< December 1	December 3 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson Z530

[edit]

Non-notable product. Wikipedia is not a Sony-Ericsson catalog. Too few substantial references exist to support a meaningful Wikipedia article; practically all references are reviews and press-release reports. Listing at AfD after contested ((prod)) with a WP:WAX argument. Mikeblas 23:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - should we now go and delete all articles on mobile phones? Is this phone less notable than any other Sony Ericsson phone or indeed any other phone? If this article on a modern mobile phone were to be deleted, this could set a precedent. Agree that better referencing should be carried out, however. Would only support deletion if all other 'non-notable' phone articles were deleted. --EJF 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please see WP:WAX to understand why your argument isn't helpful. -- Mikeblas 08:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page at the end of the link says: <blockquote>Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)</blockquote> Did you mean to quote this line? But no one quoted the [[WP:WAX]] before you did. This is confusing.-[[User:Kushal_one|'''Kushal''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Kushal_one|<small>t</small>]]</sup> 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Same reasons as EJF, Lack of citations is a terrible handicap, however. would concede if this article can be merged into another existing article without degrading quality. --Kushal^t 21:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also check this article. Granted, a camera is not a cell phone, but it is an electronic product. This precedent could potentially wreck havoc to articles like the above linked. --Kushal^t 19:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense. The whole point of WP:WAX is that there's no such thing as precedents for AfD. Nothing's going to "wreak havoc" on anything. —Keenan Pepper 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Per above. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this phone is any more notable than any other - it is mearly similar to its predecessor. An encyclopedia is a summary of human knowledge not a collection of every possible fact - the subject of each article needs to be notable in its own right. So, there is certainly a place for mobile phone and probably places for "first", "most successful" etc. mobile phones in certain categories; but not for every single mobile phone ever made! If there are other non-notable phone articles (as seems likely) they too should be deleted. Gaius Cornelius 16:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later comment without change to vote: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services seems perfectly sensible in this regard. A product or service that is not itself notable does not deserve its own article. For those who propose that this and other articles like it be kept, I ask what article on a phone would you be prepared to omit from Wikipedia? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm really interested in what would exactly make a mobile phone notable. (Also: what proportion of Wikipedia articles on mobile phones meet those criteria? And this is not WP:WAX, it's more like reductio ad absurdum - if only 15 articles are left, then there must be something wrong with the criteria.) I see nothing wrong in references being reviews and press releases; on the contrary, I'd be slightly surprised that someone would waste their time reviewing a non-notable product. GregorB 16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge these into a broader article; I'm thinking something like Sony Ericsson Z series. —Keenan Pepper 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can we please stop the mindless nomination of random cell phone articles? This is not helpful in building the encyclopedia. We have a general policy issue that we should discuss at a policy level. Taking potshots at articles one at a time is simply disruptive. Wikidemo (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Totally agree. A centralized discussion would be helpful, random AfDs -- hardly. --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some damage has already been done: e.g. Sony Ericsson T100 has been deleted recently as a non-notable mobile phone, which is funny, since "sony ericsson t100" review yields more than 90 thousand Google hits. How could one object to a deletion nomination when it is unclear how to prove "notability" in the first place? (See my comment above.) And that's why my vote is... GregorB (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. Google hits don't confer notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of course not; my point was there are plenty of reviews around, and they do confer notability when they come from "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". GregorB (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. We can't decide whether the phone is notable without establishing prior criteria - and these should be discussed at a higher level, which would probably be Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications in this particular case. GregorB (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That higher level is already done; please see WP:CORP and WP:N. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point taken, I'm changing my vote. GregorB (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:N ("A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.") GregorB (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there should be a total review of this cell-phone issue. I hope I don't offend anyone by saying so, but I have started to dislike what seems to be a salami-tactic used to delete all the cell-phones. Also, it is my conviction Wikipedia should - in general- have an article of all cell-phones with notable sources, so people comming and looking for information, will find it here. Greswik (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is WP:PRODUCT that needs to be discussed. I cannot see why it would be desirable for cell-phones to be treated as a special case. It seems to me quite clear that unless WP:PRODUCT changes, non-notable cell-phone articles should be deleted; but by all means, let the issue be discussed. Incidentally, I guess you did not mean quite what you wrote: articles should be about things notable in their own right, not about things that appear in notable sources? Those are two very different things. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson Z550

[edit]

Non-notable product. Wikipedia is not a Sony-Ericsson catalog. Too few substantial references exist to support a meaningful Wikipedia article; practically all references are reviews and press-release reports. Listing at AfD after contested ((prod)) with a WP:WAX argument. Mikeblas 23:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - should we now go and delete all articles on mobile phones? Is this phone less notable than any other Sony Ericsson phone or indeed any other phone? If this article on a modern mobile phone were to be deleted, this could set a precedent. Agree that better referencing should be carried out, however. Would only support deletion if all other 'non-notable' phone articles were deleted. --EJF 19:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article rewrite needed and better referencing, but should be kept. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic, notable, etc. 500K google hits. Major product with lots of sales. Getting tired of dealing with this issue Ad nauseam. Can we put a lid on it? Wikidemo (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there should be a total review of this cell-phone issue. I hope I don't offend anyone by saying so, but I have started to dislike what seems to be a salami-tactic used to delete all the cell-phones. Also, it is my conviction Wikipedia should - in general- have an article of all cell-phones with notable sources, so people comming and looking for information, will find it here. Greswik (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tyrenius (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His Dark Materials terminology

[edit]

This article is very fan-crufty, and a person who has not read the books would not need to know all of these phrases to get an understanding of them. Also, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has great information for people wanting to learn about the book and the terms used within it. I do not think this should be deleted just because there is a controversy on the subject. User:chatvite 16:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.12.29.4 (talk) [reply]
Delete, the guy spend a lot of time creating his universe, and the article feeds off his creativity. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional character. -- Mikeblas 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. You DO realize this is not about a character? Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly fake, unquestionably cruft, plot summary, and non notable, also this is not a dictionary of fake terms Pilotbob 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how can it be both fake and plot summary? you DO know what this article is about? DGG (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as cruft.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article would be useful for people who want to know what, say, coal-silk is. 66.234.40.9 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why would anyone but a fan of the book want to know? Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anyone who has read the books--many more have read them than are fans who know and recognize the details--the fans write these articles for the rest of us, not for themselves. that's why it belongs here.A specialist wiki would be expected to have a detailed article on each. And it's also for anyone who has seen or heard a discussion of them using these special meanings and evocative almost-English terms. This is what an encyclopedia is for--it's clearer as a list this way than any other way of presenting it. DGG (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very useful for people who want to know these terms and this is ther only place other than the books where you could find out these words. Bernstein2291 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing to be debated is the sources, or the lack thereof, demonstrating real world notability. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Even if it IS useful, we need sources. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 20:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourceable from the many reviews and discussions--but it will be necessary to do so, for it is not obvious from the text iteself. DGG (talk)
Merge. Into His Dark Materials. A separate article is unnecessary. If merged, much more work will be needed to verify the definitions, etc, using appropriate citations. It will also need to be wikified. If merge is not possible, then ~~delete~~ keep. DDStretch (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed default action. So long as the article is wikified and gains appropriate verification via citations. DDStretch (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Working on it a bit at a time! Feel free to go to the talk page if you have any ideas...(Constructive critisism is AWESOME!) SaturnMavi 63.97.219.197 (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's useful for readers of the books and presumably now also for viewers of the film; handy & of encyclopedic value to be able to find this from the nav template. Many terms are self-evident and easily linked e.g. anbaric & chocolatl, but some should have sources added. Rename as List of terms in His Dark Materials. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact: Strong Keep. The genius of Wikipedia comes out in a page like this. Someone comes here to check a word in fiction, and they end up discovering science, geography and history just a click away (amber/electric, Cathay, Lascar...). Keep - this goes beyond fancruft and clearly has educational value. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am part way through reading the books, and searched on a term. This article satisfied exactly what I wanted to know. The claim "not notable" is clearly bogus, as the books are now a major motion picture, and subject to a national boycott by Catholics. It certainly is notable. I have no opinion on the Merge. idea, and don't really care, as long as this content is available in the Wikipedia. --Crispincowan (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge There are a lot of details in Lyra's universe that escape many readers the first time around. I had assumed that coal-silk was nylon, but with this article as a starting point, I was able to verify my suspicions using other sources. I have no wiki account at the moment (I lurk while I'm at work) but I do feel invested in this article and have been making slight corrections and clarifications that link to other articles in Wikipedia. (New Denmark, Country of Texas...) I don't know if it makes a difference but I'd be willing to maintain this article either in its current state or if it's merged into the main His Dark Materials article. SaturnMavi 63.97.219.197 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I just checked some of the Narnia entries, Lord of the Rings entries, and Harry Potter entries, and they have similar types of information with no controversy. In terms of fairness, there is no reason this information should be suppressed. The formatting, presentation, and exact page structure are negotiable. --Boris Doris 01:23, 8 December 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 withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Taylor (EastEnders)

[edit]

This fictional TV character, although played by a very good looking actress, is not notable. The page is free of sources that would spell out her notablity in the real world. If anyone is wondering why I picked her, it is a test case to see what sort of argumentation is employed in this AfD debate. Perhaps I'm wrong, and all of the characters of a British soap opera are notable in some way that I haven't imagined yet. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I realise it was all just in-universe plot summary when nominated, but I started adding some real world info to this tonight, and will do some more tomorrow.Gung adin ♦ 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to Gungadin's changes it is now more than plot summary. ^anemoneI_projectors 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the plot elements sections are massively trimmed. 3 paragraphs of character development is over shadowed by massive plot summaries. Ridernyc 21:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you think that's the case then tag it for cleanup, but a long plot summary is not a valid reason to delete this page. Almost every article on wikipedia can be improved. There is no deadline for improvement and this article does no violate any policy as it stands. It has sourced real world information, which can and will be extended. Gung adin ♦ 21:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the section that would satisfy WP:Plot has one source. Ridernyc 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are suggesting that "character creation" is the only real world stuff, which isnt true. The "character development" section satifies WP:PLOT, and it uses numerous references. Have you actually read that part? It has information on ratings, criticism, comments from the actress and storyline development. WP:PLOT says "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance". This article covers that. The in-universe plot summary is under "storylines". Gung adin ♦ 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic" notice the brief? The plot summaries are to support the real world context, not the other way around. This article is minor real world context to support a massive plot summary. Ridernyc 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you realise that you made an error by suggesting that character creation is the only part that satisfies WP:PLOT? and the difference in the amount of plot summary vs real world info is nowhere near as big as you originally claimed. If so, then all it requires is a "plot cleanup tag", there's no need for it to be deleted.Gung adin ♦ 23:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No and don't twist my words. I admire you for having a devotion to this but have you though about finding or starting an east enders wiki. Ridernyc 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly wasn't trying to twist your words, I just wanted you to clarify because I didnt think your original reason for objecting was still applicable (as you thought there was less real world info that there actually was). I was being optimistic, hoping you might change your opinion once you realised :) To answer your question, yes I think that an EE wiki is a good idea, but this article is not a candidate for a wikia, as it has plenty of real world coverage. I've just extended the real world section even more. Gung adin ♦ 01:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, admins, I withdraw this nomination as much wonderful sourcing has been added. The excessive amount of plot summary is a cleanup issue for another day. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tyrenius (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy (EastEnders)

[edit]

This fictional character, one of hundreds on a British soap opera, is not-notable in the real world, has few speaking lines on the show. Prod tag removed. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fictional character. Ridernyc 22:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of recurring minor Eastenders characters, along with Winston (EastEnders). Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston (EastEnders), I think this character, although not notable enough for her own article, should be mentioned in Wikipedia because she has been part of one of the UK and Ireland's most popular television shows for more than 20 years. She has been involved in some storylines. Bláthnaid 09:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor EastEnders characters (1986). ^anemone│_projectors 18:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per AnemoneProjectors--Gung adin ♦ 19:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tyrenius (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winston (EastEnders)

[edit]

This fictional character, one of hundreds on a British soap opera, is not-notable in the real world, a minor recurring role in the show. Prod tag removed. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable fictional character. -- Mikeblas 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable character. Wikipedia is not a soap opera wiki. Ridernyc 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of recurring minor Eastenders characters, along with Tracy (EastEnders). I think that this character, although not notable enough for his own article, should be mentioned in Wikipedia because he has been part of one of the UK and Ireland's most popular television shows for more than 20 years. He has been a part of some major plots. I watch Eastenders only occasionally, and I've seen him and wondered who he was. And now I know! Bláthnaid 09:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor EastEnders characters (1985). ^anemone│_projectors 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per AnemoneProjectors--Gung adin ♦ 19:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reposted AfD (I didn't notice before it got to AfD). — Coren ^(talk) 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brophy

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Vanispamcruftizement, apparently written by the subject in a clear conflict of interest and with no sources whatever. — Coren ^(talk) 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus has been built that, although horcruxes are fictional elements, they are notable enough overall to justify having an article. Also, notability is asserted by sources. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horcrux

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The page was previusly nominated for deletion with a result of no consensus. It has been a quarter of a year since then and in that time little has been done to address the problems with the article. Only two sources have been added (see [1]) one of which seems to be a quote from the book the objects are present in - and one is a transcript of a 'chat' with the author. There is still therefore no evidence that the article meets the primary notability criteria laid out in WP:NN which requires that a subject be the subject of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Apart from having no secondary sources the article also contains no real world information which is a requiremnt of WP:NOT#PLOT (Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should provide sourced information to provide commentary on the works' real-world contex) and WP:FICT ("articles need real-world information to prove their notability"). WP:WAF also states that any article on a fictional topic should be based apon such information. Guest9999 22:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:FICT, seems to have no out-of-universe context. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mentioned in a NYT book review, and a salon.com book review. They are mentioned in this article on how HP is crossing over to academia. Hence real-world notability. Also, crucial to the book series, suspend all rules, etc. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply In those sources the horcruxes are mentioned as part of the book not in their own right. They are not described or discussed in any detail, just mentioned in the same way a politician's children might be mentioned in an article about their parent. Most book reviews give some sort of a plot summary, that doesn't mean every aspect of the book mentioned in that summary is notable. Notability is not inherited.[[Guest9999 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep*Keep - There is a lot of work put into this article and there seems to have acceptable sources. If this article was deleted, then a lot of Harry Potter related articles would be in risk as well. Tavix 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The fact that people have worked on an article is not a good reason to indlude it (see WP:EFFORT), also many many Harry Potter articles have been merged (or deleted) due to issues similar to those mentioned in nomination (see the notability discussion at WP:HP here and my list here) [[Guest9999 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep - Horcruxes are a major part of the Harry Potter series. I see no reason to delete the article. Johnred32 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –. Have to agree the Horcrux have generated enough information and notability to have their own article. A quick Google Scholar search on Horcrux produced 15 “Scholar” hits as shown here. [2]. Shoessss | Chat 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of those articles some seem to be linked to fansites, some seem to be fan essays and at leats one just seems to mention horcrux in a list of words that come from the Harry Potter books. [[Guest9999 03:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Did not realize Tulane University had lost their accreditation and was demoted to a fan site. Shoessss | Chat 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did not realise that a dead link to a student thesis (the content and quality of which is unknown) confered notability. [[Guest9999 04:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

The deletion nomination is silly enough without devolving into petty bickering. ∅BRIT 3 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 04:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I apologise for my tone above, it was not constructive. [[Guest9999 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

STRONG KEEP This second deletion nomination makes less sense than the first. Since the first nomination, two articles, Nagini and Tom Riddle's diary have been merged into the Horcrux article. This is the right direction. Horcruxes are obviously notable, being the central plot point in the Harry Potter series, but there is no reason to spread the info into individual articles. One article will suffice. The horcrux article also gives specific notable information that cannot (and should not) be contained elsewhere, including details about the antagonist's (Voldemort's) immortality, the specific connection between him and Harry Potter, and Rowling's development of a series climax. Because Rowling spread the concept of a Horcrux through the entire series, the information in this article simply cannot be merged into an article about any specific book. And since the concept of a Horcrux has been so clearly defined by Rowling, both in the books and in public, it cannot be merged into an article about Harry Potter magic (which, itself, would be ridiculously in-universe). In short, it fulfills the basic elements specified as to what makes a good article. ∅BRIT 3 December 2007

Actually Magic (Harry Potter) is an existing article which been used as a merge target for many other things. [[Guest9999 04:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

REPLY Which is exactly why it's an inappropriate place for this kind of specifically notable plot point. ∅BRIT 3 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 04:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a plot summary and objective evidence of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources is required for a subject to be considered notable. If the content was to be kept thenLord Voldemort might be another potential merge target. [[Guest9999 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

REPLY If you think the info should be merged, then add a merge nomination. I'm not sure why you're determined to delete it. That said, the Horcrux article clearly serves a purpose as its own Wikipedia page. The article is not a "plot summary" and isn't even written like one. Notability is obvious, as the Horcrux was Rowling's climactic plot device through at least 4 of the 7 books in the series. I will grant you that early versions of this page were written in a very in-universe style (as is to be expected with any new page about a fictional subject), but the updates (especially over the last three months) have been aligning the article with the proper syle. ∅BRIT 4 December 2007

Keep. Important plot element in one of the most successful fictional works in history. Capitalistroadster 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Axl 11:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Sewnmouthsecret 14:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Not Brit's reasoning above. V-train 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Crucial plot point of the Harry Potter series. Now, can I cast Incendio to burn this debate into oblivion for ya? ViperSnake151 22:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Plot, And WP:WAF. So far all the keep arguments fail to address policy violations. Saying this is important to the plot is very silly since we have WP:Plot. Ridernyc 22:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY As noted above, the Horcrux article is simply not a "plot summary" and isn't written like one. If the article needs clean-up, then clean it. Or, if there are other policy violations, please note them and we will clean it for you. ∅BRIT 4 December 2007

Strong Delete - This is a very important point You cannot claim its notable without DEMONSTRATING IT through reliable sourcing.. Because otherwise, your not basing your arguments on Wikipedia policy and your arguments will be ignored. Judgesurreal777 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it is notable. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The google scholar hits establish notability (linguistic and folkloric as well as fictional), few though they are (after weeding out the duds I see 4, maximum 5, that would really count). The notability of the series as a whole fully justifies a WP:SS approach to central elements like "Horcrux". My pet peeve just now is people who say "despite the tags nothing has been done for x months" and then instead of doing something, spend the same amount of time or longer in a fore-doomed discussion like this one. --Paularblaster 01:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind giving an example of one of the links that establishes notability? [[Guest9999 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Not this week - I do have a life. --Paularblaster 20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But quickly from memory, since I've just finished work and am still at the computer: there's a German article that discusses fairytale elements of the Harry Potter books, and specifically horcruxes as an example of the "giant who kept his heart in a box"-type story element, this is the primary one; then there's a piece on using Latinate terms from Rowling ("horcrux" among them) in the teaching of Latin in classroom situations - as real worldas you could wish for; then there are a couple of borderline pieces, on the Christian symbolism, that devote some attention to horcruxes. Children's literature and popular culture are both topics of serious scholarship these days, Harry Potter is a major phenomenon in both fields, and the secondary literature that deals with aspects of it, including horcruxes, can only grow. This makes it a showpiece candidate for WP:SS treatment. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY I honestly don't understand how notability is in question. Here are a couple random links... BBC, ABC News, and New York Times. The Horcrux has "received substantial coverage" because it is impossible to discuss the climax of the series without referencing Horcruxes. In fact, I might ask you to provide us a link to any discussion anywhere about the Deathly Hallows that does not reference Horcruxes. ∅BRIT 4 December 2007

All those sources mention horcruxes in relation to something else, namely the Harry potter series or individual books. Information on Horcruxs already exists in the articles on those subjects. [[Guest9999 18:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

REPLY First, secondary sources on the Horcrux contain "information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise" - this info will only expand as the books and movies continue to gain momentum. Second, "articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop" - the final book in the series is barely 4 months old and Rowling has been giving limited interviews since then. Finally, "to avoid inefficiency, editors should only nominate articles that (cannot be kept, merged, or transwikied)" - you have now nominated this article for deletion twice in less than 3 months and are apparently totally ignoring the obvious improvements other editors have made and will continue to make. In Rowling's development of the series climax, she continued to build on the concept of a Horcrux as a means of linking important plot points, including Harry's scar, Voldemort's apparent immortality, Voldemort's inability to kill Harry, the death of Harry's parents, Dumbledore's relationship with Tom Riddle, etc. These are important details and help us to understand Rowling's state of mind as an author. As time passes (especially as the movies are released and Rowling gives more specific details of her writing development), the real world significance of the Horcrux concept will only become more acute.

Again, if the article needs to be cleaned up, then clean it. ∅BRIT 4 December 2007

Anything from Rowling does not count as an independent secondary source and cannot be used to confer notability. Also wikipedia is not a crystal ball we cannot and should not predict what kind of coverage a topic will recieve in the future. [[Guest9999 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

REPLY We're both using the same style guides to argue completely opposing viewpoints. It's kinda silly. I'm going back to basics: The deletion nomination makes no sense because there is specific pertinent information contained herein, including two articles (Tom Riddle's diary and Nagini) which have already been merged into Horcrux. I might (might) be willing to entertain a merge nomination if you could point to the specific articles into which the info should be merged (or point out which info needs its own article). I would be less happy to see a transwiki nomination, but am willing to listing to one's reasoning. I would be glad to see a "clean up" notification and even an "in-universe" notification - a few of us have been working on those very things anyway. But you have, as yet, been unable to show why the information should be removed beyond your insistence that notability hasn't been established. I understand that Wikipedia articles should live up to the style guide, but that's exactly what we're working on. I encourage you to help us. ∅BRIT 4 December 2007

Reply I think that it may be appropriate to keep a certain amount of the content, sections that already exist in other articles could easily be expanded (such sections exist here, here and here) or a new section could be added to the article for the sixth book (the one where all the horcruxes are identified). However the topic on it's own does not meet the notability requiredments set out WP:FICT, which is a reason for deletion. Looking at the sections mentioned above, they are less 'fleshed out' than I thought they were and had I checked this I may have suggested a merge of the information before nominating at AfD. However AfD is not about the content of an article, it is about its topic and I still do not think the topic of this article meets the criteria for inclusion. [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep per my argument in the last discussion. faithless (^speak) 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the keep !votes above and my reasoning in the previous AfD. Evidently notable topic. Article has sufficient sources. PeaceNT 16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's see…the nominator recently created a one-sentence article about a highly obscure chemical compound called 3,4-dichlorobicyclo(3.2.1)oct-2-ene (it doesn't even have a name for it, just a code), yet he think Horcruxes aren't notable enough. A plot element known by millions of people worldwide isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that already has over two million articles and isn't running out of space or bandwidth money any time soon, but a chemical that is only notable for being used in the synthesis of bicyclo[3.2.1]octan-2-one (which doesn't even have an article or any mention even in any article [checked using the Wikipedia search engine] on Wikipedia) is notable enough. Does this person seem qualified enough to nominate this article for deletion?--Somegroup 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nominate that article for deletion if you think it warrants it. [[Guest9999 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Sorry I noticed that this was your first and only edit so you may not be familiar with the deletion processes for articles. They can be found here, here and here. You seem to be quite knowlagble about Wikipedia (nominators, notability, search results, etc) so I assume that you were around for a while before deciding to create an account, happy editing. [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep Length of time without improvement isn't a valid deletion reason. There is no deadline. A notability or refimprove tag would be more appropriate here than an AfD. Rray (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's only the case if there is a possibility that the article can be improved to the standards required for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball using information that currently exists, if a topic is not notable now then it should not have an article now. No evidence has been provided to suggest that the article meets the notability criteria for an article on fiction in this discussion, the last discussion several motnhs ago or the period inbetween.. [[Guest9999 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Reluctant merge to Magical objects in Harry Potter. I thought about this for days because Horcruxes are a major part of the HP series and I couldn't image how the information should reasonably trimmed to fit into another article (because nom's right: it violates quite a few policies and guidelines with no ways to be improved). But I had a look at de:Begriffe der Harry-Potter-Romane#Horkrux, which presents all necessary information to the point. I also had a look at a HP wikia which lists all Horcruxes in detail. Maybe get rid of too much plot and rather cross-wiki-link to wikia for in-universe detail? – sgeureka ^t•c 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, as stated in the previous comment, has relevant information that should not be eliminated from Wikipedia. The article also has a section for a character that is not listed anywhere else. Lord Opeth (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete

Ellie (Ice Age)

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Ice Age movie article. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 22:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable girl mammoth. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is sufficient information about this character in the List of Ice Age characters article. (I am neutral on whether all girl mammoths are non-notable :p) Bláthnaid 09:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to List of characters in the Ice Age films. DHowell (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 U.S. Acres — Caknuck (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orson Pig

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the U.S. Acres comic articles. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 22:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to U.S. Acres. He may be the main U.S. Acres character, but he doesn't need his own page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct TenPoundHammer. I am going to redirect this. I couldn't think of any more info because Orson lasted 1986-1994. Thanks for the suggestion! Ryan Holloway (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -JodyB_talk 15:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farscape terminology

[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary or jargon guide. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugrats vocabulary (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Firefly slang words and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade: Dictionary. Also raises WP:PLOT concerns because of the entirely in-universe context of the list. Otto4711 22:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as in-universe fancruft, also inviolation of WP:NOT#DICT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as cruft.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a farscape wiki. Ridernyc 22:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a usage guide (it's not teaching anyone to speak "Farscapese"), but a description of specialized terms used on a highly notable TV show, what would normally be called a "glossary", which we have plenty of on Wikipedia, see Category:Glossaries, and which aid in the understanding of their parent topics. Notability for the terminology used on Farscape can be established by significant coverage in several reliable sources: Science Fiction Television from the Praeger Television Collection, Farscape: The Illustrated Companion, Investigating Farscape: Uncharted Territories of Sex and Science Fiction, The Farscape Season Two Episode Guide : An Unofficial Guide with Critiques (and those for the other seasons), and Farscape Forever!: Sex, Drugs and Killer Muppets. Also, the San Diego Union-Tribune considers this webpage a reliable source for Farscape terminology. DHowell (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Back to Basics (Christina Aguilera album) — Caknuck (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the Day (Christina Aguilera song)

[edit]

The topic doesn't have a use or meaning Olliyeah (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable song. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Back to Basics (Christina Aguilera album). A redirect should be the first approach for such a minor stub as this. Be bold. If contested, then bring it to AfD. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album, no apparent independent notability here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 In the Zone. -- Vary | Talk 18:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe on Me

[edit]

The article has no use and doesn't cite any reference Olliyeah (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable song. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to In the Zone. A redirect should be the first approach for such a minor stub as this. Be bold. If contested, then bring it to AfD. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the album, no apparent independent notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, songs from popular albums should have individual articles provided there is sufficient information available about them. This article has enough content to be independent. Everyking (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touch of My Hand

[edit]

The article doesn't cite any refernce Olliyeah (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable song. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to In the Zone. A redirect should be the first approach for such a minor, unsourced stub as this. Be bold. If contested, then bring it to AfD. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. This specific song received a lot of media attention and criticism for its explicitly sexual content in relation to the once wholesome image of the singer. This information needs to be added to the article. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Josephine Joseph

[edit]

Appears to fail WP:BIO (and no, you'll be surprised by the alliterative name not being that of a porn actress... although this is an actress who is mostly known for her sex, or the ambiguity of such...)-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC) h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to fail WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's perfectly verifiable that s/he was a hermaphrodite act (and as such was a notable performer), and it is not asserted one way or the other that the claim to hermphroditism was true. --Paularblaster 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are a couple of results in Google Books and Google Scholar, and being in Freaks guarantees some historical fame as one of the few sideshow acts so preserved. Should probably be moved to Josephine-Joseph, as the ambiguity of the name was the point. --Dhartung | Talk 02:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But is she worth a stand-alone biography? Some content could be merged, but I don't think this is gonna be anything more than a stub. Ever.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Plenty of encyclopedias have short entries in among the long ones - many of the articles currently marked "you can help by expanding this stub" might more accurately be marked "this subject deserves a short article, but please don't expand it into a longer one". --Paularblaster 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - not enough for an encyclopedia article. - KrakatoaKatie 21:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike Out (drinking)

[edit]

Contested Prod. Non notable activity. There's one throwaway mention of the activity in an interview - and that's it. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears not to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but appears to be more notable than a WP:NFT article. Transwiki to Drinkinggamepedia.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sean William @ 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norebo

[edit]

No real world context can be established. Just plot information. Cannot be cited with secondary sources independent of the subject. Pilotbob 21:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:FICT, no reliable out-of-universe info. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at the very least redirect to List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article has no real-world content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Dungeons & Dragons franchise.--Gavin Collins 16:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ.--Robbstrd 22:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect per BOZ. Rray 03:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of EastEnders spin-off characters

[edit]

Spin-off series themselves should be covered in the EastEnders article, while the characters from those show should be covered in their respective character articles, if they are notable enough. A list of the spin-off characters is unnotable, WP:FICT that is just regurgitating WP:PLOT. Collectonian 21:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 21:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no cause for this character list to be deleted. The list would not be suitable to include in the main EastEnders article, and the characters dont have their own articles; they were merged into a list because we felt they were not notable enough for their own articles, and we wanted to comply with policy at the time. When combined, the list of characters has potential to be more than just plot summary, so it should not be deleted.21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gungadin (talk • contribs)
Keep per Gungadin. There is potential to be more than just plot summary. ^anemoneI_projectors 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is far preferable to have a list of these characters, than a separate page for each of them, especially when the characters are often not sufficiently notable for a separate page. We have routinely been creating these "list" articles, per WP:SUMMARY, since there's too much information for the main show articles. --El on ka 22:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly trivial, unsourced and fails notability. I understand the desire to create this, but this list belongs on a fansite. Creating a list in order to overcome the creation of trivial articles is not an adequate solution. The programmes in which these characters appear are not notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia. Even the BBC site given as a source doesn't provide any information on the first character, Albert Beale, other than that he was the husband of Lou Beale. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now and let the WikiProject dedicated to EastEnders work out what to do. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's too large for the main article. The characters should have one article for all of them, like Elonka said. Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't know if this will change anyone's views, however while looking at the EastEnder Project page I noticed List of EastEnders television spin-offs. List of EastEnders spin-off characters would seem to just be a replication of that article, and of the two, List of EastEnders television spin-offs seems to be the better one. So I'm expanding my nomination to also include the possibility of redirecting/merging to List of EastEnders television spin-offs. Collectonian 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the decision made is to not keep the article, I would prefer it to be merged to List of EastEnders spin-off characters than deleted entirely. ^anemoneI_projectors 18:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WAF, WP:FICT, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Ridernyc 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an acceptable use for a list. Lawrence Cohen 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gungadin and Elonka. Bláthnaid 09:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashurst, East Sussex

[edit]

This page is about Ashurst, West Sussex, for which a page exists. Charles 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page contains duplicate information to an existing article, and is not a valid redirect candidate (i.e. no Ashurst, East Sussex exists). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a duplicate of an existing article that has been given the wrong name, making it an invalid redirect candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The existing page as noted already, exists, and to redirect it would be geographically incorrect. Had it just said "Sussex", it may have been a valid redirect candidate, but this should simply just be deleted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what is probably an unintentional mistake on the originator's part. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as error.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G6, housekeeping. —Caesura ^(t) 06:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a simple mistake of a page. Lawrence Cohen 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tyrenius (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor EastEnders characters

[edit]

A list of lists of minor characters for every year of a soap operas existence??? These lists are completely unnotable WP:FICT and WP:PLOT filled fancruft in each and every list. What is notable about a character who appears in a single episode to visit someone in the hospital or to be asked to pull a prank (highlights from one of the year articles). --Collectonian 20:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the lists of fancruft being linked to in this article.

