< August 8 August 10 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete a1, very short, no context. NawlinWiki 22:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Baylor Rockwall[edit]

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

Notability not provided. →Wordbuilder 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyvio. --DarkFalls talk 09:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle at Caporetto[edit]

Order of battle at Caporetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure this needs its own article, lacks a lot of context and as of present fails WP:V, merge perhaps? Rackabello 23:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --Coredesat 07:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gator Country[edit]

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

Band with a demo and one EP, fails WP:MUSIC. Would have listed it for speedy, but it's been here since December. Corvus cornix 23:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

clean this up? --W.marsh 03:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:Band: Referencing page WP:MUSIC "Criteria for musicians and ensembles 6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Justification Response: Per item 6 referenced just above the band Gator Country should not be marked for deletion because the band is made of members that were once members of notable band Molly Hatchet (for example vocalist Jimmy Farrar). For WP:V: I included several links to other sites mentioning the band on talk:Gator Country in an attempt to meet WP:V. I'm not sure this rises to the level of fact-checked sites but at least there is more of a web presence than just the band's own website. Karstdiver 17:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page in nomination was originally created Dec-2006. The page was good faith highjacked July-2007. The highjacked version of the page was nom for ((db-band)) and ((AfDM)) on 09-Aug-2007. The original content and highjacked content was restored and created 09,10-Aug-2007 by the original editor (who a was a WP:NEWBIE to the WP:AFD at the time this page underwent near simultaneous nomination and highjack recovery).

Karstdiver 01:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 15:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scientologist celebrities[edit]

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

Two reasons here: one, there's not clear cut definition for what a "celebrity" is, and two, it's essentially a fork of List of Scientologists, just for "celebrities". Kwsn(Ni!) 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like you are five dollars richer, it has now been listed. Onto this AfD! You didn't guess that part, but you were still right..... Mathmo Talk 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - normally these lists are, in my opinion, of no value as they simply imply a causal link between two orthogonal characteristics of the list members. However; here I do not believe it to be the case. The existence of a special Celebrity Centre run by the Church of Scientology and its apparent strong interest in recruiting celebrities (as well as the disproportionate number of scientologists in the movie industry) make this a non-trivial intersection. I do not; however, that some text might be valuable elucidating the linkage(s). Bigdaddy1981 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope of the article could be better defined at the start of the article, or alternatively moved to a better named article. Either way, while this is a problem.... it is not particularly big one. And such list of celebrities who are scientologists is very important, due to their linking with each other. We even have an article dealing entirely with this, Scientology and celebrities. I'd even say that is a better place to merge to, however I still believe it is better to not merge and have this as a stand alone article for purposes of increased navigation and readability. Mathmo Talk 01:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of the supposed practice of Scientology to recruit celebrities doesn't mean that a list of celebrities is encyclopedic. Otto4711 03:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a very natural qestion who was recruited. It is always the case: if we have an article Xxx yy, then List of Xxx yy is reasonable, if the entries in the List are wikipedia articles, but creating a category would be pointles, if the criterion is not really definitive. Planet->List of planets but not Table->List of tables Mukadderat 21:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories and lists are not exactly the same. Do not get all of one because the other exists. Mathmo Talk 03:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can see people are still making comments to merge into this list which has been incorrectly. There is even a merge directly underneath your very prominent comment! Mathmo Talk 04:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trivial at all, far from it. Scientology has very strong links with many celebrities. Mathmo Talk 04:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it a trivial intersection? There is an entire article based on the connection between Scientologist and celebrities (Scientology and celebrities). --musicpvm 09:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which would make it "a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." per WP:OCAT. Kappa 09:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This to me is no different than celebrity fans of a sports team. This is not based on the connection between Scientology and celebs, but rather is a list of famous people who follow this religion, which is a trivial intersection, just like it'd be for List of Christian celebrities Corpx 14:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many articles do we have about celebrity fans of sports teams? Kappa 20:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only time I've seen them is when they end up on AFD and they get deleted. Corpx 22:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there you go, or you do think Scientology and celebrities is deleteable? Kappa 21:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the second clause -- this happens to be incorrect as well. For an obvious counterexample, Lisa McPherson was certainly a notable Scientologist, but she does not fit into the Scientologist celebrity category. Digwuren 10:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, concerns raised by nominator not addressed. --Coredesat 07:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein syndrome[edit]

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

Relies entirely on self-published sources and works by one author, which expound on this condition. Fails WP:N, as this syndrome lacks independent, reliably sourced evidence of notability. No medical, scientific, or non-Thomas-Sowell-authored sources describe this syndrome. MastCell Talk 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restless Leg Syndrome is a recognized disorder, unlike this one although it might sound like a silly name.DGG (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are you aware of any independent, reliable secondary sources corroborating the importance of this syndrome, and if so, could you cite them here? I'm not being snarky, I just have not been able to find such sources, and without them, the syndrome, while it may or may not be a useful construct, fails Wikipedia's specific definition of notability. Book cover blurbs alone aren't enough. MastCell Talk 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is truly an important new syndrome, then we should be able to cite independent confirmation of its existence, in the form of reliable sources. I haven't been able to find such sources; if you know of some, please cite them here. MastCell Talk 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's essentially nothing in the medical literature, but I found a book review by Isabelle Rapin, a well-known and well-published autism expert. She doesn't seem to think much of it. [3] "Early, individualized intervention is mandatory for children, no matter how bright, whose language comprehension is inadequate, and for those with troublesome behavioral traits bordering on or indicative of an autistic spectrum (pervasive developmental disorder/PDD) diagnosis. Children with isolated abilities who are functionally inept in every day life are not 'Einstein children' and their deficits must be addressed promptly and specifically." As far as I can tell, this is the only piece published indepdently from the book itself that even acknowledges the existence of this theory. Since her review was written in 2002, it doesn't seem that the theory is taking hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mandsford, do you have a single indication that any realm of psychiatry or medicine has even considered this syndrome? I can't find one. Reactive attachment disorder, on the other hand, may be "ridiculed, but it is acknowledged and studied. This "syndrome" hasn't even risen to the level of ridicule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. VoltronForce 03:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korki Buchek[edit]

Very minor character from Borat/ Da Ali G Show who is only seen on screen once in an MTV promo and is mentioned only a few times on the TV show and once in the Borat movie. Although possibly notable enough for a mention either in Borat or Da Ali G Show, not sure it merits its own article. Would not at all be opposed to a merge. Rackabello 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buky ohioma[edit]

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

Apparent vanity page with dubious notability and truthfulness. Rackabello 22:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Ginsberg[edit]

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

Non-notable bit part actor. The article verges on vanispamicruft. A glance at the edit history suggests likely WP:COI as a major editor (a likely spa) is Adam Ginsberg. No verifiable sources to speak of and the individual's IMDB can only be described as vestigial (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2730930/). Bigdaddy1981 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Eluchil404 20:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwean cultural practices[edit]

Zimbabwean cultural practices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Many section titles, but no encyclopedic content since April 2007 creation. Was a prod, but author challenged in-article stating [the entry] was "inviting those who know the culture to contribute", thereby failing prod's "uncontroversial" req. Michael Devore 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is a comment like that really necessary? Corpx 04:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 15:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups[edit]

List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of players who aren't notable, an indiscriminate collection of non-notable information; no encyclopedic value. Ksy92003(talk) 22:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

otherwise it's very crufty. Kwsn(Ni!) 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:INTERESTING Jaranda wat's sup 23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, if it's a copyright violation, then it gets deleted even if we all vote to keep. And I see your point that this is lifted directly from baseball-reference.com. To be strictly technical, I'm not sure that the website's information is copyrighted. However, I abwhore plagiarism, and it is clear that someone else's work has been pirated here. Thus, you have actually persuaded me. I change my vote. Mandsford 21:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You folks are going around in circles on something that isn't even germane to this page. Let's decide first whether there should be a page like this. If the answer is no, then the copyvio question is moot. If the answer is yes, then the question can be brought to a more suitable venue. Matchups 01:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Baseball Reference article doesn't provide the navigational functionality of the WP page. And just because there is another website about it where somebody can get the information doesn't mean we're justified in deleting it here.
The trade deadline argument is cute, but a straw man. As noted in the Opening Day article, it is a particular honor to be the starting pitcher on that day. Other days of the season, somebody might get a day off because they're tired. Check attendance figures for opening day versus any other day of the season, whether the trading deadline or not. I'll bet that will confirm the importance that fans place on that game. Matchups 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, creating pages about each season would be a lot of work, but it'd be work that'd probably be more acceptable to folks. FrozenPurpleCube 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if the info is moved to all the season pages, you would have to go to over thirty different pages to get info that is now available on one page. Spanneraol 14:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but doing it that way will maintain the same information, whilst not not putting all the information on an article which currently violates WP:N, WP:CP, WP:LC, and WP:NOT#INFO. Ksy92003(talk) 18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, I disagree. Making it harder to find information aparently is your goalSpanneraol 14:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what this AfD is to debate. You don't think it violates any of those four guidelines, while I do. That's why we have AfD debates, so we can determine that. If you want to think that my goal is to make the information harder to find, then you're gravely mistaken. On the contrary, I've said numerous times that this information is already easy to find and formatted in an incredibly similar way, something you continue to deny, at Baseball-Reference's page. Ksy92003(talk) 18:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opening day has always been regarded as significantly more important than the average game. That's why the President always takes time out of his schedule to throw the first pitch, for example (going back all the way to Taft). The appeal is primarily emotional, rooted in tradition, but since baseball is a sport that's very invested in its traditions it's a pretty big deal. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the current president, Bush, has a connection to the Texas Rangers, so that could have something to do with that tradition in the league today. No doubt that the opening day game is significant amongst baseball enthusiasts, such as myself. But although the day is notable, that doesn't necessarily make the specific game any more notable, and consequently that doesn't make the list of players who played on that day a notable list. I mean there are plenty of aspects of opening day that are more significant than other days. Just to name a few: attendance, ticket prices, parking price, beer prices, the pre-game flyover. Why not something like "List of beer prices on opening day" or "List of pilots who flew over Wrigley Field on opening day?" Ksy92003(talk) 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a Bush thing. If anything, it's the opposite; Bush was roundly criticized in the press for bypassing the opening day tradition this year, making him only the second president to miss one (the first was Nixon during Watergate). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so Opening Day is a ceremonial big deal - that's why it has its own article. None of this explains why the actual lineup on opening day is any more significant than on any other day. Other than a team will usually use it's #1 pitcher on opening day, there is no other special significance to the lineup on opening day over any other day. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In comparison, the games a team plays when they have the chance to clinch a playoff spot are much more important that opening day. But it wouldn't make sense to have a list of a team's starters when they have the chance to do this, assuming they were like the Yankees and clinch a playoff spot every year, would it? I mean opening day is just one game that isn't even the most significant game a team plays during the regular 162-game season. Ksy92003(talk) 17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I didn't notice the copyvio until after I nominated it, so I probably shouldn't have brought that into the discussion at the time I did. But first, let's determine the AfD, and then if the article is kept we can deal with the copyvio discussion. But let's not remove it from the page because those discussions could become quite important later. Ksy92003(talk) 17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Terms[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, all definitions of this type were moved to Wikitionary. See Sexual Slang and history of List of sexual slang. Delete content and Redirect page title. Exxolon 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ck lostsword•T•C 20:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duo Princess[edit]

