBA games; why it's sorted into "Games broadcast by CBS" (1972-90) and "Games broadcast by NBC (1990-present), I don't know. As with NFL games, most people see them on TV rather than in person. How many people are voting on this because it has NBC in its title? Mandsford 23:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Zero, in all likelihood. Kindly assume good faith. RGTraynor 12:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Sorry, kindly assuming good faith doesn't mean I have to avoid all possibility of offending anyone. Odd, isn't it, how we're all free to verbally beat the shit out of the author of an article, but if someone questions our argument, we can hide behind "good faith". I can dish it out as well as I can take it. Mandsford 15:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It sure does mean that you can avoid suggesting that the only reason anyone could oppose such an article is anti-NBC bias; no one's likely to swallow the straw man argument equating the two. As far as dishing it out goes, you've an impressive number of civility warnings for having been here only three months. RGTraynor 17:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I knew I was impressive, but still, I'm honored that anyone would care enough to check out the last three months of my postings. I assume it's all in good faith, so I appreciate the interest. And hey, I haven't gotten any less caustic in the past year either, if you know what I mean. Some have said recently that there's a "civility hit squad" of some sort out there, but I'm not going to let that scare me. I accept that I shouldn't give civility lessons to anybody.

In one of those things I thought about later, "good faith" only applies to the nominator and the nomination. I am under zero obligation to "assume good faith" on the part of arguments... indeed, I have had persons describe some of my arguments as ridiculous, and I'm cool with that. I am under an obligation to remain civil. In that regard, I will not issue commands to other people; I'm afraid that I don't agree that preceding a command with the word "Kindly..." renders it civil. However, I thank you for your kind words, they are much appreciated. Mandsford 22:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a list of NBA games is fine, but why a list of "NBA games broadcasted by NBC"? The short summaries provided at every game have to do with the game, not with the way it was broadcast. Therefore, this title makes no sense, and the info should be merged into the relevant articles (or an article should be created for the notable games). Mel sa ran 20:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Voarino[edit]

Fails WP:BIO; no independent sources are currently given. Expert review by WikiProject Martial arts favoured listing the article on AfD. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 09:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the guy was winning awards for teaching martial arts, or winning matches, he might be notable. Speciate 09:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well generally there are no matches in Aikido and we don't normally give out teaching awards either.Peter Rehse 09:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Claims international reputation but 2ndary no sources for such, one club link.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. does anyone read French [[28]]?

I do, a little. The French article basically says the same that is contained in the English version (a bit less in fact), plus it lists where and when he received his Dan and Mokuroku grades, from 1 to 6. It doesn't contain much towards international reputation, though. --B. Wolterding 11:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't look that big but wondered as he's French if it might give a lead har-hum... --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With only 80 hits on the French Google [29], his alleged "international reputation" doesn't seem to hold water. Article on, article off. RGTraynor 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -- Futurano 09:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Kurykh 23:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dipson[edit]

A small chain of theaters that do not assert notability in any sense. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 08:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tis' true, Delete Speciate 09:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:NOT#TRAVEL. And I don't think this can be expanded into a proper article. Spellcast 09:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After all those reliable, third party sources were provided, I see it's more notable than I initially thought. Spellcast 17:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They're covered plenty by the media Corpx 15:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to their website, they hosted the movie premiere of Buffalo 66. Also an online article refers to them as 'well- known for supporting independent film with its eclectic mix of movie programming', so I'm sure verifiable sources exist to establish notability (currently, the article does not list any). Eliz81^(talk)^(contribs) 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They did hold the premiere; I'm a regular at the theatre they played it. Beautiful place. The employees had a funny story or two about Christina Ricci. Ichormosquito 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Corpx and Eliz81, notable theater chain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Move to "Dipson Theatres". We can't delete a chain with all of these sources. Corpx's search probably pulls up more. Ichormosquito 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should note that there are a lot of hits for Dipson Theaters, but the vast majority of them are directions or movie listings. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are the subject of more than one. Ichormosquito 02:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, more than one trivial mention. There needs to be something of significance for it to be notable. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 03:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of what the article says, the chain is not local to Williamsville, New York. Taken together, the three Buffalo locations compose one of the most prominent entertainment venues in the city, as the myriad Buffalo News articles attest to. I'll try to overhaul the article when I get time. Ichormosquito 02:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Fox News Channel. — TKD::Talk 21:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Report, You Decide[edit]

No content or references, no likelihood that there will be verifiable content on this topic, let alone books or the like to establish notability. Croctotheface 07:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with FOX Is every slogan of every major corporation deserve an article of its own? Shabda 07:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

possible redirect to Fox News Channel Shabda 07:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most widely-known marketing slogans are notable. See, eg., Fair and Balanced. So is this one. If no one is ever interested in elaborating details, it can be replaced with the redirect at some point. But the article is harmless, not a fork, has a potential and collects some red links. If the consensus is leaning towards deletion, at least replace with a redirect to Fox News Channel. --Irpen 07:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fox News Contrary to Irpen's statement, most well known marketing slogans are not actually notable enough to have their own article (if you want evidence, try it for yourself). What's more, there is no actual information in the article, nor will there be in the immediate future. There is very little notability here, and virtually no content. Calgary 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fox News per above -Drdisque 07:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fox News It's a notable enough slogan to be mentioned here. But I doubt this can be expanded into a proper article. Spellcast 08:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fox News Channel - the only reason Fair and balanced has an article is because of the lawsuits and considerable controversy surrounding the slogan. Though this slogan may be similarly deceptive, there is not enough meat around this bone to warrant its own article at this time. /Blaxthos 16:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Irpen. Clearly a notable slogan; see here and here. --xDanielx^Talk 23:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yay for arguments to avoid in deletion discussions! Croctotheface 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not say "keep because Google returns more than a few hits." I simply linked to two pages which both contained an obvious plenitude of reliable sources. In any case, WP:ATA is not a policy or guideline. It is a popular place for editors to post whimsical rants involving massive generalizations and often poor reasoning. --xDanielx^Talk 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fox NewsHelmsb 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"We Nominate, You Vote" and I vote Delete So it's a notable slogan. Well big deal! So is "Snap, Crackle, Pop". Like Shabda says, does every slogan need its own article? And as Croc points out, there's almost no content. "'We Report, You Decide' is a trademarked slogan used by American news broadcaster Fox News Channel." That's it? That's it? What the Fox up with that? So now we know that "'We Report, You Decide' [the title] is a trademarked [hands off, Al Franken!] slogan [it's their slogan] used [they use it] by American [not British] news [hence the name, Fox NEWS Channel] broadcaster [lie! It's a cablecast!] Fox News Channel [owners of the slogan]. Mandsford 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Merge back into Fox News Channel. If there's information about who coined the slogan and when, that's relevant and could be included in the main article without making it larger. In all honesty, I didn't see the portion beyond what was quoted above. However, my comments were rather harsh, and I'm a jerk. Irpen, I apologize. Mandsford 02:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. There have been occasions where my remarks were worse. Thanks! --Irpen 03:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~I am sorry that my good faith attempt to make a stub that would merely collect links has become a subject of ridicule.~~ I really do not feel any attachment to the issue and if others want to nuke it, go right ahead. On the side note, I believe that the info who and when coined the slogan, how it was parodied and ridiculed by others, etc. would be excessive in the Fox News Channel article. At the same time, I believe that such info is not secret and can be found. Also, I believe such info can belong to Wikipedia and this specific article would be the best place for it. So, all I did was the creation of a placeholder, a stub as a linktarget. No big deal. Delete it if it's annoying. --Irpen 00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to suggest that you acted in bad faith or did anything the least bit unseemly. I also don't want to give the impression that there's anything personal here or that I take some sort of great joy in getting the article deleted. I just don't see what kind of content there could be surrounding this slogan except that it exists. A better place to start developing content about the slogan could be at Fox News Channel. If there turned out to be so much content on the slogan that its section overwhelmed the article there, then it would be appropriate to break it off into its own article. For now, though, I just don't see it. Croctotheface 22:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarification: ~~I was referring to the tone of the Mandsford's comment above.~~ The fact that some do not see this stub worthy don't bother me a least bit. As I said, I don't care whether this stays or gets nuked. --Irpen 01:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Fox, however if I see any sources other than fox news referring to it... ....then we should keep. Mathmo ^Talk 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fox News per above. --PEAR (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Dumott Schunard[edit]

No clue. User:BaronessofBud started the Afd - I'm just completing it for completeness' sake SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Love the musical, the character is reasonably notable IMHO. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It has nothing to do with loving he musical or not. The article is atrocious; any information on the character is easily found on the RENT page. If Angel's notable enough, why not make a page for the Squeegee man? Or any character in any work, for that matter?
Keep Angel is a gay and TG icon who embodies the spirit of self-empowerment of People With AIDS and finds true love with another gay man of color making Angel also a hero in the AIDS communities, MSM community and those supporting gay marriages. Benjiboi 13:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RENT does that in the first place. There's no need for excess articles on the subject. Besides, most of the article is either presupposition and reiteration of facts already displayed on the RENT page. It isn't a question of politics, it's a question of organization.
Comment Disagree, although the musical does eventually do some (but not all) of those things this character is the driving force and tragic hero of the musical and movie. Duplicative material will be lessened as article is allowed to expand covering areas that would be giving undue weight in main article but appropriate in an expanded character article. Benjiboi 14:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you have ever even seen RENT, you would know that Angel is not the tragic hero in tis story; Roger is. Your comment is pretty nonsensical, no offense. Can I make up an entire history about Angel? We apparently do not need to cite sources as is evident from the article. Or maybe I should just describe, in detail, his appearance, or even quote every line he had. That would flesh out the article a bit. User:BaronessofBud
reply Have seen it and the entire story is set at Angel's funeral with the rest of the story as flashbacks, Angel is the inspiration for the film and drove other characters to make better choices and listen to their better angels. True that Angel might not be considered the tragic hero as all of the characters have tragic hero components. Maybe anti-hero is more semantically soothing. In any case, Angel is the freak outsider of the bunch who leads the rest to make better choices, finds true love then dies in his arms. Benjiboi 16:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is all original research. We do not need articles about every single character, setting, prop, or song from every show ever produced, when those articles are simply going to restate the parts of the show that are related to the article's subject. And for the record, I've seen RENT four times. Propaniac 14:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment disagree there as well. This plays development and work-shopping through to it's Broadway debut and numerous incarnations have been well documented. WP:OR hardly needed. Benjiboi 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fill up the article with sourced information proving that Angel Dumott Schunard is a notable character outside the confines of the show's narrative, and I will be happy to change my vote. Propaniac 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid I'm not terribly inspired by your directive but thank you for the vote of contingency. Benjiboi 17:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rent (musical), unless more sources can be provided discussing the character. The addition of any such sources — for example, an interview with Wilson Jermaine Heredia discussing his Tony Award-winning role, or any reliable source discussing the character as a positively portrayed transgender character/positively portrayed character with AIDS — would be sufficient to change my !vote to "keep". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Changing my !vote to Keep, per the sources Crystallina found. Good work! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've found both. Crystallina 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Propaniac -- Kleinzach 10:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR. --H irohisat ^Talk 05:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RENT. The cheap and easy solution to stuff like this, I don't always understand the rush to AFD some things. Someguy1221 05:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horses - This article is unsourced, but it doesn't have to be. I'm working on finding sources. Here's an interview with Wilson Cruz, one of the replacement Angels, from Oasis Magazine, a LGBT-themed publication. It goes in depth about Angel's character and status as a gay icon. There are more out there; I'm working on finding them. Crystallina 05:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: OK, here's what I've got so far. Basically trashed the whole article and started from scratch. I know there's more out there; it's just 3 AM and I'm getting too tired to do this. Crystallina 07:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to a Rent characters article - does not appear to be independently notable. Claims of iconhood require sources and none appear to be forthcoming. Otto4711 06:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rent (musical). On its own, this is not notable enough a subject for a stand-alone article. Combined with the other characters, there's not much to be said that isn't already in the article for the musical. — MusicMaker 5376 15:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - Looking through the refs, few of them even mention this character, let alone give "significant coverage" Corpx 17:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I'm not sure where you're getting this; the only reference that doesn't mention Angel specifically is the tracklisting for Forbidden Broadway, and I'm looking for a better source on that. Crystallina 17:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mmmmm, I searched for "Schunard" in those articles and came up with no hits. Let me try with the first name Corpx 17:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I went through the links again and it looks like only the New York Blade article gives "significant coverage", and even that can be argued. "Oasis" does give significant coverage, but it looks like it is a blog, so it does not qualify as a significant source Corpx 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you're using an unnecessarily restrictive definition of "significant coverage". I fail to see how the Broadway.com page, which gives extensive details about the role and the actors who have played it, is insignificant; and while the newspaper articles mention the character only in passing, at least one of them (the Taipei Times article) gives important real-world context (the author's source for the character). Crystallina is to be commended for finding reliable sources for the article. If only all fictional character articles were so well-sourced. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do not think broadway.com is an independent source for this subject. As for taipei.com, a two line coverage is not enough to qualify as "significant coverage" per my standards Corpx 00:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, then it's your definition of "independent source" that is unnecessarily restrictive. Broadway.com covers all Broadway and West End plays. Yes, they sell tickets for them and advertise for them, but if that makes them not an "independent source" then Rolling Stone magazine isn't an independent source for music coverage. (They sell concert tickets, and have advertising for albums and concerts.) Honestly, it looks as if you're just trying to find excuses to delete the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The main purpose of the site is to sell tickets, hotel packages and other materials, so I do not think they're "independent". Any coverage they give to a topic should be taken with the consideration that their main purpose is promotional Corpx 05:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I still think that's far too restrictive an interpretation of "independent", but you're entitled to your opinion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above. I would keep this article and toss away some of the other character articles for Rent. This one has real significance. Yes, for the record, I am a Renthead as noted on my user page. Bearian 22:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to Rent (musical). A fictional character who has appeared in one musical and one movie based on the musical does not require his own article. warpedmirror (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 00:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenin[edit]