Delete all. They'll still have List of characters from EastEnders and List of past EastEnders characters, many of which have individual pages. AnteaterZot 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the minor characters were merged into lists because they were not notable enough to have their own articles. Listing minor characters like this is a common occurrence. Some of them contain real world information and sources, like this one, and they should not be deleted. The ones that dont can be improved. Delete the parent "List of minor EastEnders characters", but not the individual yearly lists.Gung adin ♦ 21:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 21:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any without real world information, and merge the characters that do have significant real world information to the main minor character list. TTN 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gungadin. This is the last thing I expected to see happen. They can all be improved, and should not be deleted, even if they haven't been improved by the end of this AFD, because Wikipedia does not have a deadline. ^anemoneI_projectors 21:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VERY weak Keep: I'm not bias as I neither watch this soap nor agree/disagree as such to these pages' existance. However, I have had quite alot of input on issues of a similar nature on Emmerdale/Coronation Street, where having a consolidated minor characters page for these characters is proving better (organisation in particular) than having single articles. Yes, it would be great if Wikipedia wasn't treated as a soapbox by so many, and my ideal way of working is just to include major characters with interesting/notable biographies, but unfortunately this isn't going to change any time soon, if at all. To remove the pages proposed would likely be very controversial, and either cause recreation in a similar, but slightly different form/naming, or create individual pages for several characters, of which would be greatly more undesirable than the current layout. At least currently, they're organised and manageable and deletion would further complicate matters and cause a bigger problem than some think already exists. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Keep all for now. Any notable and therefore real-world-sourced characters can go to the other EastEnder character pages that User:AnteaterZot mentions. As for "causing a bigger problem", all it would take is a concerned prod tag effort to prune the huge number of articles this show has in Wikipedia. I'll prod 5-6 a day, see what happens. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC) It looks to me like the guideline that allowed many pages of characters to be consolidated into this lists was changed, without being well advertized, back in August 2007. One editor, in fact, changed how the policy reads, although supposedly this was a stylistic change of some sort. Since that seems unfair, we should retain these lists and let the members of the WikiProject clean up the whole collection in a systematic way. I also strongly suggest that the guideline be returned to its pre-August state, and then debated openly later. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment --Well, it turns out that there is a WikiProject that still cares about these pages. Lets try to accommodate their efforts to prune the pages down to a manageable number. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Which change to WP:FICT are you referring to. There was a major rewrite underway at that period, which had been advertised at the village pump. [3]. Any changes were discussed on the talk page, and typically represent consensus amongst those who engaged, per WP:CONSENSUS. Hiding T 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, given that many people still operate under the idea that lists of characters are a way out of wholesale deletion, and a valuable way to gain the cooperation of the fans, I would say that the published policy is irrelevant. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're welcome to say what you like, but it doesn't nullify policy. If that were the case we would have abolished WP:VANDAL a long time ago. If you wish to change the guideline, please start a discussion on the guideline's talk page, advertise it at the village pump and build a consensus, as was done in the previous change. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Perhaps if you enlightened us as to which part of the guidance it is you object, we might actually get somewhere. Hiding T 10:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm talking about here in AfD. Many people here still think that there is an explicit policy that allows the creation of these list articles as a refuge for lesser characters. The policy is now implicit, and some people still read it as allowing lists. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I seem to be misunderstanding you. Could you clarify what you meant by It looks to me like the guideline that allowed many pages of characters to be consolidated into this lists was changed, without being well advertized, back in August 2007. One editor, in fact, changed how the policy reads, although supposedly this was a stylistic change of some sort. Since that seems unfair. Do you still think it was unfair that the guidance was changed, even though it was well advertised, did not happen in one edit in August and many people contributed to a discussion regarding the change? Hiding T 10:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the best referenced are those that are incidentally mentioned on the BBC. There is a reasonable expectation that Wikipedia will provide informative encyclopedic information on a range of topics. But for something like "minor EastEnders characters" a fan site such as WalfordWeb should be people's first port of call. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - that's exactly the very point of wiki kernitou talk 04:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or at least wait ten minutes so I can save them all before you delete them which I suppose you probably will regardless. - 88.109.76.231 08:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per User:Gungadin and User:AnemoneProjectors. --UpDown 14:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All or transwiki. Article fail WP:Plot, WP:Fict, WP:WAF, WP:OR, this minutia of fancruft detail is not suitable and not encyclopedic. Ridernyc 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep all. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gungadin. "Fancruft" is a term that is being batted around too often. It is clear that the associated Wikiproject is working to remedy the "in-universe" bias in these lists. Brad (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gungadin and Brad. Eastenders isn't some obscure video game or manga, it has been one of the most popular television programmes in the UK and Ireland for the past twenty years. IMO "fancruft" is not a term that applies to a programme that is such a huge part of a country's culture. If the Guardian sees fit to have a paragraph about Mr. Papadopoulos, then I think Wikipedia should do the same. Bláthnaid 09:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep All per Gungadin and AnemoneProjectors. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now I know that American soaps get a plethora of coverage from magazines that I see on the newsstands every week, so I would not be surprised that if one bothered to look, one could find plenty of coverage for even the most minor EastEnders characters in British magazines. Surely one could find such coverage in magazines such as Radio Times, Inside Soap, What's On TV, and All About Soap, as well as a printed newspaper dedicated to EastEnders, The Walford Gazette. DHowell (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per kernitou.--Johnbull (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Jericho characters. -- Vary | Talk 18:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Prowse (Jericho character)

[edit]

I looked at all 191 unique google hits for this character, found nothing to indicate real-world notability. page is mostly plot summary, and unsourced. AnteaterZot 20:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable, minor character. Fails WP:FICT. Collectonian 21:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 21:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Jericho characters. According to the template, he is a minor character, and the article has no secondary sources to establish notability. Nom has done more than what's usually expected. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefails WP:Plot Ridernyc 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per sgeureka and per WP:FICT. DHowell (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into List of Jericho characters per sgeureka. Bláthnaid 10:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was a clear consensus that the page should be deleted. It is a long standing convention that being a failed election candidate confers no notability in itself unless established by reliable, secondary sources. There are two additional claims. The first is Young Entrepreneur of the Year. There is no documentation as to who made this award, nor for what geographic area and, in any case, the source The Poll Bludger does not meet WP:RS. Consequently it can't be considered notable. The second claim is that he "represented Australian Small Business Overseas at Apec". This is contained in a seminar resume, that are generally written by the participants, rather than in an editorial. A Google search shows no separate reference to the existence of this body. It is not specified how many other people represented the organisation nor how he was selected. These arguments failed to convince the Community of his notability and fail to convince me, either. TerriersFan (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Southwick

[edit]

Unsuccessful candidate in an election ... I thought about trying to rewrite this, but can't find any sources. Blueboy 96 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I dimly recall a policy that losing candidates aren't notable. AnteaterZot 20:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable candidate - any claim to notability would rest solely on his political candidacy. Refer to the AfD on Gavin Priestly (as well as Euryalus's very good points further down this AfD). Orderinchaos 07:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO as a politician not having held any office -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 23:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly as an unsucessful candidate fails WP:Bio although note was close to be successful and may yet be successful in the future. Young Entrepreneur of the Year confers independant notability.--Matilda ^talk 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can anyone enlighten me on who awards the "Young Entrepreneur of the Year" and on what basis? This might be a valid claim to notability if it was offered by an independent authority on a genuinely widespread basis (eg state or national). However I can find no record of this award on either a Victorian or Australian level. Accounting firm Ernst & Young offer an "Entrepreneur of the Year" award for which Southwick was once guest speaker, and a company called the "Micro Business Network" awards a "Young Entrepreneur of the year" but do not seem to publish entry criteria, selection method or past winners so I cannot determine if this what Southwick won. Anyone know? Euryalus (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I assume it is the same award that Ernst and Young offer, however they have sponsored it only since 2001 and have no earlier records. I can find no record of the award winners earlier than that - I suspect that this is a failing of internet archiving and change of sponsorship rather than any indication of a false claim. I am prepared to take the assertion he has won as per say the RMIT Union site and prepared to assume the award is a continuation of any previous award. --Matilda ^talk 00:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A problem - Ernst & Young offer an "Entrepreneur of the Year" but not a "Young Entrepreneur of the Year". Unless this is an odd typo (he won the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year) then this can't be the award. The fact that the award isn't listed anywhere other than in mirrors of Southwick's own biography and on the site of a comparatively unknown business network makes me doubt whether it is notable enough to justify this article, if we assume that his candidacy in Melbourne Ports isn't sufficient. Euryalus (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable election candidate. If he is successful in the future, then the article can be considered then. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This candidate made huge headlines when he ran for the 2004 Federal Election. Depsite not winning the election, he as a candidate made the electorate of Melbourne Ports a must-see on election night because it was the first time in Federal political history where two Jews have contested each other in the same seat. It made headlines and even made it on the 7.30 report. Also it should be noted that Southwick ran as a candidate for the Victorian Upper House in 2006 and was very close to winning the seat almost ousting Evan Thornley who was in Bracks' views one of his star candidates. Southwick lost from memory c. 1500 votes. Also one has also got to remember that Southwick is quite well known in the Melbourne Ports community and therefore got have an article in his honour. If his article should be deleted because he was a losing candidate, then why not delete Kerrie Tucker, Sarah someone Young Greens from South Australia, Diane Teasdale, etc. 06:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatonB (talk • contribs)

Re first point - the main problem is almost none of this got reported in reliable sources. Re second: Kerrie Tucker was a long-time Territorian politician so was notable well before her run at Federal politics, Sarah Hanson-Young actually did win (or is almost certain to pending counting) so is notable for being an elected Federal politician, and quite a few others probably should be considered for deletion now that the election is over. However this is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and nothing here actually circumvents the WP:BIO notability guideline. Orderinchaos 10:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys - thanks for your additional comments - pls also note I did read on Andy Landeryou's blogsite that in the State Electorate of Caulfield there is speculation that David Southwick might be the next Liberal candidate for Caulfield in the 2010 Victorian State Elections. Caulfield is a safe Liberal Party seat. So I guess it is worth having him on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatonB (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation on a blog is not a basis for anything encyclopaedic. There is speculation the editor of the West Australian will run for Cottesloe, especially now that Colin Barnett has announced his retirement as at the 2009 election - but the only reason I know is blogs and friends in political circles - one certainly couldn't write on any related article until much closer to the time. (Also, don't forget these people have to go through a preselection - and look at some of the NSW state preselections last time to see how uncertain some of those can be). Orderinchaos 11:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Mr. Landeryou's blog, while entertaining, hardly meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Even if he was the preselected candidate, it would not change my opinion on his notability until he was elected (although it is fair to say a significant number of editors disagree with this view). Of course my views on the notability of this subject are without prejudice to re-creation should he meet WP:BIO in the future. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, twice unsuccessful political candidate. Nothing to see here. Lankiveil (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- fails various points in the notability guidelines for biographies:

1)Failing to win a seat in Parliament is not notable;

2)Being named "young Entrepreneur of the Year" by an otherwise unknown business group is not notable;

3)Coverage in reliable sources is either not independent of the subject (eg his own websites and RMIT bio) or mentions the individual in the context of a notable event (the election) rather than in their own right;

4) No independent biographies and no evidence of an enduring cotnribution to the historical record. WP:N makes clear that notability is not temporary - can anyone recall who stood unsuccessfully for Melbourne Ports a decade ago? Will anyone remember Southwick's candidacy in ten years time?

5) Re specific statements above - two candidates of the same religion standing in the same seat might be interesting trivia but it is not a claim to enduring notability. Being well known in a local community is original research unless there are reliable sources, and even then does not justify the article (plenty of people are well known in their communities and don't need a Wikipedia entry). Lastly, speculation about future candidacies is just speculation - possible future notability is not enough. Recreate this article if he is selected and wins. Before that occasion, there are no apparent grounds to keep this current piece. Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a failed political candidate with no evidence of any other means of meeting notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victimless crime (political philosophy)

[edit]

Article consists entirely of original research, and past attempts to find sources have failed. Topic itself is subjective, depending on how one defines victimless, preventing reliable sources from ever being found. Ultiam 20:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this appears to be the main article on the topic. How'd that happen? AnteaterZot 20:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand Ultiam's logic; by that argument thousands of Wikipedia articles would be impossible to write. There are thousands of potential sources on Google Scholar alone, suggesting that secondary sources have already defined the parameters of discussion sufficiently to satisfy academic rigor. Obviously there is not going to be one universal definition, but that's why we have a policy for handling it. Sometimes a crime is implicitly victimless but contains a moral hazard, making "society" (or "us all") the alleged victim. We just have to attribute such categorizations, not decide whether they're right. Certainly the general topic of victimless crime is of encyclopedic notability. --Dhartung | Talk 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, almost a speedy keep. Strip away the original research - there must be some sources for this. Notable concept.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would assume the concept of victimless crime must have been discussed both by political philosophers and by members of the legal profession, and there must be authoritative sources offering (no doubt disputed) opinions about how it should be defined, whether the concept even makes sense and so on. However this is not reflected at all in the current article, which is a very well written but unsourced essay. Is it better to have a poor article, which is what it is (based on Wikipedia criteria - it's a good read), or nothing at all? I suggest it's better to have the article and hope it improves.Hobson 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isn't now, but as recently as two or three years ago this would have been a contender for featured article. Obviously we need to improve referencing but baby, bathwater, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, or if necesssary, merge with Public order crime. Useful search term that college students would use, useful per WP:OUTCOMES, but it's such a poor article, it would be better if sourced. Bearian 00:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is an important and valid topic. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it needs work, a poorly written, in-progress article about a valid topic is better than none at all. 65.42.26.190 (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (hooray for ip sigs)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete; also subject requested deletion as private person with no known media coverage, OTRS #2007120410005443. Shell ^babelfish 18:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe English (sculptor, author)

[edit]

I could not find anything to back up any of the info here. It seems like a hoax. There is no town called Ringo's, New Jersey; this person is not listed at IMDb for any of the films listed. It has only been edited by SPAs. Delete. Plasynins 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious hoax, per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definite hoax.--EJF 21:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like unverifiable hoax --Nn123645 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Ktownsend6 has also commented about this deletion debate here, but I sense a high COI there. As for this issue delete as per everyone else. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by WP:SNOW. Bearian 00:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

01 811 8055

[edit]

Is an old phone number for the BBC notable ? Hammer1980·^talk 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a phone book, especially not for defunct phone numbers. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Multi-Coloured Swap Shop. What am I saying?! Delete. Lugnuts 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a telephone number is not notable and I agree Wikipedia is not a phone book EJF 21:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from WP:NOT concerns defunct phone numbers are not worth articles. Hut 8.5 21:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Oscarthecat 21:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously not notable. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Problems with the phone number was making the newspapers at the time, but the Multi-Coloured Swap Shop article adequately covers it. MortimerCat 23:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multi-Coloured Swap Shop gives a good description, we shouldn't have an article on a phone number. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOT, although strangely I can't think of how precisely I would apply WP:NOT in this case.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glover School

[edit]

Non-notable elementary school. Prod tag removed by somebody who was unhappy with another AfD nomination of mine. AnteaterZot 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable --EJF 21:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable elementary school. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nn school. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. In need of expansion but sources are there. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But how does that support notability? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is POV and not a valid reason for deletion. Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. --Jimbo Wales on Notability. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article for a school that provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Sources need to be better integrated with text. Alansohn 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the existence of sources. User:Kernitou needs to learn that "keep - that's the point of wiki" is an extremely poor argument to use in any deletion discussion. For a start, 'wiki' is not short for 'Wikipedia' - and AfD debates are not a vote.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - another instance where proper research should be carried out before nominating. We don't delete on the state of the article but whether sources are available to establish notability and here there are plenty. We have a newsworthy murder plus other verifiable, secondary sources that easily meet WP:N. TerriersFan 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Alansohn's comment. It's notable. Noroton (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no assertion of notability the article. How does this meet any part of WP:ORG? How does a teacher being shot at home make the school notable? How does an article about the math program make the school notable? Research is not required before a deletion nomination, the editors behind the article must establish notability! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the sources need to be taken together; individual sources don't need to establish notability it is the fact of multiple, secondary sources that meets WP:N. Having said that, an article on the math program, the core of any school curriculum, most certainly goes to the notability of the school. Deleting a page on a notable subject is at least as bad as keeping non-notable material Consequently, responsible editing involves researching notability before nominating; anything else is game playing. TerriersFan (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used are incidental to the school. Perhaps an argument could be advanced that taken together, the school is barely notable. Or, it could be that many people worked really hard to find sources, and this is the best they could come up with. Certainly, the information could be moved to the district and town pages without wasting all the effort that was made to save this article. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Great work by DoubleBlue. --Oxymoron⁸³ 08:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linden School

[edit]

Non-notable elementary school. Prod tag removed by somebody who was unhappy with another AfD nomination of mine. AnteaterZot 19:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable elementary school. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Linden School (Malden) and keep. Notable per news.google but so is Linden School (Toronto) Globe & Mail newspaper. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Google News links suggest some notability. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is rather clear from the article that it says nothing. Fails, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ORG. Also Goggle news is not notability. News articles are nice but they are not indicative of notability. If they are, then I should have an article! Are you really saying that new reports are the sole basis for notability? Maybe it belongs on wikinews, but not here! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we are saying that multiple secondary sources = meeting WP:N and there are plenty. Material exists to meet WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ORG as shown by excellent work by User:DoubleBlue. TerriersFan (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an overlap of information from news articles and encyclopedic content. Therefore, news reports can indeed be the sole basis for notability if they meet WP:N and other Wikipedia standards. Noroton (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we delete pages that can't be sourced to show notability and this plainly can with a range of encyclopaedic content. Verifiable, independent sources show compliance with WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N as regards notability; meets WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ORG. Noroton (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add: Great work DoubleBlue! Noroton (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loker School

[edit]

Non-notable elementary school. Prod tag removed by somebody who was unhappy with another AfD nomination of mine. AnteaterZot 19:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 19:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable elementary school. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment kernitou seems to be laboring under the misaprehension that Wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge, rather than an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. AnteaterZot 16:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no assertion of notability in the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Arthurrh (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nick. —Animum § 19:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gugal

[edit]

This place may be a hoax, as I have not found any reference to this place on Google. The image used is of a different town, and much of the material on the page is nonsense, as well as somewhat rude. EJF 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete articles. I am acutely aware of the controversial nature of these articles. Nevertheless they exist as article which fail WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and perhaps WP:OR. They have existed long enought to have been sourced but no one has been able to do so. -JodyB_talk 16:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Star Wars Sith characters

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Also nominating the following related articles:

These articles are plot summaries (WP:NOT#PLOT) with no real world context. They don't meet notability requirements for fiction (WP:FICT) and there's nothing here to suggest that they ever can. There has been no improvement in any of these articles since the last AfD. Miremare 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Not notable enough for their own articles but the list itself is fine. Characters from one book appear or are referred to in other books. Hammer1980·^talk 20:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think they are "fine"? Didn't you read the nomination? Miremare 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Minor characters are not notable enough for mention anywhere but in the plot summaries (and then only if they do something of significance to the plot). All of these minor character lists fail WP:FICT and are excessive fancruft. Belongs on a Star Wars wiki or on a fan site, but not in an encyclopedia. Collectonian 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Just because they haven't been improved doesn't mean they cannot be improved. There is no deadline for improvement. Rray 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that they fail basic notability requirements is the reason for nomination, not that they haven't been improved. That they haven't been improved, despite narrowly surviving an AfD, just illustrates how unlikely it is to happen at all. Miremare 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your reply. I disagree that it's unlikely that these will be improved, and I also disagree that these fail basic notability requirements. Rray 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Transwiki/Delete (in that order, whatever works best). Comic and video game characters have a hard time establishing notability, and I fear a list of minor such characters have even less a chance. Sufficient time has been given, and the article could not build on the trust it has been given in previous AfD. The article should not exist as such any longer (though the information may find a new home somewhere else). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: The articles are large enough as they are, merging would make that worse. Mdmkolbe 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles fail WP:Plot, WP:WAF, and WP:Fict, Wikipedia is not a star wars wiki.Ridernyc 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we just had a discussion in October, the list is discriminate, and it covers a notable subject. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you tell us why these minor characters are notable per Wikipedia's definition of the word? As for the previous AfD, repeat nominations happen. The article's faults were not, and have not since, been addressed. Miremare 14:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are characters from perhaps the most successful science fiction franchise in history that includes games, movies, comics, toys, etc. Many don't like nomination too closely together. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, but while everyone has heard of Han Solo, the characters listed here are widely unknown and still don't establish notability (and probably can't) even as a group. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thousands or millions of fans of the expanded universe may be familiar with these characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        While thousands or millions of fans may very well be somewhat familiar with the expanded universe, it doesn't mean that they are with these characters. Wookiepedia is pretty good with listing every minor detail for interested readers, but that doesn't mean that wikipedia should lower its notability barrier just because the SW universe is so vast. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, thank you for responding, though you have not answered my question: how are these characters notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notable? Whether characters are popular or whatever is fairly subjective, but has nothing to do with notability, which is proved by coverage in reliable secondary sources. I don't believe this AfD is "too close" to the last, which was over two months ago - two months is more than enough time for some sources to be cited. Miremare 17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. Consensus can change, but Le Grand refuses to accept this. Anything in a second nomination, he uses the excuse of "it was kept before" or similar excuses. RobJ1981 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin. will no doubt be wise enough to judge the various arguments appropriately without such hints. Most admins. closing discussions on AfD pay a certain amount of attention to discussions on AfD in general. You may not always like what an admin decides is the consensus, but that does not mean that we as a class are necessarily less perceptive than you are. It might even have been more perceptive to notice that the previous AfD was a non-consensus close, and therefore does not in any way establish any previous consensus. DGG (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All as this article fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. Because there are no primary sources, I cannot see any justification for keeping, otherwise what is the point of having WP guidelines? Improvement seems to be the strongest argument put forward so far, but I would recomend deletion and starting from scratch with an article that cites its primary sources, rather than copying and pasting from Wookipedia, as appears to have been the case here.--Gavin Collins 15:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, Gavin. How do you know the article was copied and pasted from Wookiepedia? Is it equally possible that the article on Wookiepeedia was copied from here? Thanks again. Rray (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am assuming good faith that this article is not original research. As the source of this article cannot be verified, it is not possible to rule out the possibility that Wookipedia is the primary source of this article's content. However, it is not possible to rule out the possibility that it is original research either. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Gavin, but I don't think I understand your answer to my question. (Maybe my question was unclear.) You indicated that the article appears to have been copied from the Wookiepeedia, and I'd asked if it was possible that the Wookiepeedia article had been copied from here. I wasn't really asking if you thought the content could be verified or if it was original research. Rray (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...You are aware that the page history can be checked to see how the contents formed, and that copyright violations are incredibly apparent to recent changes patrollers - and met with disproportionate force, and that you should probably take it easier considering that you've previously accused people copying content here from a site that copies content from here? --Kizor (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without primary sources, your guess as to where this material comes from is as good as mine. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you say the material appeared to have been copied from the Wookiepeedia? Rray (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because the article covers the same ground as the Wookipedia entries, only the Wikipedia version does not quote the sources from which the characters are derived.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. None of the characters in this list have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. The real-world coverage and relevance of this article is less than minimal. As well, no one here seems to have a realistic plan to address these concerns, perhaps because there's no real way to address the real-world significance of a list of characters that even Star Wars fans call minor... Not only trivia, but lesser trivia. Chromancer (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ongoing lack of sources two months after first AfD, lack of an assertion of notability, and absence of an out-of-universe perspective. These characters don't inherit notability from noteworthy franchise. This is all trivia. I'd be okay with substantial trimming and amalgamating too-specific Lists of... (e.g. Separatist characters, Imperials, Republic characters, these lists) into something formatted similarly to List_of_Shakespearean_characters:_A-K - a one-sentence blurb identifying appearance and role. But none of this physical description and plot summary, and infobox clutter. --EEMIV (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salemwood Elementary School

[edit]

Non-notable elementary school, established in 1999. Prod tag removed by somebody who was unhappy with another AfD nomination of mine.AnteaterZot 19:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable elementary school. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable directory entry. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as empty. It also does not assert notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Wikipedia even states that secondary schools and primary schools with certain achievements may have it's own article. This seems to be a regular elementary school. RandehMann (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article is about gas porosity, not about Patent 5684299. The term 'gas porosity' is an important one in petroleum exploration & production, and the phrase has many online references. Unfortunately, this article draws too heavily on a single primary source.

Original research is not allowed at Wikipedia because we are not the publisher of first instance. US patents are published elsewhere prior to use as a primary source here by the US Patent Office and other places. WP:PSTS outlines the appropriate use of primary sources, and clearly states primary sources should be used with care.