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

Unofficial and non-notable fangame. Kariteh 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per consensus. At the moment the twins are in the same position as any sportsperson whose talent has been recognised and has been taken on to develop. If they make the grade, fine, then the article may be recreated but at present they are not notable. TerriersFan 01:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Garcia Twins[edit]

Vanity of twin models "currently signed to World Wrestling Entertainment training in their developmental facility" `'Míkka 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beer can Chicken[edit]

Beer can Chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is a how-to guide, and has been transwikied. Oli Filth 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. WaltonOne 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science project[edit]

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

The entire article is a how-to guide. Oli Filth 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of online-gaming slang[edit]

List of online-gaming slang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Half of the entries in this article are actually general internet slang (e.g. leet, AFK, g2g). Many others are game-specific ('clothie', 'twink' etc are World of Warcraft only). Many others are original research and very rarely used (e.g. WMAO, YACK). Finally, this list is almost completely unsourced (not counting the "World of Warcraft glossary" as a source), as opposed to list of internet slang phrases, which has a source for every entry. I propose merging any relevant entries with list of internet slang phrases, provided a source can be found, or deleting this entirely. Melsaran 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the article I do not think that it should be merged, as many of the items are of little interest to those who would want to view the 'internet slang' article. It was originally split from the 'internet slang' page because that page was getting very long, and so I created several different pages to suit different aspects. If anything, the page should be stripped down to those phrases which are referenced. :) —porges(talk) 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much would be left when we delete game-specific slang, unsourced entries, general internet slang, and unused OR words? Melsaran 22:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not much, but I don't think it should be part of list of internet slang because of the minority appeal of the items. On the other hand, if the article is deleted, this stuff will make it into that article (for want of its own)... thus why I think it should remain separate. —porges(talk) 00:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns are editing ones, not ones with the source though. There are some general-purpose gaming terms on the glossary by Blizzard, and some that are game-specific. Deciding what to include or not? A reasonable question, but primarily a question of editing if the concept of the list is itself valid. Personally, I think there's more of a genre problem than a game-specific problem anyway. MMORPGS versus RTS versus FPS versus whatever else there is. FrozenPurpleCube 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Young[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO Epbr123 21:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messaging as a service[edit]

Messaging as a service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reads like an essay rather than an article. Appears to be original research, is unsourced and an orphan. Inshort, this requires too much work to correct and (in the event that we need this article) we would be better off starting again. Spartaz Humbug! 20:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've nothing to add to the nom, except to contribute to making it clear that there is a consensus that this article doesn't belong in wp. Guinness 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This essay does not contain information that needs an individual article. It reads well in spots but does not assert a level of importance to retain the material. --Stormbay 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonencyclopedic Mukadderat 02:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or total re-write. Reads like an essay in meaningless buzzwords. No references. --Escape Orbit 16:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ck lostsword•T•C 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz Songs[edit]

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

Highly indiscriminate collection of information, violates WP:LIST and WP:NOT#INFO. wikipediatrix 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was userfied to User:Sambc/Casey William Hardison per user request; there is an apparent consensus that the article, as currently written, is inappropriate per WP:BLP1E; however, WP:BLP1E considerations do not apply to the user namespace. WP:BLP does apply to the user namespace, but only to the extent of requiring all controversial information concerning living persons to be well-sourced, and prohibiting the creation of outright attack pages (well-sourced or not); the content of this article is acceptable in the user namespace, meeting the limited requirements of WP:BLP there. Userfication is favored in light of the fact that Sambc credibly claims that the content of this article may be useful in another article, in a context not offending the requirements of WP:BLP1E. Per the author attribution requirements of the GFDL, the page history of this article must be retained for its content to be merged to another article. John254 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note: cross-namespace redirect deleted after userfication. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casey William Hardison[edit]

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

The subject's court case and appeal were reported, according to gnews archives, but that reporting appears to be limited only to the days immediately following those events. It seems that there has been no reporting since. If the case results in significant changes, which it has not to date, an article may be justified. For now, when we discount the trivial news reporting, there's nothing much left. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I went ahead and blanked the article. The last full version from the history can be viewed here. - Crockspot 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unblanked it as there was no consensus to make an exception to the "don't blank when under AFD" rule. SamBC(talk) 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to invoke WP:IGNORE and reblank, per the spirit and intent of WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLP1E. If no one else has an objection, I will do so. - Crockspot 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 1 person on each side of the question doesn't really make anything like consensus, and WP:IAR is only about improving the encyclopedia; I would suggest a review of WP:WIARM. I can see the arguments for blanking, and I can see arguments against, and I think there's no need to be hasty as there's no suggestion of anything being untrue. The links provided aren't to reliable sources, admittedly, but that doesn't mean there aren't any, and the fact that there's several gives one the clue that it may well be accurate. I'm currently reviewing a very large number of google results to find reliable coverage, and it would seem premature to blank without this check. Remember, assume good faith SamBC(talk) 23:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning your good faith. I'm thinking of WWJD. (What would Jimbo do?). He would blank it. This article should have just been speedied, and very nearly was. The text is available at the link above, and WP:V requires us to remove any unsourced material, and WP:BLP guides us to do it without discussion or consensus-building. Those things override any instruction stated in a template. - Crockspot 23:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some are guided by WWJW. (What would Jesus Wiki?). -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a variety of things online that indicate all sorts of things. That does not address the fact that not a single reliable source is cited in the article. It says a variety of things that if untrue, are very very bad. Even if it were to be magically well sourced, it would still violate WP:BLP1E. - Crockspot 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found two BBC reports, and I'm on the trail of at least one from the local paper, establishing the facts of the case (the arrests, the court judgement, and so on). I will edit the article to be much more NPOV and as verifiable as I can once I've rounded them up (in the coming hours). SamBC(talk) 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll hold off blanking then, so you can work on it. But unless you can get the article to assert that it is not in violation of WP:BLP1E, I'm still supporting a speedy deletion. - Crockspot 23:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the fact that he has written lots of (ethically dubious) articles on the subject of the right to take mind-altering substances ought to help with that... along with the fact that his arrest made the news, and then it was still thought of as important by the time he was sentenced, as that was reported as well. SamBC(talk) 23:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, he's not really an academic, so any judgement under notability guidelines will have to be a bit fudged as he doesn't really fit into any boxes. I've made some progress: assuming that I source most of the pointful stuff marked as needing a source, what do you think of it so far? The activism and research needs expanding, but I'm working on that now. SamBC(talk) 02:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm done for the night; I've removed the inuse tag, but I imagine I'll put it back at some point tomorrow to finish off, or at least to do enough to address concerns as best I can. SamBC(talk) 02:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the changes do anything to address the problems that led to this being here. The reporting remains fairly minor, still limited to the case and appeal. What we need is something showing that Hardison's case has garnered more independent interest than that, otherwise BLP1E is very much relevant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to userfy. Just copy the text of the current article and save it in your computer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write the whole thing, so it would seem to be a GFDL requirement to keep the article and build the new article around it, to maintain contribution attributions. There seems no reason not to userfy, seeing as there seems no longer to be any serious BLP concerns (like verifiability) - it's just notability at issue. SamBC(talk) 22:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history can be merged back later. That's not a problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem easier to just move the article to a subpage of my userpage in the first place, and delete the redirect. Is there some reason not to? It's easier from my point of view for it to be userfied, because I can edit it and actually see what I'm doing, rather than editing raw wikitext. SamBC(talk) 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that. Let;s wait until this AfD is closed and ask the admin closing to enact that move. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good plan to me. - Crockspot 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE - Nabla 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fesu (rapper)[edit]