Subject is a band which fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing really remarkable at all; the article doesn't real say much besides the fact that the band exists. fuzzy510 06:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This band has gone on a national tour throughout the east coast. They have also released two albums has well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A tour which is completely unsourced, and two albums released on a self-founded, non-major label. That does not exactly pass WP:MUSIC. --fuzzy510 07:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - They received a good review in the Washington Post, externally linked at the bottom of the page. Speciate 09:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above reasoning. --xDanielx^Talk 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasoning. Mathmo ^Talk 04:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zinwrath[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Subject is a fan movie which seemingly fails WP:MOVIE. Last time I checked, a Golden Llama award wasn't a terribly notable award. fuzzy510 06:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This movie is a winner of the Blizzcon Movie Contest. It has also been nominated for the Fourth Annual Golden Llamas award for best World of Warcraft movie. Moreover, a quick google search shows up quite a number of reliable hits for this movie as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has got significant coverage on related websites. Shabda 07:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad nom judging this by WP:MOVIE. As it's Machinima, I really don't think applying standards based on file are appropriate. Add to that its significant notability within it's genre and this seems a natural keep to me Charlam 00 14:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which one of them are reliable sources giving "significant coverage" - The links look like download sites that merely host the video with no more coverage. Also cant find any in that google search Corpx 15:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for as notable as this subject seems it is awfully lacking in sources. This seems to largely be a case of "I've heard of it, it must be notable" - but I'm at a loss for finding reliable, secondary sources to establish notability here. If it really is as notable as it seems then it should stay, but then again it really should not be so difficult to adequately source. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Charlam. --xDanielx^Talk 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 01:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to Machinima#World of Warcraft machinima. Machinima or not, this still needs to pass some sort of notability requirement. I just spent a good amount of time scouring Google, and couldn't find anything but trivial mentions that wouldn't help a lot in building an informative article of any decent length. Yes, it's won a couple of awards, and it's been on G4's Cinematech (see [30]), but that and another paragraph will amount to a stub. You can add in some plot from the primary source, but if that's the zenith of the article, I'm not comfortable keeping it standalone. Sure, there are multiple independent sources that mention the work, but one key aspect of the notability guidelines is that the coverage needs to be nontrivial; this ensures that we have enough material for a decent article, not just a laundry list of appearances. Zinwrath already has a passing mention in Machinima#World of Warcraft machinima (which needs some cleanup and sourcing, but that's another issue), so that could be sufficient given the amount of material that we have to work with. — TKD::Talk 01:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To add on, usually machinima productions tend to be judged by the WP:WEB notability guidelines (since many are most well-known through that medium, as is the case here). Theoretically, this could pass criterion 3 (redistribution through a medium or publisher independent of the creator), but, again, with the scant amount of actual third-party information available, I don't think that it'd be in the best interests of the encyclopedia to keep that type of thinly-sourced article standalone. It'd be much better to discuss this film and its awards briefly in the context of machinima or World of Warcraft machinima, rather than as a separate article: even if it does pass a notability guideline, there's still not much to talk about. — TKD::Talk 02:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Charlam. Mathmo ^Talk 04:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Charlam (.. and that's how I met Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln..) spazure (contribs) 09:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to The Rocky Horror Picture Show, cheap and easy. - Mailer Diablo 13:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Weiss (Rocky Horror)[edit]

Un-notable character from a fictional movie or stage production. The articles for other characters have been deleted and diverted to movie or show pages. Same should be done here. Amadscientist 05:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque 07:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. While I would hardly call the character non-notable, I'm of the firm belief that characters should only split off into their own articles if the amount of verifiable information in their section of the main article is starting to overflow. That isn't the case here, so a redirect pointing back to the original work is a solid choice. Consequentially 08:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rephrase non-notable to not notable enough to warrant a full page. While this stage show and film do have merit as historically significant and well known, none of them are on a par with Luke Skywalker for example. Delete ( I forgot to add or Redirect).--Amadscientist 10:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Rocky Horror Picture Show. A reasonably well known character in that she in a character in a cult film...but that just means her notability is only a part of that film, not unique in and of herself. -Markeer 11:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Neier 23:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per clear community consensus. Krimpet 06:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture[edit]

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Trivia list that does little but mention a bunch of times the idea has been featured in jokes. --Eyrian 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pop culture references list with little context and few sources --Miskwito 17:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The user who contested the prod in May recanted and this should have been removed then. The first post-1928 instance of its use could be accomodated on the main article page.Canuckle 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facts can be covered appropriately by lists, topics cannot. Golfcam 23:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article infinite monkey theorem is too large to include this spinoff. Interestingly, there aren't many other ways to illustrate the concept besides these references. Obviously, there are no real-life examples (other than, perhaps, Wikipedia itself) of a lot of monkeys pounding away on keyboards until something intelligent can be produced. :) Mandsford 13:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The main article doesn't need a long section at all. As I've stated many times: condense the section instead of just splitting it into a massive list that grows into a cluttered mess with no signs of clean up. RobJ1981 22:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening for further process-wonking.--Calton | Talk 04:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another random list of factoids. A simple paragraph in infinite monkey theorem should suffice. --Calton | Talk 04:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters would not make this an encyclopedic article. --B 04:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Including this in the main article interrupts the discussion of that topic. This article enables its reader to understand allusions in literature, and to include such allusions in an informed way in this article's reader's own writing. Michael Hardy 05:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article got deleted when it was beyond unreasonable to consider this discussion concluded. I restored it. I will put notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Probability and at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Mathematics informing those communities of the existence of this article and of this nomination. One very disturbing thing about this is the lack of attempts to notify people who are well-informed in this subject matter. Observe User:B's sarcastic comment above. The term "infinite typewriters" is simply not used to mean "infinitely many typewriters" except by the uninformed. It is an incorrect usage. "Infinite typewriters" would mean some typewriters---maybe two or three of them---EACH ONE OF WHICH, by itself, is infinite. That point is explained at infinite monkey theorem. I find it really sickening the way the AfD debates are dominated by people who do nothing but hang around AfD pages voting to delete articles that they don't understand because of their lack of familiarity with the subject matter or because they're unwilling to understand them. Michael Hardy 05:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't an AFD about the theorem itself, which is obviously notable. It's an AFD about pop culture references. Just because something is encyclopedic doesn't mean we need a "list of times xxx has been mentioned on the Simpsons" article. --B 06:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone said "few sources". That is nonsense. The sources are obviously listed here. Michael Hardy 05:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvassing, eh? You seem quite desperate to keep this article. —Kurykh 05:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was not "desperate"; it was routine and it was improper for those who nominated this for deletion not to put that notice there in the first place. When articles in that field are nominated for deletion, people always put a notice there. Except in this case. It is not "canvassing" to ask people to express there opinions without urging them to vote for deletion or against deletion. Michael Hardy 06:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Always"? "Routine"? A courtesy, yes, but not necessarily "always" or "routine." Your framing of this case as a vast deletionist conspiracy is ludicrous. —Kurykh 06:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of deleting, just remove each item that is not sourced. Then you'll have a short article instead of a long article, and you can merge it back into the main. Dicklyon 05:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge anything worth keeping to infinite monkey theorem per Calton. --John 05:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:WHEEL don't you understand? --B 06:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge to infinite monkey theorem - these trivia/pop culture sections weigh down perfectly good articles with bilge. 76.80.112.235 06:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations on pointing us in the right direction, that is, to delete this "bilge". —Kurykh 06:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Simms[edit]

Unsourced (and has been so tagged for some time) article about totally non-notable author of non-notable book and handful of white papers Bigdaddy1981 05:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this subject from third-party reliable sources as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanispam that didn't get caught by the doorkeepers. -Drdisque 07:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided which show how he meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 01:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin West[edit]

WP:Notability concerns. Very short article, no references. Has been tagged with notability tag for some weeks. SESmith 05:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' A quick google search shows up no third-party reliable sources for this subject. Moreover, it is impossible to verify the contents of this subject as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable church bureaucrat -Drdisque 07:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just holding that position does not make one notable, when there's lack of coverage from independent sources Corpx 15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete. Franklin West is a person who has great influence on the course of many educational institutions.Johnpacklambert 16:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am perfectly willing to agree, but only if you can find some sources and write the article to explain how his influence was exerted. DGG (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DFF. Sources would be needed to keep this. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Since nobody has strong feelings about this article, I think a well-done merger may not be objected to. Sandstein 09:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Murdock Smith[edit]

WP:Notability concerns. There apparently has been a published biography, but main source of notability seems to be that she was adopted by Joseph Smith, Jr. and Emma Smith. Google gives tons of hits, but most seem to mention her simply as a child of Joseph Smith. By visiting the cited link I was unable to come up with any other source of notability that we could use to keep article. SESmith 05:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless she is more notable than LDS movement historians seem to appreciate, this genealogical stub should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to John Murdock (Mormon). Cool Hand Luke 07:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless she's found to be notable for anything other than being Joseph Smith's daughter Corpx 15:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It appears that she is a notable historical person, but the stub has been neglected for some time. Perhaps this nomination will encourage somebody to expand the article. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per wrp103. Lack of current progress is not a reason for deletion. --xDanielx^Talk 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nominator). My concern is that there may be nothing notable to make progress on. I searched around for notable information on the person and could find nothing apart from being an adopted child of Joseph Smith. Granted, I haven't read the biography, but many biographies in the Latter Day Saint movement are simply family history compilations by genealogists that contain nothing that makes the person notable by WP standards. wrp, I am curious as to why you said "she is a notable historical person". –SESmith 00:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there may not be anything independently notable about this person apart from her relation to Joseph Smith (not that I have any expertise on the subject). Still, I think that that relation alone, and the resulting attention that Julia has received, is enough to merit a weak keep on notability grounds. We can add biographical information about Julia -- the biographical information itself is (based on my limited knowledge) not notable enough to justify an article for Julia, but I don't think it needs to given that her relationship with JS already does so (in my opinion). See for example, the articles for Barbara and Jenna Bush. They focus on the personal lives of those individuals, and although 90% of the information does nothing in the way of establishing their notability, the notability already exists. (I don't think Julia has as much spillover notability as the Bush sisters, I just thought it was an interesting comparison.) --xDanielx^Talk 08:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. The Bush twins have articles because they are covered in the press and in other reliable sources, whether or not we think their antics are "really" notable. Notability is objective on wikipedia. It seems she has only been written about in a low-volume book, which was almost certainly produced by and for her descendants. It should be noted that her twin brother, also adopted by Smith, has no article. If he did it would be a similarly anemic stub with no reliable sources. This is why it would be sensible to combine both of them on a heading at John Murdock (Mormon) where they are already mentioned. Cool Hand Luke 07:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, that's an essay, not a policy. In any case, I'm not saying that spillover notability is automatically inherited. Julia Smith's spillover notability is pretty evident -- just do a couple searches yourself. As per WP:DP it's the responsibility of the pro-delete voter to demonstrate a lack of sources showing notability, not the opposite. (Though, again, I think her notability is rather evident.) The article being a stub is a temporary issue which can be remedied with a few clicks and some letters, and it's not a reason for deletion. — xDanielx^Talk 10:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One can't really prove the lack of sources. One can, however, show—as SESmith has shown—that sources only mention her as an adopted daughter with no independent notability. Of course, you agree she probably has no independent notability, so such evidence falls of deaf ears. All relatives of famous people should have their own articles, I suppose.