Since this article's creation, it has been revised a bit and there seems to be some good information that can be used in subsequent revisions. Pare it down to the bare bones and begin to rewrite it, or merge it with other articles on porosity. However, deletion isn't the answer in this case. - KrakatoaKatie 23:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gas porosity

[edit]

Contested prod. This article is an almost word-for-word copy of a patent and therefore Original Research (how could it be anything else?). In addition the patent itself is non-notable - no ghits for Patent 5684299 other than patent sites, i.e. no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:NN. No other references are given to back up the assertions made in the article so no verifiability - the award of a patent doesn't mean it's good science. This is simply not how you write an article on this subject. andy 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, violates numerous Wikipedia guidelines. Might even be copyvio. AnteaterZot 19:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has problem with NPOV and therefore needs to be rewrite, but I disagree with deletion. If the information in the article is a copy of published information (and the patent is published), it can't be WP:OR. Also, gas porosity is quite notable thing in petrophysics, and worth to have its own article. This article is about gas porosity and not about the Patent 5684299 solely. The user presented this article for deletion uses logic that if the source is not notable, that also means that the article can't be notable. I think this is wrong and dangerous logic to use. About copyvio, User:DGG explained that US Patents are public domain, and therefore there is no copyvio. Beagel 20:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A patent application must be regarded as OR unless it has subsequently become notable, or been peer reviewed. But otherwise a word for word copy of a patent application is a word for word copy of OR. If an article merely regurgitates a non-notable patent, without any significant alterations, additions or references it's simply repeating someone else's OR. andy 23:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve A patent is a primary source, not "original research". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a patent is a primary source for an article about that patent. But if the content of the patent is used as an article in its own right then it's OR, just as it was when the applicant filed the patent in the first place. andy 23:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Has some somewhat useful information, but should be rewritten if kept--EJF 21:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I assume that a patent specification is public domain, so that no question of copy-vio arises. The patent is a published source. This is thus not WP:OR as WP uses the term. The article has several other tags on it, and we should hope that it will in due course be improved. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On that basis any article that is a copy of OR published elsewhere isn't OR. How can something be its own source? WP:OR defines OR as "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories". That fits the patent. The article is a reproduction of the patent, which is of course published, so therefore it's not OR? That's a pointless quibble - the article is simply a copy of OR. andy (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into List of Jericho characters. There is clear consensus to not have a separate article, but they are to be listed briefly together with the other minor characters where they are currently linked.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Hawkins (Jericho character)

[edit]

This non-notable TV show character has nothing on the page indicating notability within the show, let alone in the real world. Unsourced, plot summary too. AnteaterZot 19:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable, minor character shouldn't have their own article, or even be mentioned outside of episode summaries. Collectonian 21:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 21:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't need own article. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable minor fictional character. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional character. -- Mikeblas 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Jericho characters per WP:FICT#Non-notable topics. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect To the List of... article for Jerhico. Lawrence Cohen 23:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per sgeureka and Lawrence Cohen. DHowell (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into List of Jericho characters per sgeureka. Bláthnaid 10:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into List of Jericho characters. There is clear consensus to not have a separate article, but they are to be listed briefly together with the other minor characters where they are currently linked.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Hammond (Jericho character)

[edit]

This non-notable TV character is unsourced, pure plot summary AnteaterZot 18:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable minor character. Collectonian 21:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 21:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't need own article. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable minor fictional character. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Jericho characters per WP:FICT#Non-notable topics. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per sgeureka. DHowell (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into List of Jericho characters per sgeureka. Bláthnaid 10:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Val Jean (Star Trek)

[edit]

Also nominating

Article makes no assertion of real-world notability. Article offers no citations to reliable secondary sources; article relies solely on in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I wrote Val jean article. No opinion on notability; merely wrote it as previous version was copyvio Computerjoe 's talk 19:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom, both articles are nothing but in-universe plot summaries with no out-of-universe importance. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. The articles could certainly be criticised, most notably for their in-universe perspective and lack of sourcing. But that ought not to make them articles for deletion, only articles needing further development. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the ship is not notable, as it was only featured partially in one episode of a series that ran for seven years, and was not a major focus in that one episode. The article is in-universe, and has no real-world notability. Ejfetters 01:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also delete the Valiant article, for the same reasons above, no real-world notability. Ejfetters 01:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Both need to assert notability through references. Judgesurreal777 19:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles fail WP:Plot, WP:WAF and WP:FICT. Ridernyc 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likewise. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addhoc 19:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moston Terrace

[edit]

Delete no indication why this street is notable. no sources, as usual. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. andy 19:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete no proof of notability EJF 21:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. No notability proven at all. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could have been speedied. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A1, I'm tagging this as such, and doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of inclusion.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into List of Jericho characters. There is clear consensus to not have a separate article, but they are to be listed briefly together with the other minor characters where they are currently linked.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Bailey (Jericho character)

[edit]

This fictional TV character doesn't even have much to indicate notability within the show, let alone real-world notability. AnteaterZot 18:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Collectonian 21:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 21:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't need own article. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable minor fictional character. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Jericho characters per WP:FICT#Non-notable topics. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sgeureka's argument. • WarpFlyght (talk • contribs) 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per sgeureka and WarpFlyght. DHowell (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into List of Jericho characters per sgeureka. Bláthnaid 10:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 patent nonsense. Tonywalton | Talk 11:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Goldstein

[edit]

Unreferenced, non-notable biography. Nehwyn 18:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless superiour sources can be found. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references, and even if there were any, I can't see any notability. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible speedy as there are no clear claims to notability. For some reason, it seems to be a target for vandalism. Capitalistroadster 06:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's supposed to be an ironic page. Probably created by a friend. --Nehwyn 10:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense, I am tagging it as such...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Giroux

[edit]

~~nn film director, only won one minor award, currently fails WP:BIO and isn't the subject of non-trivial, indpendent sourcs Delete This is a Secret ^account 18:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Neutral after Genie Award win This is a Secret ^account 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ 1,620 hits on Yahoo ... but unless I missed something, there's not a reliable source among them. Blueboy 96 18:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Weak keep after reading that story in La Presse (yes, I speak French as well). Could use more sources, though ... Blueboy 96 13:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A minor award? Check out the Toronto International Film Festival. Phil Bridger 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a minor award in the Film Festival, anyways where are the non-trivial, indpendent sources to back it up. This is a Secret ^account 20:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do you speak French? Does this count toward notability? There's other stuff available here. Zagalejo^^^ 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first article said that he's an up and coming director, it's from La Presse (Canada) it's one reliable source though, the rest are quick mentions of him winning the award, farely trivial. This is a Secret ^account 21:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer French is my mother tongue, and yes, this counts as a reliable source for notability. Cyberpresse is to French Canada what MSNBC is to the US. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. b/c a best short @ Toronto doesn't make a film notable, so if it's the most notable film of a directors they prob. aren't notable either (at least not as a director). Even if the film was notable (has become a significant monument, has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has won significant critical attention, or is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries [see Wikipedia:Notablity]) the director should be ...regarded as an important figure or widely cited by their peers or successors....known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.... True theory 23:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:BIO: " a person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards... The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." The Genie is the highest film honour Canada has, and as someone who works in the film industry I would say that given TIFF's mammoth stature its award for best short film is arguably the third most important short film award in the world, after the Oscar for Best Short and the Palmes d'or for best short. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notability is asserted and shown from reliable sources. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One reliable source doesn't mean an article is valid, it needs multiple though. This is a Secret ^account 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Our guidelines don't require multiple reliable sources -- one in-depth secondary source is sufficient. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does, see WP:N, multiple secondary sources are prefered. This is a Secret ^account 23:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although it also says, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Zagalejo^^^ 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Preferred" ≠ "Required" --A. B. ^(talk) 01:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Multiple sources are preferred. Only one source is required. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable per above. Note also that a Google News archive search turns up 54 press mentions --A. B. ^(talk) 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all of them are passing mentions This is a Secret ^account 23:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Almost all" ≠ "All" --A. B. ^(talk) 01:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Winning an award from the Toronto International Film Festival counts as notable enough in my books, even if it seems like a minor award in the scheme of the whole festival. Not to mention that two minutes of expansion research turned up a list of musicians for whom he directed videos: Sarah Harmer, The Dears, Sam Roberts, Les Cowboys Fringants, Louise Forestier? And on top of that, he won a fricking Genie Award as well. That's a keep, guys. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GJ (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Genie Award-winning director? On what grounds, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability established by Genies and Toronto International Film Festival. Ground Zero | t 00:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 00:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ~~WP:NOTFILM~~ WP:BIO. The Genie is Canada's national film award and TIFF is one of the world's premiere film festivals. That it "only" won in the short film category at TIFF can hardly be held against it. Moreover, Cyberpresse is eminently reliable and notable. It is the web portal of La Presse, the largest French daily in the Western Hemisphere and one of Canada's most respected publications. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:BIO with awards and recognition as evidenced by Genie and Toronto international Film Festival awards. -- Whpq (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as obviously notable public broadcast company. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Public Radio Inc.

[edit]

Reads like an advertisement--information in articles can easily be split between WGUC and WVXU. Blueboy 96 18:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. The article needs a rewrite to focus on the organization. The station information belongs in the articles on the stations. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claim that they have roughly 140,000 listeners asserts notability. RFerreira (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question for me is "what's in the article that can't be discussed in the station articles?" Not much that I can tell. Blueboy 96 13:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per Author Request by Kwsn. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 09:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boycotts Against Wikipedia

[edit]

One boycott does not make a list, it makes a ridiculous attempt to grab attention. As an article it would never pass notability criteria, hence should be deleted. carelesshx _talk 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the citation I added. I believe it makes the article notable. Also, I added a {stub} tag, since you are right...one item is not a list.I love webcomics 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are doubtlessly many people who are declining to donate to Wikimedia for any of a large number of reasons, good or bad. Instances where such "boycotts" are somehow notable may belong in the Criticism of Wikipedia article or something, but this list is just someone seeking attention for themselves. Delete as self-promotion. Chromaticity 18:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the citation I added. I believe it makes this article. I honestly just like webcommics! I only mentioned that man's name because I thought it would help people who wanted to find out more information about the boycott. I don't know or like him, and I'm not familiar with his work...and he definitley is not me...I am not a webcomic, just a fan!I love webcomics 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Coatrack. AnteaterZot 18:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you would consider this coatrack, but please read the article again since I have made significant changes to try and avoid deletion All the article says now is that a boycott exists againts Wikipedia donations on the grounds of excluding webcomics. It does not say anything that is not cited, and it does not mention any names or (like always) it does not link to any outside webpages. I love webcomics 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I am the creator of this article, and before this boycott, I had never heard of Howard Tayler, but I do enjoy webcomics in general, and I enjoyed wikipedia being a reference of webcomics, and of all artists in general. I love webcomics 18:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC) — I love webcomics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I have removed the item in the list about webcomics since it provided almost no information if the name of the person who began the boycott could not be included. I change my vote to delete, since this is now an empty list. Alienating webcomics will have a lasting effect on the comic communities view of Wikipedia. Comic artists have been marginalized and been denied the title of artist since before anyone in this discussion was born. With how progressive and open minded most people in the Wikipedia community are, I am amazed and embarrassed that Wikipedia has unofficially denounced all web comics as artists. This obviously is not the only account I have for making contributions to Wikipedia, as I have made both monetary and informational contributions to many articles without controversy (on other accounts). I am sad to say that I will be unlikely to make edits to Wikipedia in the future. And that I will not ever again contribute money to Wikipedia, even after the boycott ends. So let's censor it! It's unanimous!

~~Keep & modify~~ I understand why you would think that I am somehow trying to support Howard Tayler. It's kinda silly, since he has a BLP that is not up for deletion, but either way I am removing all names from the article, so there can be no doubt that this article is promoting nothing more than webcomics in general. I love webcomics 18:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having changed the name in the article to 'webcomics', you have removed any resemblance the article had to an actual list. It is now a single-line article, and the single line is completely unsupported by any facts, including the citation you yourself gave. I would be tempted to recommend a Speedy Delete on the grounds that the article now contains almost zero actual content (A3) --carelesshx _talk 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep & expand~~ I know one item is not a list. If anything this article should be tagged as a stub so it can be expanded. Boycotts by definition are not official, so pointing out that this is not an official boycott is redundant. I love webcomics 18:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep & cite~~ I have added citations to the article. I had some problem with the formatting, (so it might be a broken link right now), but I am doing my best to figure out what went wrong and correct it. I love webcomics 18:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't !vote more than once. One recommendation to keep per user is more than sufficient. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I am new to wikipedia. I wasn't trying to trick anyone! I intentionally signed each one so that everyone would know I made all those points. I just had a lot of points to make and I didn't want to create one endless paragraph! Sorry ... won't happen again! I love webcomics 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, anything that may be relevant (and, of course, cited) could theoretically be included at Criticism of Wikipedia. This article, however, seems to be a blatant WP:COATRACK, especially given the unnecessary biased commentary added by the article creator (In general, news of these boycotts are censored from Wikipedia by editors who do not support them.). A list of one so-called boycott? Ooh. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that commentary. It was true, but the only sources I could have cited for it would be other Wikipedia talk pages and that is inappropriate. Please reread the article. I have made significant changes to avoid deletion. Although my frustration may have shown through in the original draft of the article, all the article says now is that a boycott exists. The article now cites it's sources as well. All names of people (living or dead) have been removed, and there is not and never was any links to outside webpages. This is not a coatrack...maybe it should be deleted so it can be moved somewhere else, but I genuinely am a webcomic fan and honestly my only interest in this subject is that I want to be able to use Wikipedia as a reference to find information about webcomics.I love webcomics 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How do you boycott a service that you don't have to pay for and that carries no advertising? Assuming this isn't a "look at me dammit" hoax, Howard Tayler, the internationally known superstar, is boycotting the current fundraiser. Should bring Wikipedia to its knees any day now. Mandsford 19:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As described both in the article and in the source that the article now cites, the boycott is boycotting donations to the current wikipedia fundraiser. Howard Tayler had nothing to do with the creation of this article. If you want to know where I learned his name, look at the source I just added to the article.I love webcomics 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censor this obvious deviation from the Wikipedia party line. Or maybe just delete because it isn't notable in any way, shape or form, and of course, we are applying notability criteria only against webcomics. All of the other entries on AFD are merely a smokescreen. There is no cabal. Fnord. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objecting to the exclusion of webcomics because they are not notable, is not a notable suggestion, because webcomics are not notable. This is a great example of the petitio principii fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love webcomics (talk • contribs)

The point is that if a webcomic is notable it is kept, if it is unnotable it is not kept, just like the thousnads of other articles nominated at AFD. Nor is this boycott notable in any way, shape or form. I don't know what you're on about regarding fallacies. --Dhartung | Talk 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Drivel. Pity there isn't a speedy for this. Blueboy 96 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A speedy delete for Drivel? Can you please explain your objection more thoroughly? I love webcomics 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Depending on how you view it, it might be a CSD G3. Depends on your interpretation of where the line is between a "WP:POINT violation" and plain old "vandalism". --Kinu ^t/_c 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If necessary, add a little to Howard Tayler, but I really don't think it necessary. LukeSurl^{t c} 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject matter. --Boreas 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should be possibly mentioned in Criticism of Wikipedia. Not notable alone. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been speedy deleted already. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yup...but if we speedily delete it now, then no one can read the rant I put at the top of this AFD entry!! ;-)...anyway...I agree it should be deleted...but who cares if it is deleted speedily or slowly...it's just an empty list, it can't hurt anybody! Everyone I meet on Wikipedia is so dramatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love webcomics (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as ((db-author)), as this comment appears to indicate that sole contributor to this article consents to deletion. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are jerks. Read through this page and count how many nasty jokes, or mean things people said that did not at all help them convey what they were trying to explain. Most of the people here assumed I was trying to self-promote or vandalize or whatever...no one thought for a minute that I might genuinely be a fan of webcomics. No one thought that I might like Wikipedia and want Wikipedia to be a useful reference for people looking for information about webcomics. You guys just saw me type in the name of someone who was still alive, and assumed I must be that person or that I was trying to help that person get famous or some other paranoid idea. The reason I wanted people to know about the boycott was not so they wouldn't contribute to Wikipedia...It was so that wikipedia would start re-including webcomics and the boycott would end! Now I am on my own personal life-long boycott of monetary contributions to Wikipedia...not because of Webcomics...but because of how the Wikipedia community treats new commers.

It is obvious that I would not spend all this time and thought on this if I wasn't seriously trying to help improve Wikipedia...this is not vandalism.

It is obvious that I have some intelligence and that I have command of the English Language.

And it is also obvious that I am a newcommer to Wikipedia...If it doesn't seem obvious by the way I act...then look at my contribution list! Even though I am a newcommer...it is also obvious that I am working hard to collaborate, to learn the guidelines, and to make changes to my article so that tags can be removed.

I'm not saying you guys are wrong...infact I changed my vote...I'm just saying you guys are jerks. That's all.

I love webcomics 21:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about us being jerks, but if your intent was to lobby for inclusion of articles about a particular subject, this was even less effective an idea than a boycott. There's no reason that you can't add to existing articles about webcomics. Bear in mind that the reason that we don't include every article about a particular weblog, website, webcomic, youtube page, internet book or other internet creation is that there are so damn many of them. They lack the permanency of published material (a lot of which isn't considered notable either), and the vast majority are unknown outside of cyberspace. With the exception of the Montgomery Transit System in 1955, I can't think of many boycotts that actually worked. Mandsford 23:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boycotts work all the time. And these artists have published material. You can buy their books from their website in bound form, often with ISBN numbers and everything. And they are permanent; some of the artists I read have been producing strips every week for many years. I love webcomics 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense, possibly WP:POINT or trolling, and certainly nn. JJL 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record Webcomics does have an article in Wikipedia. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure that this boycott was my idea? You assume ill faith from the beginning, that I made this up? You know where I heard about this boycott? From the "Why Wikipedia does not Using Ads" article that I cited. Of course I already was aware of how Wikipedia treats webcomics, but until I read that article I had no idea there was a boycott, and that article is where I got the name of that guy who you paranoid editors keep accusing me of being. I know webcomics has an article...if you looked at my contributions you would see that I tried to mention this boycott there and it was removed because it was not appropriate for that article, which is why I created an article for which it would be appropriate, because I honestly and in the most innocent way thought that it was notable enough to be in Wikipedia even though it may not have been appropriate for the webcomics article itself...you are missing the point you idiot...webcomics are people...we are talking about Biographies of notable people who are webcomics...not the webcomics article itself...Why would you make a stupid argument about something that you didn't even bother reading about, when there is no one to argue against? Do you realize that no one is voting to keep this page? You aren't arguing against anyone...everyone agrees with you...plus your argument is the most idiotic one on this whole page because you obviously don't even know what the boycott or this discussion is about.

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Gordon

[edit]

unsourced blp about a nn local tv weather person. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N. Carlossuarez46 18:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources to claim notability. --Nehwyn 18:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for a biography. Claims of notability are too minor.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Unnecessary orphaned copy&paste duplicate of the main article section. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Is It Legal? characters

[edit]

I don't believe that this article is notable, and it contains much original research. It is not terribly well-written, with an unencyclopedic style. Though tagged heavily (!), I wouldn't think that there's much room for improvement, and its notability is, IMO, terminally unstable. The creation of the page involved deleting perfectly valid (and better!) material from a parent article. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Is It Legal?. Only a few characters in the show can easily be covered in the parent, once all the WP:FICT and WP:PLOT stuff is removed. Collectonian 21:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 21:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This information in this article is repeated in the Is It Legal? article. If the Is It Legal? article grows too big then perhaps a List of Is It Legal? characters might be useful. Until then - Delete. MortimerCat 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Is It Legal? as the content has already been merged into that article. DHowell (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the content has been extracted from the main article --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to List of Numb3rs characters. Pastordavid (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Sinclair (Numb3rs)

[edit]

This TV character is non-notable, and the article is unsourced (the link at the bottom is some sort of blog, and is not about the character). Upon reading, article is mostly plot summary. AnteaterZot 18:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable and not written like an encyclopedia article Alexfusco5 18:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Collectonian 21:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 21:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't need own article. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable fictional TV character. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable show so this would be viable at the show's page; splitting the chars. up like this is reasonable. JJL 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Numb3rs characters; this is a main character, but the list article is not so large that the main characters could not be described there. DHowell (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the guidelines in WP:FICT to List of Numb3rs characters. No prejudice against recreating the article in the future, however, if secondary sources demonstrating noatbility appear. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinume

[edit]

The article is about video resumes. We already have an article about video resumes and this merely links in a non-notable website. The sources for this article do not even mention the word "Cinume". This seems to be a coatrack like article to promote the Cinume site. Also note this was prodded but disputed. spryde | talk 18:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, coatrack site. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But people are asking what cinumes are. http://www.linkedin.com/mbox?displayMBoxItem=&itemID=358090217_2&goback=%2Eavq_7511_722157_0_*2%2Eavq_138210_3045788_0_*2. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071201155705AAnr9m7. They just don't have a clue. Coatrack site? We don't delete "video resumes" because it links to videoresume.com. Or another site that links to resume.com. We shouldn't delete an article about the definition of a cinume because it happens to link to a site called cinume.com, even if that page appears to have little content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.13.151 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC) — 75.36.13.151 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, then redirect to Video resume, people will figure it out. AnteaterZot 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Do not redirect to the video resume page. The video resume page has almost no information on it and, in fact, contains warnings that it hasn't been wikified and doesn't meet Wiki's quality standards. At the very least, merge the two articles.--Chanceous 19:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)— Chanceous (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Some of the content may be moved over to the video resume page. However, except for Time, the rest of the sources are pretty flimsy in terms of WP:RS. Cinume as of right now is a non-notable website that isn't even launched. In fact, all the items about Cinume seem to be about the upcoming launch and spammy in tone (and none of them from reliable secondary sources). That is why I prod'ed it. That is why I AfD'ed it. Finally, if the proper term is Video Resume, Cinume is a neoligism and even more proper to delete. Instead of creating a new page, this should have been added to video resume in order to satisfy what the tags say. spryde | talk 20:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. Promotional neologism. --Dhartung | Talk 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid comment above struck out.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as non-notable neologism. None of the third-party sources even mention the term 'cinume' and do not verify the text.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 12:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as article is thinly disguised spam. The service has not been launched yet, and so fails WP:CRYSTAL.--Gavin Collins 12:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legit posting adding more info to the video resume article. Email, kleenex, and qtips were neologistic once too. --63.151.79.254 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC) (([reply]

Comment It adds nothing to the video resume article as there are no links between the two articles. Also, I don't think we want to contribute to the genericide of a trademark like you are suggesting. I am not sure of the legal ramifications of doing that but I am sure someone could enlighten me. If Cinume becomes notable and more than a neologism, there will be an article created about the company. For now, the company is not notable and their product is video resumes and we have an article on that. spryde | talk 20:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge. The term "cinume" does not appear to have any appreciable usage. If it is kept, then it should be smeged with video resume. -- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devouris

[edit]

Character appeared in less than one full issue of a comic book, has made no further appearances. Fails test for notability. Konczewski (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see no evidence at all of the "extensive coverage" in reliable secondary sources as required by WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable, assuming the character isn't important to DC Universe. If it is important to DC Universe, then merge there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding T 13:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a redirect target, so for the sake of consensus, delete. Hiding T 21:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appearing to be non-notable - not that I know much about comics.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McDunn

[edit]

Nominating for deletion per lack of notability. While this article is referenced, the subject still fails to meet WP:NOTE as he has not been the subject of any non trivial articles in any reliable sources. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails to meet BIO. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ≈Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 07:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, doesn't look to be worth a biography.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete --A. B. ^(talk) 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per RJD. Twenty Years 15:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Henderson

[edit]

Fictional character from Shortland Street with no sign of real world notability; all references on the article are from the TV station which produced Shortland Street and thus not independent Pak21 (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the list of articles for deletion at WikiProject Soap Operas. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sources. AnteaterZot 19:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or redirect to List of Shortland Street characters. Collectonian 21:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 21:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't need own article. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy groups in City of Heroes and City of Villains

[edit]

This article fails WP:NOT#NOTE, WP:NOT#GUIDE, and WP:IINFO. This detailed information is appropriate in a site such as ParagonWiki or the game's own official forums, but not Wikipedia. Jeff Alexander (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The material is far more cursory than, say, Paragonwiki's own articles on the enemy groups. There is a large enough player base that notability is not an issue, and this is a reasonable article giving information that someone researching the City of Heroes game would want that removing it would be at best ill-advised. Further, this does not constitute a guide as the information on the various groups is nowhere near detailed enough to be of practical use in gameplay, but is detailed enough to be informative for someone researching the game. All told, this article should stay in as written.--Eric Burns (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There needs to be some demonstration of notability, otherwise its just plot repetition. Judgesurreal777 06:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) —Preceding comment was added at 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources indicating notability are given on the page. AnteaterZot 18:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT, WP:N, and WP:RS. Ridernyc 23:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ridernyc. Twenty Years 15:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a page of trivia suited for a guidebook and only notable to a small playerbase which compared to the total readership of Wikipedia is insignificant. Alatari (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eccount

[edit]

Spammy neologism. The 281 unique ghits don't indicate wide usage. MER-C 09:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 09:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication in the article that the term found its way out of the company that coined it. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in case the previous unanimity wasn't entirely clear. No notability for this vanispamcruftisement. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "previous unanimity" -- you think that two people inputting, one saying nothing but voting, is sufficient input? What a perverse idea of "consensus". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy 19:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that is a vote - say something constructive. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, neologism, ugly. AnteaterZot 20:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fractor

[edit]

Article looks like a non-existent electrical component. A search on google for that particular thing doesn't turn up anything. All the pages used as references are about calculus, not electronics. Only one significant author. Maybe hoax? Andante1980 (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not a hoax, just an obscure conceptual model. Google Scholar results for "fractor+bohannan" and "fractor+chen" yield papers with mostly one or two citations, and I can't find a broad article other than these two guys' writings. --Dhartung | Talk 11:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not wholly conceptual: they are seeking licensing partners and Bohannan has formed a company. Still doesn't seem notable yet -- I'm surprised it hasn't been in Pop Mech, though. --Dhartung | Talk 11:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I barely got through calculus, alas (I was a Comp. Lit. major), but my lay understanding of this is that it is the equivalent of a dimmer switch for certain kinds of electronics, famously limited to bits that are on or off. This would have applications, as touted, for many industrial control devices, in that the fractional calculus can be used to design the dielectric parts so that they behave predictably across a range of settings. If anyone wonders why the papers all seem to be about mathematics, that's why. --Dhartung | Talk 11:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for while I proudly failed calculus, this makes sense. Rescue and clean up. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is real, but as I stated above, I wasn't able to find enough in the way of independently sourced material for an article -- mainly papers by the authors/inventors and press releases from the school and associated business ventures. It's an interesting invention but it apparently has not yet attracted investment interest. --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone invents a gizwhack (patent pending) in their basement (or even at a college) and wants to promote it on Wikipedia? That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Come back when it satisfies WP:N. No prejudice against future creation of an article when it gets substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. (We used to refer to any gadget whose name could not be thought of as a "razzofractor." Just saying.) And what is this "calculous" that they keep referring to in the article and at the developer's website [4]? Curious commonality of invented spelling. Possible conflict of interest? Edison 20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Edison. -Verdatum 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common man protection force

[edit]

Fails to establish notability. Nothing comprhensive on Google. No references and does not adhere to WP:NPOV Hammer1980·^talk 12:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable evidence of notability (and, yes, it sounds promotional). Pastordavid (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It is verifiable, but doesn't seem to be worth an article as it would be nothing more than a stub.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Research. Twenty Years 15:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian musk

[edit]

Notability still not established. Article is so short, as a previous editor had to remove a chunk of copyvio material, which showed the article to be essentially spam. thisisace (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even what's left reads like advertising, or at least like menu prose. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aliya-Jasmine Sovani

[edit]

From the article, "one of seven hosts on MTV Live (Canada)". Flagged by 141.156.234.101 for notability and sources and CSD A7 deletion, but I want extra opinions on whether the provided references assert notability, so please don't speedy this one. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "references"? A link to her MySpace page and her biography from her employer's website (MTV.ca) are hardly independent reliable source citations to support Notability (people) criteria ... the article is a bunch of fancruft unsubstantiated by citations from reliable sources. —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 17:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. Collectonian 21:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 21:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, doesn't appear to merit a biography.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and clean-up. Pastordavid (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Greenfield

[edit]

Questionable notability. Seems to have written a book, "The Jews' Secret Fleet". —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a clear COI here (page created by User:Gefenpublishing, name of the subject's firm) but since the subject was a participant in the Aliyah Bet as well as a historian of it, and seems to be a fairly notable community leader among North-American Israelis, I'd suggest keep, but clearly the reference/sources tag should stay and the whole thing needs cleaning up. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has an unencyclopedic tone - reads more like a list of achievements than an actual neutral biographical encyclopedia piece.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. article clearly establishes notability. --Brewcrewer 02:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Player

[edit]

Non-notable software; just a list of features and article reads like an advertisment. No substantial references for this product will come from third-party sources, and the only available references are likely reviews. ((prod)) was removed by User:RentGen without comment, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. There really don't seem to be many sources; the only links I can find are mirror sites for downloading it. There are an awful lot of them, including even [ZDnet but I couldn't find even one real review of it. Weak delete--TexasDex ★ 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs a through rewrite, but worthy of being kept. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informative, and no shameless plugging. Doesn't need to be deleted. I found the article slightly helpful when I was looking for media players myself. (Slightly = I don't need to download Spider Player ;)). Nshuks7 21:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. There are sources, but we need to remember that Wikipedia is not a directory of media players or anything else, and there's nothing to decide what makes this one any different from all the rest.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Twenty Years 15:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ku-ring-gai Philharmonic Orchestra

[edit]

Difficult to tell if this community orchestra is notable Rtphokie (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks easy to tell for me. There is a reference is the article verifying that the orchestra has won two national awards. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, perhaps someone more familiar with the subject can verify if these awards are notable. If the article were longer I probably wouldn't even question it.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the award in question gets no hits independent of the orchestra in question. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the award which seems to be marginally notable. Apparently I don't know how to use Google properly! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually it gets plenty. Phil Bridger 19:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Ten Pound Hammer but would really benefit from expansion and more citations.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was It sleeps with the fishes --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeLuca crime family

[edit]

I have tried to source this but I can't find anything on the Memphis Outfit nor the DeLuca crime family mentioned in the article. The initial article contained copyvio and did not support the first part of it. Basically, I think this may be a hoax. spryde | talk 14:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also could not find anything about this in the lexis news database. Mangostar (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a writer for the collierville independent, I am following the story of recent arrests of some local crime figures who are belived to be a part of this organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klixx242 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and the article can be redone if the story becomes notable. --Stormbay 19:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unpublished, unverifiable WP:OR. The talk page tells the whole story here.[5] The cited sources cannot be verified. An online search cannot verify the existence of the cited book. The newspaper cite does not name a specific article. A search of the Collierville Independent archives yields no relevant hits on DeLuca. Even the author uses the words "believed to be". • Gene93k 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whack before we get sued (assuming these people are even real). We are not the police blotter and even a series of articles in the Collierville Independent (an institution so immutable that its domain is for sale) isn't really enough for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 unsourced. - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blog analysis

[edit]

Original research essay with no sources. Ridernyc (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be sourced. For Example, a quick and dirty Google search yields this Ars Technica link: US military turns to "blog analysis" for intelligence. I say keep or redirect to Data mining.--TexasDex ★ 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you're analyzing blogs, you'll call it blog analysis. That doesn't make it a term or a field of study. WP:N WP:RS. This may very well become a common term in the future, but it doesn't appear to be ready for WP yet. -Verdatum 21:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a term I have been seeing recently. The article needs a lot of work but it is a valid subject. MortimerCat 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and neologism unless someone provides a substantial rewrite with sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Per Verdatum. Twenty Years 15:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta CorpsVets

[edit]

Originally deleted as "blatant advertising" under WP:CSD#G11, but faced a good-faith challenge at WP:DRV where it was additionally felt not to pass the G11 standard. I restored this because of a testable claim made here. AfD should consider such things. Splash - tk 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to real life (aka school) I will not be able to work on this until Nov 28. Please stand by as I collect my sources! Werecowmoo (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

[edit]

I may not be a registered user, but I see nothing wrong with this article. It may need to be rewritten a little so it sounds better. Otherwise, important subject being as there are only 2 drum corps left in Georgia now.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deletion? It seems to be a notability issue and appears to be partially solved through references. If my vote counts i say KEEP.WolfenUWG 16:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

[edit]

I may not be a registered user, but I see nothing wrong with this article. It may need to be rewritten a little so it sounds better. Otherwise, important subject being as there are only 2 drum corps left in Georgia now.