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

Subject was briefly signed to a defunct MCA division, has three albums from "small, independent" labels. Not speediable, but I have serious concerns whether he meets WP:MUSIC. Delete. Xoloz 20:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP info, MERGED to Richard Gephardt. (I did a "quick merge") - Nabla 01:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Gephardt Papers Project[edit]

Richard A. Gephardt Papers Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about the personal papers project of Richard Gephardt. Notability is not transferable--while the papers' subject is notable, the project isn't. Blueboy96 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is very common from one POV of view (there are many archives of famous folks), and very uncommon from another (it seems to be the only one for Dick!) -- hence, the merge to him, as his admirers (and detractors) are likely to find it a unique resource. Xoloz 21:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Exactly, this is similar to a source/topic confusion, where an editor believes that because something fulfills the WP:RS criteria it is WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 05:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per the added sources by Jakew. Non-admin closure; I believe the article would not have been listed for deletion if it originally looked the way it looks now. Shalom Hello 17:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HPTi[edit]

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

I'm not comfortable speedy deleting this (as the government work is an assertion of notability), but this thing has no sources, failing WP:V badly. Delete. Xoloz 20:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE Song not even yet published, let alone sourced. Discussion on talk whether the song even exists is also inconclusive. Redirect to article not mentioning it does not seem to be an option to me. Feel free to recreate *when* the single/video comes out and secondary sources exist - Nabla 01:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd Control (song)[edit]

Crowd Control (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Supposed future single release, pure speculation, no reliable sources to confirm this, the article basically has nothing at this point. I'd suggest merge to an album article, but that information is not here either. - eo 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE - Nabla 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenaro garcia[edit]

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

nonnotable military man, with lots of simple medals `'Míkka 19:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Deckiller 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Palace[edit]

Super Mario Palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fancruft. Pleasehelp 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE - Nabla 01:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Palma[edit]

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

vanity, freshly graduated fashion designer `'Míkka 19:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jónas Aðalsteinsson[edit]

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

Non-notable biographical article. Fails WP:N bigstyle. Prod tag removed by independent editor, but the man is just a lawyer, no assertion of notability. Google search agrees. Jdcooper 18:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE - Nabla 01:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McCullough[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N. Article created by SPA, likely vanity post. McCullough has been the subject of a Kentucky Post article, but I do not feel this is enough to warrant an entire Wikipedia page especially as it the Post article is more or less a human interest piece. Sorted as part of WP:WPNN. Daniel J. Leivick 18:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scot Young Research[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Scot Young Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I created this article after it had already been deleted, which is OK as I provided sources. However, I'm not sure that the subject of this article has been the subject of non-trivial, multiple reliable published sources. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

log (add to top of list)

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

The result was DELETE - Nabla 01:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Lyall[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. No notability is apparent on internet (conflict of interest as well). The Evil Spartan 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepers Crow[edit]

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

Non-notable expression. Sources cited are mainly dictionaries, and as we all know, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also a slice of spam: article apparently was created largely to promote a non-notable album by this name. Contested prod. Realkyhick 17:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. Article will remain for now. VoltronForce 03:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of S.H.E covers and parodies[edit]

  • First off, keep a civil tongue in your head. As for your specific objection, any song by S.H.E that's won an award is notable in and of itself and should either be added to the band's discography or have an article written about it. A list of every song they've covered is not encyclopedic. Otto4711 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then in this situation, your vote would be to Merge with S.H.E discography. Pandacomics 22:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I shall reiterate once again that the group is notable for covering songs by other artists. There was an article in the Beijing Times that I'd gladly share with you that essentially says "Lots of [Chinese] artists have covered songs, but the extent that S.H.E has covered songs is just disgusting." This isn't the same as the other artists you provided, who compose the majority of their own work, and use covers simply to complement their other songs. S.H.E's first single as a cover. The lead single for their second album was also a cover. Both of their compilation albums have two covers. Pandacomics 22:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this list would be better included in a complete discography. --Ideogram 13:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race science[edit]

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

This is an obvious POV fork from Scientific racism. The two references invoked, Stephen Jay Gould and The Bell Curve, are already cited in Scientific racism. Tazmaniacs 17:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that rationale is untenable. I see only three possibilities:
  1. Race science should be deleted as a POV fork. RS contains no material worthy of inclusion in Scientific racism.
  2. Race science ought to be merged with Scientific racism. That is, RS contains some valuable information (not worthy of deletion) but the subjects largely overlap.
  3. The subjects are distinct, and RS is worthy of an article on its own.
Do you accept that these are the options available?
My assessment is as follows. The sources in the RS article are reliable and independent, and contain noon-trivial coverage of the subject. This rules out the "delete as POV fork" option. Between the other two options, the correct place for discussion is a merge proposal on the talkpage. Skomorokh incite 15:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in Race science which Scientific racism does not already cover & includes. SR already dealt with Stephen Jay Gould and with J. Philippe Rushton. The only info in RS which is not in SR is the paragraph on Richard Lewontin, which besides lacking a proper reference & being more than disputable in its current form, belongs to the article race. Thus, yes, deletion is the appropriate course to follow. Tazmaniacs 11:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 08:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft: Revelations[edit]

StarCraft: Revelations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. No reliable sources attest to the notability of the story. Otto4711 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq 17:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The Salon and IGN stories provides some sources. The article is still a mess needs cleanup. -- Whpq 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I believe it's considered notable because it meets, if weakly: "The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." (The standard from WP:BK, should obviously be applicable to a short story). Does that answer your question? I'm wondering did you miss those sources somehow? FrozenPurpleCube 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weaklazyliar[edit]

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

Atlanta band. Asserts notability (use of songs in TV shows), but no sources. Only news sources I could find were short mentions in local Atlanta alternative newspapers. 252 unique Google hits. NawlinWiki 17:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drumtar[edit]

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

Non-notable. Article contains no sources substantiating notability, mentions no notable musicians who have used the instrument, and no notable tracks on which the instrument has been used. A Google search returned plenty of results for an unrelated MIDI controller, but nothing about this particular instrument. Article was deprodded on the grounds that all instruments are inherently notable. Nick Graves 17:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunken Defense[edit]

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

Delete - probably speedyable but since people like the video games I thought it'd best come here. No assertion of notability in the article. Don't appear to be reliable sources establishing notability. Article has been tagged as unreferenced since January. Has some serious game guide issues. Otto4711 17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Island Defense[edit]

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

This is an individual user-created map played in Warcraft III. Not only is it original research, but it also has doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sdornan 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, there's no evidence offered that anyone other than the creators know or care about this map, but buried within the text I suppose "taken the idea to the next level" is an assertion of notability, so well done on spotting it. Iain99 10:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Looker[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Page created by author who is involved with serious WP:WALL problems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leigh_Casino&action=history, and all the contributors contributions), thus a likely WP:COI is involved. In any case, the artist is non-notable. The Evil Spartan 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted as spam, with a reminder to not edit Wikipedia from the wireless at the bar. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo Lobo[edit]

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

combination of patent nonsense and self-promotion DCE 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Singularity 01:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larisa Arap[edit]

Users 62.105.155.114 and Jaro.p had suggesed deletion of the article the same day it was created. This indicates that their motivation has political reasons. The article itself is neutral. Targeman: this is not joke; not 104 entries, but 10^4 entries; not 105 entries, but 10^5 entries. (Please confirm if your graphical interface allows to see the difference between 105 and 10^5=100000). In addition, since that time, the number of entries twiced; in addition, we should count also the entries for "Larissa Arap" (similar order of magnitude). Sorry, I late answering the question by Targeman (I just saw the error in his/her estimates), but it is not yet too late. Please, remove the unappropriate tag. dima 00:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and rewrite per the two above me. --Sethacus 21:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It needs to be completely re-written by someone who speaks the language of origin, and has an advanced grasp of English. The current article is extremely difficult to follow, even after I've fixed most of the obvious, egregious errors.
  • It needs someone to get English references into it. Unfortunately, the majority of the references are in a foreign language, and therefore of little use to the English reader who doesn't speak that language (and thereby unverifiable by English readers, as well).
  • The issue of WP:NOT#NEWS for now at least, it seems to be newsworthy. However, we are to consider the long-term historical notability of persons and events, and to that, only time will tell. If it does not remain notable in the historical perspective, the valid information could possibly be merged into another article, perhaps there is some article that details mistreatment of patients at certain facilities (I've no clue, just a thought), and it could be merged into that. Ariel♥Gold 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this revision to compare current article with article at the time AfD was listed. I've done quite a bit of work and it looks quite different, so I thought I'd provide the link to the last revision prior to my undertaking the task of re-writing. (I'm still working on it with a Russian editor.)Ariel♥Gold 23:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was CUBS WIN! CUBS WIN! CUBS WIN! Speedy keep; non-admin closure. Shalom Hello 06:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bartman[edit]

Please delete, as with Matt Murphy (baseball fan), attempting to catch a baseball does not make one notable. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Murphy (baseball fan). Burntsauce 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:COATRACK#What is not a coatrack. Clarityfiend 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, sorry. Under WP:Notability, it is notable if it has significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. BBC News and ESPN seem like reliable sources. Furthering that, I have a few more that can be added...
ESPN: Identity of "Cubs Fan"
USA Today: Fan Who Deflected Ball
Fox News: Statement from Bartman
The Seattle Times: Tickets For Bartman
I hope these help. Silver seren 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, one Ghit (this page). NawlinWiki 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Nazi Unity[edit]