At any rate, I think it's telling that editors involved in LDS issues, including SESmith, myself, Tom Hawstrom, and WBarden believe that this should be a redirect at most. Only wrp103 disagrees. Like SESmith, I'd like to know his reasons. Cool Hand Luke 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the nominator (and those favoring deletion) can't really prove that no sources exist. The particular clause I was thinking of was "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed". It has not been demonstrated that serious attempts have been made unsuccessfully at finding such sources. I think that the link already contained in the article is pretty decent already, and a quick search shows that there are some other decent ones. I agree that she is notable primarily because of her relation to Joseph Smith. However, I think there's an important difference between asserting that there is adequate spillover notability without reliable sources to confirm and asserting the same thing with reliable sources. Given that there are reliable sources, WP:N doesn't care why those sources are interested in the subject; what matters is just that they are interested in the subject. Don't pick on the article -- it won't do any harm! :) — xDanielx^Talk 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't jump on me for making a WP:WAX argument, as what I write here is not meant to be a convincing reason for deletion. This is more of a general observation of the spill-over effect a decision to keep this article could have if used as precedent for other similar topics, and it may be relevant to what Cool Hand Luke is getting at. Latter Day Saints are notoriously good at doing true family history and creating massive published biographies of ancestors and people they are related to. There are many, many Latter Day Saints who are notable for similar things as this person—i.e., they are a child of someone who is notable. These "children of the notable" often have published sources about them not because they are a child of the notable but because some Latter Day Saint has done their family history and would have done it whether or not the person was a child of the notable. We could end up with a ton of these stubs about children of notable people. Perhaps that's OK, but I find it a bit strange that this could be the result with Latter Day Saints but not others merely because Latter Day Saints are extra diligent at family history. –SESmith 22:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]

Indeed, I have two ancestors with book-length treatises about them who I don't believe should have articles. Hundreds of Mormon pioneers are like this, particularly polygamists with many children. These people were often closely connected to important individuals. I consider descendant genealogical books to be de facto self-published. Cool Hand Luke 02:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this really just comes down to the stringency of the notability standards we decide to impose. There's really no brightline test. I still favor a weak keep based on the link in the article and a small handful of other links easily found on Google (I didn't notice any that particularly stood out, but many are okay), but if you (you plural, as in you folks) are still leaning on the side of delete, I can understand that. — xDanielx^Talk 03:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think we (LDS editors) might make it a redirect after AfD, but if anyone shows this individual some TLC in the future, I would not oppose a separate article. I just dislike the over-fragmentation of wikipedia. We have so many unwatched pages... Cool Hand Luke 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on my original comment, I believe that she is notable because a quick google finds her name on several search. While it may be true that her only claim to fame is that she was adopted by JS, my guess is that there is a lot more information that could be placed in the article. My inclination is to give the article a grace period and if it is still a stub, to merge it into her father's article and add a redirect. If somebody later can expand that section into an article, then great! That is why I said "weak keep."

I have personally taught a number of lessons on LDS church history where she is mentioned (well, more accurately, it is mentioned that her brother died.) There are many people in LDS history that only LDS would be interested in, but I don't believe that makes them less notable. The same can probably be said by pretty much any group. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per wrp103. Mathmo ^Talk 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I did find this comprehensive biography on the web, which comes from a published biography of Julia, making this a philosophically interesting question of what it means to be notable. Does it satisfy notability simply to be noted? There's certainly an argument for a straightforward objective test: the existence of independent reliable sources creates notability, but that argument has been rejected elsewhere as neither necessary nor sufficient. As long as subjective considerations come into it, I don't see what is added encyclopedically by this entry. THF 23:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted as recreated deleted content. -- Longhair\^talk 04:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Franklin Jr.[edit]

Also Peter Franklin

Article on non-notable 16 year old racing car driver. This article has been speedy deleted 4 times and in its latest form still contains no independent sources asserting notability. Mattinbgn/^talk 05:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 05:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rubbish written (by a child it seems) about a nn individual. 76.80.112.235 06:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not clear to me what standard the '2007 Formula Australian Championship' is. Is it a junior championship? --Malcolmxl5 07:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable amateur driver (auto racing is my specialty area of WP and this article clearly doesn't cut the mustard). Page should be protected. -Drdisque 08:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK, I cannot find significant or independent coverage of Peter Franklin Jr. The article has been deleted four times and should not have been re-created without substantial revision, especially the use of independent sources. The content, which is also here[31] and here[32], appears to be personal promotion; is User:Pirtek Peter Franklin? Still, putting it up in three places after it's been deleted four times, could be called spamming. Delete and salt. Come back when you've made it in ChampCar, Peter. --Malcolmxl5 08:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Fails WP:BIO, and the many recreations of the article require salting (e.g., one deletion says the user was evading a block, so we can assume continued persistence here). Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable biography that fails WP:BIO — Wen li ^(contribs) 23:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author, User:Pirtek, gives some references on his user page. — Wen li ^(contribs) 23:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They are the same references as those included in the article and none of them are independent of the subject and each other. One of them is a dead link. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 00:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article contains no references from reliable sources and I can find none. It amused me that the article states that Franklin was born in 1991 and his career as a racing car driver began in 1994 which seems implausible. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note to closing administrator - the same content is also at Peter Franklin, a redirect at Peter Franklin Jr. as well as Peter Franklin Jr. Also it may be worth looking at Pirtek (talk · contribs) and Vortex Racing (talk · contribs). Their edit patterns are suspiciously similar. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 04:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And further it appears that Vortex Racing (talk · contribs) is (or least claims to be) Peter Franklin Jr. himself. see here. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 04:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete --DarkFalls ^talk 03:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations with busking restrictions[edit]

WP:NOT Indiscriminate information. Yes, the criterion is defined but the topic itself is so non-notable that it's an indiscriminate reason for a list. Also WP:NOT a guidebook for legal advice, at least in spirit, because the only possible use for this list is for buskers to know where they can make money legally. Saikokira 04:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#TRAVEL - May be more appropriate at wikitravel Corpx 05:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also the list is ludicrously biased to English-speaking countries. 76.80.112.235 06:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Spellcast 09:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random and trivial. No real chance of it ever being properly globally representative. Abberley2 13:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to talk. The article on busking already contains an extensive section on legalities. Some information about the several motivations of these laws might be profitably merged, so I would suggest moving this to a subpage of the talk page for the reference of future editors. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Targeman 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge into Busking. --PEAR (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably should be merged into Busking (which explains that Busking is not something Popeye hates about public schools, but what we "Yanks" call street performances of music. The article reveals that certain places have rules regulating "busking". However, that's no more encylopedic than a list of which localities have zoning laws. Mandsford 23:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into busking, I can see the usefulness of some of that info. Should be merged in where you can. Mathmo ^Talk 21:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Busking. Good information, bad article. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge the sourced parts into YTMND. The assertions that it is "evidently notable" are weak, see WP:ATA, and lack of reliable sources is a very good policy-based argument for deletion. Pending a merger by someone who cares about this topic, I'm creating a redirect. Sandstein 09:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ball Machine[edit]

This is a fad primarily known for spurring large threads on Something Awful and getting a few million hits on YTMND. However, it has not achieved a sufficient amount of coverage in reliable secondary sources to warrant having an article. I previously nominated this back in April. Those wanting to keep the article only cited its apparent fad status on some forums and views/hits. The community has rejected such arguments over and over - I believe the same should be done in this case. --- RockMFR 03:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and expand After going thourgh google on this subject. I felt that if it was considered notable. Also if it is well known that the site has over a million hits that I would be able to find some notability in that, it just tring to cite what is argued to be reliable. Sawblade05 04:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Merge To YTMND After digging through Google most all the hits about it that I found are various versions of it on YTMND and blogs about the fad which may violate Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Since there is a article about it on Wired, I don't think it sohuld be deleted however it should be merged into YTMND article since it doesn't quite merit its own article. Sawblade05 04:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete nothing giving "significant coverage" to this gif Corpx 05:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per evident notability. --xDanielx^Talk 23:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite the very weak sourcing, as evidently notable. DGG (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 1 trivial mention in a Wired article is the only reliable source I could find. The rest are blog mentions. No sources are cited in the aricle and given the lack of reliable source I don't think it's reasonable to expect the article could be sourced. A merge to YTMND is also an option if it was pared down to what can be sourced, but there simply isn't the sourcing to support a standalone article here.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Isotope, please read WP:DP. Lack of sources is not a reason for deletion unless serious attempts have been made to find sources with insufficient success. By contrast, the necessary sources for this article are all over the place, we're just a bit lazy to post them. I read your reasoning again and my comment was rather out of place. I do disagree over the sufficiency of available sources, but your reasoning is fair. My apologies. --xDanielx^Talk 18:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, apparently notable. Mathmo ^Talk 21:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Fads and memes section of YTMND. No notability outside of YTMND, and no size/length need to split it off that article. --User:Krator (t c) 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 01:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halo: Battle on Venus[edit]

Er, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say I rather doubt it. I don't know where the creator got this idea, other than the rather nebulous "G4 has stated..." claim (which, for our convenience, isn't sourced). No sources, I haven't been able to find any mention, nobody I've asked has heard of it. To top it off, created marked with ((sprotect2)) and ((featured article)), both of which are obviously incorrect. Probable hoax, joke, or rather unsubstantiated rumor; either way, it should go. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I seriously doubt that development has been started on any computer game that will be released in 2010. Definitely a hoax. Nyttend 03:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per User:Luan Santin's proposal and Nyttend's delete comment. the platforms are "Play Station Portable,Play Station 2, Play Station 3, Xbox, Xbox 360", which is very unlikely, and the version is 1.5. Also, there is not a single cited source in the entire article. If G4 announced something about a Halo 4, the template for Halo would have already been updated, and More than one person would have edited the page. —Andrew Hampe ^Talk 03:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero Google hits. Hoax. Maxa megalon 2000 05:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources asserted, and that's because there isn't any. Spellcast 09:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's not a hoax, then it violates WP:CRYSTAL. One way or the other it does not pass for a WP article--JForget 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JForget. Crystalballery at its finest. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. — Moe ε 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was}Speedy Delete as an obvious hoax. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion for Regina Coeli University[edit]

Delete: This article is a hoax. There are no sources cited, for good reason. The Catholic church has established no universities for toy dogs. --DRTïllberġ^Talk 02:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty funny but obviously a hoax. Nyttend 03:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- But add it to BJAODN. Saikokira 04:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax and yes, WP:BJAODN it. :D KTC 04:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How did this remain undetected for nearly two months? Spellcast 08:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BJAODN. --Targeman 16:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deoge

Strong keep.Excuse me, but Regina Coeli University is real. I play with toy dogs and they created this university! I demand that this article stay because it underwent relative success for two months! The dogs are Toyan Catholic, not Roman Catholic, and everything on this page is true, factual, and has happened.— Deoge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

User:NewEntry 13:53, 6 August 2007

Strong keep. This article adds to the color and spice of Wikpedia. Let's not be party poopers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.38.107 (talk • contribs)

User:FillinBlank 15:12, 6 August 2007

Strong keep. Agree with above.— FillinBlank (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong keep. Love the article!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.38.107 (talk • contribs)

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ra mes ses[edit]

The article as it currently stands appears to me to be incoherent and rambling, as well as being written in a non-encyclopedic tone, providing no encyclopedic value. It might qualify for speedy, but others feel it does not; it is being actively edited. Matchups 02:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is largely covered by a much better written Avaris. In addition, the odd spelling of the name is not really supported. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 03:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In Exodus Ramesses was one of a pair of treasure cities or emporia and the first station of the Exodus. In the story there are two treasure cities; one Pithom in the Delta and a second Ra mes ses at Thebes.

Comment: 1. While Avaris was a Hyksos city it was never a treasure city or emporia.

2. In the article on Avaris the Etymology of the name is given thus Exodus Decoded, a made-for-TV documentary by Simcha Jacobovici ^[1] reported an unlikely etymology for the place name Avaris (Hatwaret/Auaris), suggesting the place name derives from the Hebrew word for "Hebrew" (Hebrew: עִבְרִי, Tiberian: ʕivɾi, Israeli: Ivri). If so, it would mean something like the place of the Hebrews, and thus identify the Asiatic Hyksos with the biblical Hebrews. Nevertheless, while a Canaanite/Hebrew origin is plausible, it is difficult to show how the Canaanite/Hebrew word-root ʕ.b.ɾ (עבר), meaning "to pass" (whence a "Hebrew", a "passer-by", one who "goes across"), could linguistically become ħt wʕrt in Egyptian.

3. Avaris was not built during a period of Dynastic change which threatened war. The story mentions treasure cities or emporia and dynastic change.

4. A better candidate for the southern emporia is Pithom. In the geo-political context of Egypt this is an important element of the story which correlates well with the Hyksos removal from Egypt both in time and place.

Exodus 1:7-14 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Ramesses. But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.

5. Ra mes ses is Station number 1. of the Exodus. Its near the Capital of Egypt which in the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt was Thebes. Exodus station number 6. is Thebes port of Elim.

6. Using the Egyptian spelling of Ra mes ses rather than the English transliteration just points out that in Egyptian its three words, each of which has meaning. Ra mes ses means literally(Ra=sun), (mes=birth), (ses= to guard or observe), the place of observing the birth of the sun, the dawn in the east. During the entire history of Egypt the Red Sea was an important source of the materials used in the mortuary at Karnak. Later in the story, Karnak was where Moses would have gone to get the bones of Joseph

Exodus 13:19 And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you.

7. The Exodus takes place 480 years before the 4th year of the reign of Solomon or 1354 BC

8. The Exodus takes place in the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt before Avaris is built

9. The Exodus does not take place in the Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt after Avaris is built

10. Avaris is built almost half a millenia later than the date given in the story

11. The geo-political context for Avaris comes after the events of Joshuah and Judges

12. Avaris is in the wrong place at the wrong time to fit the data given in the story.

13. The story talks about crossing the Red Sea.

14. The place of crossing the Red Sea for Egyptians was Thebes Red Sea Port of Elim

15. Crossings of the Red Sea from Elim go back to the 12th dynasty

16. This is documented by the 12th dynasty "Tale of the shipwrecked sailor"

17. In the Twelfth dynasty of Egypt voyages south from Thebes across the Red Sea to Punt are mentioned.

18. In the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt Hatshepsut kept a Red Sea fleet at Thebes

19. Hatshupsets fleet regularly crossed the Red Sea to get mortuary goods for Karnak.

20. If Ancient Egypt isn't something you have studied intensively there may be some confusion about what is a treasure city. A treasure city or emporia is a port where foreign traders can bring their goods through customs.