Keep The Atlanta CorpsVets are a perennial DCA finalist corps and clearly satisfy the notability requirement. I'm sure Weremoocow will be able to annotate the article sufficiently. --JimBurnell 17:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article might need help, but deleting it will just create a void that will no doubt be filled again. I see nothing so wrong with the article that a simple Wiki "advert" or "NPOV" note at the top couldn't bandage. If the notability of the article is being questioned, that's silly; whoever nominated for deletion on that basis is simply ignorant of the drum corps activity. Deleting the article would be ridiculously excessive.—Lazytiger (Talk | contribs) 18:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is written primarily from a neutral standpoint and has satisfied all requirements. A cleanup tag would be more accurate.Werecowmoo (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seneca Mall

[edit]

Non-notable dead mall in New York, page is mainly a list of the many anchor stores it had. A search for sources online turned up none. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at all. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable to followers of the Sattler retail chain. 2Cites provided w/ more available if requested. This mall was responsible for putting another out of business, and thus, an important piece of local history/timeline. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What does the chain have to do with the notability of this mall? Does any business that outs another out of business now have automatic notability? If so, we need to add a few million articles! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A smaller mall, with adequate reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Only one~~ None of the sources is actually about the Seneca Mall though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per AlanSohn. Twenty Years 15:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are more relevant to Sattler's than they are to the mall. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another small not notable mall. How does being 'very notable to followers of the Sattler retail chain' make it notable? Sources do not make it notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search of Google News Archives comes up with enough potential sources to warrant an article. [6]. As you would expect, most of the potential sources are from the Buffalo News but it has been mentioned in other papers. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Play (SHINEmk album)

[edit]

Delete unsourced article about an EP album, currently out of print according to the article, but no indication of why this is notable: no mention of charting or significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources as we expect in WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Keep per precedent; albums by notable artists are generally notable enough for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Artist is only borderline notable, and an out-of-print early EP is unlikely to be notable in itself. WP:NOT#DIR needs to be remembered - we are not the All Music Guide or Rate Your Music.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per research. Twenty Years 15:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete; redirecting to Doom 3 seems sensible. Marasmusine (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Cube

[edit]

The article asserts no notability, and is thus an in-universe repetition of plot points from the Doom game series. It is entirely duplicative of the content of those other articles and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Twenty Years 15:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notability outside Doom. Fin©™ 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doom 3 if deleted. --- RockMFR 18:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Hill Middle School 127

[edit]

Middle School with no claim to notability. Ridernyc (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Rackabello (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Tonywalton | Talk 22:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this school is subject to a notable project for dealing with cultural diversity, important enough to be reported by the New York Times. TerriersFan 21:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage by New York Times of a school of this type is strong evidence of notability. Alansohn 04:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most middle schools are not notable enough for their own article, but in this case coverage in a ~~national/state~~ international newspaper (I class the New York Times as that as despite the name it is distributed internationally and has large audience outside New York) is strong evidence of notability. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times is an international newspaper of course, but only some sections of it, not the local section, where this article comes from. This is a Secret ^account 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A small mention in a large newspaper doesnt seem to merit an article. Twenty Years 15:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the New York Times can find space for it in their publication, so can we. This is a school after all. Coccyx Bloccyx 18:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So? This is a Secret ^account 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is established. Noroton (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the source doesn't indicate notabilty, it's the local section of the New York Times of a New York city school. This is a Secret ^account 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N standard for notability, which is what we generally are talking about when we mention "notability". Noroton (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Dani

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recognition is weak outside of cosplay, and contributions/notability within cosplay is suspect as per WP:BIO (what has she done that no other person within her field has ever done?). Poorly cited. ~~All references are of an autobiographical nature (mainly interviews or info on her own page).~~ Additionally, subject in question has edited this page which is in violation of WP:COI. There have been several honest attempts to salvage this entry in the past two years in deference to WP policy, but does not seem possible given currently available data (ie. aforementioned autobiographical citations don't count). Kensuke Aida 17:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is the subject of multiple secondary independent sources [7] [8][9] [10]. Referred to as the "most famous Italian Cosplayer in Brazil" here. Was even interviewed and profiled by the extremely popular Maxim Magazine which called her "The most popular cosplayer on the web!" [11]. Cosplay is a major and enourmously popular genre, especially in Japan, Brazil and Europe. Notability in the Costplay world is very notable (not liking independent secondary Cosplay references is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT). This person even has notability outside it. --Oakshade 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of your sources still consist mainly of interviews and are therefore autobiographical in nature. Many of your citations link to her page. Are there any impartial news stories about her that aren't interviews? Maxim magazine? Where? On her page? Primary source. Doesn't count. Notability outside of cosplay? In what way? Also, please justify multiple WP:COI edits made by her and (possibly) her fiancée. Kensuke Aida 18:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your logic. Because the demonstration that she was featured in Maxim Magazine is linked from the subject's website magically means she wasn't featured by Maxim Magazine? (I can't believe I actually had to ask that.) Maxim Magzine is not a cosplay oriented magazine and therefore demonstrates notability outside of Cosplay, which is still unnecessary to demonstrate notability. As for these interviews, that such a large number of secondary independent sources interviewed her is in fact further demonstration of notability. If they were her self published works you would have a valid point, but these are independent of her, from all over the world in multiple languages to boot. --Oakshade 18:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the subject having made edits to the page, you seem to be under the false impression that means an article must be deleted. If a subject is notable and has been the subject of mulitple secondary independent sources, a subject making edits doesn't in any way negate that. The notable authors Kim Ponders and Barbara Biggs made multiple edits to there own articles and misguided editors tried to the delete them for the same reasons (obviously they were kept). It was even reported internationally that John Howard's staff made editits to his article. Care to AfD that one? --Oakshade 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proper citation of her Maxim magazine coverage would go a long ways towards addressing my concern (volume, issue, page, relevance?). But more to a point, an interview is barely removed from a primary source, since the person is largely talking about themselves and the interviewer basically acts as a publisher. NPOV issues abound. Nor are any of your citations matched up to text in the body of the article. Ergo, the heading of "References" is inappropriate. What do they reference? Also, your "secondary independent sources" are all fanzines. Maxim? Okay, I'll give you that one. That's ONE extremely notable secondary source, but you still run into the problem of it being a interview rather than a story trying for any sort of impartiality, and it's NOT in the article right now. And finally, you run into the WP:BIO problem in that you haven't established something that illustrates her notability WITHIN her field other than the fact that some fan elements like her. There are probably over 9000 cosplayers who have been interviewed as well, but I don't see people falling over each other to add them to WP (knock on wood). Some of these issues might be corrected via additional editing, but I'm kinda doubtful given the fact that this article has been up for at least two years now and previously deleted. As for the WP:COI, I'm simply pointing out that the article's impartiality has been further tainted. It is most definitely not the primary reason for the AfD request. Kensuke Aida 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That she was featured and interviewed so extensively by all of these Cosplay magazines (many more than are listed in this article, btw) in addition to Maxim Magazine demonstrates notability in the extremely popular Cosplay genre. 9000 Cosplayers don't have the coverage this Cosplay celebrity has received. As far as I can tell, hardly any Cosplayers (if any) have been interviewed and featured so much as this person has. --Oakshade 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone supplied the Maxim' volume, issue and pages) --Oakshade 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can almost certainly find material to dispute that. Run a search for "Yaya Han" or "Alisa-Chan" (this was even brought up in the main discussion page). But somehow I think that I would be wasting my time to do so. Since you haven't made a claim in this article that she's the "most interviewed" or "most popular" cosplayer, I'm content to simply reiterate the point that she's no more notable than many of her peers. Kensuke Aida 19:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep as nom. Kensuke Aida 19:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you are the nominator, be careful to not look like you're voting twice.--Oakshade 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. Nothing was bolded in the nomination paragraph. I decided to do it here for easy reading when the admins come by to establish consensus. They only need to glance over the bolded parts (or at least that's the way I understand it). Kensuke Aida 19:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you changing "delete, as nom" instead of "delete as per above." Not that they should really be counting votes anyway. --Cheeser1 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request granted. Thanks. Kensuke Aida 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: After considering the issue further, I'm officially changing my vote to "weak keep" based largely in part to the properly cited inclusion of the Maxim article. I'd like the record to reflect that that this was not in the article when I put this up for AfD. A major publication such as Maxim carries a lot more weight than fanzines with interviews in them. --Kensuke Aida (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All sources appear to be self-published cosplay sites or related forums/zines/etc. I sort of feel like cosplay models should have standards analogous to say, WP:PORNBIO (if not just applying WP:BIO generally). I see very little indication that this model is notable - there are thousands and thousands of models, and cosplay isn't a very center-of-attention thing. One alleged appearance in Maxim may be interesting, but I mean, there are thousands of models that appear in one of the hundreds of fashion magazines or other magazines constantly. Not all of them are notable and not all of them have articles and that's certainly sensible. Appearing in Maxim is only one event. --Cheeser1 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay magazines are secondary sources independent of the subject. There are so many of them because Cosplay is extremely popular. Cosplay isn't porn; WP:PORNBIO doesn't apply. --Oakshade 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Ms. Dani's case an argument could be made that some of her cosplay photoshoots would qualify under the published Wikipedia definitions of softcore or erotica. So I wouldn't dismiss WP:PORNBIO out of hand. But that's beside the point of my AfD nom. I shall stick to WP:BIO. WP:BIO states that the secondary sources must also be "intellectually independent". I still fail to see how you're going to swing that here. The majority, if not the entirety of them are of HER TALKING ABOUT HER. That's not "intellectually independent" by any stretch of the imagination. That's the publication in question acting as her mouthpiece. And calling the items which you've included in "further reading" magazines is generous. Many of them appear to be fanzines. Maxim is the only thing that seems to remotely qualify as "mainstream press". Kensuke Aida 04:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One, several of the publications about her are not interviews. Two, the ones that are interviews are secondary independent coverage (the magazines are publishing interviews by them of her, not interviews by her of herself). BEING INTERVIEWED BY SECONDARY INDEPENDENT SOURCES IS IN FACT BEING THE SUBJECT OF INDEPENDENT SECONDARY SOURCES. That these secondary independent sources had interviews of her demonstrates further notability. Three, most of those interviews includes non-interview introductions, sometimes in-depth, that are not interviews. As for WP:PORNBIO, some of Angelina Jolie's work can be considered porn in nature, but a majority of her work, as with this person, is not porn. --Oakshade 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not "publications" - they are self-published fan sites/zines/etc. Totally irrelevant, and mirrors the neglected conflict of interest that has been noted. --Cheeser1 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are not "self published" works. Since you decided to reiterate this false claim a 2nd time up in this discussion, I'll refer you to the responses to your "self publications" claim below so readers don't have to suffer through an entire discussion a 2nd time. --Oakshade 18:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try the dictionary: analogous. WP:BIO still applies, and this article fails. --Cheeser1 04:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This subject easily passes. WP:BIO1E ("People notable only for one event") doesn't apply in the slightest as this notable artist has continued activity (don't know where you get "one event" from) and coverage by multiple independent sources over several years. --Oakshade 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She appeared as a model in Maxim Mexico once. That's one event. You are concluding notability on this basis. Thousands of models appear in thousands of magazines every month. This is not notability. --Cheeser1 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be very confused as what the term "event" WP:BIO1E is referring to. That guideline is about not having articles about a person who was in the news for one particular story, ie, "Oshkosh Man Accidentally Shoots Own Hand". This person's notability is based on her celebrity status and being the subject of multiple secondary independent published works because of her ongoing celebrity status, not just your strange assertion of "one event." --Oakshade 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my argument. She appeared in a magazine as a model. She is a professional model. How is this notable? Also, I find it funny that you say "multiple independent secondary sources." So far, we have a single source that is independent/secondary. No, fansite interviews are neither secondary nor reliable, and the only "source" you have is an appearance as a model in a men's magazine. Once again - this doesn't establish notability. --Cheeser1 07:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She appeared in multiple magazines/fanzines as a model and is very notable in the Cosplay genre (which includes shows and other events outside of magazines). The mulitple Coslplay genre magazines are in fact independent secondary sources. You might not like Cosplay nor the magazines that cater to its audience, but that's purely your WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion. Not every model is the subject of multiple secondary independent sources like this one is. --Oakshade 07:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reread WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Saying (correctly) that these fanzines are all self-published and not reliable is not an "I don't like it" assertion. The IDONTLIKEIT guideline states that one should not vote "Delete this because I hate cosplay" which is clearly not what anyone is asserting. --Cheeser1 07:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like the independent cosplay magazines that have published works about this person. I don't know where you get this "self-published" charge from as none of these publications are published by the article subject. They're mostly Brazilian publications (many more not listed in the article are Japanese) and most of them even credit a reporter. --Oakshade 08:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your refusal to read or understand WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and the fact that it has nothing to do with WP:RS), I will no longer respond to this ludicrous accusation. These are not reliable sources. They are fansites and "interviews" by "reporters." None of these appear to be reliable publications of any sort. The best you can do is an appearance by a model as a model in a magazine full of models. Not notable. I have nothing to add in response, and you seem to have nothing meaningful/relevant/correct to add, so I won't be responding further. --Cheeser1 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only responding to these non-sensical arguments you're throwing up like the "self-publshed" charge of the cosplay magazines. (You've learned that Editora JBC is in fact owned by Francesca Dani?). They're independent secondary sources that wrote about and/or interviewed this article subject. --Oakshade 08:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I am not responsible with your inability to comprehend policy. Self-published does not mean published BY HER, it means published by whoever, as a fanzine or otherwise unreliable source. Please read up before dragging us down another uninformed tangent. --Cheeser1 08:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you clarified that these multiple magazines from all over the world that have written published works about Francesca Dani are not published by her. Most of them are in fact print publications (Editora JBC for example), not anything like blogs or whatnot, which I guess is what you're charging at this point. --Oakshade 08:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every single source on that page takes us to a fan-oriented website or forum about cosplay. That is not journalism and nothing cited on that page constitutes a reliable source. If you don't want to admit that fine, but I'm done explaining policy to you if you refuse to listen. --Cheeser1 08:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're only making the false claim that Editora JBC and all the other cosplay publications are "self published". Browsing the Francesca Dani media page, there's links to over 20 print publications and none of them, as well on on the WP page, appear of the "self publish" variety. Cosplay magazines aren't exactly Time-Warner publications, but these are not "self published" either. (by the way, i thought you said you weren't responding).--Oakshade 08:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I could just interject here for a moment: I think it's extremely foolish to use her own bibliography for anything. Least of all in establishing notability. I don't particularly agree as to the notability or intellectual independence of many of the sources that have been referenced here, but concede that linking directly to them in an "Additional Reading" section is preferable to just linking directly to a pages on her site. If this AfD fails, I will be happy in knowing that I at least lit a fire under people's you-know-what to start adding some semblance of proper citation (ie. IDotA's addition of the Maxim article with a proper footnote was a big step in the right direction). Proper footnote linking should still be provided in the "Personal Life" and "Career" section, otherwise you can expect a number of "citation needed" markers (that's not a threat, it's happened to articles I've written, and it caused me to correct the problem). Kensuke Aida 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of those, save the recent addition of Maxim Mexico featuring her as a model, are on the article. What's on the article? A bunch of links to things that are not printed publications. Forums, "articles" online, blogs, etc. Please also note that the reliability of a translation house does not make that which it translates a reliable source. They also translate manga, which is a primary/fictional source. We wouldn't be citing a Japanese-to-Portuguese manga to establish something's notability, would we? Furthermore, most of these sources can be, in no way shape or form, contextualized or properly regarded as reliable sources on this Wikipedia if they are non-notable cosplay magazines in languages other than English. Especially when all such sources are cherry-picked via a non-independent source. --Cheeser1 02:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors using only English language sources is one of the main reasons Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias was created. And sorry, but just because certain other independent published works that establish notability of a subject are not placed in an article does not magically mean those published works don't exist, it just means they're not placed in the article. --Oakshade 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think countering systemic bias means that you're supposed to make articles about every little subject that is of little note outside the US (Cosplay is popular in the US, but FranDan herself is less so). Note that the Spanish and Italian language Wikis do not have articles on her. The Portuguese one does, I'll give you that, but it doesn't take somebody highly fluent in Portuguese to see it's more or translated mirror of this article. And I'm sorry, but you're argument about saying that just because articles that establish notability are not in the article doesn't mean they don't exist is BS. As far as Wiki is concerned, they don't. Kensuke Aida 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, and that's why it's your job to establish (incontrovertibly) that these are reliable sources, that they actually do provide any such notability, and that they are independent/meaningful regarding the subject of this article. I see no source that meets these criteria, and cherry picking someone's personal newsclippings of herself (on her own website or not) seems to be a huge problem, given the fact that she's editing her own article already too. --Cheeser1 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being the subject of secondary published works establishes notability as all of these sources demonstrate ("cherry-picked" or not - don't know where you're going with that one.) You seem to be under the delusional impression that independent published works links from the topic's website somehow means those aren't independent published works. --Oakshade 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the case of the JPEG images you just linked to here (I eventually found what you were trying to link to by going into the image directory), they are exactly that: JPEG images of alleged articles hosted on her site. They are not the "independently published work" itself. Also might constitute copyright vio. Might even constitute forgery (doubtful, but can you ever really be 100% sure in the age of Photoshop?). Either way, I'm not terribly impressed. If you like I can whip up a JPEG scan of an article in Newsweek where the Pope declares me the most awesome human being ever and the second coming of Jesus Christ. Kensuke Aida 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Continuation of Discussion) Regarding the links of the print works from here, they're scans of independent published works. Just because they're links from her page doesn't change that. Quite a stretch to charge they're forgeries. There would be many lawsuits against Ms. Dani if they were, not to mention her work is extremely detailed and convincing (maybe she can do a convincing job with your Pope suggestion). --Oakshade 06:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a citation regarding her article in Maxim Mexico. --In Defense of the Artist 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good addition. Kensuke Aida 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If she gets into porn, I'll reconsider my vote. ;) --Rev Prez 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completely meaningless rationale to delete an article. --Oakshade 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually may be the most meaningful, but then again I am watching Life right now. To that end, I propose a new She Ain't In Porn Yet, Bitches Wikipedia guideline. --Rev Prez 03:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, I think she passes significant coverage even if largely due to raw tonnage vice quality of any particular source. Second, I'm going to apply common sense. If an American band can drive 50 miles to Vancouver British Columbia, get booed offstage and have a valid claim of notability due to a documented international tour (WP:Music cat 4), I'm inclined to think that someone with a track record of paid performances on multiple continents has a worthwhile claim. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) see belowHorrorshowj (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sort of lost me with the American band bit....--Kensuke Aida (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's making a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument based on a hypothetical example. Which seems like some pretty flawed reasoning. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Kensuke I pretty unclear on that. Starting over, professional cosplayers would be considered entertainers or performers. If successfull, they perform for comparatively short durations at locations over a wide geographic area. 3-4 day run then off until the next competition or city. Which would make them more similar in terms of footprint to musicians than most other proffessions in the category. As WP:N says to apply common sense when dealing with notability, which is why I'm looking to the additional criteria for musicians for guidance in my decision. Cat 4 would allow a claim for a musician based on an international tour, documented by reliable sources. My point with the example is that some international tours are less impressive than others. In the case of this articles subject, she would have a pretty spectacular claim based on having multiple continents under her belt as a professional performer. Additionally, looking through the references, she won a competition at the World Cosplay Summit in Japan which involved surviving competions in Italy and Brazil prior to that if I understand them correctly. For a musician this should qualify under category 9 as a major competition. I that satisfying those standards to that degree amounts to a strong claim for notability. The subject already passd substantial coverage, so I don't think there's grounds for deletion.Horrorshowj (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. RFerreira (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital DawgPound

[edit]

Withdrawn w/o prejudice by nom

A complicated one. This is an NN hacker group founded by a security expert who himself was a keep at its AfD (full disclosure: I was the nom, it was my second ever AfD). That article, this one, and Binary Revolution Radio are part of a web of articles that all revolve around one marginally notable topic: a now-defunct Internet radio show about hacking. Long story short: maybe the "radio show" merits an article, and maybe the founder does, but the founder's "hacking group"? NN. No reliable sources. Attribute articles in hacker zines to their authors, not their "hacking group". Let's clean this up: Delete. --- tqbf 17:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the entire coverage for this group at NEWS.GOOGLE.COM: 1 hit, which isn't about the group, but rather about this guy, who already has an article. --- tqbf 05:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to use google news as source for a topic that is not mainstream news. you use google to support your claims when it is convenient for you, but when others do it, you say that google hits do not count. You cannot have it both ways. I am sure that there are thousands of BIO entries that have no google news hits. This is not support for deletion in and of itself. Bad Monk3y 06:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per this AfD: fringiness does not not trump verifiability. "Digital DawgPound", whatever that may be, is not notable, because no reliable secondary source appears to have written about it. Note also: this user appears to be a WP:SPA, according to their contribs. --- tqbf 06:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "Binrev" merits an article, but not DDP. Makes a poor attempt at asserting notability. Non-notable hacking group. Delete. Also, being close-knit with this group and Binrev myself, I may be creating a COI by voting here. --Othtim 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - I vote to keep this article based on the multiple verified projects that are clearly sourced on the page. I think this page does a good job at proving all of its content with verified sources. If one member of this group was not deleted when his article was reviewed, then the entire group is even more notable and should also pass.This article is one of the better ones since it has multiple solid sources for everything. Bad Monk3y 04:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Bad Monk3y (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }

Just going to note again: you will have a hard time finding a sourceable claim to notability on this article that isn't the basis of some other article's claim to notability. We don't need 4 articles for one topic. --- tqbf 04:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be pointed out that the person who nominated this deletion has a history of deleting any article related to this group and this community and I would submit that they are all in bad faith. you can see on this users page that he actually maintains a list bragging about how many deletions that he has along with a comment about how anyone who doesn't agree with him must obviously "hate America". If that doesn't show bad faith and bad intentions, I don't know what does. Bad Monk3y 04:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop hating America, "Bad Monkey". If you hadn't noticed --- pretty much all those noms won AfD. :) --- tqbf 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I do not disagree with most of them. Just the ones that I voted on. Please do not slander me with comments about me Hating America. I *know* that is against WP policy. Bad Monk3y 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Sources seem to mainly be blogs which generally fail WP:RS.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the group is a notable publisher of tech information and the Google News search is hardly all-inclusive. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a more inclusive search that would actually establish notability? Thanks! --- tqbf 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, I appreciate your sincere and highly excited politeness. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, forget the search. Can you cite a single reliable source about this group? Or do you just like it a lot? --- tqbf 13:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a hacking-related group, I think the multiple, no, dozens of publications in 2600 Magazine and similar magazines are more that sufficient to establish an interest in this group. Then you have the multiple appearances at various technological conferences, increasing that interest. Surely you are not as dense as you are making yourself out to be. Coccyx Bloccyx 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown of articles listed, CV-style, on this page:

8 (13%) articles in 2600 by 3 authors not already covered on WP.
8 (13%) articles in 2600 by David Blake.
25 (43%) articles in NN pubs "BR Magazine" and "Blacklisted! 411" (deleted at AfD, per above)
17 (28%) "articles" in NN "online publications"

Precisely zero of these articles are "bylined" (heh) to "DDP", whatever that is. This is fan-cruft. It's flypaper for CV-style detritus for an NN "hacker group" never once written about in a reliable source. Articles are listed on WP pages when they are notable; can you provide evidence of any of these "articles" ever being cited anywhere? --- tqbf 19:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems as if deleting this article would simply serve to detract from other articles on notable people and projects that have been associated with and encouraged by this group. Am I to understand from this debate that StankDawg is notable, and yet an integral reason for his notability is not? That seems quite ludicrous. Also, the fact that this debate was not started in the "web or internet" category (where it should logically be) is simply bad form.GloomyRobot 10:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— GloomyRobot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sorry you feel that way; I felt like "Web or Internet" implied the page referred to a web page, and that the category I did file it under made more sense. Perhaps you're right. --- tqbf 13:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may notice that the DDP is not a reason for Stankdawg's notability. No one is suggesting that it is. Secondary sources are not suggesting that the DDP is a reason for Stankdawg's notability. --Othtim 14:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable hacking group. Group + associated members profiles and websites seem to be circular references designed to prop their claims for legitimacy. Bannedinnyc (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Bannedinnyc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. good entry, well known group in hacking circles, citations and references given. I volunteer to help clean it up if it is kept. Mutant spyd3r (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Mutant spyd3r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thanks for the vote. Can I ask which references those might be? All I see is blog posts. --- tqbf 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep - Perfectly-notable hacking group. Quite well known beyond just their community. They've also produced several perfectly-notable projects which have received the attention of the wider hacking community. - Timsheridan (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is the creator of the article. Creator of the article: do you have references to cite? --- tqbf 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was browsing and saw what was happening here and had to register to vote. This article is perfectly fine and the subjects are well known even if you cannot find mainstream media support for them. The same holds true for half of wikipedia entries. This is why wikipedia is great to have a record of such people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimpapedia (talk • contribs) 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Pimpapedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - tqbf, stop asserting that everything related to StankDawg or Binrev revolves around "a now-defunct Internet radio show". The presentations and printed articles referenced in this entry should clearly illustrate that this is not the case. These same references should also show how notable the DDP has been and continues to be. KDerrida (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What references? I'm sorry I seem contentious here, but I really don't see them. Nobody has written about DDP, and every notable member of the group already has a Wikipedia article --- even some their projects do! All this article has is a cv-style listing of NN articles in NN pubs. --- tqbf 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What reference are you looking for? Isn't a group like this BEST defined by its accomplishments, projects, and influences? Also, 2600 is non-notable now? The magazine that shaped the face of hacking as we know it? I suppose HOPE, DEFCON, and Make Magazine aren't notable either (even though you've listed two of them as notable on your user page). I understand that as per Wikipedia policies, you're doing everything in good faith, but I find it funny that whenever you interpret something for the consumption of readers, you make the strangest errors, like mistaking all the print references for blog posts, as you did in reply to Mutant Spyd3r, or confusing the DDP with an internet radio show. Consider taking more care with these things in the future. KDerrida (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the confusion now. You're implying that everything any "member" of this group ever wrote is a reference for the group's notability. No: (a) 2600 is notable, but not every article in it is, and that's easy to measure: find citations; (b) the articles themselves aren't bylined to DDP; even when "StankDawg" wrote them; (c) the purpose of references is to verify notability, and none of these articles are about DDP. --- tqbf 14:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bad_Monk3y, who is the only "keep" on this AfD apart from the article's original author with more than 20 edits, has proposed that we merge this article into StankDawg. Binary Revolution Radio is another fine destination. I happily endorse "merge and redirect", but note that Bad_Monk3y hasn't actually done so here. --- tqbf 02:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I'm glad there's someone handy to speak for Bad_Monk3y. It's a shame he couldn't show up himself in this AFD to tell us what he thinks.KDerrida (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(a) He already voted, above, and (b) I linked to what he said. --- tqbf 14:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing withdrawal --- my issue with this article is that it is part of a constellation of 8 articles revolving around the same topic. I'm requesting a merge, as I learn from the debate, but I think the onus is on me to do the legwork on that merge, rather than demanding that other editors do it for me. This debate is littered with SPA comments, and I think I can make a strong case to delete and win with it, but not without being a dick. I'm going to do the merge and revisit this page later. --- tqbf 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus (closed by non-admin) . RMHED (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Premasagar