Turkish Nazi Unity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nom - a self-proclaimed "party" with a self-proclaimed membership of 300 and no sources other than its own website hardly seems worthy of inclusion within an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for details. Rklawton 16:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no indep. sources. NawlinWiki 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Bolshevik Party USA[edit]

National Bolshevik Party USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonexistent party. Article National bolshevism says: "There is also a group of people in the United States called National Bolshevik Party USA which attempts to create an American National Bolshevik party." Wikipedia is not vehicle for their promo. Mukadderat 16:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 - article does not assert notability of this party. Further, I can find no registration of this party anywhere, nor can I find a single verifiable source. To be honest, I only found two sources total - the party's website, and this article. So tagged. Sidatio 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Helix[edit]

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

Fancruft. No listing of who created the character, no mention of it in official or major fan sources, Google search only brings up 36 hits. Furthermore, only known picture is a screenshot from the game, whereas NCSoft/Cryptic usually release higher definition renders for their signature characters. IPAddressConflict 16:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, nominator withdrew and there was no other support for deleting, so closing early. —David Eppstein 07:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decurrent[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Dictionary definition already transwikied to Wiktionary. TexasAndroid 16:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this AFD. Outcome is obviously going to be keep, page has improved quite a bit since I listed it, so there's really no reason to drag this out any longer. - TexasAndroid 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note regarding this debate has been left to WikiProject Plants. Circeus 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft: Enslavers II[edit]

StarCraft: Enslavers II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In-universe plot summary of a PC game. All other articles covering the game's storyline were deleted some time ago, but this one was missed The Clawed One 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I must, however, object to an erroneous argument put forth by Andy: non-English sources are admitted on the English Wikipedia just like English sources, as long as they conform to WP:RS and other policies. It is only that English sources are preferred. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. Kurykh 23:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar vishwas[edit]

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

Contested prod. No evidence of notability - it's asserted but cannot be verified by any references.

It's claimed that the subject of this article is a major poet, has received a gold medal, has represented India and has written popular books and film scripts. There are no references to prove any of this. There's just a single line in a newspaper report about some kind of award - but what sort of award and why was it given? As far as the reference goes it could be for cookery.

The article originally had references in Hindi. Despite requests the author hasn't replaced them with English references. Right now all that can be confidently stated about Kumar Vishwas is that someone of that name once received an award for something. andy 15:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless substantial sources can be found. There are a lot of blogs and Youtube-like sites that feature him, but that seems to be the bulk of it at the moment.--Sethacus 16:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The site is in Hindi so it cannot count as an adequate reference for an English-language article. Also, if it's his own site then it's autobiographical and therefore fails the requirement that sources should be independent of the subject. andy 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by User:TexasAndroid, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Reed (Journalist, Author, and Disc Jockey)[edit]

John F. Reed (Journalist, Author, and Disc Jockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pretty blatant conflict of interest here. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 nonnotable, g1 nonsense, WP:NFT, you name it. NawlinWiki 17:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Mialdo[edit]

Kingdom of Mialdo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Micronation that appears to have been made up in one day. No apparent notability. I was going to speedy it, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Bart133 (t) (c) 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Devine[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 15:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --- RockMFR 22:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Vera[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 15:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Explored[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability for the subject which is essentially the same as its notable "cousin" the Alpha course. Essentially, the article is working as an advertisement for the course. This is the second time this article has been AfDed. What's more, the people and organizations associated with this particular course have been recently deleted for notability reasons:

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian The Language[edit]

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

Unsourced article on supposedly extinct South Asian language. The strange title came about because the author initially made his changes to Indian language [23] until he was challenged for verification from reliable sources. [24] [25] The only "source" that the author(s) have provided is [26], which fails the reliable source guideline completely.

I'm aware that for most unsourced articles we add ((unsourced)) and let them fester wait till someone comes along with the sources. But in this case a claim is being made that an entire language with its own script has existed/is existing - and all the information is unsourced. This is the Porchesia hoax all over again. Thus I urge deletion unless links to detailed write-ups about this "language" from reputable sources are given within five days. (If the outcome of this discussion is "delete", please delete the misleading redirect Ancient Indian language (originally a duplicate of this page), and the accompanying Template:Indianlang infobox too.) Resurgent insurgent 14:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Indianádan? ←BenB4 15:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious to know why you think this appears real. --Kuaichik 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 08:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes in English grammar[edit]

Disputes in English grammar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a mutual WP:OR essay unsupported by sources, and with a questionable WP:NPOV (for which it has been tagged and detagged several times in its history). I see no place to merge or redirect this, and I question its validity. Delete. Note: There is also a questionable category Category:Disputes in English grammar. SilkTork 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources - there are links to articles that may in some way relate to a sentence in the essay, but they are not sources for the concept or topic of "Disputes in English grammar". The topic is original research generated by Wikipedia editors - what I have termed "mutual WP:OR". I would be happy for you to indicate any non-mirror source that deals with the subject of "Disputes in English grammar". SilkTork 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not been proved. And the POV results from the stance that there is "disagreement about whether given constructions constitute correct English." as that assumes a "prescriptivist" stance rather than a "descriptivist" view. The whole article assumes "prescriptivist". Read English grammar which is a decent article that deals neutrally and properly with any difficulties or differences thrown up by cultural changes in usage of grammar. SilkTork 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do have sympathy for this view. However Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#People_put_a_lot_of_work_into_it gives the response. It appears to me that the article doesn't have problems so much as it shouldn't exist at all. It looks to me as if it breaks all the core principles of WP - it is original research, it is unsourced, it is not notable, it has a specific point of view that it is pushing, and it is not encyclopedic. SilkTork 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary - the fact that after so many contributions this article is still chock-a-block with weasel words, unsourced statements and original research suggests it's unlikely to succeed. I'd gladly help it with some of my own expertise, but not under the current title. Sorry, but from a linguist's point of view, this article is amateurish. --Targeman 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands is woolly and un-encyclopedic. I don't feel that the section "Different forms of English" belongs there, as they often cause confusion but rarely dispute. On the other hand the conflict between "Prescription and description" does cause heated disputes, as evidenced by the cited examples. I can't think of anything else which does. Linguistic prescription contains a subsection "Prescription and description in conflict" but, in the interests of balance, should not the same be put into Descriptive linguistics? My preferred solution would be for the existing article to be trimmed down and tightened up to focus solely on "prescription vs description". The existing title might not be entirely accurate but does at least have the virtue of being fairly plain English. I would suggest that the existing title should be kept until after the re-focussing and then there should be a separate debate on change of title.Petecarney 14:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh 23:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable presenter. Oli Filth 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess it's all up to interpretation, but I don't see how a historian for basically what is a museum or whatnot, is a creative professional? Actually, to be more bold, there is no way in hell she is a creative professional. She's just historian. She's not an author, or an artist, or anything of the sort, has no WP:RS, and has done nothing of notable interest --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:BIO, creative professionals include "scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals." IMO, Smith's work as curator of Tutbury Castle and the historic research project qualifies her. --Evb-wiki 18:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I said, it's up to interpretation, and IMO, her being a historian is not even close to being a "creative professional". --sumnjim talk with me·changes 18:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The unlinked ones are either too old to be live on their sites, or else unarchived: they come from the NewsBank online UK newspaper archive (for which you need either a subscription or, as in my case, library ticket home access). If you had your e-mail option activated, I could send them. Gordonofcartoon 09:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been a little gunshy about email since my old account was compromised. I've enabled email now, so you should have no problem.--Sethacus 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Sent. Gordonofcartoon 16:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to strong keep upon receiving hard copy of the cited articles, which satisfy notability.--Sethacus 03:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Company[edit]

Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Advertisement for a nonnotable company. Shalom Hello 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a1, no content, not an article but a help request. NawlinWiki 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bring Back My Summer Love[edit]

Bring Back My Summer Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This really does not provide any information. No point in keeping an entry like this Joedoedoe 13:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No third party sources. Sandstein 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism Queen International 2007[edit]

Miss Tourism Queen International 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Weak delete The pageant might be somewhat notable, but I am unconvinced that this particular edition of the pageant is notable on its own. There are a lot of ghits but these seem to be a somewhat ambiguous collection of fansites and mirrors. Searching Google news for Miss Tourism Queen International 2007 comes up with only 4 hits, although the pageant was held recently. I'm not strongly in favour of deletion, but I am unsure whether it meets notability criteria so I thought I'd bring it here. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely worth it The pageant is definitely notable, and specificially this edition, particularly to the pageant world. Other articles don't nearly have as much notability and remain on this site. This edition contained, as noted on the page, the highest number of contestants out of ANY international beauty contest. Simply because the Google world does not have enough information on the pageant provides this page with more reason for being here as it informs people that it exists: Miss Tourism Queen International does not have a huge internet fan base, like Miss Universe or Miss World, but it still is quite noteworthy, and particularly the 2007 edition. One-hundred and eight contestants is quite a large amount of contestants and Miss Tourism Queen International 2007 even features the international beauty contest debut of numerous countries (such as Somalia and Niue) making it more than important. I may be partial to its non-deletion because I created it, but these were the beliefs I held when I created it. Bulldoggie101 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm certainly not one of the haters :P My point is simply that there are other non-notable large-scale international pageants around so sheer numbers doesn't, in my opinion, make this a notable event. Considering that there were so many competitors, don't you think there should have been more news coverage? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I meant to add one more thing.... Miss America's Outstanding Teen is a notable pageant. However, this year there has been less coverage of the event itself... thus, while I was originally going to write a Miss America's Outstanding Teen 2007 article, I can see that this particular instance is not notable enough to justify inclusion. Same reasoning applies to Tourism Queen Int'l. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. is this article still up for deletion? Because someone - not me - deleted the Afd notice on the page. Bulldoggie101 05:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, more on sourcing concerns than COI. COI is never a sole reason to delete an article. Kurykh 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Energy Finance Directory[edit]