18. In the 19th century archaeologists made speculations about San el-Hagar or Pi-Ramesses and Tell el-maskhuta or Pi-Athom being the places mentioned in the story of the Exodus. These have since been corrected by trained Egyptologists, but the myths have lived on among "biblical archaeologists" and laypeople. See: Baines and Malek,1987, Atlas of Ancient Egypt, Equinox, ISBN 0-87196-334-5 Pi-Riamsese 166,175,177, removal of capital to, 46, 84, 166.

21. Under San el-Hagar

...the temple is a mass of inscribed and decorated blocks, columns, obelisks and statues of various dates, some of them even bearing the names of rulers of the old and middle kingdoms (Khufu, Khepren, Teti, Pepi I and Pepi II, Senwosret I), However the majority of the inscribed monuments are connected with Ramesses II and this led P. Monet, the greatest expert on the Tanis monuments to believe this was the site of the ancient Pi-Ramesses, the delta capital of the Ramesids. Nevertheless none of the buildings so far excavated can be shown to have been built before the reign of Pausanes I of the Twenty-first dynasty of Egypt and the inescapable conclusion therefore is that all the ramessid and earlier monuments must have been brought from other places.

22. Under Tell el-maskhuta

In 1883 E. Neville excavated a large brick built enclosure (some 210 x 210 m) with a badly damaged temple at Tell el-maskhuta, in wadi tumilat. (In the late period a canal through this wadi enabled ships to sail from the Nile into the Red Sea) Most scholars, though not all, identify Tell el-maskhuta with ancient Egyptian Tjeku and Pithom, (probably from per-Atum, The "Domain of Athom") of the Exodus and the capital of the Eighth Lower Egyptian nome.

23. Pithom is an ancient city in Egypts delta. Its mentioned in Exodus as a treasure city in the same breath as Ramesses. You would have to know that from the Hyksos period onward there are emporia in both the delta and Thebes. In the delta, cities like Sais served as "Treasure cities" business or banking centers. At Thebes, Elim on the Red Sea and Ra mes ses also served as a business or banking center for the Red Sea trade in Frankincense, Myhr, Bitumen and perfumes and ointments such as ben jamin or juniper oil used at Karnak's mortuary temples.

24. Pithom and Rameses are located at opposite ends of the kingdom. Pi-Athom is an ancient nome capital (see below) in the delta.

25. Following the stations list, the Exodus crosses the Red Sea between Elim and Elat. Elim, the sixth station, is Thebes Red Sea port. Elat, the ninth station is at the head of the gulf of Aqaba. There are no stations in the Sinai. The Exodus is dated to the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt and not the Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt The route from Egypt to Elat across the Sinai doesn't exist.

26. The term "Red Sea" is Greek (Erythrian Sea) not Hebrew. The term "Yam Suph" or reed Sea is speculation on speculation. The Pharoah of the Exodus is not Ramesses, thats another speculation.

27. Viewed in the context of the story Ra mes ses is near

((ExodusStation|None|[[Sukkot#Sukkot as a place name|Succoth]]))

28. In Egyptian Succoth means the place of entering the darkness, thats a term for the tombs placed at Karnak. The idea of ra mes ses is that reincarnation is like the cycle of the sun. One dies and enters the darkness like the setting of the sun in the west. (Karnak is on the west bank of the Nile). Then one passes through the underworld as the sun sails in its sekhert boat through the night sky and is reborn in the dawn of the sun in the east.

29. The article on Avaris may be fine for some purposes but its definitely wrong for defining a station of the Exodus. Rktect 13:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems pretty close to the heart of original research. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You must be confused. The original research is in the speculations about Avaris which are contrary to the cited material from Baines and Malek and other Wikipedia sources. In the article on Avaris the Etymology of the name is given thus Exodus Decoded, a made-for-TV documentary by Simcha Jacobovici ^[2] reported an unlikely etymology for the place name Avaris (Hatwaret/Auaris), suggesting the place name derives from the Hebrew word for "Hebrew" (Hebrew: עִבְרִי, Tiberian: ʕivɾi, Israeli: Ivri). If so, it would mean something like the place of the Hebrews, and thus identify the Asiatic Hyksos with the biblical Hebrews. Nevertheless, while a Canaanite/Hebrew origin is plausible, it is difficult to show how the Canaanite/Hebrew word-root ʕ.b.ɾ (עבר), meaning "to pass" (whence a "Hebrew", a "passer-by", one who "goes across"), could linguistically become ħt wʕrt in Egyptian.Rktect 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; and quite aside from anything else, the rambling defense of the article is largely a cut and paste from the article's text itself. Honestly, we can (and should) read the article in situ. RGTraynor 18:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In what way is it rambling to categorically list the factual discrepancies that this Avaris speculation would have with other Wikipedia articles on Egypt? The article on Avaris is not supported by any facts of its own. The premis that the Exodus began at Avaris contradicts all the known data and is simply not possible to make agree with the rest of the story. It didn't exist in the proper time frame. Its simply the wrong place. Rktect 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Avaris article contains nine inline citations and three text sources. Whether you agree or not with the article's assertions is outside the scope of the AfD process, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Are there any policy grounds you'd like to cite in defense of this article? RGTraynor 19:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With all due respect; the article proposed to be deleted is about a station of the Exodus, a textual artifact. Its proposed that it be replaced by an article on Avaris. The Avaris article is about a city of the Hyksos. Avaris was built c 1628 BC. The 18th dynasty was built on the defeat of the Hyksos c 1550. The Exodus c 1350 comes along a couple of centuries after the city was destroyed. Another century later c 1250 a new city was built there. See the problem? Avaris has nothing whatsoever to do with the Exodus. The reason the article on the 1st station of the Exodus shouldn't be deleted is that its fact checked rather than speculative and based on citations from Baines and Malek on the archeology, chronology, and history of Egypt and from the Book of Exodus regarding the textual artifacts. The only reference in the Avaris article that touches on the Exodus is a speculation from a TV show which the article disputes the accuracy of.Rktect 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some people may not understand what a textual artifact is. In the 1980's Kenneth Kitchen began to look at the form of contracts, the price of slaves, and other references in a story to facts that could be checked in a geo-political, historical or archaeological context and use the correlations for dating purposes.Rktect 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: User:Rktect has a long history of disruption and OR, this article is just more of the same. It's a shame that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect only banned him from weights and measures articles, as now he's gone on to this. Corvus cornix 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one source is cited, and it's an atlas. Phrases like "If Ancient Egypt isn't something you have studied intensively..." advertise OR with giant, blinking neon signs and an eight page insert in the Sunday paper. Caknuck 05:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Every biblical place name is independently notable, whether or not it can be securely identified. there have been thousands of years of sources discussing and annotating every one of them. The article has only one, and not a very good one. But there is also brief information in the Catholic encyclopedia (article Biblical Geography "Ramesses (Genesis 47:11; Lower Egypt). The site has not yet been identified; some see it in San, the Tanis of the ancients; others in Es-Salihîeh." Their article on Tanis [33] treats it as a separate city. Dont confuse a confusing article with a non-notable subject. Keep and edit and supplement with proper references. DGG (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by JodyB, conventional wisdom is that this is the same place as Avaris, and Pi-Ramesses (listed on the Ramesses dab page) redirects there. No additional article is needed for this peculiar spelling. Matchups 14:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Respectfully, if what passes for conventional wisdom is sourced to the speculations of a TV show thats a problem. The article should be kept for four reasons.

1. It explains where the speculation of this "conventional wisdom" originally comes from, why the speculation is wrong and has long since been corrected, and sources that with a well respected Atlas of archaeological sites in Egypt.

2. The article references Wikipedia articles that further explain its role as an emporia, as an important place in Thebes, links it to the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt and theNineteenth dynasty of Egypt, links it to Thebes port of Elim, and to the mortuary business and burials at Karnak

3. It discusses the etymology of its name with references to Gardiner's ""Egyptian Grammar"" and Faulkner's "Middle Egyptian".

4. It was suggested for deletion by an aliased individual whose been systematically removing content from articles about ancient Egypt with 30 such blanks on August 5th alone[209.244.42.97] some of which is apparently being corrected by a bot.

ClueBot (Talk | contribs) (Reverting vandalism, by User:209.244.42.97 (see here). If this is a mistake, report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (Bot)) Newer edit →

The previous unsigned post was from User:Rktect

I am the user who suggested this article for deletion; please see the top.

I am not an anonymous user (I think that's what the previous poster meant by "aliased").
I have not removed content from any articles about ancient Egypt.

From my research on 209.244.42.97, it appears that only one change was reverted by a bot, and the bot's author agrees that it was an error. It also appears that this anonymous user is primarily making changes to remove or clean up original research which Rktect has added to a great many articles.

Matchups 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the user talk page of User:209.244.44.97 under Kadesh - Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry, but you have received 3 warnings prior to mine recently. According to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Multi level templates, you are at Level 4, which is "Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning". I'm actually nice to give you a warning suitable for level 3. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3]. Warning stack up even if it's handed out by different users. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:209.244.42.97 Diffs for POV reverts on a single article list of stations for the Exodus

WP:3RR, WP NPOV, WPZ:RV V, and vandalism for blanking content

16:42, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Red Sea - Exodus station (removed probably wrongly added template) (top)

16:41, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Red Sea - Exodus station (added correct template syntax)

16:40, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Red Sea - Exodus station (removed template in which its content is covered in other templates)

16:39, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Red Sea - Exodus station (added disputed template and OR template due to comments on the talk page)

16:37, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Red Sea - Exodus station (removed unneeded syntax)

16:37, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Red Sea - Exodus station (Reverted additions of OR, POV content, and inaccurate and misleading information and maps created by user who added them + added basic info + rmd uneeded spaces + wikified a little + added templates)

16:32, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Ra mes ses (again modified delete template)

16:29, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Ra mes ses (reverted own mistake)

16:29, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Ra mes ses (tweaked delete template)

16:28, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Ra mes ses (added delete template)

16:26, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Etham (Reverted POV and vandalization of article + removed inaccurate map which was created by the user who added it) (top)

16:25, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Rhind Mathematical Papyrus (→Influence of the RMP - added OR. template) (top)

16:24, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Pi-hahiroth (→External links - removed improper syntax) (top)

16:23, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Pi-hahiroth (added template due to the fact that I forgot to add it)

16:22, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Pi-hahiroth (edited section name for a more transwikipedian uniformity +corrected bad referencers +moved section to more suitable location + removed errant spaces + added unref. template +added ORsection template)

16:18, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wilderness of Sin (Removed another unneeded space) (top)

16:17, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wilderness of Sin (→Notes and citations - Removed unneeded spaces + renamed section to a uniformed transwikipedia style.)

16:16, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wilderness of Sin (Reverted additions of POV + inaccurate map created by the user who added it.)

16:15, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Pi-hahiroth (Added unref. template)

16:15, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Pi-hahiroth (Reverted addition of inaccurate map made personally by the same user.)

16:13, August 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Elim (Bible) (another unneeded space removed) (top)

The sole purpose of this string of edits was to POV revert and blank the content from the list of stations

This unsigned comment was obviously added by User:Rktect. Please sign and date all comments. Matchups 01:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't want to get into a debate about another user's actions here, as it is not germane to this discussion. However, if you do wish to contribute constructively to such discussions in he future please include actual diffs, not just screen scrapes, so that anyone reading it can judge for themselves whether the change is, e.g., "blank the content" or "added unref. template."Matchups 01:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Rktect. First, I'm sure no one concerned with this proposed deletion discussion really agrees that you should be posting that kind of stuff here. Secondly, if you think that "The sole purpose of this string of edits was to POV revert and blank the content from the list of stations", then I'm certainly fine with your biased assumption, and im not going to discuss it here because its not the place.209.244.42.97 21:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this does not appear to be the most widely accepted location for the city that the Israelites worked on, and thus violates WP:NPOV. The statement in Avaris that it was the place mentioned in the Exodus is not referenced to a TV programme but to a recent book by respected Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen. In addition Newby, P.H. (1980). Warrior Pharaohs. Faber and Faber. pp. 166–7. ISBN 978-0571116416. and Manfred, Bietak (2003). The Seventy Great Mysteries of Ancient Egypt. Thames & Hudson Ltd. pp. 277–8. ISBN 978-0500051238. confirm that Pi-Ramesses was the city referred to in Exodus. The article also says that there have been "speculations about San el-Hagar or Pi-Ramesses" being the city referred to in Exodus. However, San el-Hagar is the modern name for Tanis, not Pi-Ramesses, and Tanis has also been proposed as a (now rejected) candidate for the Exodus, so I am not even sure that the one source cited has been interpreted correctly. The title "Ra mes ses" may well need to redirect somewhere though. Hut 8.5 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep historically there has not uniform acceptance of the identification of Ramesses with Avaris; scholarship in the 19th century tentatively identified Ramesses with either Heroopolis (modernly identified with Biblical Pithom) or the Heliopolis of the Heliopolite nome (now usually identified with Biblical "On"). See, e.g., William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, s.v. "Raamses", a spelling adopted from the references in Exod. i. 11, xii. 37; Numb. xxxiii. 3, 5. Carlossuarez46 19:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very much explained at the article on Avaris, which i see that User:Rktect has started to edit after it being brought to his attention. 209.244.42.97 20:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ramesses. This article seems to violate WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

At least as early as Eusebius of Caesarea, Ramesses II was identified with the pharaoh of whom the Biblical figure Moses demanded his people be released from slavery. This identification has often been disputed, though the evidence for another solution is likewise inconclusive

Critics point out that ...The dates now ascribed to Ramesses' reign by most modern scholars do not match the internal biblical chronology regarding the date of the Exodus, and the now commonplace view is that the Pharaoh mentioned is not Ramesses. In the 1960s and 1970s, several scholars such as George Mendenhall[37] associated the Israelite's arrival in Canaan more closely with the Hapiru mentioned in the Amarna letters which date to the reign of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten and in the Hittite treaties with Ramesses II.