[edit]

Appears to be a developed, but still nn-bio article along the same lines as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. David. I think the K. David article is a more clear cut case for deletion, but scanning through the article's history, it appears that this was the supervisor of the editor who wrote the article. That is merely a case of conflict of interest, rather than an argument in favor of deletion, but this article hardly makes the case that this individual deserves an article even after it was written by someone who worked for him. As near as I can tell, he held some important administrative positions in what amounts to a very minor religion in India. Aside from the positions he held, the article does not assert what he did during that time with those positions to either differentiate himself from anyone else who holds said titles, or make him notable over the long term. Hiberniantears 17:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete per nom but I think both cases need to be looked at by someone who knows a bit more. Yes it's well-written, and there are claims to notability. But I'm not totally convinced.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was moderator (i.e. the leader) of the Church of South India, which has 3.8 million members. Surely that's enough to make him notable? Phil Bridger 12:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Church of South India is a notable institution and he was a notable leader. That said, the article was a horrid advertisement/hagiography of the man when I found it. I adopted it and did some major work. Now the problem is that the clearly conflicted author of the article keeps reverting to his older version (see WP:OWN) which violated numerous wikipedia policies: as I said, it read like an advertisment, used purple text, had CSI on the see line instead of denomination where it belongs, etc. Keep, but monitor closely is my vote. -- SECisek 17:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but monitor closely is my vote as well. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep -- I note that he merited an obituary in the The Hindu. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On closer examination, this is a definite keep. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SECiSek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twenty Years (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - do some more work on it - but should be kept. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 17:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hinge

[edit]

NN security researcher, next in a line of successful PROD and AfDs surrounding NN hacker group The Syndicate Of London (deleted at AfD), also including Mark Anderson (Security) (deleted at AfD) and Whitedust (deleted at AfD). This one goes for the same reason: no reliable sources in the article, asserts notability by dint of founding a website that failed AfD. I'm talking way too much here for a no-brainer Delete. --- tqbf 17:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BIO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Twenty Years 15:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Bethea Catt

[edit]

Non-notable actress with two film credits. Not listed in IMDb for the first, and the other is being released in 2008. Clarityfiend 17:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, no prejudice against recreation obviously.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal-ballery. Twenty Years 15:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Muttaqi

[edit]

I found this while looking round some POV-pushing. There are no independent sources, and nothing on Google other than blogs and other unreliable sources that I could see. It was part of a walled garden, but most of the other articles did not assert notability beyond association with this person and have been nuked or merged and redirected. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, none of the bands that this musician has worked with appear to be notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per JZG. Twenty Years 15:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete It depends on how slim the definition of "notable" is. Although his main band Vegan Reich is appropriately unknown outside the genre, within the hardcore scene this figure and his bands and publications have been riotously influential on the philosophy of thousands of listeners and readers. Individual members of hardcore bands, like members of bands in all genres, are often considered just as important and critical to the sound, image, and ideology of a musical movement as the bands themselves. I came across this page because Vegan Reich is one of those bands that I came of age listening to; I can at least vouch for my own interest in this figure.Delvebelow (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Oxymoron⁸³ 11:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of wonders in Civilization

[edit]

his article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of gameplay elements from the Civilization video game articles. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOT#GUIDE. Clarityfiend 18:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE Doc Strange 18:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to gaming wiki. LukeSurl^{t c} 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Soft Redirect to the Civilization wiki. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as major element of one of the significant computer and console game series. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE and no independent notability outside the game series, fails WP:NOT#IINFO. Weird, I started playing Civilization IV yesterday...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that these game elements have any real-world significance at all. --Gavin Collins 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a guide to in-game elements. Soft redirect as suggested above by Malinaccier. I believe you'll find plenty of mentions to show the topic is notable within the context of game reviews for the Civ series and its many imitators, and none to show significant broader notability. I still play Civ II Gold, and the game is important within its field, but wonders are just an in-game element that needs only a paragraph in the parent article. Barno 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Judges. Twenty Years 15:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have transwikied this to StrategyWiki:Civilization/Wonders. It will probably be split up to each of the revelant game pages, but the information will be there still. -- Prod-You 15:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a very peculiar article. It appears to refer to the content of a computer game, possibly an educational one. The right place for material such as this is on a commercial website from the publishers. An article on the game might be appropriate, but should link to an external website, not a WP page. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. The wonders in Civ have no demonstrated external importance. Mango juice^talk 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus (closed by non-admin) . RMHED (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Freeman

[edit]

Autobiographical, and use of sockpuppetry to make it look like it is not. UtherSRG (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received sufficient coverage in newspapers. Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete the article; it's a reason to improve it. If Freeman himself remains a problem, he can be blocked. Zagalejo^^^ 22:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep I actually just cleaned up the formatting of this article just so I could make sense of it. It certainly needs a lot of work, but he's apparently a published author (though ISBNs would be nice) and holds a notable position within a documented organization. -Verdatum 22:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per news coverage.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Richard Freeman. I didn't write this Jon Downes did. I have only added a few things. My ISBN numbers are Dragons:More than a Myth 0-9512872-9-x and Explore Dragons1 872883 93-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.240.86 (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Zagalejo. Twenty Years 15:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion given, sockpuppetry a breach of user policy, not content policy. Any action should be taken against the individual not the pages that they have edited. - perfectblue (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Creek (Tennessee)

[edit]

~~Non-notable strip/lifestyle center in Tennessee, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing nomination, due to the presence of enough reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The complex covers over 800,000 square feet of gross leasable area, putting it into the super-regional category for the properties. Consensus has been that such super-regional malls are notable. Alansohn 04:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ pending references. Whatever mall fans' group consensus may have been in past discussions, "super-regional malls" are not exempt from WP:V. What reliable sources have covered Turkey Creek to document that it has had more effect on its community than any one of several hundred Wal-Marts? Barno 16:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep based on Knoxville News and Metro Pulse articles noted below. Barno 14:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this needs expanding to explain that the two sections that are described in detail make up less than half of Turkey Creek, making it go well into the super-regional category. There was also a lot of news coverage of the controversies when it was under development, such as concern about the adjacent wetlands, which were set aside by the company as a protected area (here's one article about that). To address Barno's point, it's had a huge effect on the community (much more than just a Wal-Mart, since it includes a Wal-Mart, a Target, about 120 other stores, 30+ restaurants, three hotels, a hospital, and the flagship theater for the country's largest movie theater chain)... I'd need some more time to search to find sources that specifically talk about this, but it's changed shopping patterns very drastically. Pinball22 17:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep go figure but 800,000 square feet seems awfully large for a "strip mall" I'm pretty sure that's a lie. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's a story specifically about its impact on the region. It also clarifies the size -- over 300 acres of development. Pinball22 04:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 00:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Alansohn. Twenty Years 15:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Health Association of San Francisco

[edit]

Fails notability guidelines for organizations Leeannedy (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merely from what's there, I'm unsure. Many charities get grants, and many are worthy causes. Notable? Bearian (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~ as a copyvio of http://www.mha-sf.org/about/history.cfm -- Whpq 17:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - It's no longert a copyvio although it's still press-releaseish. I'm not convinced by searches that there are reliable sources. -- Whpq 19:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Copyvio has been removed. Appears to be notable as group with a long history and part of the broader mental health movement. --Eastmain 21:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to marginally pass WP:RS. Copyvio material has been removed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been added to the list of open tasks for WikiProject Psychology. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EastMain. Twenty Years 15:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silhouette (Destroy All Humans!)

[edit]

The article is an in-universe repetition of the plot sections of the Destroy all Humans games, is entirely duplicative, and doesn't need its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and WP:NOT#PLOT. JohnCD (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons already mentioned. Ridernyc 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT. Twenty Years 15:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nothing about a character from one episode worth merging. Pastordavid (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False Face (She-Ra)

[edit]

The article is a non-notable in-universe repetition of plot points from the He-Man universe and has no notability of its own. As such, it is purely duplicative and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. — Hiding T 11:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Tiptopper 13:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to She Ra for the sake of consensus if not guidance at WP:FICT. Hiding T 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails all the mormal policies relying to fictional subjects. I'm against merging because that will just make a mess of non-noatble material in the She-ra article. Ridernyc 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because without referencing, what is there this is "good" to include? Nothing. Judgesurreal777 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Why do people assume that a merge means we put all the bad bits in the article we are merging to? I mean, can't people at least apply a modicum of good faith in presuming that a merge means merge information which meets encyclopedic standards? Isn't that what a merge comment means? Hiding T 10:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Hiding. Twenty Years 15:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kirby powers

[edit]

First of all, Wikipedia is not a gameguide, which is what this article clearly is. It has no notability, and as such is an in-universe repetition of gameplay information from the various Kirby games. It is duplicative of those sections and has no encyclopedic content. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think so! Rackabello (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as gamecruft-gameguide-whatever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR; Game-guide; cruft, has no real-world notability. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Nintendo. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 have performed the page move and edited the article to reflect the new name. — Caknuck (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Canada

[edit]

Just a statement about Canadian Cricket Association changing it's name. No context, just news. Rocket000 16:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect Canadian Cricket Association to this page, if that's indeed the new name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in order that Canadian Cricket Association can be moved here. They have voted to change their name [12], but they haven't properly updated their website to this effect yet (possibly as they're waiting for the winner of their "logo competition"!). --RFBailey 16:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete so that the page-move can happen. --Paul Erik 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so page-move can take place. Twenty Years 15:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 01:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centerpoint Marketplace

[edit]

Non-notable mall in Wisconsin, page has been a stub since the beginning with no improvements made. A search for sources found none. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says it all. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 . --Oxymoron⁸³ 16:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Seale

[edit]

All hits referring to "Richard Seale" on Yahoo and Google don't refer to this guy at all. Possible WP:COI as well--author is Sealeric (talk · contribs). Blueboy 96 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Author blanked. Already tagged by the nominator. - Rjd0060 16:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam Mall

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable mall in New York, fails WP:RS. Article was previously nominated for deletion (by myself, no less), but the discussion was ruled invalid, as somehow it never made the AfD logs... Anyway, this page hasn't improved one iota since its creation, and it's been tagged with ((importance)) for a while, so I say delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Twinkle overwrote my previous nomination from July, which can be seen here. Since the previous AfD was never transcluded in the logs, I'm ignoring all rules and letting the overwrite stay. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt to establish notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn mall This is a Secret ^account 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a directory entry to me. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax. Hut 8.5 15:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zotollem

[edit]

Made-up ancient city. Nehwyn 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. So tagged. All references are on totally unrelated topics and constitute borderline spamlinking. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 14:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patent nonsense would be "fgsdfgsdgtperogmaklsdmfg". This is a hoax, not nonsense... and therefore does not meet that particular speedy criterion (see WP:NONSENSE). Violations of WP:NOT are expressively not suitable for speedy deletion. (An additional advantage of this process is that the closing admin can salt the page - so no recreation.) --Nehwyn 14:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It might not fall under CSD, but we can suggest it here. Rocket000 14:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under which criterion? --Nehwyn 14:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus and WP:SNOW/WP:IAR. Rocket000 15:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it, as long as the page gets salted! --Nehwyn 15:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Shoessss | Chat 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Reilly (Irish historian)

[edit]

Not notable, doesn't meet WP:BIO by a long way. The book appears to be widely available and reviewed, so maybe an article on the book and a redirect from the author is appropriate. Cricketgirl 14:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep – If the books he wrote deserves and entry in Wikipedia as stated by you; “..an article on the book”. How than does the author of the book not also deserve an entry in Wikipedia? Shoessss | Chat 14:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:BIO states "The person must have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The next section, Specific examples of sources, demands that the person be the subject of a "credible independent biography", "widespread coverage over time in the media", "demonstrable wide name recognition" or "in depth, independent coverage in multiple publications showing a widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in the person's specific field".

The only one of these that this historian gets close to, is the last one, through reviews of the book and interviews relating to the release of the book. Google searches turn up lots of mentions of his book, which his name mentioned as the author, but that's it. He doesn't meet any of the criteria on WP:BIO for creative professionals. As a result, I still think he doesn't meet the notability guideline.

I’m sorry and your point is? I questioned your logic in stating that the book deservers an article but the author does not. If the book is notable,, than I would assume that the “Author” is notable by using the book as a refernce. Shoessss | Chat 17:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BK would indicate that the book is notable as it has been reviewed by a number of newspapers and has been mentioned in contexts such as this. Cricketgirl 15:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I make the point, as I often do, that in general most books do not require separate articles from their authors unless there is value in extended commentary. As simple common sense dictates, a book can never have another author, but a living author can certainly write another book. It is simpler to expand the author's article when that happens. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least one of his Cromwell books seems to have generated considerable controversy for its revisionism. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But the title of the article should be changed to Tom Reilly (Irish author) or Tom Reilly (Irish commentator). He apparently has a widely read column in his part of the world, viz: "Ever since the inaugural Life of Reilly column appeared in the Drogheda Independent's Drogheda Weekend Extra (now the Drogheda Weekend) on 31 January 2003, life has changed utterly in 'Drawda'. A lifetime resident, local historian and author Tom Reilly has created a veritable institution with his weekly satirical columns. Reilly insists that his sideways view of the world proves that everybody in the town is completely screwed up, not just him. . . . This selection of over 100 previously published columns has been carefully chosen for inclusion in this book to mark Life of Reilly's three-year anniversary. It includes all the classics, some of which you may have missed. They'll make you laugh, cry, and if you're a borough councillor they'll make you very very mad." (From [[13]]. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 22:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable because one of his books about Oliver Cromwell was controversial and was discussed in newspapers. I suggest moving the article to Tom Reilly (author) - including his nationality in the article name is not necessary because there is only one other person in Wikipedia with a similar name. Bláthnaid 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Shoes. Twenty Years 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It looks to me as if the author is notable as a historian, rather than as a newspaper columinist. The article is a stub ans should be tagged as such. Cromwell has had a very bad press in Ireland, so that his revisionist study is no doubt important. If it has to be renamed Tom Reilly (historian). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he is trained as a historian (or an historian, if you prefer). A review of his book at Amazon.com says his description of his local McDonald's is better writing than his grasp of history. I believe he is a local-history buff, not a historian. I myself am writing a history book about my neighborhood and know a lot about it, but I am not a historian only a writer with a special interest. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal & uncertain Keep. I'd say that he fails WP:BIO, and that if he's notable at all, it's because the book is notable (or notorious), and its notoriety is within VERY limited circles so I'm very uncertain even about the KEEP.. As for the title of the page, calling him a "historian" is apparently rather like calling me a "rocket scientist". Page should be Tom Reilly (newspaper columnist and author) or just Tom Reilly....if it's to be kept at all. Hughsheehy (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nalini Krishan

[edit]

while the films listed are certainly notable, the actor had only small parts and doesn't appear to be notable Rtphokie (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild 14:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even her character in the Star Wars universe has been marked as being of questionable notability, though at this point the article on said character is not listed for deletion. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 09:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Twenty Years 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#A7 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even The Odds

[edit]

Non-notable band Lugnuts 13:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as non-notable band, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crowfoots Carriers Ltd

[edit]

Was a speedy deletion, but this is a company with 95+ years of history so it seems plausible that it's notable, it seems to be mentioned in at least one history book. Gets a few results on Google News archive and Google books but nothing substantial as far as I can tell. Needs better sourcing. Otherwise, Delete --W.marsh 16:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild 13:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mentions in third-party sources are clearly trivial. There are thousands of companies with limited liability like this and the vast majority are non-notable. As an interesting note, when I was working this summer I had to deal with a load of things coming in and out from various companies and I sure didn't think about creating Wikipedia articles for any of them... well, I did think about creating articles for them, but didn't actually do it because I knew they would not survive any AfD.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom & Research. Twenty Years 15:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by My Bloody Valentine

[edit]

I really don't see why this list is necessary, unless anyone cares to explain otherwise. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would be the start of a bad precendt to list all of the songs by ANY artist. Of the two that are linked, one is a cover and the other redirects to the album it's from. Lugnuts 13:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, List of Beatles songs survived an AfD, but it is a list of songs by the most famous band in history.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. MBV are clearly better than The Beatles (IMHO), but don't have the same cultural significance, so a list of all of their songs is not appropriate.--Michig 13:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like both, but I would disagree on that point, and I think that the majority of people would disagree that MBV are better than The Beatles, but I guess that's kinda irrelevant to this discussion...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, 'unencyclopedic' list. -RiverHockey 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I initially created the article. Doesn't seem important now like it did at the time. -ShaneCavanaugh 21:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists): an informative, useful and interesting list, with a clearly defined subject, neither too general ('List of shoegaze songs' would have been) nor too narrow ('List of MBV songs sung by Kevin Shields' would have been). My Bloody Valentine is one of the most notable indie bands, and the only thing deleting this list would do is make Wikipedia's coverage of shoegaze music weaker. 96T 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete serves no real purpose. Fair Deal (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comment from Lugnuts. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warpstar

[edit]

The Warpstar article is an in-universe repetition of gameplay and plot elements from various Kirby game articles and has no notability of its own. It is entirely duplicative for that reason and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild 12:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the individual game articles. Not a stand-alone piece. Shoessss | Chat 12:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a vote, but I'd like to think that having an entire game revolving around it (Kirby Air Ride) makes it at least somewhat notable. In any case, it's not an unreasonable search term by any stretch of the imagination. sh ¤y 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete having an entire game around it is exactly why it should be deleted. it's encompassed in the game. there's no notability outside of the game. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 00:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Star (Kirby series)

[edit]

The article is not notabile, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Kirby games. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild 12:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the individual game articles. Not a stand-alone piece, same as above. Shoessss | Chat 12:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ILIKEIT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.111.196 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) — 76.16.111.196 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 21:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starchaser: The Legend of Orin

[edit]

This article is unreferenced and consists almost entirely of a lengthy plot summary. There is not much "out there" about this film; one of the comments on IMDB is along the lines of "at last, I spent years trying to prove this exists". Well, I can be pretty confident it exists, but it's not obvious that there's anything other than directory style and user-edited sources for this. I can't even find evidence of an MPAA rating, which is pretty basic stuff. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~ I admit the plot summary is way to long. However, the author did peak my interest in the opening sentence; “…was one of the first animated movies to mix traditional and computer animation.” I would rather have this article tagged with “Maintenance” templates for improvement, development and expansion, other than plot, and see if it can be brought along. I hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Shoessss | Chat 13:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But can you find any source for that? I couldn't. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just going with the date when the picture was released, which is verified, lends crediance to statement; "... was one of the first...". That is way I suggested "Maintanance" tags versus Deletion to give an editor some time to expand. I am in agreement with you, right now the artical is nothinh more than a plot summary. However, that is why we can also just "Stub" the piece rather than deleting. Shoessss | Chat —Preceding comment was added at 14:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source on Factiva that says it was the first 3D animated film:

"Mr. Hahn was soon ready for a new challenge. Rather than just producing pieces made by other studios, Mr. Hahn wanted to create entirely new animation in a style never seen before. The answer, for Mr. Hahn, was to make a three-dimensional animation film....

The result, 'Starchaser: The Legend of Orin,' opened in 1,100 theaters in the United States in 1985, earning $4.5 million, a more than respectable sum in those days. Despite the success, the film's distributor went bankrupt, resulting in a long and costly court battle. A disillusioned Mr. Hahn produced just two more works in the '90s.

Now 65, Mr. Hahn arrived in Korea to pick up an award at the Seoul International Cartoon & Animation Festival, which opened last Wednesday. The award is in recognition of Mr. Hahn's producing the world's first 3-D animation film.... "

(Jung Hyung-mo. "Director wins award for 1st 3-D animation". Joongang Ilbo. 29 May 2006.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you look at Google News? Seems to have received several reviews. Zagalejo^^^ 21:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a quote from the NYT review. It's not a flattering quote, but is contemporary to the movie's release. Hiding T 21:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It needs a LOT of work, but I'm inclined to give the creator the benefit of the doubt if he can possibly reference some things better using reputable sources. Apparently, the character designer in this later went on to do other things like Titan AE, and a DVD exists in the Region 1 market (which may potentially have further information). Adding maintenance tags is a must. There's also a trailer on YouTube if anybody cares to take a looksee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=masIAvbP2fA&feature=related Kensuke Aida 23:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the creator doing much, creating this was his one and only edit. Not that this mitigates against fixing; fixing is good. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep article needs work, but I see nothing here that should cause it to be deleted.Ridernyc 23:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amberen

[edit]

Article put up for speedy deletion as spam but have doubts about that so bringing it here. Talk page comment gives reason for deletion - "This is an advertisement masquerading as science. The science is nonsense, succinate conformation in biological environments can not be fixed. There is no such spectroscopy as mentioned in the text and in references. The article referenced is not a real publication. The article needs to be deleted quickly, before they use it as means to cheat people." Davewild 12:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As physician with a degree in biochemistry I actually find their science both real and quite groundbreaking. The site's Clinical Info page contains a long list of published studies on succinates conducted by this group that were published in credible international peer-reviewed journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.25.218 (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC) — 71.107.25.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Reads like an ad. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 13:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~ At first glance, this is a well written article about a chemical compound. However, when you start to investigate both the article and the links you find this is clearly spam for an over the counter remedy of a “Trademarked” product. “Clinical study” was a 4 week trail on mice! Shoessss | Chat 13:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deceivingly well written, but the science is bogus. Product promotion is evident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stapke (talk • contribs) 20:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional. The only "coverage" I found was an apparent press release published on an obscure health website. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- also see this article: Eugene Mayevsky. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can say with certainty that the chemistry described in the "Active Conformers of Succinate" is complete, total nonsense. The product advertised here apparently contains succinic acid (succinate), a common chemical compound, which does have some biological relevance, which of course can be adequately described at that article. This article is just spam. --Ed (Edgar181) 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One paper reporting a trial (even though it did include humans [14] ) is not notability. the other refs are general articles on the citric acid cycle which have nothing particular to do with this product. The web site is not reassuring. DGG (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor InuYasha characters

[edit]

A list of inor characters would seem to be a self-declared list of unnotable characters that is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Fails WP:FICT with excessive WP:PLOT. Pure fancruft better suited for an InuYasha fansite or one of the anime wikis. Collectonian 11:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Collectonian 12:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: The characters are called "minor" not because they are unimportant, but because they are not quite as important as the major characters listed in List of InuYasha characters. I assume that it was separated from that article to avoid exceeding the old limit on the size of articles. It provides background information which is useful to those of us watching the anime or reading the manga. If it did not exist, it would be recreated in some form because there is a demand for this information. JRSpriggs 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, it's useful information. Unfortunately, it's also OR, with no showing of WP:V, and questionable under WP:FICT as most of them show up for one or two episodes and never are heard from again. One of these days someone (maybe me) will make an amime/magna wiki where this stuff can go. It's super popular, but that still doesn't mean it meets WP guidelines. Xymmax 17:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails just about every policy and guideline relating to fictional works. Sorry but I"m tired of listing them all. I really need to make a script for "aritcle fails WP:Plot. Ridernyc 23:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are important to the storyline and must be stated. Tourskin 04:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Where in the rules does it state that? We aren't here to replace the storyline, we're here to summarise. Summarise means abbreviate, it means detail gets skipped, it doesn't mean repeat in totality. An article describing why they are important to the storyline might be a better bet, that this list doesn't do that. Hiding T 13:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps transwiki to Wikia:InuYasha if it isn't available there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki (redirect until history is imported, then delete). -- Ned Scott 04:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Resident Evil 5

[edit]

List of characters in a video game not expected until 2009. Very little content, WP:CRYSTAL. Dougie WII 10:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom AnmaFinotera 11:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shoessss | Chat 13:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Mdmkolbe 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Resident Evil 5. Notable game series and article will asuredly continue to grow as the game arrives and more information comes out. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guerilla wiki

[edit]

WP:Neologism, WP:RS. A Google search reveals most references to Tiddlywiki and this article, or use the term with another meaning entirely. There is little potential for this stub to expand much beyond the definition of the term. Verdatum 10:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – In fact should be speedily deleted for copyright infringement as noted here [15] . Shoessss | Chat —Preceding comment was added at 13:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a copy of the WP page ("The article 'Guerilla wiki' is part of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. It is licensed under the terms of the GNU FDL.") rather than the other way around. --Karnesky 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on the article's talk page. --Karnesky 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN neologism. Only a few hits that are not Wikipedia mirrors or mere coincidental proximity, regardless of correct spelling ("guerrilla"). There's also a NN trademark, but I don't think that really factors into this. --Dhartung | Talk 20:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as an unreferenced neologism with no reliable sources to demonstrate notable usage. --Muchness (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A New Age

[edit]

Crystal balling. A previous AfD concerning the same album resulted in deletion. Blackjays1 09:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Twenty Years 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't sound notable, since it lists songs that don't seem to have any sources. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 19:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. It doesn't have the strength of references to justify its approach. Tyrenius (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding head

[edit]

Such pure and unadulterated original research that it must have a street value higher than that of crack. While some alleged sources appear in the "External links" section, they are not cited inline and do not actually appear to legitimately source the article, but are instead about vaguely related topics. It's pure South Park, Red Dwarf, etc., fancruft. I allege no bad faith on anyone's part, I just think this article's existence is a mistake, and is leading to blatant violation of NOR policy (i.e. out of enthusiasm, not ill will). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and this time let's not simply count votes. Pure cruft just like Exploding sheep which unfortunately will never be deleted it appears due to vote counting. EconomicsGuy 09:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Can we keep this to the merits (or lack thereof) of the article, instead of wikipoltics? If you have an issue with a partiuclar admin's closure of an XfD, that should be taken up at WP:DRV, rather than used as a thwacking stick in another XfD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is nothing in the article that's the original conclusion of the writer. With sources, I had the lucidity to do only the most preliminary of searches, but for one thing there's this article in an upcoming academic journal that uses the concept - the visual expression - offhandedly and extensively, demonstrating that its significance is such that it can be assumed to seem appropriate to an audience that's not even remotely related to media. --Kizor 10:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I note from the next !vote below that sources are being added. That's great, in theory. I still question whether this could possibly be an encyclopedic article, just due to the nature of it. It's a coincidental "non-defining intersection" if I may borrow terms from WP:OVERCAT. We might as well have an article about nosebleeds in romance novels, sunglasses in science fiction, or the rising prevalence of women in the roles of coroners in police dramas. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - a few sources have now been added by Kizor to prove the subject's existence. Subject is also notable for being a storytelling device regularly used in cartoon comedy, which can be used to communicate (as an example) a response to a difficult idea; and is therefore a cultural artefact which probably would yield much serious third-party analysis. (I think Dilbert used this in just the past month.) While I wish the article could be even more thoroughly sourced, and it's not at a front-page feature-article level, its quality is probably in the top half of the 2 million articles we have here. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 11:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I read and re-read and re-re-read the article and I am still not sure what point the author is trying to make. Is he/she trying to explain the visual impact of “Exploding Heads” or explain what an “Exploding Head” means in atypical situation? If so a definite delete! That is strictly personal interpretation. Shoessss | Chat 13:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Right; that's really the point of this AfD. Regardless of the sources cited so far, the article seems to consist of mostly original research. I wasn't specific before, but to spell it out, the piece seems to be largely composed of "novel sythesis" per the terms of WP:NOR. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Shoessss. Twenty Years 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a nice little article - better than I expected. The nomination just seems to be I don't like it which is insufficient reason to delete. Colonel Warden 18:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Refutation: No, the nom is grounded in WP:NOR. I've clarified above in more specific terms. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not persuaded It's a common metaphor. Not seeing the original research or synthesis. Colonel Warden 09:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 20:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be a term invented for the sake of creating an entry on the subject. Speaking even as a fan of heads exploding in fiction, I fail to see evidence of notability. -Verdatum 22:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I too am a fan of exploding heads, the more gory the better, but that doesn't necessarily make it encyclopedic. I tried really hard to like this article, but after going over it a couple of times, all I could think of was "this belongs on a horror/movie blog". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The more usual form of the phrase is "...head explode". Google Scholar has 60 hits for this. Colonel Warden 09:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of the ones on the first two pages of results, which is as far as I have time to look right now, actually explain what it is, why it occurs, or the reason that it is a trope. (They just use the trope. They don't explain it.) These are the original research that you are not seeing. Please cite a source that explains the Five Ws of this concept. Uncle G 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per the existence of sources. Cut out the WP:OR.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI We also have an article on Exploding head syndrome which references this one. Colonel Warden 15:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - that article and this one are on very different topics. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNeither of the sources quoted are in any way authoritative and they don't even discuss exploding heads as a concept. The idea that a reference to an explosing head somewhere proves that the concept exists is OR. It would need someone with some claim to be worth listening to *outside Wikipedia* to say "this is evidence that the exploding head concept is a big deal" for it to be suitable for an entry here.Hobson 20:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure unadulterated original research as someone just said. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure orignal research essay. I'm sure the sources will all just link to metions of exploding heads and not cover the OR problems with this article. Ridernyc 06:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication this is anything but OR. Judgesurreal777 17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kizor. Rray (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hobson. Recreate when sources exist that discuss exploding heads as a concept. - ∅ (∅), 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. The references are a bit dodgy at best, and the material in the article represents a synthesis of ideas. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. There is a fair amount of crap in this article, but the concept is grounded and I believe that it's something that has been in a fair amount of fiction and legend. The section on the Secret Service visiting an animator would be an excellent example of fiction-meets-real-life (that WP:FICT discusses) if only it were sourced. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Unless you are being ironic, how is this a "keep" !vote, if you note that it is full of original research "crap", and the one thing you seem to think is good about the article is unsourced? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at WP:PROBLEM. AFD asks the question of whether or not the article deserves to exist, not just if it deserves to exist in it's current form. AFD is not cleanup. Hope that helps. -Verdatum (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flip side of that coin is that "it might be sourced someday" is not a strong defense, generally, and is a particularly weak one against an AfD that raises other issues, including rampant WP:OR. My point above was that the one thing Arichnad mentioned that was good about the article wasn't sourced. That seems to be a moot point now, though my other point - that even this supporter says it is full of WP:OR still stands. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've slightly been saying. The concept is grounded, and fairly prevalent despite being one that you wouldn't expect to be. That the core is valid shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Regarding the Secret Service visit, sourcing things that happened online before the Internet's population explosion is tricky, but I've scrounged up references for it! --Kizor (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of commonly confused homonyms

[edit]

Unsourced and full of original research. Given the fact that the criteria for inclusion is based on anyones subjective interpretation and/or pronunciation as well as idea of what constitutes commonly confused there is no limit to the potential size of this list. Hence it violates WP:NOT as a list of indiscriminate information. EconomicsGuy 09:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems to forget that this is the English wikipedia and rambles off into other languages like Finnish which are not commonly used in English, let alone confused. If there's a need for a list like this then better to start again with a new title. Colonel Warden 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. How on earth do you find references detailing whether one's homonym confusion is common or not? -Verdatum 22:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not just OR, but bad OR. Effect/affect, capital/capitol, okay, I'll buy (confused with by and bye) that. And to, too and two, yeah, we learned about that when they taught homonyms in third grade. But "gnaw" and "nor"? And "caught" as a homonym for "cot"? Oh, are there any worse examples of "O.R."? Mandsford 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violating WP:NOR and possibly WP:NOT.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Wow. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Lindy

[edit]

The article has not been cleaned up in over a year since it was speedy deleted. It is focused largely on cataloging regional websites, chief amoung them MinnesotaLindy.com, from which I presume that the article takes its name.