Sustainable Energy Finance Directory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No evidence of notability, 61 unique ghits. Creator / primary editor appears to have a serious conflict of interest with the topic. Deiz talk 10:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bushby[edit]

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

Article about a writer created by an SPA. Read this review of his main book. -- RHaworth 09:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U-commerce[edit]

U-commerce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article contains what appears to be OR, as well as lots of vauge claims and future predictions. The article is not referenced nor is the article written in an encyclopaedic tense, reading more like promotional material. I do not believe that this fails the noterity test as there do exist some papers by a particular university group on the subject, but I believe the concept to be equivalent to the comment of "e-commerce" just with embedded computing, and thus not worthy of its own page. Please comment, Thanks User A1 09:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i think it treads upon wiki is not a dictionary. Forgot that one. User A1 09:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snowball keep. the topic is the official law; well referenced and nontrivial, although indeed sounds like a bad joke. But life is full of such jokes. `'Míkka 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation Application[edit]

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

“Reincarnation Application” is a neologism, not an established, specific technical term. The article is original research about a minor current event, poorly sourced and fails to meet notability criteria. —Babelfisch 08:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep. Clearly, I made an error in judgement here. Based on the overwhelming evidence and further personal research, this article should be kept! --Siva1979Talk to me 13:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a *partial* list, it clearly has more than enough notability and verifiability, the only real debate here is the name --Lucid 09:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Tiger Kenpo[edit]

White Tiger Kenpo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As far as I can tell this is taught at a couple of locations only. I call WP:NN advertisement. I PRODed the article several months back but the person who removed it did not address the issues.Peter Rehse 08:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Duff Beer (The Simpsons). It may not be part of the movie promotion but still doesn't warrant an article of its own. — Malcolm (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duff Energy Drink[edit]

Duff Energy Drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flaming Moe Energy Drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I suspect a hoax, but even beyond that we have no references of any kind (WP:V), and no explaination of why the subject is important (WP:N). Google search not promising: [28] Marasmusine 08:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Redirect to Duff Beer (The Simpsons) for Duff Energy Drink and Delete Flaming Moe Energy Drink. --Lenticel (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing my vote up there to Merge and redirect to Duff Beer (The Simpsons). Apparently, it already *is* on the Duff Beer article, albeit just a stub sentence and an external link (which should satisfy verifiability). Merge just the relevant, encyclopedic info, no need for the nutritional facts and composition. Shrumster 08:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm going to deal with your comments one by one. First, the objection that these are not part of the 7-11 KeM promotion, or even the movie promotion is a valid one. It would help if you would provide sources to indicate that though. Your second statement about disappointment because of the effort you put into it is something that reflects I think an attitude of possessiveness and ownership of the articles. Sorry, but while being polite and considerate to you is important, there isn't any value given to anybody's amount of edits. I also think you misunderstand the concept of category. All articles should belong to some category, that's organizational. What you're talking about is a singular relationship between the products. And I think you're missing the obvious one. The producer of the products. There might be other places, but that seems the obvious one. FrozenPurpleCube 19:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, this is an inexperienced user, who might take comments like that last one a bit off. I suggest trying to be more gentle and avoiding the funny remarks (and yes, I did laugh, but I can see in this case there might be a problem). Anyway, to Ordealbyfire there is nothing wrong with the picture, I'm guessing you didn't know you needed to put copyright information in a form that the bot could read. I don't blame you for this, I think these bots are annoying myself, but I'll set up the template on the image for you. As for this article (which is different from the image), the problem is a lack of sources. Everything on the page is just your opinion, without saying where it comes from. This is a problem on Wikipedia, which needs sources in many cases. At the least, linking to the manufacturer of the product's page would show folks that it did exist. Note, BTW, nobody is saying you did anything wrong, in the sense that you ought to be punished or chided, but perhaps you are inexperienced with how an article is written on Wikipedia. That's understandable, a lot of folks don't know it either. And even some of those who do have disagreements. FrozenPurpleCube 21:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is an article on Billy Beer. FrozenPurpleCube 00:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FuBar[edit]

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

I actually make use of this World of Warcraft user interface plugin (it's great!), but I see no evidence that it meets any relevant notability criterion. JavaTenor 07:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No Consensus.. CitiCat ♫ 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World War III in popular culture[edit]

World War III in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another pop culture trivia collection that doesn't serve much purpose besides being a massive list of cluttered trivia. RobJ1981 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The existing policy, WP:NOT#DIR, is in the main sufficient to deal with most of these trivia traps. WP:USEFUL is not a persuasive argument for keeping. As has been noted above, if there are ources that discuss WW3 in pop culture as a concept, then an article on the concept would undoubtedly be quite welcome. Whereas a listing of every future war from every piece of fiction is not. Otto4711 17:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will struggle to assume good faith here and believe that you aren't delibrately trying to mislead people by saying that NOT#DIR doesn't apply to these articles, when it's clear through the deletion of close to if not more than 100 of these pop culture articles as directories of loosely associated topics that NOT#DIR applies. No one appears to be saying that a sourced article on the concept of WW3 in pop culture would be unacceptable, but, again, this is not an article about the concept. It is a list of fictional military conflicts that take place after 1945, many of which are not even called "World War III" within the fiction from which they're drawn. Otto4711 21:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think JulesH's principle for sorting out the right ones is a good idea. In this particular article, many of the items really belong in another place, such as nuclear war in ... or future war in ... DGG (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the bullet points have been turned into complete sentences. That doesn't make the actual topics of the sentences any more closely associated. Otto4711 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto4711, the entire article was rewritten. The very first paragraph establishes the topics' association: World War III is a common theme in popular culture. Since the 1940s, countless books, films, and television programmes have used the theme of nuclear weapons and a third global war.[1] The presence of the Soviet Union as an international rival armed with nuclear weapons created a persistent fear in the United States. There was a pervasive dread of a nuclear World War III, and popular culture reveals the fears of the public at the time.[2] This theme in the arts was also a way of exploring a range of issues far beyond nuclear war.[3] The historian Spencer R. Weart called nuclear weapons a "symbol for the worst of modernity."[1]. There are a few sentences establishing context at the start of each sub-section, before relevant examples are given. Could you point me towards an "X in popular culture" article that you think is suitable for Wikipedia? --Bláthnaid 17:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cant label these fictional conflicts as "World War III". They're fictional conflicts that are set in the future, but they're not WW3 Corpx 17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Exactly. As has been pointed out from the jump, every fictional war that takes place after 1945 is not by definition "World War III." "Fear of nuclear weapons" doesn't automatically translate into "fear of World War III." A nuclear war is not automatically World War III; indeed, the only nuclear war we've had was not World War III. Otto4711 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I see where you are coming from now. I still disagree, though :p. For example at the start of the 1980s section it says ...In the early 1980s there was a feeling of alarm in Europe and North America that a nuclear World War III was imminent.[8]...This worry manifested itself in the popular culture of the time, with images of nuclear war in books, film, music, and television.[6] That point alone is enough for the article to be kept and built on. How about the 1950s section? The book The Horror Film: An Introduction makes the connection between WWIII fears and the popularity of science-fiction films, I didn't. In the 1960s section, the quote about fears of a nuclear attack kicking off WWIII being expressed in film is attributed to Susan Sontag. The fear was mostly of a nuclear World War III, but there were other interpretations e.g. Tom Clancy. There are enough reliable sources for the article to be kept. Of course, the article still needs a lot of work, and I appreciate your advice. --Bláthnaid 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite every item on that list as being referred to as WW3 by a reliable source? Otherwise they should be removed and it would leave the article quite empty Corpx 00:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenDevelop GNU/Linux[edit]

AfDs for this article:
OpenDevelop GNU/Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I've nominated this in July and the AfD was closed due to lack of consensus. Actually there was [little] consensus, but Sandstein's real concern seems to have been that the claim that the topic was not notable was not backed. Sorry, I thought this would be obvious. So: No reliable sources found to establish notability. More convincingly, a "notable" Linux distribution should get at least 50 thousand preliminary hits on Google. "OpenDevelop GNU/Linux" gets only 163. To be fair, since this name is long, I checked OpenDevelop Linux -wikipedia , which only gets 246 preliminary hits. Chealer 05:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being on it won't make it notable, but not being on something like that probably doesn't help its claim to notability. KTC 09:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G11.-Wafulz 13:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MySafe-PC[edit]

MySafe-PC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. Article title gets four google hits. Weregerbil 05:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7 (web content). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perry The Perv[edit]

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

Non-notable online game which fails WP:WEB. fuzzy510 04:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete everything per WP:V, WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL. Sandstein 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Heroes[edit]

Primary article: Shattered Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film. The author of this article has uploaded and added everything else related to this film.