Ramesses II's late 13th century BC stela in Beth Shan mentions two conquered peoples who came to "make obeisance to him" in his city of Raameses or Pi-Ramesses but mentions neither the building of the city nor, as some have written, the Israelites or Hapiru".[38] The Bible states that the Israelites toiled in slavery and built "for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom and Ra'amses" in the Egyptian Delta.[39] The latter is probably a reference to the city of Pi-Ramesse Aa-nakhtu or the "House of Ramesses, Great-of-Victories"--i.e. ancient Pi-Ramesses (modern day Qantir) --which had been Seti I's summer retreat.[40]

Ramesses II greatly enlarged this city both as his principal northern capital and as an important forward base for his military campaigns into the Levant and his control over Canaan. According to Kenneth Kitchen, Pi-Ramesses was largely abandoned from c.1130 BC onwards; as was often the practice, later rulers removed much of the stone from the city to build the temples of their new capital: Tanis.[41] ...

This prompts one to remember that the books of Joshua and Judges both paint pictures of the Israelites as tribes acting independently or in small coalitions against their enemies and wonder how fast they could have coalesced to the point where an ancient and mighty nation such as Egypt would consider them worth mentioning.

Ron Wyatts hypothesis The Hebrew Exodus When? about 1500 B.C. Collateral source: Expulsion of of Hyksos (lived around Avaris, Egypt aka: Tell el-Dab'a) in Egyptian documents & wall paintings. Joseph's court seals have even possibly been found in Avaris. Also, A "cry out" to "L", one of the first letters indicating the Hebrew God has been found inscribed on Egyptian walls. Avaris is also the location of Rameses, the place where the Israelites settled (Genesis 47:11) and where they departed from (Exodus 12:37).

There are a lot of problems with basing Wikipedia articles on the Speculations of Ron Wyatt, Diodorus Sculus Josephus and Mantheo. By Wikipedia standards almost all research on the Exodus is WP:OR and POV. It would be good to gradually edit out the ancient speculation, tourist hype and bad source material and just stick with the archaeological data. Generally the most recent archaeological data finds nothing in the Sinai but quite a bit at Timna north of Elat

Perevolotsky and Finkelstein on the absence of archaeological evidence for an Exodus presence in the Southern Sinai-

"In recent years archaeological research in the Sinai peninsula has burgeoned as never before. Intensive surveys and excavations have been carried out in all regions of the peninsula, and what was once a remote and mysterious region has become, archaeologically speaking, well known and relatively understood.

All this archaeological activity, however, has contributed almost nothing to our understanding of the Exodus. This is true despite the fact that the Bible describes the wanderings of the Israelites at great length and even provides us with a long list of place-names where the children of Israel encamped during their wanderings (Numbers 33). But, so far, no remains from the Late Bronze Age (15th-13th centuries BC- the period in which these events were supposed to have taken place) or even from the subsequent Iron Age I have been found anywhere in the whole Sinai peninsula, except for archaeological evidence of Egyptian activity on Sinai's northern coastal strip. Accordingly, no progress has been made in locating the Israelite encampments, in identifying their route, or in fixing the site of Mt. Sinai." (p.28. Aviram Perevolotsky & Israel Finkelstein, "The Southern Sinai Exodus Route in Ecological Perspective." Biblical Archaeology Review. July-August 1985, Vol. XI, No.4)

Rosen "The virtual absence of remains from the Middle Bronze or Late Bronze Ages in this area [the Lower Negeb] and the rest of the Negeb contradict the 38 year Israelite settlement recounted in Exodus. Similar problems attend virtually all attempts to identify specific sites (especially Mt. Sinai) in the Central Negeb with places mentioned in Exodus." (p.1064, Vol. 4. Steven A. Rosen, "Negeb." David Noel Freedman, Editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York. Doubleday. 1992. 6 vols. )

Dever :"The Sinai Tradition...All we can say is that recent extensive exploration of the entire Sinai by Israeli archaeologists, geologists, and others has turned up virtually no Middle Bronze/Late Bronze presence in the Central or South Sinai. Our current detailed knowledge of this remote and hostile area calls into question the biblical tradition of a million-and-a-half or more people migrating there (Nu 11:21) for some 40 years (De 2:7). The barren terrain and sparse oasies might have supported a few straggling nomads, but no more than that." (Vol. 3, p. 547. Willam G. Dever, "Israel, History of, Archaeology and the Conquest." David Noel Freedman, Editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York. Doubleday. 1992. 6 vols. )

Romer, a British Egyptologist, also noted the absence of any evidence in the Sinai for Moses' Israelites (600,000 warriors, or one and a half million souls)-Romer "Hard evidence of the Exodus event in the preserving deserts of the Sinai, where most of the biblical wandering takes place, is similarly elusive. Although its climate has preserved the tiniest traces of ancient bedouin encampments and the sparse 5000-year-old villages of mine workers, there is not a single trace of Moses or the Israelites; and they would have been by far the largest body of ancient people ever to have lived in this great wilderness." (p.58, "Genesis." John Romer. Testament, The Bible and History. New York. Henry Holt & Co. 1988. ISBN 0-8050-0939-6)

Historian Diodorus Siculus, about 10 B.C. described the Sinai Peninsula in his Library of History wrote, "Moreover, an altar is there built of hard stone and very old in years, bearing an inscription in ancient letters of an unknown tongue. the oversight of the sacred precinct is in the care of a man and woman who hold the position for life." (Bk. 3, sect. 42, Loeb Classical Library, C.H. Oldfather, trans. [Cambridge Harvard University Press, 1993], p.211)

More recent research has shown there was a western semitic culture in the Negev but that it was totally unrelated to the Exodus. At Serebit el Khadim there were turquoise mines

Josephus in Josephus Against Apion. I, 26, 27, 32 mentions two Egyptian priest-scholars: Manetho and Cheremon who in their histories of Egypt specifically named Joseph and Moses as leaders of the Jewish race. Josephus states that Manetho and Cheremon stated that the Jews rejected Egypt’s customs and gods. They noted that the Jews practiced animal sacrifices which they witnessed on the first Passover.

Like archaeologists their speculations are about as likely to be right as wrong only problem is that if Diodorus Siculus was the Zachariah Sitchen of his time, then Josephus was the Graham Hancock.

The speculation continues

These historians also confirmed that the Israelites migrated to "southern Syria" which was the Egyptian name for Palestine. They also mentioned that Israel’s exodus occurred during the reign of Amenophis who was the son of Rameses and the father of Sethos who reigned toward the close of the 18th dynasty which places the Israelites exodus between 1500 and 1400 BC. This confirms the Old Testament’s chronology for the Exodus occurring in 1460 BC.

In 1761, Barthold Niebuhr, a German explorer, found a huge cemetery with tombs and a sepulcher atop an inaccessible mountain called Sarbut-el-Khaden. Inscriptions were found on the tombs and inside the sepulcher. (Voyage en Arabie, tom. i. p. 191). Niebuhr offered his doubts that the inscriptions were made by Egyptians as no carved inscriptions were ever found in Egypt; rather they were partial to painting images on plaster. He also found legible inscriptions not only on the tombs but also within a small temple carved out of rock, all found to be of the same written language as the Hebrew Exodus inscriptions. In another book, Niebuhr remarked "the wonderful preservation of the inscriptions upon this soft sandstone, exposed as they have been to the air and weather during the lapse of so many ages. On some of the stones they are quite perfect" (Niebuhr, Biblical Researches, vol. i. pp. 113-114). He found, as in the other Sinai inscriptions, that the hieroglyph-like writings were significantly different in form from Egyptian hieroglyphics, yet sharing similarities nonetheless. Also, no mention of Egyptian gods or common Egyptian symbols are to be found in the mountain-top graveyard. In addition to all of this, Niebuhr found numerous engravings of quails on the tombstones "standing, flying and apparently, even trussed and cooked" (Rev. Charles Forster, Sinai Photographed [London: Richard Bentley, 1862], p. 62) and noted that the Bedouins refer to this graveyard as the "Turbet es Yahoud" (grave of the Jews).

Rktect 12:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rambling and unsourced. Appears to be original research. I object to the article creator adding inappropriate and excessive material to the AfD itself~~, and suggest that an administrator warn him about it.~~ The added material is close to being deletable from this AfD per WP:REFACTOR, as 'Superfluous - Content that is clearly and unmistakably irrelevant.' EdJohnston 03:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural question about this AfD: I invite the other participants in the AfD to give their opinions whether all of Rktect's numbered items and blockquoted material should be moved to the Talk page of the AfD. EdJohnston 03:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I agree that the material doesn't belong here. But this is not an encyclopedia article and doesn't have to be pretty; no server space is saved by moving it. And the next time there's an WP:RFAR regarding his contributions, it will be easier to see what's going on if everything is kept in one place. Matchups 11:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xjump[edit]

Non-notable software/game. No sources other than download sites to establish notability. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 02:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I can't say delete as I don't know what sites you are talking about that do or not esablish notability. You didn't mention it on the Discussion of that project page or on that project page. Sawblade05 02:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability, unsourced assertions, no reliable sources (Sawblade, see WP:RS for examples of what we mean.) RGTraynor 18:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's notable, someone will provide reliable sources for verification. At present it makes no such assertion. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 03:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it gets reliable sources. Oysterguitarist 03:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KTC 08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 08:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Singu larity 01:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Subramaniam[edit]

I removed a prod [34] because I think the article itself, in a way, asserts notability, purely because of where this person has worked. If I'm wrong, so be it...but better safe then sorry! Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 02:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he is unquestionably notable and really deserves a better article. If I had the time I would do it tonight. As is, I might get to it tomorrow. Plenty of ghits and easily sourced in my thinking. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 03:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to also do some work on it...just wanted consensus to see if it's worth it :) Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 04:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Such heavy involvement in such well-known and long-running television programs is notability for sure. It's not a great article as it stands, but I'd rather see the article on a Star Trek director improved than the article on a Star Trek character. Consequentially 08:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, should never have been prodded. —Xezbeth 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well known, multiple-award winning director. Ravenswing 18:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above reasoning. --xDanielx^Talk 23:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasoning. Mathmo ^Talk 04:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Shalom ^Hello 22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian network for art and technology[edit]

The original article, as written by a user whose name is identical to the article's name, contained a copyvio. User:DGG solved that problem, but the author's WP:COI ruins the potential neutrality and notability of the article. Shalom ^Hello 02:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Australia Council is one outside attesting to notability. A Google News Archives search comes up with others such as this [35] and this [36]. Capitalistroadster 03:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the wired.com link, which attests to notability Corpx 05:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A very highly notable organisation, as noted by the links proved above. COI in no way influences notability - neutrality, yes, but a topic remains notable regardless of who wrote it. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of world commemorative coins[edit]

Dear friends. I have nominated this article for deletion. I will explain my concerns.

The problem with this article is not only that it is an incomplete list. The major problem is, that, due to its scope, it_never_can_become a complete list! The problem cannot be solved by expanding the list - improving is is not a solution. This article's status as an incomplete list is not a temporary situation, but a permanent one.

Compiling a more or less complete list of world commemorative coins is next to futile. If you want such a list, you should get the Standard Catalog of World Coins, and you'll find, say, 500-1000 pages in that book consisting exclusively of world commemorative coins listings. If someone thinks that such a list should be available on Wikipedia, go get the book first, and secondly start typing the 500-1000 pages of this material into this Wikipedia article. (Oh, well, I suppose we'll have a copyright problem then).

Another problem is, that noone knows what defines the content of the list. Whatever it is, it just doesn't list the commemorative coins of the world, as suggested in the headline. So we know it's a list, but not what it's a list OF. Once we have established that the article's status as incomplete is a permanent one, we should ask ourselves: is a list of a small and casual handful of commemorative coins relevant for Wikipedia? Does it contribute to our knowledge? No. Complete lists of individual nations is fine. We can use them to gain an overview and deepen our understanding of the corpus of commems of that particular country. A permanently incomplete list, inevitably falling short of being anywhere near complete, cannot develop into an article about the general properties of commemorative coins. It will necessarily be a list of _some_ commems - one is inclined to think, that it is actually a list of some particular collectors own favourite commemorative coins from his own collection. Regardless, it looks like that, and this does not meet Wikipedia standards (as per WP:NOT#BLOG).

I would suggest going for a different solution. There is already an article called "Commemorative coin". This article is already linking to some of the more substantial Wikipedia pages on commemorative coins of individual nations. As further reasonably sound Wiki articles on commems of various nations are developed, they too can be added in the "See also" section of "Commemorative coin".