If it belongs in Wikipedia, an article on Lindy in Minnesota would be better named as such; User:Pozole points out that this article title implies more, such as a style of dance indigenous to Minnesota. (I don't mean to suggest that renaming the article would obviate any of the other reasons I think it should be deleted.)

While User:Azeroth made an interesting suggestion that the subject is noteworthy because of the influence of the Minnesota Lindy scene through two influential events, this is not demonstrated in the article. I think the articles on those events could use to be created and they should address their or Minnesota's influence in a verifiable way.

The article basically "exist[s] only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers." While I am certain of the good faith of the authors, I don't believe the article belongs in Wikipedia.

Full disclosure: I am an active Lindy hopper in Florida, am involved in the planning of a regional workshop weekend here, and have plans to create a Lindy resource website of my own, which will have a partially commercial nature. I don't believe these have any bearing in my interest in the present debate: I simply find Minnesota Lindy inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. —Christian Campbell 09:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of WP:N. Collectonian 11:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion and in fact reads like spam. Shoessss | Chat 13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Shoesssss. Twenty Years 15:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic confluence of two things, location and topic. There is no such dance and this is thereore a directory of things that are loosely connected. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn website and incoherent article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like a general ad for Lindy Hop in Minnesota. –panda 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as spam -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional tobacco products

[edit]

Both totally unsourced as well as as a text book violation of WP:NOT. In other words listcruft. There is nothing to show that this should be notable enough for an article, hence it is simply a list of loosely associated items. Per same argument I also nominate

List of fictional gemstones

EconomicsGuy 09:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, as unsourced. There is a fictional jewels category. AnteaterZot 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete both per nom, better categorised.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of fictional tobacco products. not sure about the gemstones (yet). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as unsourced and non-useful lists. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirimar Disaster (album)

[edit]

The self-titled album of a seemingly NN band, also up for AfD. Jmlk 1 7 08:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The band itself is not quite notable enough for inclusion, and this article contains otherwise no notability assertion for the album. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 09:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Fails WP:MUSIC. Might be worth a mention in the band's article (if it survives the AfD). Twenty Years 15:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirimar Disaster

[edit]

A band, seemingly NN, and probably just a vanity/ad article. Jmlk 1 7 08:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If we go by WP:MUSIC, the group is close to being notable enough for inclusion, but is not there yet. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 09:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. No assertion of notability and based on what I could find nor will there ever be. I won't tag for speedy though as the nominator removed the previous db tag before nominating it. EconomicsGuy 09:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - band website and myspace profiles are hardly reliable sources. — Rudget _{contributions} 13:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Twenty Years 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC, but people need to realise that if Kerrang! magazine gave a band's album 4/5 in a review, then A7 should not be applied. There is at least an assertion of notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The LiveWire

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A show, still not even airing yet, and almost certainly not passing WP:NOTABILITY. Jmlk 1 7 07:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. With option to re-create if RS are found. Twenty Years 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Go ahead, delete it, it's not the only article of it's type and there are many more articles with little nobility and less infomation that I've put into this one. --Thewizkid93 22:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If you could take the time to add those articles to WP:Afd, your efforts would be greatly appreciated. -Verdatum 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like a fairly decently written and sourced article comparitively speaking. But I fail to see how a Community television show satisfies notability. If it were a nationwide commercial production, I'd say keep it. -Verdatum 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Shows produced by RMITV are looked up on WIkipedia quite a lot as it is a way of prople becoming aware of the show. I know that I often use Wikipedia as a tool for finding out about community TV shows as most show's websites arn't that descriptave.--Thewizkid93 06:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply And this is potentially fine. But, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. So if you can find an article published by an established newspaper or other similar source, and reference it in the article, I'll gladly change my vote. I tried quickly, but the most I could find was an announcement on the RMITV website, which would not be considered independent of the subject. -Verdatum 07:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this show has been in pre-production for a long while now. Nothing has ever come of the promises the article makes / once made. Created by an editor with a clear COI also. - Longhair\^talk 22:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced for pretty much a year, community tv show which does not seem to have produced more than a pilot. Does not seem to meet WP:N, WP:FICTION or WP:MOVIE to me and I'm not sure if there is anything else more appropriate.Ga rr ie 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, implemented for now as redirect to Transactional analysis#Transactions and Strokes. Sandstein (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warm fuzzy

[edit]

Dicdef, already exists at Wiktionary. I'm still trying to work out exactly what "warm fuzzy" means, as I don't think I can relate to the feeling. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the feeling I get when crappy articles are deleted from Wikipedia. JuJube 10:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As it already exists at Wiktionary. As a side note, We should be careful what we dismiss as crappy, as this is a personal opinion. The author of the article spent their time and effort contributing to Wikipedia and should be encouraged and not be dismissed so off-handedly.14:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Shoessss | Chat
- People spend a lot of time on hoaxes too, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be called hoaxes. JuJube (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment it is just a definition but before we delete it we should ask is there any scope for it to become a proper article? Is there anything to say about the term other than to define it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielRigal (talk • contribs) 14:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would still say delete as an article. The phrase itself leans almost exclusively to just being “Defined”. In an article context, the phrase would be WP:POV and hence deleted. Shoessss | Chat 15:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article; agree that it is more suited to just a definition, especially in the context of Transactional analysis.

I've moved the citation to Transactional analysis#Transactions_and_Strokes and elaborated/linked the Wiktionary entry at wikt:warm fuzzy and left the article as a redirect -- sounds like a good resolution?

Nbarth 15:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted the redirect for now but kept the citation in that article. I wouldn't object to this redirecting there at all, but please let the AfD finish before redirecting.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Close so it can be taken to WP:RFD insttead, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krudd

[edit]

A play on the name of Australia's new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, but while a few bloggers have used it, I see no evidence of it being a widespread nickname and so I think it is inappropriate to Wikipedia. Peter Ballard 07:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kevin Rudd. I recall seeing this nickname being used in The Australian or the Herald Sun - one of the two - a couple of weeks ago. It isn't nearly as obscure as one would think it is-—arf! 07:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - It is a redirect at the moment. Peter Ballard 07:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that redirects should be listed at WP:RFD, where slightly different criteria are applied than straightforward notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if someone will close this, I'll renominate at WP:RFD instead. Ditto for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Placido Domingo. Peter Ballard 11:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 00:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audubon Ballroom (Honorverse)

[edit]

This non-notable fictional entity was either speedy-deleted before, or AfDed, or deleted by prod, I can't remember which, and recreated. In any case, it should be deleted again. Is there a way to tell what happened before that I am unaware of? Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was deleted by prod: deletion log. -- Menti fisto 07:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to Honorverse Wiki if that's possible Ealdgyth | Talk 03:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed & moved to RfD. SkierRMH (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Placido Domingo

[edit]

Not a common nickname for Paul Keating, so Delete Peter Ballard 07:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While it is true that Keating once refered to himself as "The Placido Domingo of Australian politics", it has never been a common nickname for him, and it is (IMHO) inconceivable that any person would type in "The Placido Domingo" when trying to find Paul Keating. Not to mention possible confusion with the real Placido Domingo. Peter Ballard 07:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that problem redirects are normally discussed at WP:RFD, which has slightly different criteria. --Dhartung | Talk 08:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close and take to WP:RFD instead, seeing as it's a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close per TPH. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete SkierRMH (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada (English translation)

[edit]

The following was left as an invisible note (visible only when you go to edit the article) on the article:

Unfortunately, one may not add on to the English article about Canada if no consent is given by "who knows?". "Someone" or "a small group of people" arbitrarily decided it was only an article presenting a "general view about Canada"; thus, filtering relevant information that could change one's perception of Canada, and censuring press liberty and freedom of speech.

Therefore, this article was created to allow people to know more about Canada than what can be read in the small general English article about Canada. Thus, this article is only a translation of the French article about Canada. All references are inserted in the latter article. The translation may not be perfect, so corrections pertaining to errors in the translation itself or to the meaning of the words or expressions used by comparison to French are acceptable and fully welcomed, but please do not change anything or add on to this page if no changes occurred in the French article with respect to new or modified information.

Thanks for your collaboration! Hopefully that will help in education and in the sharing of information.

As this goes completely against attempts to create a consensus using talk pages, I'm proposing that this article be deleted. POV forks aren't allowed on Wikipedia, and this seem similar enough since it's a disagreement in point of view about what the article should focus on. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Note that this article is the author's first and only edit. I am going to assume good faith, that is, assume that this editor doesn't know Wikipedia methods such as consensus building and was not intentionally violating them. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nice try, but editor should have used a more kosher method instead. I'm assuming good faith as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork created out of misunderstanding of WP:CONSENSUS. In any case deletion of an article is not censure of the editor who created it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The author, Nicko12345, should be made aware that he can post his intentions on the Talk:Canada page, and all subsequent work will be done from there. The reason the article Canada is currently locked has to do with massive vandalism on it. As it stands, Canada is a Featured Article, but that doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. We do not need a content fork, and it is unlikely that someone will type "Canada (English translation)" in the search box. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 09:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a fork, if ever there was one.--Aldux 13:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a self-described content fork. Also, even though the user who created this article (Nicko12345) has only one edit, the "note" given at the creation of the article—where the user rants about being unable to add something to the Canada article because the powers-that-be prefer a "general view about Canada"—indicates that this user has indeed been previously involved in trying to edit the Canada article. As such, I strongly suspect that Nicko12345 might be a sockpuppet. If that is the case, then the fact that the user chose to create a sockpuppet rather than creating a content fork under his/her own username indicates that the user has more knowledge of Wikipedia rules forbidding content forks than we thought. I'd like to assume good faith, but the user's actions suggest otherwise.--Hnsampat 15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a "Nicko" on French Wikipedia who is a regular contributor to the Canada article there, and there is no doubt in my mind that this is the same person who created the English translation we are now discussing. He has a page full of edits to the French version of the Canada article. So, be careful before accusing someone of sockpuppetry. The only wronggdoing on his part is that he tagged his own translation as being the main English article on Canada. I just undid his edit on French Wikipedia. I also left him a note, in French, on his talk page, about the situation. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My suspicion was based on Nicko12345 claiming to have run into difficulty with editing the Canada article on English Wikipedia despite Nicko12345's edit history showing only 1 contribution (namely, this page up for deletion right here). This led me to suspect that he/she may have edited Canada under a different username, had those edits reverted while being told that the article was meant to present a "general view" of Canada, and then specifically created the username Nicko12345 for the purpose of creating this page. I am mindful that is possible that the Nicko12345 was simply unable to edit Canada because of its protected status right now, but the way he/she worded the comments above, I suspected possible sockpuppetry at the time. In voicing my suspicion above, I chose my words as as carefully as possible to avoid assuming bad faith and to not be accusatory while also at least giving voice to this possibility. I hope my comments are read with the good intentions that I made them with. --Hnsampat 17:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible GFDL violation. Blueboy 96 19:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 provided the article is cleaned up soon. Moved to Bamboo torture. Sandstein (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Bamboo Torture

[edit]

Unsourced article about a method of torture. No sources whatsoever—arf! 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but perhaps refactor into something like Bamboo in torture ("Chinese" is gratuitous, bamboo occurs throughout Asia) as the literature indicates quite a few ... creative uses, most of them variations on common tortures such as suspension, racking, fingernail insertion, and of course corporal punishments often meted out under law. This particular one may be an urban legend but is minorly notable through citation by e.g. Annie Dillard in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. This may be notable for use in movies, too, but I haven't confirmed that yet. --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a mention without explanation of "green bamboo torture" in a 1958 Alistair MacLean novel — but that typifies the problem with this subject. There are a scattering of anecdotal and even fictional mentions of people being subject to "bamboo torture", whilst there is almost nothing to say what it actually is, in fiction or in fact. Interestingly, the "bamboo torture" discussed on pages 151 et seq. of ISBN 0521571650 is nothing at all like what this article describes, and the author moreover casts doubt upon stories of torture for which he has no coroborrating evidence. Uncle G 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep Indeed, it is an unsourced article, and not a terribly encyclopedic one either. But I've personally heard of this practice and from the discussion page others have as well. Even though I'm not going to believe this is a real form of torture until I see a good reference, I believe it is at least a well established urban legend. Enough of one that if it's deleted it may very well be recreated in the same form or poorer. People may very well come to WP seeking to learn about this practice. The article states that it's unreferenced and that the factual accuracy is questioned, perhaps that's enough. Still personally, if it leaves, I won't be sad to see it go. -Verdatum 10:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Verdatum: Looking up slightly obscure stuff like that is exactly what an encyclopedia is for. --Arcanios 12:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point that you aren't addressing is verifiability. How can readers check that the article is accurate? Uncle G 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vandatum. Twenty Years 15:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete(Added:Could not find the method described in the article in the usual refs such as Google book search. ) The form of the torture described in the article seems ludicrous: torturers are usually too impatient to wait for a plant to grow up and stick a person. More commonly heard of is bamboo slivers driven under the fingernails. Google book searce shows 5 books which describe or discuss this form of torture [16]. I refer to Feinberg (1973), Adhe (1999), Dowlen (2001), Sears (2005), and Siebert (1996). I was not able to read the entire context, just to note that the concept appears in and is discussed in these works. It is also discussed in fiction, which is a less compelling reason for keeping the article because people seem to be down on "popular culture." Google news archive [17]shows the majority of mentions to be as often humorous comparisons to enduring a bad concert. Some referred to it as a Japanese torture or North Korean torture, claiming it as a real world event. Thus sources exist which could be used to reference and improve the article, and it is not original research. The sources found suggest a move to "Bamboo torture" since other Asian countries are accused of doing it. Edison 21:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed, I was thinking about a move like that myself. My concern was it is rarely described as such. There is nearly always some country or another before the term. So I dont know if that would be considered inventing a term for the sake of NPOV or what. Still, as is reflected in the discussion page, naming one country or another can be considered offensive, and I'd say reasonably so. -Verdatum 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the article as written makes no mention of fingernails, and indeed describes a wholly different method of torture. As I noted above, there are things known as bamboo torture, but they aren't what the article describes. Also note that we already have an article on the "bamboo fingernail torture" method described by Feinberg et al., at denailing. Uncle G 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The article about ripping off fingernails which UncleG mentions does not seem to have much to do with bamboo in the process except for one episode of "Lost" which is mentioned. It was never clear that the removal of the nails was the object of forcing a bamboo sliver under them. Google book search reveals several books about Chinese 19th century judicial torture involving bamboo, but I did not find the method described in this article. There were numerous accounts of bamboo being used to beat prisoners, to crush fingers or ankles, to restrain, or to suspend. Chapter 15 of [18] is a gruesome example. There could be an article with references about "Traditional Chinese torture" Edison 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and cleanup per existence of reliable sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has improved much since most people cast delete !votes. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic memory

[edit]

Article is unencyclopedic and seems to be based entirely upon uncited original research. Juansmith 06:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unscientific, speculative nonsense (and per nom) --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Genomic imprinting, a kind of genetic memory. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Either restore the old redirect to racial memory, or create a disambig page for that and genomic imprinting. This article was the result of one guy putting down his own thoughts. Someguy1221 11:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Someguy. Twenty Years 15:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a subject that is treated in other encyclopaedias, such as the one cited. An administrator hitting a delete button is not the way to fix the article. All that is required is ordinary editors with the courage to actually write. Keep. Uncle G 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article seems to wander. Not clear that there is a real topic here that is recognized by science. The article does not even meet the requirements of WP:NEO so far as I can see (establishing that the term is widely used to mean a specific thing). A Google search for the term gives a strange variety of items that have little in common with one another. EdJohnston 19:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nine books discussing the subject and two dictionaries of science with articles about it, and you think that it's not recognized? My goodness! Uncle G 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify to racial memory, genomic imprinting, and instinctual behaviour. 132.205.99.122 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you actually looked at the article? Or are you just parrotting what others wrote earlier? The horizontal rule has a significance. Uncle G 14:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with EdJohnston, it's rambling, it's kind of like a DAB page with exposition 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Massive rewrite This is an important topic worthy of being kept, however this article is full of un verfied information. A google search of the title does produce a lot of information however, mot if it relating to instincts, racial memory, and past life regressions. The first two would qualify as science, the last as parapsycology/psuedoscience. It's clearly a notable topic worthy of an article and not just a redirect. However, this article if currently full of quackary, psuedoscience, and has hard to verify sources recently provided by Uncle G. This article should be shortened, massively simplified, and should basically be turned into a brief overview of how it is related to other topics. Also it should be sourced with verifiable, reliable internet sources.Earthdirt (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FUTON bias is unbecoming in a Wikipedia editor, and certainly not a reason to change an article. Uncle G (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well aren't we the judgmental one Uncle G. I think this article is currently close to unreadable to the general population and that IS certainly a good reason to rewrite an article (e.g. it does not even currently have subject heading and doesn't mention/link the word instincts or genes/DNA). Also FUTON bias typically refers to the use of print/online "primary", peer-reviewed academic journals, not obscure books that most libraries won't even have (some of which have less than 1 page available online). Finally, my mention of your sources was meant to be a positive one, since prior to that the article had nothing, I see why you might have interpreted it in a negative way from the sentence it was in though, please remember the important Wikipedia Guideline WP:AGF. I do think the sources could be improved for the benefit of the general readership. Just curious, do you actually own/have all the books you cited?Earthdirt (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. This topic can be properly expanded given more time and academic references. --Madchester (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a rewrite. The article is better sourced than many other I've seen, and it's certainly a legitimate topic. Readability is a bit of an issue, but the solution is to rewrite, not delete. Ourai ^тʃ_с 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the entire article twice, including the ref list. Hurt my head. If there is substance here it is sprinkled around in bits and pieces. I can find little or no science. Admittedly, reference 8, "Functional Osteology and Myology of the Shoulder in the Chiroptera" seems like real science, but it's hard to guess how it relates to "genetic memory and central nervous memory" as the citation indicates. I don't believe this is worth trying to save unless someone can check through the references and verify that they, themselves, are factual rather than speculative, and that they support the article as specified. Tim Ross·^talk 01:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite or convert into a disambiguation page including links to DNA (see Nirenberg's article on Genetic Memory for a biological/medical use of the term) and epigenetics. - tameeria (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

addendum: I realized that maybe not everyone here will be familiar enough with Nirenberg's credentials, so here's some explanation: Marshall Nirenberg and colleagues received the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1968 (cue: date of reference linked above) for their "interpretation of the genetic code and its function in protein synthesis" [19]. So "genetic memory" was the title of Nirenberg's talk outlining the subject of his Nobel Prize award. While it is not a widely used term today, it is still being used in this sense in the scientific literature on occasion. I hope that this will establish notability of the term as well as help document its scientific use. - tameeria (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your claim about Nirenberg's Nobel lecture does not seem correct. The title of his lecture, as found here, was 'The Genetic Code.' Nothing about genetic memory that I could find. The phrase 'genetic memory' appears in a 1968 article he published in JAMA, as you have also observed. However this seems like an intuitive or metaphorical title intended to get the attention of a non-specialist audience. No indication that this was a term that he and his two Nobel colleagues ever used in communication with each other about their common work. EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Lasker Award Lecture (see footnote in article) shortly before he received the Nobel Prize, but it was about the same research. Maybe genetic code would be a more appropriate link for a dab page than DNA, though in the article he says: "Genetic memory resides in specific molecules of [DNA]." Even the very first sentence of his Nobel lecture reads: "Genetic memory resides in specific molecules of nucleic acid." This can be easily verified with the two lecture PDFs referenced above. Anyway, a search with the phrase "Genetic memory" on Google Books brings up 652 hits and on Google Scholar 920 hits. There appears to be plenty of scholarly research out there with most of the papers being from either computer science (neural networks and genetic algorithms) or molecular biology and medicine with the occasional ecology paper. - tameeria (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Fairly well-sourced, but it is so poorly written, it needs a major re-write. I'd tag it and work on it later. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grooming a dog

[edit]

Nothing more than a how-to guide. Content is already covered in WikiHow[20], A^RendedWinter 06:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic, is a guide not an encyclopedic article. Jerry^teps 06:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOT#GUIDE. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT. Twenty Years 15:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the text of this article also appears at http://www.squidoo.com/dog-breeds-small, though where it originated I'm not sure - the Wikipedia page could be a copyvio. Hut 8.5 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per everyone. Possibly this could redirect to personal grooming along with the non-existent dog grooming but I'm not convinced.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Port City

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the amazing Ghost in the Shell articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert, but this article seems very useful and well organized information for someone looking to know more about the setting of New Port City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.47.169 (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Useful" is not a criteria for keeping an article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spruce Harbor, Maine (fictional town)

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the MASH articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom's reason; Not notable. - Rjd0060 04:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D*E*L*E*T*E* per nom as in-universe information, not notable outside of M*A*S*H*. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Donald Duck. Pastordavid (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Junior Chickadees

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Donald Duck comic and episode articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom's reason; Not notable. - Rjd0060 04:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into the The Chickadees article. Shoessss | Chat 14:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Shoessssssss. Twenty Years 15:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Shoes.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chickadees

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Scrooge McDuck comicbook articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom's reason; Not notable. - Rjd0060 04:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep – 19,100 hits on Google as noted here [21] with a very explicate search criteria, makes a pretty impressive KEEP argument. Shoessss | Chat 14:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. Twenty Years 15:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a google search isn't a wikipedia guideline and has nothing to do with this discussion. It does not establish this has any reliable sources, or that it has any critical commentary on the subject. Judgesurreal777 16:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on your reasoning. On one hand you are right; "...google search isn't a wikipedia guideline." However, I take it you did not go to the link I provided? The link provides several; "... reliable sources, ……and commentary on the subject.” Secondly, this is not the page to list those sources rather a discussion or whether or not to keep an article based on the editors Informed opinion not just opinion.Shoessss | Chat 17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it is the job of the keepers to demonstrate notability, please post some of those reliable sources here so we can all see them. Judgesurreal777 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is for the actual article's page. This page is to discuss whether the article is to be kept or not and give his/hers reasoning for a Keep or Delete opinion. In stating a Keep or Delete opinion, the editor “Should” be informed and state his/her reasoning. I believe in my Keep Opinion, I listed my reasoning and provided the source for forming my opinion, as I list once again here [22]. Hence an “Informed” opinion. In addition, the articial does meet WP:NOTE Shoessss | Chat 20:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the nomination asks for notability, it must be proven, otherwise it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Scanning through the first pages of the 1,000's of Ghits, I see several possible good cites to prove some notability outside the world of Disney. It's not my thing, so another person will have to mop up this one. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete SkierRMH (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémart

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Pokemon game articles. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom's reason; Not notable. - Rjd0060 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom as it is not notable and is written as a guide. Kyriakos 05:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm part of WP:Pokemon, but I still agree with nom, this is cruft. Spigot Map 05:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the Pokemon test. RFerreira 08:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Merge to pokemon games article, if see fit. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply cruft. Per nominator. Twenty Years 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Doesn't deserve its own article bigvinu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.156.143 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and add dab link per Hiding. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton (comics)

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Martian Manhunter articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom's reason; Not notable. - Rjd0060 04:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and add a dab link under the Fictional places section of Middleton directing people to Martian Manhunter. Middleton is a fictional setting in the DC Comics Martian Manhunter comic book series. That will direct interested parties. Hiding T 09:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fried Green Tomatoes (film) --JForget 00:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whistle Stop, Alabama

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Fried Green Tomatoes articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't merit its own article. Majoreditor 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nom's reason; Not notable. - Rjd0060 04:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then make a redirect to the Fried Green Tomatoes movie or book, whichever. I think a redirect is appropriate for fictional towns, in case a user wants to look up to see if the town exists. The redirect will tell them that it doesn't. AnteaterZot 05:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but redirect as likely search term. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Nomination withdrawn. Davewild (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shanazar

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Sonic comic articles. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom's reason; Not notable. - Rjd0060 04:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have edited article with links to source and citation of relevant issues to make it more appropriate. Charles RB 01:17, 04/12/2007 (UK timezone) —Preceding comment was added at 01:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a few more? I will then withdraw the nomination, happily :) Judgesurreal777 01:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try - quite a bit of info was available all in the same link though, so I can only use it as a reference the once. Charles RB 02:12, 4/12/07 (UTC)

Added some extra references and issue numbers, as well as some extra data (including mention of fan reaction, with link). Charles RB, 02:52, 4/12/07 (UTC)

Keep: The article is a about a location of a major (and long running) story arc within Sonic the Comic. Nabs 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I strongly encourage you to continue to add references to this article, especially any that are not forums for fans, I believe you have asserted notability in a limited way. Please keep building up this article so you don't see this tag on this article again :) Judgesurreal777 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - The article has established notability in at minimum a limited sense, and that was the nomination rationale. Thanks to Charles RB for his good work. Judgesurreal777 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mercury 16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ages of Myst V: End of Ages