Here are all the articles and images related to this film:

Phew. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The articles for the people are basing the guys' notability on their involvement with the movie, which does not exist. And even if this small-time production should be completed, there's no assurance that it will get widespread distribution or otherwise prove to be notable. That constitutes crystalballery enough for me. Deor 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. IMDb.com shows through the Pro Access this film is in Production with verified, secured, escrow funds in the amount of $10,000,000.00. Small - time Production? That statement in itself is crystal ball. Speculative and not fact! A noted media source like IMDb.com viewed by millions is hardly considered not reliable! IMDb.com also shows that the production has a distribution company attached. This can only be achieved through IMDb.com when a letter of intent in writing is provided to IMDb.com showing pre-distribution foundation through theatrical and or DVD release. In addition there are several SAG Union actor's attached to the production that can only be secured through contractual agreements with the Actor's Talent Agents and or Talent Managers. For SAG Actor's to be attached to a film production means that the Production has supplied SAG with documentation, permits secured from State and Local agencies for filming as well as provided documentation of safety guidelines, permits again from state and local agencies providing proof that the Production of the film meets all safety guidelines, has secured EMT/Firefighter resources as well as Law Enforcement presence on-set and during filming. That is how IMDb.com establishes weather or not an upcoming film production is to be listed. It is the difference between rumored / Crystal Ball info and information brought to light through well established guidelines and channels that historically have an extremely long paper trail. (Analogy) You take your car to a mechanic and he tells you that your starter is bad. Do you believe him? You take your car to an accredited Automotive Shop and they bring you the starter from your car with test results from a certified and recognized industry standard test machine and show you the results. The high end and low end voltage not meeting normal operating capacity and advise that the unit needs to be replaced. talk 9:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. The Film is confirmed, and is in fact, Re-Shooting, which on IMDb the Director states. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDB is not a reliable source. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evula is More of a reliable source? Again you are basing this off your own opinion and not the opinion of millions of view IMDb.com daily and believe it to be a reliable source. This is bias! So because you are an Editor here, your opinion matters more? These discussions are to be accounted by the rules, guidelines, policies and practices set fourth by Wikipedia. This has been established in an attempt to keep personal judgment out of the equation so that subject matter can be reviewed fairly and objectively. I do not see this happening here! Again such infractions could be a smoking gun and damaging to Wikipedia in a whole. Re-asses and re-evaluate according to proper guidlines! According to the reliable source IMDb.com would be a reliable source. Further more, the media source "Estrada Media" is also a reliable source. IMDb.com uses the same methodology as Wikipedia for making such decisions. So how can they be any less reliable than Wikipedia itself? talk 10:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Comment Also from that same guidline; # MySpace: MySpace is generally not acceptable even as a self-published source, because most of it is anonymous or pseudonymous. If the identity of the author can be confirmed in a reliable, published source, then it can be used with the caution appropriate to a self-published source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Are_wikis_reliable_sources.3F Note this as the myspace supporting links on these articles are listed in IMDb.com as being verified official web presences for the Actor's in question. The myspace.com web presence for Actor James Hall is also listed in the Estrada Media Publication in print given by the Actor himself during the interview as being his official myspace presence. Also I have found archive audio from "Inside Entertainment" conducting live radio show interviews with each of these Actor's in question as well as the director. Each gave their official myspace page url during the interview as well as the myspace url for the Shattered Heroes official myspace presence as well as the imdb.com url for the Movie. The more I research this the more I find these guys in the public eye! I just questioned the Chief Editor of "movievine.com" if they have heard anything relative to these actor's or the film, "Shattered Heroes". The Chief Editor said, "Yes, we are currently writing an article about these upcoming professionals which will be featured soon in our New Film's section as well as Entertainment News.talk 11:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Comment. Well how about this, I asked the Director myself and he said it is. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 05:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment . . . and that director (Jesse Johnson (director) is "most notable for his role of writing, acting in, and directing Shattered Heroes". That article should be included in this group deletion --KenWalker | Talk 18:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A group of people nobody has ever heard of? Again, IMDb.com is viewed by millions of people. The Pro Access and discussion boards show "Star Meters" for every entry in IMDb.com. These statistics are based off media releases, interviews, publications, user votes, etc. The star meters of all the involved talent with the production are very respectable. In addition the article shows verification of a print publication by Estrada Media in FL. I called this entity through the address information listed for the company and verified that the article and interview of Actor James Hall, did in fact take place. This also is not Crystal Ball. It was a real interview, with a real recognized Media Publication entity. So, it would appear that the event did in fact take place and was factually printed by the Media Resource based of the actual events and accounts of the interview during the interview process. This also shows public interest. Why would a media resource do an interview on someone they have not heard of or does not believe is of public interest? That does not sell magazines! Puff Piece? You are commenting on a dialog from a script in reference of the character bio. Hardly appropriate! Please show some dignity and common respect to others. This is not a slander session but a discussion on an article. When you make it personal that shows your judgment is clouded and based of personal views rather than the information at hand and in itself is against wiki rule, policies and guidelines for making these decisions. Further more through researching the actual article from Estrada Media, "On The Outside Magazine" I found this magazine is a professional distribution to film industry professionals and that during the interview it was discussed and validated that the Productions "Movie Poster" is displayed at the National WWII Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana. Also that Clint Eastwood while attending a tour of the museum after premiering "Flag Of Our Fathers" saw the poster and contacted the Production company with interest and visited a set in Alabama where the Production Company was filming. This was covered by a local TV News Station and I was able to watch archived News footage covering the event. Further research revealed that the National VFW is supporting the film Nationwide as they are in support of the film as it touches on the subject matter of PTSD (Post traumatic Stress Disorder). During that research I was advised by VFW personal that the film was also being recognized by France as they want to have the film inducted into their Historical Society as the film also contains a Pro-French account of the French's involvement in WWII. France has already played the Film Teaser at Cannes and is in negotiation of having the film's Theatrical Debut at Cannes. It would appear that the following of this film is wide spread and of not only public interest but also of interest to National Organizations. I think that the deletion of this article may bring some bad Public Media to wikipedia. Has anyone though about this or explored this side of the situation? Further more with the dialog being used by some of the Editors here like, "Puff Piece" etc. can be viewed by the public. Anyone wishing to read this discussion as I have. And even post without using a user name. The dialog here shows bias and is clearly not being viewed by proper guidelines. The dialog here and the decision process is not being executed fairly or by supporting evidence provided. Weather or not your view is that IMDb.com is accurate enough in your opinion, is just that. Your opinion. The fact is that millions of people who view IMDb.com daily rely on the information and follow their interests about and surrounding the film industry at that media resource. Do to that fact! IMDb.com makes every effort to ensure that their content material is accurate, founded and supported. Not much different than that of Wikipedia. They to have discussion boards and Editors who review and research the material in a professional objective and un-bias manner to establish and decide weather or not the content material stays. And the "Fact" that the material on the Actor's in question, as well as the film material are listed proves to be interesting as a body of researches have explored this same subject matter here and decided that the material would be listed on IMDb.com. talk 11:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • IMDB is still not a reliable source, which is required to verify notability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDB Is Regarded as a trustworthy as well as recognized as an authority on the TV/Fiilm industry. How it operates and conductions business as well as how "Movie Productions" are structured, validated and executed. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. "From" reliable source Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. However, the author of a source may be reliable outside her/his primary field if s/he has become recognized as having expertise in that secondary area of study. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Your opinion on weather IMDb.com is reliable or not is without merit! Publicly IMDb.com is regarded as trustworthy and is regarded as an authority on the content they publish. There for by wikipedia guidlines is regarded as a reliable source! Again the purpose of this policy is so that articles are not tainted or improperly deleted. Bottom line is, your opinion to weather or not IMDb.com is a reliable source is unfounded and invalid. And it still does not address the other supporting publications listed. When there are several different media publications on the same subject matter. That is a validation in itself that the subject matter is valid. That is the whole purpose of multiple supporting resources be listed on an article. talk 10:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Please Follow Link http://www.kauz.com/news/local/4512136.html Here is news footage as well as an article called "A Taste Of Hollywood" from News Channel 6 KAUZ in Wichita Falls and Lawton discussing Director Jesse Johnson and "Shattered Heroes". I will continue researching this. Is this more reliable for everyone? A TV News Station? How much more research would you like done? Would you like these notable resources to be listed on the page? I am finding more and more and more as I continue to research this. Although I get the feeling still that no matter how much reliable sources I gather that for some reason no one will listen or take them into account. Next I am sure someone will say that a TV News Station reporting news is not a reliable resource either. The unfortunate thing is that others here could be researching this also. I guess it is easier to just delete an article? One might ask why I am doing this? Well, like Obi, I am a fan of these guys. I simply was sold on the film when I saw the "Shattered Heroes" myspace page with the teaser trailer. Being a military man who has suffered from PTSD I really was very impressed with the message and how they are bringing this subject to life. They actually care! And it seems that so many do not. Also it was very easy to see that this film is well organized, factually accurate with equipment and props through the teaser. The tanks are correct period and design as well as the weapons used right down to the uniforms. They have the support of the WWII Historical Society Re-enactment Team and I found out they are using the WWII HSRET as consultants as well as using a WWII Airborne Demonstration Team from the Fredrick Airbase in Fredrick's Oklahoma run by Top Sgt. Richard Wolf. http://www.wwiiadt.org/index.html In short, is anyone of the Editors here willing to help with this and give some direction as to what and were this content needs to be placed to keep this article alive? I will devote the time to continue my research as the more I find I am actually getting motivated and excited for these guys. The info is out there, it is just taking some time and research to find the data. Would anyone disagree that the Channel 6 News that I referenced and provided a link to is a reliable resource? The only infraction I can really see here is that maybe the initial research was not complete and maybe the right reference material was not used. But clearly this film is in production and being recognized. OK, understood that by consensus here, IMDb.com is not reliable, but there are other reference sources listed on the page and again I am looking for more. I would just like a little guidance and direction as to what everyone is looking for? And again I would like to express some concern as some of the comments by editors almost seem to be attacking these guys directly and they are not even involved with this or the discussion. Obi is a fan and I am. I am a disabled Vet and have lots of time to devote to this. I heard of this film through my local VFW and some of my mates here are willing to research as well. This group has traveled to many VFW across the country already presenting this project and showing support to vets. They are even scheduled to visit our VFW in coming months. I assure you that all of us here and at other VFW posts are supporting this project "Nationally" and aim to continue. Here is another link I found with the Movie Teaser on Internet TV http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,2247767677.aspx here is the link I found with the archive audio from Inside Entertainment http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?host_id=2129 in addition to the DJ's myspace page here http://www.myspace.com/ctactor and was recognized as "WINNER- OUTSTANDING NEW TV PROGRAM IN THE CT AREA 2007! SKYE AWARDS. IM AN ACTOR/TV & WEB RADIO HOST!" http://a546.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/77/l_ad5990ba5c59ef172aad8a8bd5ab60e9.jpg So I believe him to be a reliable resource as well. In addition I found at wga.com that the script is properly registered as I saw that in the reliable sources section that the WGA is considered a reliable source. The WGAw registration number for "Shattered Heroes" is 1188086. This film is also registered with the Library Of Congress. The Production Company and the Film are also registered with SAGIndie which can be validated at this url http://www.sagindie.org/directory/national-101-producer.html They are listed on the front page. I am in the process of obtaining this information form the Production Company Skyline Pictures who is being very helpful on providing any information needed. It may take some time if some patience is extended by everyone here while I continue with the research. So will some patience be extended while I continue research? talk 19:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]