The concept of the article is unworkable. We should delete it, because it cannot achieve any purpose that might make it relevant for Wikipedia. Good luck with future work. Alfons Åberg 02:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close and Speedy Delete this AfD and tell the nominator how to list AfD properly. This AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of world commemorative coins has no header on the AfD and it doesn't link the dicussion to List of world commemorative coins so my vote is to close and delete this discussion until properly listed Sawblade05 02:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've emended the nomination. Deor 02:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Include whats not on the Category:Commemorative_coins into it Since we already have a category on this subject, there's really not a need to have this list and all that lists that are there should be included in the Category:Commemorative_coins if it issn't there already, once that is done this list should be deleted.Sawblade05 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some countries chunk out so many different "commemorative coins" simply for commercial purposes that it will be near impossible to collect and maintain complete lists for these entities. A world-wide catch all list will be completely impossible to maintain. I must admit that I don't see the encyclopedic purpose in keeping many of the country-level lists either. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale by Valentinian. Such a list is impossible to maintain given the sheer number of such coins being minted by the Royal Canadian Mint alone, never mind numismatic industries in places like the Isle of Man (did you know they produce a 25 ounce gold coin? That's insane!). Any coins notable enough to have their own articles already have a category. Obvoiusly there's nothing wrong with having an article on this subject, listing some of the most notable coins. An alternative to this list is perhaps to list the most valuable commemmorative coins since at least that's a maintainable list. 23skidoo 12:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose There are individual national lists of commemorative coins. And the nominator Alfons Åberg has not raised AfD against them. So List of world commemorative coins can become a list of links to lists. But if the fate is delete, then the content must be carefully merged into national lists. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe articles that are solely redirects to other articles are not accepted ccording to Wiki guidelines. However, Commemorative coin already links to the more substantial national lists, and can be used for this purpose. The content has already been merged (by me) into national lists, except where national lists are not yet created. You might wish to create such a new list in the case of Pakistan. The remaining listings would produce only stub class articles (in half the cases only a single coin is represented, maximum is 12). This goes for Australia, Belarus, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Bulgaria, China, Cook Islands, Hutt River, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Monaco, Mongolia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal and Uruguay. Let it go, it's pure junk anyway. Alfons Åberg 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~, as a way to find find the separate national lists per ChochoPK, and as a home for the really short stub lists for the countries Alfons mentions above. Its currently a bad idea to make a list of commemorative coins of Nepal but the information should not be lost, in fact that title could be created as a redirect to the right place on this list, and then categorized. Rename this one to list of commemorative coins or list of commemorative coins by country. Kappa 23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Kappa, you are mentioning Nepal as an example. The List of world commemorative coins currently contains one (1) coin of Nepal. A decade ago there were 120 different commems of Nepal. Today, there are perhaps 150-200. Our current 'list' of Nepali commems includes less than one per cent of what it should. Similar concerns apply for all the other countries. Now if anyone would wish to write a list (or better: an article) on Nepali commems, be my guest. Bur there is no point in keeping a list of 1 coin in the mean time. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The information will not be 'lost' in any case. Whenever someone wants to write an article on the subject, the appropriate information can be found in the Standard Catalog of World Coins, which should be available from any library. Alfons Åberg 02:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think one (1) is better than 0, as it serves as an example. The list of 5 Japanese coins is also quite informative, telling me the status of Doraemon and Hello Kitty in their culture. Ideally the main list would also tell me things like when the first commem was issued by a country and what it was, and if it only produces them occasionally or makes large numbers of them like the Isle of Man. Kappa 08:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've stuck out my vote, a list like this is only a good idea if the project supporting it wants it, and I don't think I have persuaded them. Kappa 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge and redirect to List of bridges. The fundamental problem with this list is that there is no criteria for inclusion. A notable bridge in WP generally means one having an article. This list is a selection of bridges having articles but based not on an objective criterion but on personal opinion. The merge has been mostly carried out but some work remains, particularly on those bridges that are subject to country lists, the UK and US bridges for example. I have left the history accessible to enable interested editors to check and complete the merge. TerriersFan 23:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable bridges[edit]

Page is a directory in violation of WP:NOT#DIR Sawblade05 01:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think this article exists for the purpose of travel information - it's a list of obviously connected notable subjects. CitiCat^♫ 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of bridges. The pictures and descriptions would add value to the list in the other article. No sense in having two articles covering almost precisely the same territory. --DRTïllberġ^Talk 03:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it definitely isn't a directory. --DRTïllberġ^Talk 03:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one. I'm almost thinking that the list of notable bridges is more useful than List of bridges (an entire list worldwide). Anything that claims to be a list of all bridges would have to include the bridge that Minnesota State Highway 100 takes over Minnehaha Creek, for example, but that bridge isn't notable. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a common misconception, it's like saying that List of people from New York would have to include everyone from New York, so the list would contain millions of names. Only notable names should be added to lists. If a bridge is notable enough for an article, even if one doesn't exist yet, it should be added to List of bridges. Saikokira 03:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of bridges. And can people stop using the word "notable" in list names? Every bridge named in List of bridges should already be notable or it shouldn't be there. There is no distinction in lists. Saikokira 03:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But if there is good info in this list that's not in the other one, it should be merge and redirect CitiCat^♫ 04:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged everything from this list to List of bridges, apart from details that wouldn't be added to List of bridges anyway such as UK and US bridges which have their own lists. Saikokira 05:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of bridges is sufficient. The bridges on there (excluding red links) are just as notable as the ones mentioned in here Corpx
Merge That's already been done, so unless it's undone, a deletion isn't possible. We have to redirect to preserve attributions history.--Chaser - T 05:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but naming is a problem, when articles like this dont have the word "notable", such is objected toalso. What matters is to have them in one article, and keep it. DGG (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adds nothing to what List of bridges already has. There's also the subjective criteria of a "notable bridge". Spellcast 08:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. This information should all be in List of bridges. Why? Because all the content in List of bridges must already be notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I personally would prefer to read this list, rather than List of bridges, because each bridge has an interesting (and unknown to me) fact written next to it, whereas the main List of Bridges has so many countries, and many bridges listed have no info about them. I personally enjoy reading interesting trivia facts like this list gives, but I also don't believe in cluttering up Wikipedia with redundant information found elsewhere. I think that at the very least, some of this information is needed on the main List of Bridges page, (for instance, this page has "Hartland Bridge - Hartland, New Brunswick, Canada, world's longest covered bridge", and the main list redirects to Bridges in Canada, but the entry there does not note that it is the world's longest covered bridge). This is why this list would be useful to me: If I want to learn trivia about bridges, but had no idea what country "notable" bridges were in, I would have to sift through a whole bunch of pages to find items with neat trivia, and even then, as seen with Hartland, the interesting fact isn't mentioned. I'd rather keep the list, perhaps rename to "Record holding bridges" (or some such) and list only those bridges with records of note. (Longest, tallest, oldest, etc.) ^Ariel♥Gold 22:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to add, that I consider this type of list one of the "Treasures" of Wikipedia (my term). This is something that I would never know to look for, but when I run across it in the "see also" links, I'll read the entire thing, straight through, and learn a whole bunch of interesting facts. I would never be able to do this by sifting through the huge list of bridges, individual country lists, nor would I have the patience to do so. I think I would prefer to see this list kept as is, but do understand the premises behind merging it. I just hope that the interesting trivia is not lost in doing so. ^Ariel♥Gold 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - useful reference for academic purposes. WP:NOT#DIR should not be misinterpreted as "if items A and B are part of a set of items C, then A, B, and C are not appropriate for Wikipedia." We have lists for a reason. --xDanielx^Talk 23:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Goes beyond the list of blue-links, and explains the notability of each bridge. Mandsford 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article should be renamed to "List of Famous Bridges", and the lead should be expanded to have a clear criteria of famousness, but I think a smaller, separate list of famous bridges and a larger list of notable but not-as-famous bridges is useful for navigation, as per WP:LIST. --Phirazo 03:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to List of bridges. If it isn't notable, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per xDanielx and mandsford. Mathmo ^Talk 04:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: One way to have "a smaller, separate list of famous bridges and a larger list of notable but not-as-famous bridges" is to put the famous ones at list of bridges and the less famous ones in list of bridges by country. Kappa 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion Kappa. ^Ariel♥Gold 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of bridges. That article is already a "list of bridges by country" and allows for links to proper sub-articles (such as List of bridges in Canada) as well as reasonable latitude for listing these "extra notable" bridges on the page--for example, the United States section could have the link to the main article as well as a link & pic for the Golden Gate or Brooklyn bridges. Expand & improve the proper main list rather than fracture the subject into arbitrary notable/less notable pages. — Scientizzle 18:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per it should be merged as suggested above. Harlowraman 18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete (no notability) CitiCat^♫ 03:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Malik[edit]

Autobiography of a nonnotable person. I am also listing the author's userpage:

Strong Delete - maybe even speedy (A7). The closest thing to an assertion of notability is the notability of the subject's father, which does not cut it. Also, the fact that the same article is reproduced as the author's userpage implies a strong WP:COI. Speaking of the userpage, it could also be deleted on the grounds of WP:NOT#MYSPACE. -Seidenstud 02:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snails in folklore[edit]

Is this a joke? - Wikipedia is not a bunch of unreferenced nonsense about snails pretending like it's an article. Otto4711 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep could provide some meaning. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, how? Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 02:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Snail, and merge any HIGHLY notable information (I don't think any of the current information is highly notable, though). Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 02:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - It is a Trivia page split from Snail due to the lack of sources and should be deleted as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup and per WP:NOT#DIR. Sawblade05 02:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, doesn't seem to actually have anything to do with folklore, and generally non-encyclopedic. CitiCat^♫ 03:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia and unencyclopedic. Oysterguitarist 03:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...slowly per nom. Let's...not...be...hasty. Clarityfiend 04:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge - no need to split from the main article at this point. Maybe there are more stories of snails in folklore than I realise, but as it stands there isn't enough to warrant a separate article. violet/riga (t) 06:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have WP:ATRIV for a reason. Spellcast 11:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice. Most of this stuff isn't really folklore in the first instance. The Scandinavian nursery rhyme may well belong under the article in chief about snails, and I am open to the idea that a profitable article may well can be written about snails in folktales, weather lore, and so forth; but the bulk of this material is unhelpful towards that purpose. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge to either snail or a Cultural depictions of snails page
Delete at this point, there is not enough for an article. no prejudice to re-creation when a suitable article is written. I see no need for the outrage expressed by some of the comments above. Just an inadequate article. DGG (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Carlossuarez46 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to call for a BJAODN on this one. Nothing else is justified. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just anohter %SUBJECT% in popular culture type list in disguise. Burntsauce 18:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The phrase 'citation needed' was invented for this page. --Greatest hits 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Falcons in popular culture[edit]