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Myst game articles. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no reason to have a separate article for this. At best, I can see a merge to Myst V: End of Ages#Ages. - Rjd0060 04:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia has always had large volumes of fictional information. I see no reason to delete it just because it describes fiction. (Why do we keep the article on Luke Skywalker?) Judgesurreal seems to be primarily in the business of deleting fictional articles. —EatMyShortz 05:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my motives are not in question, but this articles notability. It is safe to assume you do not understand wikipedia policies, so start here WP:FICTION, and you will see what makes this different from an article on, say, Skywalker. Judgesurreal777 05:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Useful information for fans of the Myst series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToriaURU (talk • contribs) 05:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful is not a keep criteria.Judgesurreal777 05:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Useful~~information as useful as any other "fiction" related article on Wikipedia. Why do we even bother having any books mentioned then on Wikipedia? Are they all fictional and therefore useless? Why not delete all the fictional stuff about TV shows then? What's the use of them? That's the arguement I see you presenting to me. ToriaURU 05:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, please read this WP:FICTION, you do not understand what this debate is about until you do. Judgesurreal777 05:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll happily work to integrate it into the existing Myst V articleToriaURU 17:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Rjf0060. An unnecessary, redundant, non-notable, gameguide. Need I say more? Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 05:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Integrate - there is already a main article about this game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myst_V:_End_of_Ages containing an out of universe description but with information about the ages limited to one line each. this article can be used to expand the original. Talashar 07:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst Integrate with the main Myst V article. This is just as notable, if not more, as an article about a fictional planet than only appeared in a single Star Wars book, and it keeps the main article from getting too long. It is also consistent with other Myst titles on Wikipedia having a separate 'Ages of' page. - Luiswulf 13:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Luiswulf points out above, this article is just as valid as many other articles on fictitious locations. I think there might even be reason enough not to delete articles on each age individually, if they were to exist (note: I'm most certainly not suggesting they're created - this single article suffices very well). At the very least, merge into the parent article, but I feel that this stands up on its own. _TheIslander 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to establish notability through reliable sources, which it currently doesn't do at all, otherwise why merge it? Judgesurreal777 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability (N) and it's related guidelines deal with the suitability of entire articles, not content of articles, so even if this is not suitable as it's own article, whether a merge into an article that already obviously satisfies N (ie. the article for Myst V itself) would be appropriate would depend on the "content-of-articles" inclusion policies and guidelines: Verifability, No original research, and What Wikipedia is not -- information not notable enough for it's own devoted article may still be suitable for inclusion in a preexisting article, although perhaps trimmed if needed, depending on how it satisfies those, so that needs to be examined before deciding to delete, merge, or keep. mike4ty4 00:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia isn't a game guide, but StrategyWiki:Myst V: End of Ages/Ages is. Transwikied. -- Prod-You 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not needed. Just keep it in the main Myst V article. No notability outside of the individual game itself. Cackalackakilla (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockport (Need for Speed)

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Need for Speed game articles. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable; if it is important to the game, then merge there. - Rjd0060 04:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rjd0060. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per RJD. Twenty Years 15:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of EarthBound locations

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Earthbound game articles. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It should be included in the games' article if it is important to the game. Other than that, it isn't notable. - Rjd0060 04:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into main article EarthBound Shoessss | Chat 14:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Earthbound. Twenty Years 15:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - unanimous consensus Wily D 15:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mother 3 locations

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Mother 3 game articles. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It should be included in the games' article if it is important to the game. Other than that, it isn't notable. - Rjd0060 04:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete just keep it in the main mother 3 article. not notable outside research on the game itself. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 references added during AFD. Davewild (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cabot Cove

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Murder, Shoe Wrote TV show articles. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Should be included in Murder, She Wrote (which it is). Not notable otherwise. - Rjd0060 04:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The murder capital of the world is not notable? Delete per bloodthirsty nom. Clarityfiend 16:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This fictional location has real-world notability. Here is an article about Cabot Cove from the New York Times which works out the town's murder rate. Mendocino is a tourist location because it is the place where Murder She Wrote was filmed. I will add the sources to the article. Bláthnaid 11:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have some real world references, not to mention the Cabot Cove name is used to draw in tourists to the Maine locale. RMHED (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, that's a pretty thin amount of notability....I think we need a few more to withdraw, because most articles don't rest on only one reference, and if this is any indication, it may be possible to find more. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book TV Towns that was in the "Further reading" section of the article before it was nominated for AfD has a profile of Cabot Cove, so that is two impeccable references. Since this programme aired from the 1980s to 1996, ie, pre mass internet, it is reasonable to assume that most of the sources that can be used are off-line or behind paywalls in newspaper archives, and difficult to get hold of within the short time-frame of an AfD. Bláthnaid 11:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Notability, in a limited fashion, has been established, though time will also judge if the article has a long term future. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/mom withdrawn as per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winnemac (fictional U.S. state)

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the works of Sinclair Lewis. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable. - Rjd0060 04:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tag for cleanup, and notify the relevant wikiproject — I'm having trouble believing that the frequently used setting of a prominant social satirist has not been discussed ad nausium in scholarly works, at least as much as Yoknapatawpha County, if not more given the setting is part of the satire. That said, I'm not volunteering to track references down -- the man's writing gives me the hives -- but the notability should be easy to establish using the references in Sinclair Lewis. A good task for the person who cleans it up out of stub status. (I note in passing that said person could take a worse model than Yoknapatawpha County.) —Quasirandom 04:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw the nomination if you can establish for certainty that that is true. Judgesurreal777 04:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask if you'd heard of Sinclair Lewis before you tagged this article? You know, the first American to win the Nobel Prize for Literature [23]? I did thirty seconds of googling and added quotes from three critical studies to the article. What exactly does this article duplicate by the way? The material here isn't presented in the Wikipedia article on the man himself. Nick mallory 09:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And where exactly are these references? Can you actually demonstrate them for us so we can decide if this article is notable or not? Judgesurreal777 18:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, as he said. They need to be turned into actual references, but if, as you put it, cared to look, you would see they are there. —Quasirandom 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have no policy saying that in-universe elements would not be appropriate. The state is the setting of at least five novels and googling gives about 500 non-Wikipedia links, so there is obviously an audience for this article, establishing notability. I do not see this text elsewhere, so it is probably also not duplicated. Сасусlе 04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in universe plot information by itself is not encyclopedic, as there is no information on, say, how the state was invented, creator commentary and such. See WP:FICTION. Judgesurreal777 05:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judgesurreal is correct, guys. In-universe or not, it still has to meet WP:FICTION; this article isn't doing it. "Fruit of the utterly unreferenced tree" and all that... Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 05:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So now the WP:FICTION crowd is going after classic literature? Critical commentary certainly exists. Browse through some of these results. Zagalejo^^^ 08:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't some teenage computer game or bubblegum slasher movie. Sinclair Lewis was a major writer and, as noted above, he set at least five novels in this fictional state. His brand of social satire may be a little of out fashion today but he was awarded, though didn't accept, a Pulitzer prize for 'Arrowsmith', one of the novels set in this 'universe'. Granted it's not really important like Final Fantasy IV for instance, but I think it sneaks into notable territory, fictional though that territory may be. Nick mallory 09:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"His brand of social satire may be a little of out fashion today..." True. Too bad It Can't Happen Here is out of vogue. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nick Molloy. Twenty Years 15:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snarky comments insulting the nominator and others and empty google searches are not a basis to keep the article. And yes, even classic literature must meet wikipedia guidelines, including notability and verification through referencing. Judgesurreal777 16:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have more respect for your nomination if you weren't simply arguing out of ignorance. At least give us some evidence that you tried to find sources. Zagalejo^^^ 19:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate notability and sources. Colonel Warden 18:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources in the article if you would care to look before voting. Judgesurreal777 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are. Nick added sources several hours before you commented here. And there's more material out there, like "A Sinclair Lewis Portfolio of Maps: Zenith to Winnemac" by Helen Batchelor (Modern language quarterly, v.32, Dec. 1971.) That would be perfect; it's an article about the maps Lewis drew as he was planning the books. If you have access to Academic Search Premier, you can find it there. Zagalejo^^^ 19:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added a source discussing the origin of Lewis's invention of the state. It's not like there's an actual "History of Winnemac" out there, but this is sufficiently independently notable for m.e --Dhartung | Talk 21:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not commenting keep/delete, because too personally involved. But I don't understand how it is "entirely duplicative," since the articles on the five books set in that location don't, in fact, contain much material about Winnemac. Now, Sinclair is not as important a writer as Faulkner and Winnemac is not as important as Yoknapatawpha County, but there's a parallel there, as there is with Land of Oz, etc. It seems sensible to me to collect the material on Winnemac into one article and link to it from the articles on the books that mention it, as opposed to putting sketchy, overlapping, and, yes, duplicative material in the separate articles. In the novel Elmer Gantry we read that Gantry was "the first clergyman in the state of Winnemac to have his services broadcast by radio." If that piques someone's curiosity about Winnemac, where do we expect them to look first? Under Winnemac, of course. If there were no such article, logically he would next try Elmer Gantry... but that article doesn't even mention Winnemac. Is he supposed to guess that he should have looked in Arrowsmith instead? Dpbsmith (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. 135 hits on winnemac Sinclair in Google Books, which is IMHO a respectable number for a Google Books search. More important than the actual number of hits is that when I look at them, I see reasonable evidence that people writing about Sinclair think Winnemac worthy of mention Dpbsmith (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P. P. S The articles on Sinclair Lewis in the Concise Dictionary of American Biography and in Contemporary Authors Online both mention Winnemac. I consider this clear evidence of notability. The former article includes a couple of sentences detailing on Winnemac's principal rivers, cities, etc. which I've added to our article. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P. P. P. S. I've added some material to the article from Helen Batchelor's paper and from a New York Times review of Lewis' last novel. Both of them make it clear that the creation of "Winnemac" was an integral part of Lewis' ambitious literary plans, following the success of Main Street, and to me, that nails down the notability of Winnemac. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - The article has established at minimum a limited notability, and that was the central contention of my nomination. Thank you all for saving a valuable article. Judgesurreal777 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, that won't do. AfD is not the place for clean up. If you wanted a better article written you could have done that yourself. Everyone else has pointed out there are plenty of sources you could have found and added yourself. You clearly stated that the article should be deleted in your nomination. We're here to debate whether an article is 'valuable' or not in principle. There's nothing 'limited' about the notability of the subject either, it's notable now, just as it was notable when you nominated it for deletion. Nick mallory (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Canard

[edit]

As much as I love Darkwing Duck, this article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Darkwing Duck TV show articles. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Can be included in the Darkwing Duck article. - Rjd0060 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Not independently notable.Kww 13:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goosetown

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Ducktales show articles. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. It should be mentioned in one of the main articles (which it already is). - Rjd0060 04:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoonerville

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Goof Troop TV show articles. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. It should be mentioned the main article (which it already is). - Rjd0060 04:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable fictional place. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and only merits a mention in the main article - Dumelow (talk)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Duckburg. It's a notable place but it's almost always used in conjunction with Duckburg, so merging the two is appropriate. - KrakatoaKatie 00:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calisota

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Ducktales TV show articles. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. - Rjd0060 04:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Twenty Years 15:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say either keep (but remove the fanon speculation), because it is a fairly notable fictional location, or redirect to Duckburg because the only times the Calisota name is used is when an exact location is needed for that fictional city.96T 17:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Duckburg, since it's most used when one sees a Duckburg address. This is a bigger thing than DuckTales, though... it's been used in 50+ years of comic books. Pinball22 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable setting for a huge number of extremely popular and culturally important comic books and animations, in many languages for over half a century. Moheroy 04:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, please produce some referencing on the topic, such as how it was created. Judgesurreal777 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, "how it was created"? Already mentioned in the article (Carl Barks, in story "The Gilded Man"). It's mentioned in a large number of stories. One of the high-profile examples is Don Rosa's seminal, award-winning, mind-blowing The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck which also places it on map. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you'll need a lot more than that. Take a look at this World of Final Fantasy VIII, which shows the direction we are going. If we can find a lot of that kind of information, we have a notable article, and vica versa. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is that a fictional world of one video game can be kept. Good. In that case, a fictional location introduced in 1952 and used in God-knows-how-many Donald Duck stories is really hecking darn keepable. Besides, quantity of information available has no bearing on whether or not the thing can be kept or not; if there's not enough material but the topic is notable, it's keepable as a short article or merged. Not everything in Wikipedia has to have kilobytes of fan-ooglery. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, one could argue the sources in World of Final Fantasy VIII suck; most of them are from one game, some have nothing at all to do with the topic but rather back up claims about the game (the entirety of second paragraph which is hopelessly out of place anyway), and there's just a few developer interviews and such. Eh... I don't get the point. You could comb through decades of Disney comics and come up with just as gigantesque article - with multiple primary sources to boot. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable concept not just in DuckTales but all Uncle Scrooge material. Pretty much everything invented by Carl Barks is automatically notable enough for at least a mention somewhere, so at worst case, Merge to Duckburg. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be mentioned that both a popular Disney comics website and a comic book store are named after Calisota. "Calisota" also returns three hits at Google Scholar. 96T 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So really, that is a large amount of nothing. You cant insinuate or suggest there are references, you actually have to provide them. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto)#Las_Venturas. Can't support individual article; already covered in parent article. Note: has been transwikied to specialist wiki. BLACKKITE 20:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Las Venturas, San Andreas

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Grand Theft Auto game articles. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable; already covered Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#Las Venturas. - Rjd0060 04:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately, I can't think of a good argument for it other than the fact that I think it deserves an article, which of course is a terrible argument. However, I am interested to know exactly it is entirely duplicative. mattbuck 08:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Already sufficiently covered Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#Las Venturas. - 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Rjd0060 15:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Rjd060 unless sources are found. Capitalistroadster 09:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per RJD. Twenty Years 15:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Transiwikied to StrategyWiki:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/Las Venturas (along with StrategyWiki:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/Los Santos and StrategyWiki:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/San Fierro). -- Prod-You 16:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto)#Los_Santos. Can't support individual article; already covered in parent article. Note: has been transwikied to specialist wiki. BLACKKITE 21:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Los Santos, San Andreas

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Grand Theft Auto game articles. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable; already covered Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#Los Santos. - Rjd0060 04:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can we please merge this discussion with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Las Venturas, San Andreas - I think it's fair to say the three articles live and die together, and there's no point having separate AfDs which will just repeat what the others say. mattbuck 09:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: No. The discussion was already started so there's no possibility to merge it at this time. The nom could have listed these 3 in a group, but thats okay. - Rjd0060 15:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but appeals to the person who closes this many times appears to sway things, so if you feel it should be merged, explain why and the closer my listen. Judgesurreal777 16:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you do, or don't. Grouping is just an optional convenience. - Rjd0060 16:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping is now being avoided by many at is attracts trolls and people who ignore or dont care about policy. Judgesurreal777 17:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per RJD. Twenty Years 15:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Transiwikied to StrategyWiki:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/Los Santos (along with StrategyWiki:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/Las Venturas and StrategyWiki:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/San Fierro). -- Prod-You 16:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an article that expands upon information shown in other page. CoolGuy (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article could be easily expanded to be of the same quality of San Fierro so I don't see why it would be deleted. It has about the same level of notability.TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....and that article happens to be an in-universe, unreferenced, and probably unnotable article. Why choose that one as an example? And where is the proof that this has notability? If it exists, please post it here for us to see. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I want to keep this article, but to be honest there is no reason to. It is complete fancruft, and your argument there is just WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's not really notable, and could probably be merged back into San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto) mattbuck (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Transwiki already performed (see above).BLACKKITE 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Fierro, San Andreas

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Grand Theft Auto game articles. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable; already covered Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#San Fierro. - Rjd0060 04:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Judges. Twenty Years 15:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 improvements to article during AFD. Davewild (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stars Hollow

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Gilmore Girls articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The setting for a series which was as much of a character in the show as the actual people in the town, and is well-described with real-world examples. If you watch the series you know that without Stars Hollow, Gilmore Girls loses half its character immediately. Nate · (chatter) 04:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why the location is most likely mentioned a ton in the actual articles on Gilmore girls. That does not establish, however, notability for this location per WP:FICTION. Judgesurreal777 04:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect: No need for this separate information. I would have said delete, but this really isn't covered that well in the main article, so merge to Gilmore_ Girls#Plot. - Rjd0060 04:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the last bits, about the set and the real world info into Gilmore Girls per the TV MOS and redirect. Collectonian 11:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Twenty Years 15:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as there are a few sources that discuss the inspiration for Stars Hollow and the history of the set (which was actually used for The Music Man and The Dukes of Hazzard). Someone could use these newspaper pieces to build up the article:

Ken Beck. "Stars Hollow exists only in Hollywood". The Tennessean. 3 September 2006.
Greg Morage. "The Search for Stars Hollow". The Hartford Courant. 19 September 2002.
Cathy Maestri. "Welcome to the unreal world". The (Riverside) Press-Enterprise. 19 December 2003.
Scott Pierce. "Visit to tiny town led to show idea". The Deseret News. 22 February 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagalejo (talk • contribs) 22:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well put them in the article and I'll withdraw the nomination for deletion. Judgesurreal777 22:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it soon. There's been a flood of AFD noms this weekend, which have been distracting me from article building.

You're welcome to add the references if you like. :) Zagalejo^^^ 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say, there are a lot of bad articles going bye bye this week. Sadly I cannot add the references, as all you have posted is the reference info, not the information itself. Judgesurreal777 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. This is not a bad article as you might claim, it needs referencing but beyond that it's hardly "bad". I will help with the work when I get time tomorrow (I'm prevalent in the GG fandom). Nate · (chatter) 03:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zagalejo added the sources into the article, while I added a link to the town's plat from a former extra from the series. Hopefully this suffices your concerns; I will continue to source further on if more are needed. Nate · (chatter) 06:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better!! I would recommend adding a few more, and you might be ready for a Good Article!! Judgesurreal777 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - The article has demonstrated limited notability, which was the contention of this AFD. Judgesurreal777 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneybrook

[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Baby Sitters Little Sisters articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect: Again, not sufficiently covered in The Baby-sitters Club, so merge there. - Rjd0060 04:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per RJD. Twenty Years 13:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Churches affiliated with Australian Christian Churches

[edit]

The vast majority of these churches are not notable and will not/should never have an article: Wikipedia is not a directory. Churches affiliated with Australian Christian Churches exists which gives more encyclopaedic content. —Moondyne 03:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. ——Moondyne 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR, list of loosely associated topics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and the fact the somewhat superior article highlighted by the nominator exists. Orderinchaos 03:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't agree that this a a list of loosely associated topics; they are a small subset of the various local churches of a denomination. This is perfect for a category, especially in the presence of the main article. Since we have both a category and the main article, and we should probably never have articles on even half of the local churches, we are better off without the list. GRBerry 03:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that category out. There does appear to be unnecessary content forking happening here. As well as the nom'd article and the parent at Australian Christian Churches, we have:

I think several merges should be considered. —Moondyne 03:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the above, NOT. - Rjd0060 04:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Churchcruft. These topics have no independent notability.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, cruft. Also, all the information is carried in the other, much superior article cited in the nom. Lankiveil (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Churches affiliated with Australian Christian Churches given that all the content can be found there. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I don't think that all the pages Moondyne listed should be deleted, especially not as a result of this AFD. They were nominated too late for the party in my opinion, and I also believe some should be merged, as he/she explicitly said. So my opinion above is to delete only the one article nominated originally. GRBerry 14:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. I didn't mean to imply this discussion was broadened to include those articles. They need separate discussion/s, and I wouldn't be suggesting they all go in any case. —Moondyne 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per WP:DIRECTORY, WP:IINFO (well, the closest policy I could get to 'a collection of info) and WP:NOR (along with WP:NOT#PUBLISHER). It doesn't appear that this list is published as a whole already. Correct me if I'm wrong. Auroranorth (!) 13:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but cleanup. --Haemo (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pliers

[edit]

Article is supported solely by unreliable or Spanish-language sources. Quick Google search shows only forum and blog hits, no reliable sources. Material is too inflamatory to remain unsourced. Recommend Delete Dchall1 03:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are sources which can be added, but they indicate this is notable. Here's one for example. The article does need some work though. - Rjd0060 04:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. English sources are preferred, but WP:RS is not English only. This is a verifiably real and escalating international incident, but I am not sure that what's verifiable passes WP:NOT#NEWS and can't be fit into United States-Venezuela relations.[24] [25] [26] The article has serious POV problems, but it is not all junk. Here's what is verifiable so far: Venezuela says there is a memo about an alleged CIA operation. The authenticity of the memo is disputed. Venezuela threatens to retaliate if something happens. • Gene93k 05:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:it is based on gossip from blogs or extremely unreliable sources according to wikipedia policy.(Caracas1830 07:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Twenty Years 13:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not based on gossip from blogs, but on official statements of the Venezuelan government. The full memo in Spanish, as the government released it, is available at [27]. It contains names and bank details of CIA operatives and front organisations. Whether or not the memo ends up being genuine, this is a live international incident, not a question of gossip. It has been reported on by press agencies including Prensa Latina and Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias. Yes, they are Spanish-language sources, but how is that a problem? Countermereology 14:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aporrea.org is not a neutral source; they are a biased, pro-Chávez organization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a well cited summary is listed in Wikipedia under Covert U.S. regime change actions as noted here [28]. I believe this is notable enough to be expanded into a stand-alone article. Shoessss | Chat 15:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The section you referenced is supported by a single source, and I don't think Counterpunch meets the WP:RS criteria. As for the sources in this article, I haven't seen one yet that shows the actual memo. I'm not arguing that Spanish-language sources are not RS, but they are not verifiable. Perhaps if the article were completely reworded to discuss the controversy, this would be acceptable. But as it is, the article starts from the position that the memo is genuine, and the evidence for that is nearly non-existent. Dchall1 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article is no better sourced than this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, again I disagree! As noted here [29] in Wikipedia’s article on Counterpunch. The source cited is considered, in my opinion and Harpers and….. as reliable. Shoessss | Chat 17:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is nothing I'm aware of in wikipedia policies which says foreign language sources should be considered unverifiable and many articles use them. Indeed Wikipedia:Verifiability only says that English language sources are preferred if of equal quality and implies that foreign language sources are acceptable when they are not. Of course, foreign language sources make it more difficult for readers to verify the source as the policy notes, but then so do subscription sources, obscure books etc in a slightly different way. Nil Einne 09:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't Spanish/English; it's that the Spanish sources are Chávez sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Please see the actual memo in Spanish here: [30]. You can run it through Babelfish, or read it here [31] where someone has already done that. The government claims it will release the original soon. I have changed the article text to make it clear that the memo is an allegation by the Venezuelan government, not that it is an established fact. I have not included a discussion about the 'controversy' because the only controversy I can find is a few comments on right-wing blogs. Major media outlets (including now Xinhua [32]) have reported the Venezuelan government's accusation of having found the memo, but they have not yet covered any controversy, as (to the best of my knowledge) the US has not responded. Thus it seems to me sufficient to simply reword it as I have done to make clear that these are still just allegations; when a disagreement arises, then a 'Controversy' section can be added. Countermereology 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aporrea.org is an extreme pro-Chávez organization, not a reliable independent secondary source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is a developing news story that has been independently reported upon and has resulted in real governmental actions and reactions. Just because it's not in mainstream US coverage does not warrant its classification as "gossip". The document's existence is real, its authenticity is not confirmed, the Venezuelan government's response is real, as in the US government's. It is important to have an impartial source of information that can be updated. Deronde 23:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, *one* story was run by the New York Times, same story run by the International Herald Tribune (a mirror story), and everything they have to say is already included at Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a rather serious accusation by the Venezualan government. Whether or not the memo is genuine somewhat irrelevant since what is clear from reliable sources is that the Venezualan goverment has made this accusation Nil Einne 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "serious" accusation by an administration which currently is governing the country by mandate and controls the media by law is not independent, secondary, or reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - after reading the article, I am satisfied this is a notable news story, but the article could do with better (and more neutral) sources, if they are available. Terraxos 12:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no more neutral sources available, and everything that can be said from neutral sources has been said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to being published on Counterpunch, a periodical edited by seasoned journalists, this article on Counterpunch is written by J. Petras, a former US social science professor with decades of research expertise in Latin America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCJosh (talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge that portion that is supported by the brief mention in the International Herald Tribune into either United States-Venezuela relations or Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007. Delete the rest -- there's not enough stuff that's verifiable by reliable sources to build an article. Most importantly, the whole issue is moot since the "plot" was to take affect after the expected Chavez victory in the referendum (which failed to materialize). I think this story will fade away. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Little more then propaganda and conspiracy theories. Spread through gossip, blogs and other very unreliable sources. Plus, there's already a section about this in Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007 - James xeno 05:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What do you mean by "conspiracy theories"? Isn't every CIA operation that includes illegal or violent acts a "conspiracy" -- a secret plan by two or more people to act in an illegal or violent way?--NYCJosh (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~, (change to Redirect to Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007 since topic should be searchable, and all reliable content is already in that article) and objection to Wikipedia being used to further propaganda for which there is no evidence other than biased sources, non-reliable sources, or sourced to the Chávez government, which is not an unbiased or reliable source for this claim. Almost every source used in the article is biased or not reliable, and everything that can be said reliably about this conspiracy theory is already said and sourced to the New York Times in Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007. There's nothing else reliable that can be said, and nothing else to merge. It should be noted that the same tactic was used in the events of April 11, 2002, where one source (Wayne Madsen) furthered the Chávez claim of CIA involvement in his (Chávez) resignation following massive protests. Wikipedia should stop being a tool of propagandist goverment administrations who control their state media and press, and strictly adhere to neutral, independent, secondary reliable sources when determining notability of articles. The sourcing of the article, with the exception of the New York Times, consists of aporrea.org (an extreme pro-Chávez group), VenAnalysis (parroted by Eva Golinger in globalresearch, both non-neutral pro-Chávez biased voices), state-run and controlled media, and far-left biased publications. There's nothing here except propaganda. Further, a number of Spanish-language sources were put up that don't come close to verifying the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How are any of these things a problem when the article clearly states that these are allegations made by the Venezuelan government, not facts? All of the sources are simply repeating what the government said, and the Aporrea link is reprinting the article exactly as it was released by the government after it was read out on state TV. As Pmanderson says, there is no reason not to have articles on conspiracy theories, as long as they state clearly that they are theories or allegations, rather than established facts. Countermereology (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not a problem at all as long as that is clearly stated; they just aren't reason for an entire article when the only source is biased and propagandized. Must Wiki provide an article for every fringe conspiracy theory Chávez puts out, even if reliable sources devote no more than a paragraph to debunking it? The only reliable things that can be said are already said in another article, and that's not much, unless Wiki is supposed to be a Chávez mouthpiece. A look at PMA's contribs in relation to his appearance here might be instructive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is really no need for personal attacks on other users. Regardless of Pmanderson's contributions, his/her point stands that Wikipedia has many hundreds of articles on random conspiracy theories; see List of conspiracy theories. For example, there is even an article on the so-called vast right-wing conspiracy, which consists of nothing else but a discussion of statements made by Hillary Clinton and some pop culture references. Moreover, while you may be strongly convinced that it has been debunked, that is no more an established fact than the allegations themselves. If and when it becomes an established fact, the article can be updated to show this. In any case, I don't think it is true to say that Chávez has created a significant number of conspiracy theories; but if it were the case then they could all be merged into one article. At the moment I don't see how this 'incident' is any less notable than Hillary Clinton talking about a 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. Countermereology (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "vast right wing conspiracy" (and many others) are worthy of articles because the topics are well covered by many reliable sources and consist of more than propaganda from one government source. And please take care with allegations of personal attacks; as PMA has now acknowledged, he showed up on (what I believe to be his first) Chávez-related discussion only because he checked my contribs after he disagreed with me elsewhere. You may not know me, but I'm not in the habit of making personal attacks or even unsubstantiated allegations; this was a no-brainer, and PMA is wise to not deny it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a claim of collective ownership of articles on Chavez? and if not, what is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly describes its subject as the allegations of the Venezuelan Government, and I see no argument that the Venezuelan Government does not actually allege this. The allegations themselves may well be as spurious as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but we have an article on them, and no-one has ever proposed deleting it. Merge may be possible, but do not delete; we need the redirect for searchers for the term. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Sandy makes a point of it, I did see this in her edit history; but I looked because the title (of the proposed merge target) was interesting and commented here because the point was clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : It is not a question of whether the allegations are true or gossip it is a question of notability. I agree the article is not in good shape but the incident has been notable enough to be mentioned by BBC, NY Times, AFP, Herald Tribune and several Spanish language RS. JRSP (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete SkierRMH (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeVito’s model

[edit]

Appears to be original theory/research/synthesis (author is User:Joseph A. DeVito). NawlinWiki 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is definitely OR. Google search shows only 3 hits. Chris! _ct 03:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR, and lack of additional sources to be included. - Rjd0060 04:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the above, at least until such time as there are those who cite this work as a major idea within its field, which it clearly is not now. LonelyBeacon 05:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Someone trying to publish their work here. -- Menti fisto 06:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on Google Scholar indicating that this model is not yet notable within its field. [33]. Capitalistroadster 07:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Twenty Years 13:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all - fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Subsequent recreation of articles on the company or its podcasts must meet the notability guidelines – multiple, third-party reliable sources – or it can be deleted per WP:CSD#G4. - KrakatoaKatie 00:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Syndicated

[edit]