talk 21:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]

http://a298.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/8/l_aed633a313bd448f1bd35956d15fc3f1.jpg http://a243.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/57/l_edbb8ecf9ea094a098c9d77b84d27092.jpg Mr. Gordon has also made several appearances on Saturday Night Live. Also note that both of those pictures are also on IMDb.com not only on Mr. Gordon's IMDb.com Profile but also that of the Movie Page for the film and the pictures were taken by the Universal Pictures Set Photographer. Also Mr. David McDivitt, whom is also on this list for Deletion Review as not having a Notability by your interpretation has had credits in films such as "Final Approach" with Anthony Michael Hall, "Posiedon" Starring Kurt Russell and Richard Dryfus. Mr. McDivitt was a principal cast member on the series "Over There" and has appeared as a guest on "Jimmie Kimmel Live". His IMDb.com is http://imdb.com/name/nm1796851/. And I believe him to be Notable by your interpretation of Nobility. So again I stress that all these being blanketed together is deceiving and confusing. talk 23:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of superheroes[edit]

Lists of superheroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant to Category:Lists of superheroes. The usual reason for having a list that duplicates a category is the ability to add redlinks and encourage new articles. This reason doesn't apply to lists of lists such as this, because list guidelines state that redlinks and nonexistant lists should not be added to these, so this does nothing the category can't. Masaruemoto 03:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Krimpet 07:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of atheists who support evolutionary theory[edit]

List of atheists who support evolutionary theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A pointless list created solely to push the creators POV, that evolution is part of some atheist agenda. ornis (t) 03:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Coyne[edit]

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

Tagged with a ((prod)) yesterday, prod was removed with the comment Removal of unverifiable data. Following edits were more spamish, and SiobhanHansa tagged with ((db-spam)), but I figured that since the prod was removed, it should come here, at least for a little bit. Obvious WP:COI and WP:SPAM issues, not to mention completely unverifiable, Google hits only show a few hits, all of them written in the same style. Strong Delete CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the G11 - you'll notice in the history that the more egregious spam appeared after I added the ((prod)). Had that been there when I first came on this article, I wouldn't have thought twice. As it is, I considered a A7, but there was some notability asserted toward the end. I'm still not very skilled at walking the fine line between speedy and not. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 22:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP info MERGED to General Mills (there was another suggestion but I think this is the best one) - Nabla 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millsberry[edit]

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

Prod with reason "Significance unclear per WP:WEB". I'm moving it here for a wider discussion as it is mentioned on the Advergaming article, and it has been worked on by a variety of editors since creation in 2005. My listing is neutral SilkTork 15:58, 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, CitiCat ♫ 03:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're all trivial mentions though, and I dont think enough to be "significant coverage" Corpx 14:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict), refs are from better sources, although still no more than a passing mention in any of them. Only the CBS ref does any more than mention the name, and even then is only a one liner. Deiz talk 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP (no consensus) - several editing options were raised: ranging from what could be seen as (soft)redirecting to Wiktionary; up to expansion. Those are better addressed at the article's talk page. - Nabla 16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article has existed as a list of controversies, a definition, and some original research as fluff for quite a while. Given the 500+ incoming links, I would suggest deleting this and transforming it into a disambiguation page, or a list. Wafulz 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, it is the wholly considered opinion of this editor that the nomination is without merit and should be rejected. Thus, the verdict is keep. Digwuren 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph: Definition
  • Second paragraph: Fluff and original research
  • Third paragraph: An arbitrary quote to fluff the article up
  • "In law": Legal definition, links to a different topic
  • "In early Christianity": Different topic altogether
This has all the makings of a disambiguation page/list. It consists of poorly thrown together ideas in an attempt to create an article where there is none.-Wafulz 12:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 03:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you in favour of making it a disambiguation page or keeping it as is?-Wafulz 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, are you in favour of keeping the article? Or are you in favour of making it a dab page.-Wafulz 13:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Singularity 00:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Textpattern[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY, it does not have any coverage by well known reliable third party sources. Jackaranga 17:01, 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, CitiCat ♫ 03:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 00:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Springwood High School (fictional)[edit]

Springwood High School (fictional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A fictional school that isn't notable enough for an article. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Masaruemoto 02:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu story[edit]

Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This "article" is basically one giant plot summary. The amount of information is ridiculous and probably can't be merged effectively without deleting most of it.--ZXCVBNM 02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtabula Mall[edit]

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

Mall would fails WP:RS and WP:V. No claims to notability are made. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that explains the improved writing. —Travistalk 04:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. This result is functionally the same as merging all verifiable content, for there is currently no content supplied through reliable sources. A redirect, with history undeletion, will be in order if a reliable source can be found to substantiate the nobility of this webcast. Xoloz 13:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Pixels[edit]

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

Not notable per, WP:WEB. It's related to The 1UP Show, but just being related to something notable doesn't make it notable. Me5000 02:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worst in history[edit]

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

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely related topics and potentially WP:NOT#IINFO. No inclusion criterion, although I assume the heading "List of notable events which are the worst of their sort" is the criterion, without any definition of what "worst" means in this context. Se we have the administration of George W. Bush listed with the Holocaust. And then there's "Achy Breaky Heart" by Billy Ray Cyrus. Three of the "worst" events in history. Masaruemoto 02:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, good catch Masaruemoto. Ariel♥Gold 04:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd advise against jumping to conclusions about people's motivations, especially on the Internet. That has a poor track record. --Kizor 08:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 00:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Weinman[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion because the article borders on a conflict of interest (it was created by Joeweinman (talk · contribs), and the only reference that supports his idea (as opposed to deriding other ideas) is from his own website, and is his own paper. Original Research at its finest. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete As has been said below convincingly, the "reliability" (in the sense of WP:RS) of an individual writer is dependent on the context in which he writes. A notable person's weblog is not necessarily reliable (unless there are independent sources attesting to its caliber.) Analogously, being mentioned by a famous person does not automatically make one famous. With that weblog as the only citation, the article is very weak. The consensus below is established by both numbers and strength of argument. Xoloz 13:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWax[edit]

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

Non-notable search engine which does not come close to meeting the notability criteria of WP:WEB. If it were not a Wikipedia search engine, I doubt its article would have been created. Prod was contested. Savidan 01:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was spam. Being reviewed by a blog does not make a website notable, however. Savidan 19:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Price writing on his blog is very different from him writing in a published context. It's not edited by anyone; it not fact checkted; etc. Savidan 14:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich London[edit]

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

Originally tagged speedy, but I bring it here instead. His claim to fame is having a song nominated for a 2007 Juno award; doesn't meet WP:MUSIC as far as I can tell, criterion 8 is "Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award", nominated but not winning is not notable. Carlossuarez46 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although he might just pass WP:MUSIC if he's been on a national tour, and Criterio 9 is Has won or placed in a major music competition, which he may have done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cited WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument. Bearcat 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 09:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Feel Fine[edit]

We Feel Fine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was originally speedied as non-notable. Editor put in the barest effort to rescue it from speedy. It's still not much of an article about not much of a website, and I see no reason to believe that the situation will change. Kww 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to withdraw this one. I went too fast. Didn't see the teeny-tiny news link, and hadn't clicked on it. Indeed, the site has some notoriety. so the article stands a chance. Kww 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So I must ask, why is the article being considered for Deletion? Granted it is not complete as of yet it is indeed slowly growing as I have more time to add onto it. It is upon a subject that has been covered by the media (With appropriate links on the site itself) as well as proven to be a very unique project by two men to document Human emotions in a very different and public way. I do believe that this is a website that deserves a Wikipedia page, as well as the recognition that such a page would be entirely deserved of such a unique project. I have long used Wikipedia in many ways and indeed have been a contributor both with and without my name for the better part of a year. Even if it is not complete, could it not be considered a stub? Should the Article not see any other contribution other then my own, then I shall slowly continue to expand upon it until such status can be lost as well. with my regards, St. Fenix 01:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I saved it in order to allow it to grow. This website although in your eyes not seeming to be much has grown to some notoriety and has been recognised by the media as well as many surfers upon the internet as a unique and interesting Website. Possibly even being considered the start of an Internet Craze between but not unlike All your base are belong to us and Myspace. I do believe that the method by which it brings forth its content is unique enough as well as popular enough to be considered as an Article of Wikipedia.