The result was No consensus. Hemlock Martinis 06:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of unassociated items. None of these things have anything whatsoever to do with each other besides happening to have some reference to a bird. Worthless. Otto4711 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto. This is just a worthless list of completely unrelated trivia. fuzzy510 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete They should have ethier integrated this in to the Peregrine Falcons or just had delted it in the first place as Trivia sections are not welcomed on Wikipedia. Sawblade05 02:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per loosely associated items Corpx 05:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 08:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to talk. A lot of this material doesn't have much to do with the nominal subject of popular culture, even. But the peregrine falcon is an iconic bird with several dimensions in history, folklore, and the arts, and the page about the bird should not neglect these matters. Move this to a subpage of the talk page for the reference of future editors. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, culturecruft. Realkyhick 17:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who cares where peregrin falcans have appeared? - Pheonix 18:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't care" has been named as a weak argument for deletion, although the list of approved arguments is rather short. Still, there is plenty of stuff here that ought to be taken note of in the article in chief on peregrine falcons: their use as a heraldic symbol, their rank as a kingly gift, and there is moreover more that could be added, like their role in falconry. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly some scope for limited sections in the main article and the occurrence of the falcon in heraldry, the reasons and the history, might be a good example. However, such sections should be written and sourced from scratch. Keeping what is an uncategorised mess, or even worse, merging in and spoiling a good main article is not the way to go. TerriersFan 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another trivia-filled article.--JForget 00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good as IPC articles go, with references not just to film, but to official recognition by organizations as a bird second to the eagle. Mandsford 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Peregrine Falcon, which is a WP birds collab currently. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with rename (most contents are not "popular culture") or merge into Peregrine Falcons. In either case, add citations to sources. This is not trivia, but a once-over-lightly treatment of some of the aspects of this bird in history and culture.--orlady 02:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above. -- Visviva 04:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above, don't merge. Jimfbleak 07:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, expand, and, source Given the referents in the articles, there will be no problem sourcing them. DGG (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no WP:RSes that the peregrine falcon's place in popular culture is notable. Carlossuarez46 19:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
really? -- Visviva 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes really. A bunch of books that contain the words "peregrine falcon" and "folklore" don't demonstrate that the topic is covered in reliable sources. Unless you're willing to suggest that there's a lot of scholarly research into the relationship between Hitler and Pop-tarts. Otto4711 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename, expand, and, source as per DGG and orlady. Mathmo ^Talk 21:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, or merge per above. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge, expand, and source These are not all items to be just dismissed because they aren't properly expanded and sourced. They should be described and properly cited within Peregrin Falcon Farlox 11:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, squash, stamp on and salt the earth These IPC articles attract trivia like static attracts dust. SilkTork 13:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete There's no reason for this sub-article as there's plenty of room on Peregrine Falcon to include truly non-trivial examples from this minimal list of unrelated events that happened to include one or more of these birds. I can envision a real article perhaps being created on Peregrine Falcons in folklore if such information is available and deserves in-depth treatment greater than a few paragraphs in the main article. — Scientizzle 18:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 18:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mostly unsourced it presently fails WP:V since there is no guarantee that sourcing is possible. Further, it is an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no organisation that would make this list valuable and encyclopaedic - collating the appearances of the bird in literature or paintings for example and explaining the significance of each appearance. What this is is an essentially unstructured collection of random occurrences. TerriersFan 22:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename remove bullets, source and improve. Popular is a POV. Right now does not cover the great popularity among Arabian Sheikhs for instance. Shyamal 05:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete due to concerns about notability, reliable sources, and what Wikipedia is not. — TKD::Talk 14:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manatees in popular culture[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a collection of every time someone spots a manatee. "Oooh, a manatee!" is not the basis for an encyclopedia article. Oppose merging any of this nonsense to any other article concerning manatees. Otto4711 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - If this can't be intrgrated this into Manatee, then it is simply trivia a directory and should be deleted as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup and per WP:NOT#DIR. Sawblade05 02:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Oysterguitarist 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list of loosely associated items Corpx 05:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of the worst of its kind so far. Punkmorten 08:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to talk. No, most of this is indeed rubbish. But the manatee is an iconic critter, associated with mermaids in folklore and one of the environmental movement's poster critters. A better section in the article in chief could be written, and this should be moved to subpage of the talk page for the reference of future editors and to preserve its history. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as WP:NOT, along with List of manatees in underground culture, List of manatees in unpopular culture and List of non-manatees in popular culture. Also, List of manatees not in popular culture, List of manatees neither in popular culture nor not in popular culture, List of non-manatees not in popular culture, List of non-manatees not in non-popular culture, List of manatees in GLBT literature, List of manatees not in GLBT literature, List of non-manatees not in non-GLBT literature, List of manatees not mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita, List of highly intelligent manatee guitarists, List of non-manatees shot by a sitting Vice President of the United States, and so on. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Manatees in GLBT Myspace bands. Oh, and Delete per WP:BULLSHIT. RGTraynor 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is such unpleasantness really necessary? -- Visviva 04:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename back to List of cultural references to manatees (the decision to rename was an unfortunate one, as it changed the apparent scope of the article). Topic of cultural references to manatees is notable and very distinct from the subject matter of the biology article on manatees, but the article needs improvement. --orlady 17:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, culturecruft. Will it never end? Realkyhick 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per orlady. --xDanielx^Talk 23:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my arguments in previous AFds - listcruft, unsourced, etc, etc.--JForget 00:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; mostly references in South Park, Simpsons, Family Guy. But they were actually saying, "Ooh, amenity!" Mandsford 00:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is meatier than I'd have thought and enlightening. Needs to be cleaned up and renamed Cultural depictions of manatees as per some others...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per orlady. -- Visviva 04:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a good choice of name: culture depictions of manatees. This is only a start at a fully adequate article, but we dont throw out articles because they can be improved, which is what the arguments above amount to. Nor do we invent imaginary articles with really absurd titles to justify the ones that we simply think absurd, because weneverheardofit. Nor do we delete articles because of the possibility of making a pun on the name. I think that disposes ofall the pretended arguments for deletion. DGG (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with you. Unfortunately, you failed to address the real arguments for deletion. This remains yet another portmanteau list boiling down to "Oo, a manatee!" Renaming it does not by that fact alone suddenly make this any less a directory of trivia, and that is all it will ever be. It isn't as if manatees have any widely recognized grasp on pop culture. RGTraynor 12:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Greatest hits 08:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the giggle-worthy comment by AllGloryToTheHypnotoad. This list not only violationes WP:NOT#INFO, but it also fails to establish notability, as can be seen by the lack of reliable, secondary sources. Changing the article's name will not change the fact that it's trivial, unencyclopedic, and listcruft. María (críticame) 15:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia, nor is it a joke site, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. As a distant second choice, merge and redirect to Manatee. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per orlady. Mathmo ^Talk 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The article consisted of one sentence that may or may not be meaningful ("Moral Cynicism is temptation to give up on the dreams and ideas of youth after complications of adulthood come to overshadow them.") and has zero sources. WP:V, as a core policy, overrides all "keep" arguments. Sandstein 20:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moral cynicism[edit]

The article is a dictionary definition and might be transwikied to Wiktionary. That's nice, because Answers.com doesn't have a separate entry for "moral cynicism". (Please forgive my moral cynicism.) Shalom ^Hello 01:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki then speedy per nom. KTC 08:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete Already transwikied. Spellcast 08:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, has already crossed the ethereal plane to Wiktionary. Realkyhick 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Moral cynicism is a well-known philosophical concept, comparable to psychological egoism but differing in subject scope so as to justify an independent article. It is well-established concept within academia and is notably used in philosophical literature -- see here for evidence of notability and here for a brief explanation. The term has not actually been transwikied (as of time of writing) as claimed in the article; but regardless, inclusion in Wiktionary is not a reason to remove an article from Wikipedia. Moral cynicism is not a difficult concept to grasp, but a one-sentence blip won't do it justice. There is plenty of room for the article to expand, and lack of current progress is not a reason for deletion. --xDanielx^Talk 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it wasn't transwikied (misleading banner). But can this be expanded into a full article like Moral relativism or Moral absolutism? If this can't be expanded beyond a few lines, it should simply stay in Wiktionary. Spellcast 05:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to admit that I don't think the subject of moral cynicism is (explicitly) discussed anywhere near that of moral relativism, the latter being so well-known and much-written-about, but I think the concept is similar in depth. We'd have to dig deeper for reliable (and interesting) sources to develop an article of the same length, but I think it can be done. I'd be happy to contribute as time permits, though I'd rather see the result of the AfD before doing substantial work on it. In short, I don't think it's nearly as notable as either moral relativism or moral absolutism, but the topic has drawn attention from very notable and reliable academic sources. I hope the quick links I gave will suffice for now. --xDanielx^Talk 08:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By my understanding of the term (which is of course fallible), this concept amounts to essentially the same thing as Moral skepticism, for which we already have a working article. Given that a) this article now contains no content, really, b) this article has already been transwikied, c) we have a better article about the same thing and d) the name of this article is, kinda, a plausible search term, could we redirect to Moral skepticism? Jdcooper 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The naming is virtually identical, but they're actually very different. Moral skepticism means skepticism of the concept of morality as meaningful, epistemologically or otherwise -- Nietzsche is the classic advocate. Moral cynicism is cynicism of peoples' ability to act in accordance with morality via selfless motives -- a defendant of the view would argue that selfless motives are illusory, and morality is only followed for selfish reasons. I'm not sure who coined the term, but s/he must have been in a rather bad mood at the time. :) --xDanielx^Talk 17:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 21:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, plain and simple. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and/or redirect to moral skepticism.--Fabrictramp 12:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my note above. — xDanielx^Talk 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The fact that this stub has not been expanded to the topic's obvious potential is that it would be a waste of time to improve an article that will soon be removed. Tagging an article for deletion before it can be improved has a strong negative effect on those who write and improve articles, as opposed to policing the Wikipedia for "notability," and sufficient blandness, and assuring that only topics amply covered in other media are included.Michael J Swassing 02:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep The article can be really expanded in the future. -- Magioladitis 10:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the article is a stub should have no bearing on this discussion - the subject is notable and comprehensive enough for an article. Skomorokh ^incite 00:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That the phrase occurs in a few academic journals is not evidence that "moral cynicism" is a distinct philosophical concept. I have been unable to find an article on this topic in any tertiary source. It follows that the topic is unlikely ever to be more than a stub. Delete as not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Banno 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki too minor of a concept in ethics to have anything other than a definition. --Buridan 14:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Singu larity 01:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake of Tears[edit]

No independent sources at all for a band article that reads like bandspam. Seriously, it doesn't even try to be encyclopedic. It's WP:VSCA and fails WP:RS. Almost qualifies under CSD:G11. Also, unfortunately, because it's written as hype, it makes all sorts of assertions of notability that are not backed up whatsoever. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are listed at Allmusic. Also they have an interview in an English language online metal magazine, and it looks like some non-English Google news hits. (If the band is being considered for nomination, may I recommend also listing their related albums as well, as linked in their discography). The article needs serious cleanup however, not just for content but overuse of the 'fact' template. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 17:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs better sourcing. Sometimes notable foreign bands can be easily mistaken as non-notable, due to the fact it can be hard finding google hits, etc. This seems like one of those times. -WarthogDemon 21:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And I forgot to mention that yes, this DOES need serious cleanup as User:Eliz81 states. -WarthogDemon 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag with ((cleanup-rewrite)). Stifle (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did my best to edit the article, considering all your suggestions. If I missed something or there still anything else to be done, please say it. Costinbanu 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It definitely needs rewriting for a more objective tone, but the claims of it not being notable enough are out of the question. The band is well known in Europe. GreenSprite 11:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per lack of reliable sources to establish notability. Eluchil404 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cats on fire[edit]

Not sure if this band fails notability, but I suspect they do. The only sources given are tweepop.net, allmusic, a blog, and (of course!) their own Myspace. I think that still fails WP:RS. They are currently "signed to" a redlink. I'd be happy to see this come out as a "keep", though, provided independent sources are added to this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here truly meets WP:MUSIC as I see it. fuzzy510 01:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is AllMusic not a good external source? I have received the impression from my observations and from others that it's a good source. I'm not saying that a link on AllMusic is automatic notability; it isn't. That's just Point #1. My second point is that it's a Finnish band; and from my experience, foreign bands are considerably hard to find information about unless they're REALLY well known, like ~~Lacuna Coil, System Of A Down,~~ and Rammstein. At the moment this band does not appear to be THAT notable, however I'm thinking it could become notable enough, should it get the necessary cleanup it needs. -WarthogDemon 22:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic.com accepts user-submitted information, doesn't it? does that make it as good an external source as a professional magazine? I admit the band could still be notable, and I have nothing against Finland; I just wonder if anyone saying "aw, they're totally notable" will add the links to the article before this AfD closes. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Point taken with AllMusic.com, however as I said I'm not saying Keep just because they're on that site. If Allmusic were the only source on here, my vote would've been the opposite. -WarthogDemon 23:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep; 5 minutes of straight-forward research says they're sufficiently notable. --xDanielx^Talk 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did that "5 minutes of straight-forward research" supply anything to be added to the article or presented here such that others might agree or disagree? It would be most helpful, if you found any encyclopedic information, if you added it to the article. — Scientizzle 18:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 04:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Notability concerns aside, the article should have been speedy deleted as spam.. Pascal.Tesson 09:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Ace[edit]

Non-notable magician who according to the article, is a household name in many parts of Latin America & Spain and has been the opening act for the Bee Gees, and many others. Strange that a household name with such an impressive career only gets 160 Ghits, none of which are significant coverage in reliable sources. There are a couple of passing mentions confirming he made short appearances on magic shows, but nothing about Dylan Ace himself. Created by a single-purpose account. Saikokira 00:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because he says he is the future of magic and I've a suspicion that he's not being entirely honest .PalX 01:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rule #1 of AfD: Never do a vote without giving a reason why. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first rule of AfD is 'You don't talk about AfD' Nick mallory 01:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fool, you broke the first rule! --fuzzy510 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaarargghhh! Nick mallory 03:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly non-notable per nom. Perhaps an A7 (non-notable person) candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But he's "the future of magic" and the same height as Houdini. Isn't that notable enough?! Saikokira 04:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:LIVING and lack of WP:RS. Also, it's blatant WP:VSCA; is there a speedy criterion for deleting spam? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per this and this Corpx 05:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Corpx. --xDanielx^Talk 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Corpx. Mathmo ^Talk 21:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infidel? / Castro![edit]

No independent sources, except for some website that went under in July 2007: thus fails WP:RS. No notability, no verifiability. Author (a WP:SPA) does note on the talk page some things the band did: but then after fighting off a prod, he disappeared and didn't bother. Thus, the article remains as WP:VSCA and still fails WP:V. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque 08:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:MUSIC. Borderline speedy as nn-band. Stifle (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 20:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of places visited by the Wicked (musical) national (US) tour[edit]

WP:NOT indiscriminate information and loosely associated topics. Being "visited" by a musical is not a notable event in a city's history, so listing such events is indiscriminate. Saikokira 00:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#IINFO. i ^said 00:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons already stated. fuzzy510 02:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Oysterguitarist 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Corpx 05:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good example of WP:NOT#DIR. Spellcast 08:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Abberley2 13:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. James Luftan ^contribs 18:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. ^Ariel♥Gold 21:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was already merged so no real need for this AfD. Disputes over the content of the target article can be handled via normal editorial dispute methods. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Creatures in Dino Crisis 3[edit]

Contested prod. Indiscriminate list (listcruft), No credible sources Helmsb 00:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - it seems to have already been deleted and redirected to Dino Crisis 3. Looks like two editors were trying to kill the same article at once. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it has not been deleted. Only redirected. Punkmorten 08:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close - Why delete a redirect to a notable game Sawblade05 05:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 01:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese titles of foreign films[edit]

WP:NOT indiscriminate information. The same reasons as my previous afds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German names of English movies and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comic book names in Finnish both resulted in unanimous deletes. Saikokira 23:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on the unanimous outcomes of the two articles you note in your nomination note, future desired deletions of this class of articles could be started via the WP:PROD path, particularly if this article is also deleted unanimously. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In previous AFD's the main argument has been that lists such as this violate WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. My argument is slightly different as I see this as only borderline indiscriminate — the scope is defined though broad. I would argue that without thorough sourcing, one cannot determine which line items are original research (i.e. a translation by an editor) and which are legitimate. The article author has noted on the talk page also "Actually, since I just realized that this informatin can usually be found by searching the English title in the Japanese wikipedia, I've pretty much decided to abandon this page." This brings up the notion that where the Japanese title for an English film is documented in the article about the film, one could create one or more redirects tagged with Template:R from alternative language to achieve a similar end on the English wikipedia (search with a Japanese title and find the English). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well thought out rationale from Ceyockey. Adrian M. H. 23:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but with a Comment Don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back if you get a third straight unanimous vote. It has nothing to do with your persuasive abilities, only how people reviewing the article today feel. And as to the next person, there's no such thing as "this class of articles" that can be exterminated without a vote. Every article is entitled to an independent review. In this instance, I don't see anything added to mankind's knowledge by showing the closest English phonetic equivalent of Japanese katakana. It implies that Orientals can't pronounce "Austin Powers", so they "have to" say, "Oo-su-tin Pa-wa-a-zu". We're no dumber just because we pronounce Tokyo "TOE-KEY-YO".

I did like the idea of Napoleon Dynamite as "Bus Man", but that can go in the Napoleon article. In this case, most of these are not variations on the original title; the few that are can go into the article about the individual movie. Mandsford 00:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PROD is for non-controversial deletions; that fact that three very similar articles have been deleted by unanimous consent over a period of time suggests (but does not prove) that deletion of additional closely related articles will be non-controversial. In a PROD, any editor can over a five day period come in and say 'hold it buddy - no way are you going to drop this without a discussion' - it's easy to put the brakes on the process. What I've found is a flaw of PROD is that most editors who nominate an article for PROD do not inform the major contributors, which is not good as PROD's are not monitored nearly as closely as AFD's. There's nothing wrong with using the PROD process judiciously and correctly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honestly totally unencyclopedic. Really? All other scripts soon? Bulldog123 05:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 10:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This list could be based on information from the Japanese Wikipedia's ja:年度別日本公開映画 (Nendo-betsu Nihon-kōkai-eiga "Lists of movies shown in Japan by year"), although that list is not complete either. It is particularly interesting to see how foreign movies titles were translated into Japanese over the years, and so this list could be truly interesting to have. For example One Hundred and One Dalmatians translated into "101匹わんちゃん大行進" (Hyaku-ippiki Wanchan Daikōshin "The Great March of the 101 Doggies") in 1962 [37] (later shortened to 101匹わんちゃん), while 102 Dalmatians translated into "102" (Wan-ō-tsū "One-O-Two" (in English)) in 2001 [[38]]. The earlier translations were more creative.--Endroit 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. While the list is well-defined, it is unsourced, of questionable application, and appears to have been created just for the sake of having such a list. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Project-ify by moving it to a subpage of WikiProject Japan. That's about the only place where it would be useful without violating policy as it could be used as a reference to help find the Japanese titles if there are no interwiki links on a particular movie. Once moved, the cross-namespace redirect could be deleted, of course. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 01:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA Camp Weona[edit]

Non-notable summer camp. It also reads like an advertisment: "You'll appreciate Weona's sensitive, experienced, and enthusiastic staff", "It is the ideal setting for hands-on fun, adventure, and learning" are just two examples. It also seems to be plagued by COI issues: "Our program has been designed with the safety of campers in mind." (Emphasis mine). .V. _[_Talk|Email] 00:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does seem to have small notability, but it's in a very promotional tone. --H irohisat ^Talk 00:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that it has some notability. It was open in 1897. Not sure.--DimaG 00:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - there are no third-party sources in the article. From WP:V, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I'd be happy to change my vote to a keep once third party sources are added to the article, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 05:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. There are thousands and thousands of YMCAs and at least hundreds and hundreds of YMCA camps. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual summer camps are not notable -Drdisque 08:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. Strong arguments on both sides. On the one hand it is not an indiscriminate list being properly and systematically organised. OTOH it really could do with textual information - production details etc. TerriersFan 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas and Friends video releases[edit]

This is listcruft. Wikipedia is not a directory or indiscriminate collections of information. It is just a list of releases of videos, songs or interstitial segements, it doesn't even describe the episodes or shows. i ^said 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- More catalog lists associated with the Thomas franchise. These Thomas fans seem to think Wikipedia is a webspace provider to add every single non-notable detail about the ranges. There's a Thomas Wiki apparently, add it there. Saikokira 00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list cruft, wikipedia is not the place to list everything about a show. Oysterguitarist 02:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is important information to Thomas and Friends but is too long to include in the article itself. Just because something is long doesn't make it cruft. -Drdisque 08:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's cruft because a list of releases is not enyclopedic, and most people will not care, only people who are highly devoted to the franchise will. i ^said 23:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I'd stop seeing the word encyclopedic being misused so often on wikipedia, did you know that half the results on google for encyclopedic are to do with wikipedia (indicates the extent of the problem)? Anyway, getting back on track.... encyclopedic is defined as "comprehensive" also "broad in scope or content". If anything, this seems to be the opposite of what you were trying to say. Because you were wishing to instead narrow down the scope and content of the encyclopedia, making it less comprehensive. Mathmo ^Talk 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are the pictures copyright vio? Speciate 09:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're all fair use, but they only have the boilerplate rationale, not the image-specific one that they should. In addition, I dont think they qualify under fair use in just a list of releases, with no critical context. i ^said 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. WP is not a directory nor a TV guide. Nabla 21:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drdisque. --xDanielx^Talk 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be plenty of lists of episodes of other TV shows, like South Park, Star Trek, etc. (indeed, several have an article per episode), so keep. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The crucial difference is that those have summaries, production information, guest stars etc. (at least they should) and are lists of the actual episodes. This is just a list of releases of episodes. i ^said 21:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Drdisque. Mathmo ^Talk 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thomas and Friends is apparently a top-selling children's DVD series, so the DVD releases are at least as notable as the broadcast episodes themselves, which have their own lists. DHowell 06:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article also seems to serve as a list of episodes for the series which are notable; most television series have them (see Category:Lists of television series episodes). Many articles on video releases also exist (see Category:Television videos and DVDs). --musicpvm 08:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this before floating that "other people do it too!" argument. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm already well aware of that page; I'm also aware that it is a personal essay, and in no way a policy or guideline. --musicpvm 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mere list of things for sale. WP is not a directory. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's just a list for list sake, the only people who would be intrested in in this (or would find any use of it since thier are no episode summaries just titles) are hardcore Thomas fans, who would probobly be better served by using another website. Deathawk 21:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A suitable summary of a highly notable series. Is in no way indiscriminate or trivial. Is not a directory of things for sale, does not link or hint at purchasing information, but incorporates a history as is quite proper. Is not a TV guide; has no correspondence to any current or future transmission. Few people will be interested in such depth of information on a childrens topic, but certainly some will. WP:NOTPAPER. The addition or linking of commentary would be desirable. --SmokeyJoe 10:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete due to concerns about verifiability, reliable sources, and notability. — TKD::Talk 00:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitlers henchmen[edit]

Keep, Can say im a kiwi and I have been informed of this gang during my time living in Christchurch. Never saw them, but they were common knowledge among the public. The group appears to me very scarce. This would explain the lack of sources, but I can say that I did see their appearance on the TV show "Outrageous Fortune" this alone is enough for me to say keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragnorar (talk • contribs)
Keep, it is lacking sources sure enough but it is a very well written article and being a New Zealander myself I was pleased to see this gang is on Wikipedia. They have an important role in the NZ gang heirarchy and are by any means notable. Most of the information seems correct enough but I am going to go on a good search for sources because i can see why its an issue. Try to give it a chance though it is really good to see this gang mentioned. ragnorar 06:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sources (the one provided doesn't work), can't find any relevant google hits. Prod for sources was removed without any improvement to the article. Delete. gadfium 00:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article pretty much asserts that the gang (assuming it actually exists) is not notable, and the lack of sourcing certainly doesn't help. -- Kicking222 00:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KTC 04:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of sourcing and apparent non-noatbility. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah but I don't trust a guy who can't spell "notability". Keep— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.21.202 who signed as Ragnorar earlier (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom -Drdisque 08:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep, it is at least a very pretty and well structured article.... but that is only a minor point in its favour. Currently the strongest reason for it being kept is their appearance in Outrageous Fourtune, which is very borderline to as if that is enough. However if I assume what is in the rest of the article is true... perhaps then the case for keeping it is much much stronger. However, there is the trouble of sources. Considering the nature of the subject of the article and the point in time they were around it is very understandable that it could be difficult to dig up the sources that would have existed about them. So as such I'm willing to be more generous on this point. Thus I come to a conclusion of Keep (but at first I was borderline to make it merely a weak keep). Mathmo ^Talk 08:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I googled them they seem notable enough. Jmm6f488 10:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you not notice that almost all of those Google hits are about Hitler's actual "henchmen" - Himmler, Goebbels, Goering, the SS, etc.? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 14:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I also goggled and was only able to find one article on the group, and that was a blog. However, there were over 200,000 hits on the real Hitler’s henchmen Shoessss | Chat 17:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Jmm6f488. --xDanielx^Talk 22:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment – I am sorry, is my Google different from the rest of the worlds? When looking for this group on Google, yes there are over 200,00 hits. However, 199,999 are for a group that was dated as 1942! Shoessss | Chat 01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to establish and prove that this group is notable. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11 - Blatant advertising Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 06:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Application[edit]

Just a blatant advertisement for a firm of questionable notability at an improper location. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this is an advertisement. First paragraph is the advertisement and the rest of it is the content from Laser Corpx 05:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive272#User:Dhaval_akbari_persistently_spamming_on_Laser. Looks like a sockpuppet case by the way. Han-Kwang 05:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Krimpet 16:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TLFBSADKJASSKSDHKDS[edit]

I can't figure out what this article is about, can't find any references to the subject on Google, and can't get a reply from the creator. I recommend that we delete it unless some kind of justification is given for its existence. GTBacchus^(talk) 05:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. All the intelligible info is contained in the album articles anyway. Clarityfiend 06:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Virtually impossible to determine what this is about. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 06:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent nonsense -Drdisque 08:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this can qualify as Speedy Delete. KTC 08:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per.....being crapola? All I can tell is it's some kind of compilation of random music. -- Jelly Soup 08:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a track listing of existing hip hop albums found in other articles. Spellcast 08:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Alex Jones (radio). John254 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones views[edit]

Views, in and of themselves, are not notable. Content was removed from Alex Jones (radio) here after lack of resistance on talk page (after one week notice). Some discussion has since ensued, but not supporting the creation of a sub-article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I think that it might have been a better idea to have kept the "views" section in the main article, and then deleted those things that you consider to be unsourced. I can understand that Wikipedia can't have an article saying "these are the views of Alex Jones" without full attribution, since we need to abide by WP:LIVING. However, forking off and AfDing seems like the wrong way to deal with it - and 1 week was a bit short for a notification period, as the complaints in the talk page suggest. I suspect that the "best option" would probably end in a revert war, but at least then the problems would stay with the main article. So I'd say withdraw AfD, revert back into the main article, and then delete unattributed/dangerous stuff from there. Unfortunately, that might mean keeping the article on a watchlist to ensure that troublesome unattributed statements don't come back: what can you do, though, eh? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd have to agree with the above. On the one hand, allowing this to remain sets a precedent that may become problematic: Should we have separate pages for every notable person's "views"? Incorporating the items of note, that are properly referenced into the article itself, seems a good way to deal with it. ^Ariel♥Gold 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we shouldn't have separate pages for every person's beliefs. That's why this is up for deletion (whether the views belong in the main article is irrelevant to this AfD) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was exactly my point :) Allowing it to remain would be encouraging that type of thing, which I don't think is a good idea. Sorry I didn't word it so that was clear. ^Ariel♥Gold 23:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. I must've mis-read. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was, whatever in this article is properly sourced should be put back into the original article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too few reliable secondary sources to support a seperate page, no need to give Jones' fans a soapbox. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with AllGloryToTheHypnotoad. I think we should move this to the main article. --Noahcs 23:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not all of it - just what can be properly sourced. It'd take an Alex Jones fan to do it though, I guess. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced how? I still don't see how the fact that person X has opinion Y automatically needs to be included in a biographical article, even if we can provide a citation that X said Y. A more meaningful standard would be to find source Z who confirms that it is indeed notable that X thinks Y.--ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot see the point of a separate article, except to give him two.DGG (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alex Jones. --PEAR (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alex Jones. The individual is notable and his opinions should appear on his own page. No need to make a separate page for it. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 13:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content satisfying WP:RS into Alex Jones. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alex Jones only what is reliably sourced.--MONGO 16:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alex Jones (radio). We're better off without any Alex Jones forks. Pablo Talk | Contributions 16:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Alex Jones article then edit out anything not adequately sourced. Edison 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the AJ article. His views warrant about a paragraph in his own article I think. --Tbeatty 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a POV fork from Alex Jones (radio), or a fork created because there was no consensus to include it in the article. Merge only what is properly sourced and redirect. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant/important bits. We don't need to document every word out of this guy's mouth. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]