St. Fenix 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I shall be able to provide as many instances as possible that I can find of the coverage of We Feel Fine over the Internet as well as the Media. But you must remember however that several of the newslinks on We Feel Fine point towards Radio stations as well as media that are not easily retrievable online. It is understandable that these sources are left out. Instead and in its place I shall provide such coverage from all reachable sources online. I should also state that it is possible to Search these news sites for Instances Of We Feel Fine since most of these News Sources have a Search Feature. Because the link is not direct doesn't mean that it isn't pointing us in the right direction.
Here are several to browse for yourself, if you believe that more doesn't exist try various other Search engines as well as other methods to see for yourself if this site doesn't exist as something that people are looking at online.
St. Fenix 02:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and above. Article content fails WP:N. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 12:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete both a7, no assertion of notability, redirecting band page to Flitwick. NawlinWiki 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flitwik[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is the band's only album:

Condemned Beginning (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable band, Yahoo! returns nothing but fanpage, orphaned page.--Old Hoss 01:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional interracial couples[edit]

This article seems to be absolutely beyond any concept of neutral point of view supportable on Wikipedia. It presents a list of fictional people of purportedly different "race" who are couples. Certainly some of the people involved are of different backgrounds, and some are of different nationalities, but the term is arbitrary and unsupportable. For instance, no French-British couples are currently listed but several British-British couples are listed on the pretext that they are members of different "races".

In its current form this is unacceptable. It is conceivable that it could be rendered useful by removing those couples who are of the same nationality, but I seriously doubt that this was the purpose of whoever created and maintains this list. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no such thing as 'race', e.g. if 'race' can't be based on 'observable characteristics', then how can there be 'racial discimination'? Just asking. Nick mallory 03:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my original comment a bit, I didn't say that all racial determinations cannot be based on observable characteristics merely that some (that are included in the article under discussion) cannot be in all cases. Specifically I am thinking of the the classification hispanic as it is used in the US - its self-determined and culturally based, and as such cannot always be determined based on observable characteristics of the person. Bigdaddy1981 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an addition to your excellent observation of "Hispanic" having become a separate "race", I would add that it would never have occurred to me, growing up, that I Love Lucy was about an "interracial marriage"... nor, I surmise, to most Americans. I have the same problem with persons who refer to the "Jewish race". Mandsford 18:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus `'Míkka 17:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CEMMENTI[edit]

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

Nonnotable education program. Only 200 ghits. Shalom Hello 00:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Howard County Public Schools. Singularity 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hammond Middle School[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable middle school without sources to justify its notability. Delete per WP:V and WP:N. --JForget 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That argument is a bit iffy. My company is notable to those who shop there, but it's not notable! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find the school website, but I still don't think that makes it notable. There was no news articles or anything I could find.Silver seren 03:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because a school is notable to its own students, doesn't mean it deserves its own article. It could be mentioned hovever, in an article about the school board/ district that it is in. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 11:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Harmonics[edit]

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

Non-notable college a cappella group. There are no references to independent, published sources or even an unsourced claim to meet a notability criterion at WP:MUSIC. The only "references" are to the groups website itself and to BOCA's (which was itself deleted for being non-notable) webiste. The external links to RARB, essentially the IMdB of a cappella. These do not amount to a bonafide justification for an article, as there is not sufficient sourced content which does not originate from the group itself. I suggest Acapedia, or a similar site, which does not share Wikipedia's notability requirements. Savidan 00:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[39]
[40]
[41]
The albums in each case are listed under the group name of "Harmonics"
To be fair, I do go to Stanford and know some members of the group so I am not totally unbiased. :But I think these sources are relevant regardless. Jairuscobb 07:34, 12 August 2007 (Jairuscobb 07:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)UTC)[reply]
If there is an issue with RARB as a source, how is a source's worth determined?
Yes. Look for books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Published sources which are edited and fact checked. Not blogs or other web 2.0 content. Savidan 16:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, RARB is in fact both edited and fact-checked. JavaTenor 21:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I don't really see how to differentiate between say Pitchfork Reviews and RARB, besides popularity and genre. Jairuscobb 05:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 02:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Mendicants (2 nomination)[edit]

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

Non-notable college a cappella group. There biggest claim to fame is appearing on BOCA (which itself was deleted for not being notable) and being the runner up for another award. They were kept in the first nomination as a result of two human interest pieces in local newspapers. These are insufficient because they give very little total content about the group and do not treat the group as though it were nationally well-known ("area group is magical" etc.). Such sources are acceptable if cited to establish that a group meets a WP:MUSIC criteria, but do not establish notability automatically. I suggest Acapedia, or a similar site, which does not share Wikipedia's notability requirements. Savidan 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't news stories but human interest pieces. Neither of them contains a single fact (as far as I can tell) which would substantiate a WP:MUSIC criteria. Savidan 03:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikipedia is not a news archive, "human interest" pieces go much farther to prove that the subject is truly encyclopedically notable than a mere news story showing that the subject is enjoying its 15 minutes of fame. I cannot find a provision in WP:N which excludes substantial coverage in a human interest story as showing that the subject is "notable." Edison 04:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I friend of mine had a few articles about him in local papers for getting a perfect score on the ACT and SAT, a "feat" accomplished by thousands of high school students every year probably. The relevant part of the distinction I am trying to draw is not that we determine whether the story is "human interest" or "news" but whether the article is covering the object in question as a subject of local interest or a subject that is already nationally known. Savidan 14:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither BOCA nor CARA has been determined notable enough for an article, so no. Savidan 03:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do, however, meet criteria 1:

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

Sidatio 11:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think two is a pretty weak reading of multiple. Savidan 14:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. To me, multiple = more than one. Since two = more than one, two = multiple per most dictionary definitions as far as I can tell - for example, this one. Sidatio 16:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably 5-7 days from date of nomination, depending on backlog. Sidatio 17:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is an IP with no discussion page allowed to be in an AfD? O_o Silver seren 20:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already redirected. Singularity 00:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Valley Elementary School[edit]

Dakota Valley Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is about a school that does not appear to have significant notability and it is also not sourced as well. Also, the article looks like some sort of advertisement and some blatant POV. Delete per these arguments--JForget 00:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 00:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Illinois Rip Chords[edit]

The University of Illinois Rip Chords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college a cappella group. There are no references to independent, published sources or even an unsourced claim to meet a notability criterion at WP:MUSIC. Only claims to notability are placing for regional ICCA awards. These do not amount to a bonafide justification for an article, as there is not sufficient sourced content which does not originate from the group itself (i.e. its website and the sites it uses to sell its self-published cds). Take it to Acapedia, or a similar site, which does not share Wikipedia's notability requirements. Savidan 00:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they won the overall competition (or got second), you might have a case. 3rd place at regionals doesn't do it. Savidan 03:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by user:MZMcBride (A7). Non-admin close by Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southland Mall (Marion, Ohio)[edit]

Southland Mall (Marion, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Horribly written page on non-notable mall in Ohio. Even if page were cleaned up, mall would still fail WP:RS and WP:V. Hardly any claims to notability are made. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Indeed it was! I'll put Ashtabula Mall up for AFD, shall I? Excellent. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by user:MZMcBride as csd-a7. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North park mall[edit]

North park mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Horribly written page on a mall in Indiana. Even if this page were cleaned up, the mall wouldn't be notable anyway -- it fails WP:RS and WP:V. No assertation of notability is even made. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 00:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal Point (University of Delaware)[edit]

Vocal Point (University of Delaware) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college a cappella group. There are no references to independent, published sources or even an unsourced claim to meet a notability criterion at WP:MUSIC. Only claims to notability are winning minor regional awards. These do not amount to a bonafide justification for an article, as there is not sufficient sourced content which does not originate from the group itself (the group's website is the only "reference" given). Take it to Acapedia, or a similar site, which does not share Wikipedia's notability requirements. Savidan 00:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If rewriten it could pass WP:MUSIC? Maybe. But which criteria do you think it could pass? Savidan 03:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put Jade On Neighbours[edit]

Put Jade On Neighbours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Radio program from Melbourne. Notability not established by verifiable third party sources. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 00:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Singularity 00:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orion 10[edit]

Orion 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete this mission was 2015. as per WP:Crystal. Tanaka723 14:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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