Delete Non-notable. Advert. AlistairMcMillan 02:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless some reliable, third party sources can be found, and those sources indicate notability. - Rjd0060 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply unnotable, simply extreme listcruft. Nate · (chatter) 02:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Looks like an ads. Chris! _ct 03:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to say also, that the only things that link to this article are redirects to itself. AlistairMcMillan 03:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added Richard Smith (podcast host) to this AfD as part of a clear walled garden. Nate · (chatter) 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. Twenty Years 13:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Richard Smith page is non-notable, but Simply Syndicated is a featured iTunes provider and Movies Youu Should see is a particularly popular podcast. The page requires a re-dress in terms of tone, but it is far from non-notable or un-salvagable. I suggest we allow for time for corrections to be made before any attempts at deleting the Simply Syndicated page are made.Syferus 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what you mean by "featured iTunes provider"? Also how you know "Movies You Should See" is a "particularly popular podcast". I just scanned through the top 100 podcasts on iTunes and I don't see any by Simply Syndicated. Do you have another source? AlistairMcMillan 01:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtist?id=264525023 I believe Apple are quite a reputable third party. http://www.radiotimes.com/content/features/guides/podcasts/0037/ The Radio Times is also a well known media guide. In other words - non-notability does not apply. Syferus 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, both of those mentions are just as notable as a listing in the Yellow Pages. We don't doubt these podcasts exist, but they're not at the level of a GeekBrief.TV or This Week in Tech by any means. Nate · (chatter) 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.radiotimes.com/content/features/guides/podcasts/0037 is a hand-picked recommendation from the UK's best known media guide. To say that is akin to a yellow pages entry is folly. If this wa sto be the case, a large amount of simliarly accepted sources would have to be disregarded. You cannot pick and choose where you apply notability regulations. Being a 'Feature diTunes provider' means a podcast has reached such a level that Apple itself recommends the podcast. Again, not something akin to a yellow pages entry. Please adhere to Wikpedia's rules - the subject is notable - the article needs extensive work, but the subject is valid. Syferus 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It opens iTunes like every other podcast link specific to iTunes. That's not a 'featured iTunes provider', and anyone if they have enough money can pay Apple for their own portal page. Also I am adhering to the rules quite fine. I need to see more than recommedations that sound less like pitches. I'm also troubled by your jumping right into an AfD debate suddenly after a 10-month break from editing. Nate · (chatter) 23:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a 'Featured iTunes provider' has nothing to do with money - it's a seal of quaility Apple gives to podcasts. Again, a Radio Times recommendation is more than valid and major a source to confirm this is not non-notable. My activity on Wikipedia is totally irrelevant to my validity in contesting this AfD. As I have stated, the Simply Syndicated plage needs extensive work but it is impossible to say it is non-notable. That being the case, the course of action to take is to revise the article rather than delete it out-right. If you continue to try and dismiss valid sources this will have to be took out of our hands and into the moderation of an admin. Do you really think they will support deleting an article about a vendor recommended by Applem The Radio Times and others on the grounds of non-notability? I will offer a few more valid sources before I take that action, though. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,2154540,00.html - a recommendation of Albums You Should Hear by the highly-respected Guardian newspaper.

http://quaedam.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/10-minute-left-field-cinema-podcast-is-great-compliment-to-long-running-movies-you-should-see/ - an example of recognition of Simple Syndicated by the so-called 'blogosphere'. While not as major as The Radio Times, blogs and user-input sites (such as Kotaku) have become a valid source for articles in Wikipedia. I've proved within reason that 'Simply Syndicated' is not non-notable. You can either choose to accept that and improve the article as you see fit or we can take the course of action outlined above.Syferus 14:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Syferus said, being a iTunes featured providers is nothing to do with money. Do you not think that many more podcast providers would paying iTunes for this position if that was all that was required? Additionally, why are you so persistent on the Simply Syndicated Podcasts, when there are many podcasts with pages, that either don't cite references or don't given any reasoning for notability. Simple search at random through this Category:Audio podcasts.--Cohnee (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only somewhat familiar with what bumps a podcast to a 'featured provider' and I'm not sure that money is involved. If that statement was wrong I'm sorry for that. However the sources are still not there. Blogs, unless they have major sway usually aren't reliable sources or establish the notability, and that blog link does not I'm afraid. As for your argument using the category under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, those might be in the category but it doesn't mean they may not be up for AfD themselves in the future. We look at each article brought up here on a case by case basis, and this does not meet the WP:N standard as I see it. Nate · (chatter) 01:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added Simply Syndicated Podcast Episode Guide. Bad enough we host episode guides for every television series ever produced, we don't need to start indexing podcasts. AlistairMcMillan 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which was created last night after I added the Richard Smith article to AfD. Unbelievable. Nate · (chatter) 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but perhaps rather than just deciding to delete the page you could perhaps suggest changes that should be made. I personally have put alot of time into building the page, along with many others. Like the whole of wikipedia , this page is a work in progress. --Cohnee 13:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All your edits have involved this topic, and the other pages are just redirects. Nate · (chatter) 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So? This has been the only subject which I have felt the need the to edit. Are only people who only edit highly notable subjects worthy? And why is it bad that episode guides exist for Televison programs? Surely this is an encyclopaedia, a resource of information. Or is it only information that you deem worthy?
  - Movies You Should See is a featured podcast on TV & Film section of the iTunes (UK) Store, as is GeekBrief.TV or This Week in Tech in the Technology Section. So how is one at a higher level than another?--Cohnee 12:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, it's not a matter of whether its worthy, it's how notable it is. The links presented have not established how notable the programs are, and instead of immediately cutting the ep guide lists, you put them in a new article, which was discouraged as listcruft. Nate ·(chatter) 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have to agree with Nate. Apple list thousands of podcasts in their directory, this doesn't prove notability. The fact that they are listed as a "featured" podcast if you drill down to the specific sub-category of the directory also does not prove notability. If they appeared in the list of Top 100 podcasts that might mean something, but they don't.

The Radio Times listing might mean something if it wasn't a weekly list of four "good" podcasts. There are about forty "Good Podcast Guides", with four podcasts listed in each. If the Radio Times mention means SS podcasts are notable, does that mean the other 146 podcasts that the Radio Times mentions are notable enough to have their own articles? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all but Richard Smith (podcast host) As noted above there are mentions of Simply Syndicated in mainstream UK media (Radio Times) as well as having multiple featured podcasts on the iTunes music store (2 out of 15 in the TV and Movie category). Albums you should hear is also mentioned in this article at The Guardian - http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,2154540,00.html . The article needs some improvement but is not non-notable and should definitely be given time to improve. Warpfactor 18:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Warpfactor. While I'm not going to try and push to keep Richard Smith (podcast host) to hard, there are a number of other podcasters who have their own pages with no more notability.--Cohnee 11:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; another BogdanM02 hoax. DS 12:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Büvüz Sekhudepit

[edit]

Not notable per WP:N. Can't find any relevant g-hits. Found one obscure person of the same name on a you tube video, so it may simply be a fictional character or non-notable real-person. Regardless, notability has not been established nor cited. ++Arx Fortis 02:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless somebody can find some relevant sources for verification. I took a look but found nothing. - Rjd0060 02:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, leaning towards "keep" — Caknuck (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional United States Presidents

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Per WP:NOT#INFO, this is over 170kb of cruft from various fictional universes. This is so long and unwieldy that it can not be useful to anyone, but is likely, rather, a place for editors to wax about their favorite books, movies, etc. Each of these fictional persons should be described in articles concerning their own universes, but there is no value in collecting them together. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Well organized list, seems to meet WP:LIST.. - Rjd0060 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it's well organized? I could make a well organized list of "random letter combinations that aren't words", and it wouldn't any more useful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I didn't say it was not well organized; I said it added no value to the project. A well organized list of cruft is still cruft. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems the both of you failed to see the main part of my comment; this list meets our List guidelines. Also, I never claimed anybody already said it was well organized, but I was under the impression that anybody could comment on the content of articles that are nominated AfD, which is specifically what I have done :). - Rjd0060 03:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get it. You seem to have failed to demonstrate how this list adds value to the project. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any answer I could possibly give could be argued, as everybody seems to have a different opinion on what is, and what isn't, beneficial to Wikipedia. Again, I will state the list meets our List guidelines, which has also been stated by others in this discussion. - Rjd0060 15:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, purely cruft to the extreme. List serves no useful purpose; most of the characters are covered in the pages on their own universes anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment every list has blue links leading to articles, is this the first time you noticed the phenomena? If we had lists of red links ... thats an actual reason for deletion (a directory). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This list is ridiculous. I'm not against the inclusion of lists in wikipedia, but this is just total cruft. will381796 03:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can it with the "strongs" and the "ridiculouses" and "crufts." As for NOT#INFO, exactly which part of that do you think applies? I read it and it doesn't seem particularly relevant. WP:NOT#PAPER seems more relevant. If people wanted to study fictional representations of: US Presidents, first black presidents, women, assassinations of presidents, etc. it would be useful. This isn't like providing great detail about trivia of a single (or even multiple) fictional universes. And unlike, say, a list of "great wizards" or some such thing, this relates to a real subject of import. There's no great detail about any of the individuals, no "wax[ing] about their favorite books, movies, etc." and if that started happening, those additions could be deleted, rather than the whole list. Actually, in some cases more detail would be desirable, like dates of publication, if someone wanted to study whether fictional representations of US Presidents occurred more often at certain times in history, and why that might be. Why it would be argued that it makes sense to have individual articles without a list, I'm not quite sure. There are individual articles of actual US Presidents and a list of them...? Regards, Шизомби 03:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is somewhat interesting to read, and is far from the worst article on Wikipedia. Arguing for keeping this is that some commenting here feel it satisfies WP:LIST, probably by being informative or by being useful in navigation. That seems a value judgement, and I just do not share it. Arguing against keeping it is that it violates WP:NOT#DIR "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." These fictional presidents have nothing to do with one another, for the most part. They are generally not successors, but rather exist in unrelated fictional universes. We could just as easily have a list of fictional outlaws, of fictional U.S generals, of fictional European knights, or of fictional warlords, which would also fail WP:NOT. This list also includes a great many entries who are utterly non-notable, having been mentioned in only one episode of a cartoon or tv show. Any entry in such a list should have been discussed in secondary sources beyond the fictional work. Edison 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~Keep It needs a lot of work .... many citations .... however, I see some legitimate use to this list since it is closely connected to an important international position. I think that there may even be (not that I agree with this, mind you) some scholarly research associated with how important positions (like the presidency) are perceived in fiction. LonelyBeacon 05:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A study of how the US Presidency has been used in fiction would seem a perfectly legitimate topic of interest to me and this list would be an excellent aid to navigation. Wikipedia exists to serve its readers and I fail to see how removing this list would improve it. Nick mallory 13:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:Lists. Shouldnt it be named. List of fictional Presidents of the United States of America? Twenty Years 13:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete loosely bound items Will ^(talk) 16:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -

1-Fancruft 2-Not enough information to warrent an individual article 3-No references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.156.143 (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I brought out the main points from WP:NOT#INFO, from the WP:LIST (Content):

1. Is this Encyclopedic content?: While I agree that a great deal of this is pop culture, I don't see that anyone is calling for the articles this stuff comes from being deleted. I think the information itself is encyclopedic (even though I might disagree with some of that, personally). I think this is the strongest point against keeping this article, but I think it meets it.

2. Is the definition of the subject disputable? I think the topic is very narrowly defined, and sufficiently meets this criteria (at least as far as I read this).

3. Is this written from a neutral view point. I don't see this being a point of dispute.

4. Does this constitute original research? I don't think this list constitutes anything that violates the spirit of the original research policy. It is not postulating any newly developed concepts by the author.

5. Does this article contain only material that has been published by reputable sources (verifiability)? I think most of the elements in this article can be verified. This is the strongest case against the article, but is also the simplest to fix. This might mean that certain unverifiable elements may need to be deleted. LonelyBeacon 17:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Let me get this straight, we are debating a “Fictional List” of "Fictional Presidents” from “Fictional" Movies, “Fictional" Novels, "Fictional" Television Shows and “Fictional" Essays. And I am sure I missed some "Fictional" references. Ahh they say life is stranger than “Fiction”. Shoessss | Chat 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets the guidelines of WP:LIST. It's not frivolous, particularly since fictional potrayals of a President of the United States (or for that matter, of a leader of another country, real or fictional) often are commentary about real world issues. The complaint that it's too big at 170 KB is not a good reason for deletion. It's kind of a Goldilocks approach to look for an article that's "just right". Mandsford 19:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:NOTE Alexfusco5 19:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet WP:SPEEDY guidelines for speedy deletion. will381796 20:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went and looked at the criteria for notability (and PLEASE let me know if I have this wrong):

Presumption of notability means that there exists objective evidence that meets the remaining criteria

Is there significant coverage?, meaning that citable sources address the subject in detail,and without hte need to make a leap based on original research by the editor.

Are there reliable sources? (NPOV, third party, not written by editors involved in the article etc), and especially that they are secondary sources.

With the addition: A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

I did a cursory google search and found an article from a professor from Southern Illinois University [34] on the topic of fictional presidents in film.

Here are links [35] [36] to a Harvard professor who wrote two books about fictional presidents. One was co-edited by a Rutgers Professor[37] who is the namesake of the annual film award from the American Historical Association (which sounds almost made up, but appears to be a legitimate scholarly organization.

I'm going to admit, this topic means very little to me ..... I am actually more interested in learning about the process of deletion. Please do comment on my Talk Page if there is something legit I am misinterpreting here. LonelyBeacon 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference better Add the ISBNs to the books. Its appears to be a valid well written list. The top 100 searches in Wikipedia are always for fictional characters or movies or video games. This is part of a large series on fiction Category:Fictional politicians, so the "indiscriminate" label doesn't hold water. Its an excellent navigational device for searching for a "tip of the tongue" reference, where you don't remember the name of the show or the book. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you note, there's a "fictional politicians" category, and actually there's a Category:Fictional Presidents of the United States, and the list itself is included in the Template:Lists_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States. That such have existed for this long, and particularly that it had been added to that template and thus seen on a number of different articles without objection tends to support the fact that the article was kept after the first deletion debate, making this one that much more questionable, particularly those that argue it's "obvious" how "useless" the list is or the like. Regards and grumbles, Шизомби 15:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question As consensus is obviously for a keep, would anyone be against possibly splitting this article up into separate sections that are more manageable? Perhaps split it up by alphabet (A-F,G-P, etc.) and then by the other remaining sections. See List_of_Star_Trek_Planets for an example of what I mean. The length of the article itself is one major problem I see. Long articles = articles more difficult to edit. will381796 15:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be against it. To see what happens after you split an article, look at the discussion for "List of cities in Germany beginning with S". There's nothing that says "divide and conquer" like an alpahabet split. Mandsford 18:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, Strong, Uber-ultimate, Over-the-top--, wait, on second thought, just Keep, as it meets our list requirements. BobTheTomato 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand the intro, and reference better. It's a subject of note, though it really needs more of an overview. I'd also suggest regrouping it by fictional work, not by each fictional character, to better emphasize the way each genre makes use of the subject, and I'd split it into 2+ articles for length (movies, TV, literature+other?)--Father Goose 22:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
replace with category ie Category:Fictional Presidents of the United States 132.205.99.122 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Few fictional presidents will have articles unto themselves, which means a category would not be a useful substitute for this list. Categories and list articles are not fungible.--Father Goose 03:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuk. As if we need individual articles about fictional presidents. Mandsford 23:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." That's from WP:MOSLIST, in case you were interested. There is no way that any of these fictional presidents would, or could, have a verifiable article written about them. UnitedStatesian 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sentence that immediately follows that is "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert." MOSLIST essentially contradicts itself on that point, and I'd say it's the line you quoted that is the wrong one -- we have plenty of featured lists that contain items that don't have their own articles.--Father Goose 07:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per others. Meets our list requirements. Rray (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhpas as Fictional United States Presidents. I would have agreed with the suggestion of a category, but most of those listed do not have articles (and probably should not). It would be better if each had a paragraph about him, rather than a series of bullet points, but that is a reason for a clean up, not for deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. LonelyBeacon has demonstrated notablity of the topic. "Not adding value to the project" is not a criteria for deletion, precisely because "value" is entirely subjective. The only objectively meaningful measure of value to the project is essentially the sum of the value to each individual user of Wikipedia; the only way that something could "not add value" is if it was useless to everyone (though for our purposes, we could exclude the "value" which is only to the contributor and his or her close associates), or harmful in a way that exceeds its usefulness. Enough people have independently found this list to have at least some value (and no one has found it harmful) to demonstrate that it does indeed add value to the project. DHowell (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 19:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Robb

[edit]

Prod moved here at author request. My take was that murderers and their victims are non-notable unless there's something else to make them so. Acroterion _(talk) 02:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not really notable, aside from WP:NOT#NEWS. - Rjd0060 02:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a rather new story and isn't really notable compared to other like crimes. News articles in themselves do not make it notable as nearly every murder is reported in some form of media. Further, per WP:N, notability is not temporary. ++Arx Fortis 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Per WP:NOT. Twenty Years 13:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does WP:NOT#NEWS apply? It reads: "Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." Ivy League economics professor murders his wife and keeps police and the university guessing for a year. It's newsie now, but somehow I would think someone at the University of Pennsylvania, at least, might be looking for encyclopedic information about this guy at some point in the future.--Lyonspen 04:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even meets speedy criteria (no notability asserted), because a murder is not notable in itself. GregorB 08:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Srong keep per Lyonspen's correct reading of WP:NOT#NEWS and extensive international news coverage over the last year. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - please read WP:NOT#NEWS correctly, as others have said. It does not say "news" should not be in Wikipedia. Also, Wikinews is not a substitute. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed. I didn't much care to edit this article (I mostly edit astronomy and anthropological articles), but I've improved it and support its existence because I believe these topics have a place on wikipedia. -Kain Nihil (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 01:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 01:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 01:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven (Mortal Kombat)

[edit]

This article is just a stubby in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Mortal Kombat series. As such, it is entirely duplicative and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the list of Mortal Kombat-related deletions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom, it is a game guide-y article. - Rjd0060 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 13:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tengu clan

[edit]

This article is an in-universe repetition of plot points from the Mortal Kombat series, and has no independent notability. As such, it is duplicative of that information, and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the list of Mortal Kombat-related deletions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom, it is a game guide-y article. - Rjd0060 02:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 13:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchuminWeb (talk • contribs)

Statler Square

[edit]

Non-notable strip mall in Virginia. Claims to be dedicated to the Statler Brothers but a Google search proves otherwise. Strip fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:RS and WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to be notable, and no RS can be found to help verify anything. - Rjd0060 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7: Aside from the weak Statler tie-in, the article "does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." (i.e. It doesn't assert why this mall is notable above any other mall.) ++Arx Fortis 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious NN. Jmlk 1 7 03:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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→Mortal Kombat. I will close this but leave it to another to conduct the actual merger, someone who is sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic not to make a train wreck of it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test Your Might

[edit]

The article is about a minigame from one of the Mortal Kombat games, and has no notability outside of it. As such, it is an in-universe repetition of gameplay elements from that game and is thus duplicative and unencyclopedic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge merge with Mortal Kombat in shortened form ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SwatJester. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Mortal Kombat-related deletions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Per the above, no reason for a separate article. - Rjd0060 02:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all of the above-—arf! 09:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mortal Kombat. Twenty Years 13:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete SkierRMH (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Grendex

[edit]

Prod removed, so here we are. Zero hits--seems to be newly-minted fan fiction at best. Ravenna1961 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. (Zero G-hits to help with verifiability. NFT / HOAX. - Rjd0060 02:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but per nom. Seems to be fanfic; no sources (reliable or otherwise) found. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up one day. JJL 02:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Delete. Looks almost like a page for someone's fantasy/D&D character. ++Arx Fortis 02:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. will381796 03:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Twenty Years 13:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 05:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China Heritage and Cultural Foundation

[edit]

This appears to be a fictional organization created by BogdanM02 who has several other questionable and hoax-type articles. I could find only 9 g-hits for "China Heritage and Cultural Foundation" all of which seemed to be Wikipedia content mirrors. ++Arx Fortis 01:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom. All non-Wikipedia sites are mirrors. Probably hoax, fails to be verified. - Rjd0060 01:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 following rewrite. --Haemo (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Lynn

[edit]

Questionable notability - failure to provide sourcing of bio details, which have proved unfindable except via self-published online sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonofcartoon (talk • contribs)

Delete: Being a journalist doesn't quite meet notability guidelines. - Rjd0060 01:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: Sources do not meet WP:RS if they are self-published.~~ Changing to Keep. Aside from being a journalist, the subject has authored two books reviewed by independent sources. ++Arx Fortis 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Where? Gordonofcartoon 03:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem notable, the subject of the article contributed a lot to it, and sources brought from the subject's own website just nullify the argument. -- Menti fisto 07:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to main contributor and delete from article namespace. That is a workmanlike, pragmatic solution. The article is poorly sourced with regard to WP:RS, poorly written, poorly laid out and the subject of the article is borderline notable at best. Fiddle Faddle 09:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am perfectly persuadable to change form D to K if the article is substantially improved and asserts the true notability of the subject. We should certainly allow re-creation if it is deleted. Fiddle Faddle 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after the major edit that has taken place. I see this now as a valid stub much in need of expansion. It has valid citations, with some others that may be hard to find, though reliable, in the pipeline. Fiddle Faddle 22:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy without prejudice to re-creation if anyone can find third-party sources. Weak keep now it has been trimmed to sourced material. Gordonofcartoon 21:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page: I have said someone submitted my entry. At the time, nobody on Wikipedia objected. I didn't realise one couldn't edit ones own entry which I have substantially done. Everything in the entry is fact - but I don't know how I can add more sources ..... I was a gossip columnist thirty years ago and most of my journalistic credits are historical too. I wasn't just a journalist and first time author - I did write comic scripts for 2000 AD! Frances Lynn, author 13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Found: Tharg's Future Shocks. Verified here and here at the 2000 AD official site.

Difficulty is that we don't doubt the information: but Wikipedia, because of its open edit system, has to operate from authority of publication source rather than authority of identity. We can't tell who anyone is, but this doesn't matter if they cite, say, a Times article that anyone can find. Gordonofcartoon 14:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Lynn, author 12:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete No Reliable sources, wouldnt object to a keep if any are found. Twenty Years 13:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added an External Link for my comic scripts on 2000 AD. I've also now submitted a (stub?) article for Ritz Newspaper. If it's accepted - I can edit it further. On David Bailey's entry - it says he was the publisher of Ritz Newspaper (that info was submitted by me) Frances Lynn, author 14:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Frances Lynn, author 14:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franceslynn (talk • contribs)

I've added an External Link for my comic scripts on 2000 AD Frances Lynn, author 14:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franceslynn (talk • contribs)

Delete - per notability. --Tom 14:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have now added an External Link for my 2000 AD comic scripts - does that now make me 'notable'? Frances Lynn, author 14:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franceslynn (talk • contribs)

No. --Tom 17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added that Night Of The Living Dead topped my top ten list in John Kobal's Top 100 Movie Book - the only way I can think of sourcing this is to add an External Link for the book on Amazon which I haven't done. Frances Lynn, author 15:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC) I also added an External Link for my comic scripts on 2000 AD Frances Lynn, author 15:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment and request for someone to assist Franceslynn: This user is doing her very best, but is new to Wikipedia. I have tried, as have others, to help out on her talk page. The article is becoming better sourced, there is no argument about that, but probably not in the most effective way for it yet to survive this AfD. Please would an experienced editor take her under their wing and help her in her efforts? This is a newbie, and we should strive not to bite. It is by no means certain that the subject is sufficiently notable, but good sources (or not) are the best way to prove that. Fiddle Faddle 16:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fiddle Faddle - I also found a link which verifies I wrote a Top Ten Movie list in John Kobal Presents The Top 100 Movies book http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/polls8.htm - I don't know how to include this source in my entry though. Frances Lynn, author 16:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franceslynn (talk • contribs) I've now managed to source John Kobal Presents The Top 100 Movies book on my entry .... Frances Lynn, author 16:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we shouldn't forget that this is a COI situation. Frances Lynn should not be editing the article about herself, but as WP:COI advises, helping via the Talk page. Gordonofcartoon 17:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the above so I have just edited my article - adding issue nos for my Ritz articles (can't find all my old issues with the interviews in!) and also put a link in for Barry Fantoni! (after reading this: *Where have your books been reviewed? Can you give a more exact reference for Barry Fantoni's remarks in the Evening News? What issues of Ritz Newspaper were your celebrity interviews in? --Paularblaster 15:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Frances Lynn, author 18:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franceslynn (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up a little, see here, [38]. I'm going to offer a weak keep based on the 2000 AD work. That's notable enough for me. Hiding T 20:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article now has at least two referenc`es independent of Lynn herself. I have just added one written about her in The Evening Standard that verifies her status as gossip columnist for Ritz Newspaper. I think we have probably sufficient references cited inline to assert sufficient notability for a stub. There is far more work to do in order to create a full article, though. Fiddle Faddle 12:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Some notability claims, but still appears to fall short of WP:BIO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The COI and sourcing issues still need work, but notability as such shouldn't be a problem (minorly notable, but notable none the less). --Paularblaster 23:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, making up a blatant hoax is vandalism in my book. NawlinWiki 02:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Alexander

[edit]

Complete hoax. IMDB has nothing on this person and a google seach brings forth absolutely nothing to corroborate any of this. IrishGuy ^talk 01:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no sources to verify anything, anywhere. Hoax. - Rjd0060 01:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete hoax - nothing on a Google search, appears to be a blatant fabrication, avoiding speedy deletion simply by making up 'facts'. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 01:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Style Invitational, with which it was previously merged. Joe 03:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Czar of the Style Invitational

[edit]

Already merged contents into The Style Invitational. J B 82^c 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: And I've decided to be bold and I've done it. After copy and paste merging, it cannot be deleted per GFDL (the history needs to be retained). - Rjd0060 01:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was garbage garbage garbage. DS 05:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Dewei

[edit]

Fictional article - a hoax - "facts" in the article seem to be based on the imagination of its editor. Ties in via wikilink to with another AfD, Eoin O'Hainle ++Arx Fortis 01:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely unsourced, and I cannot find any valid sources for this stuff. Probable hoax, per nom. - Rjd0060 01:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Haemo (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hackcon

[edit]

Disputed prod. NN security conference with no WP:RS references, whose primary assertion of notability appears to be that MSFT put up a banner at the conference once (note: MSFT may buy ads at virtually ever security conference. And?). Not one news reference found. Baleet! --- tqbf 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, does not appear to be notable. Here's a G-news search (as nom stated, 0 results) for reference. - Rjd0060 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliables. Twenty Years 13:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hackcon hasn't been discussed much in newsgroups, because most people are starting to use blogs instead. That's why there aren't any hits in Gnews. If you do a regular search in Google you can see that there are 1200 articles containing references to Hackcon. Not all of them are for our conference, but almost all of the ones with the most relevance are. Most of them are in norwegian since the conference is held in Norway (mostly norwegian people atending), but there are also more and more international atendees. Blogs regarding Hackcon can be found here, and you will find 610 hits. The conference has been held only 3 times, so there will be more and more references to it. DaSpork 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you the best of luck with the conference. When it has been held enough times to have multiple references in reliable sources, you can easily re-create the article. Until then, notability and verifiability are cornerstones of Wikipedia. --- tqbf 21:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. Since Wikipedia needs more that small conferences can give (we have a limit on attendees to get quality, not quantity), we might not meed the demands Wikipedia have as a minimum. I thought references to several companies was enough (but since the editors of Wikipedia haven't heard of the norwegian companies, they don't count), and we don't get international press-visitors, the demands might be too much.. Sorry to hear this, because I thought Wikipedia was for all countries, not just the english-speaking countries.. So do what you must! DaSpork 09:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources in some other language to present? It doesn't look like it. Sourcing is the issue here, not language. --- tqbf 13:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. It appears to have some sources. Suggest giving the author more time to add sources to his page. Also, I'm fairly ignorant of the international community. I suggest giving the author more time to flesh out what may eventually be a good article. --Othtim 15:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully: the author of this article --- an SPA --- has a disclosed financial interest in the article, and the sources are both WP:SPS and advertisements. I don't want to chase anybody away from en.wiki, but WP:ISNOT a crystal ball. This article should be deleted now, and re-added if Hackcon ever attains notability. Nobody has shown any verifiable evidence that Hackcon is notable now. --- tqbf 03:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied. android 79 03:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denise milani

[edit]

This article was tagged for speedy deletion twice including for G11 advertsing but were removed by the author without using the hang on option. Article has been submitted to AFD as a result. Doesn't quite meet the criteria for speedy deletion but doesn't appear to be meeting notability guidelines (thus delete) and looks has though it has been written by a fan or something and no sources verification is provided as well. JForget 00:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, bio article that does not really assert the notability of the subject. Probably an A7 rather than a G11, but either way deletable. Lankiveil 00:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I originally tagged for speedy and couldn't determine whether it was spam (due to the website links) or a non-notable biography. At the risk of WP:IDONTLIKE, I have to admit that the line "A natural beauty, she is know from the age of 13, when her breasts began developing at a far faster rate than those of her peers" seems a bit creepy for my tastes. Whitstable 00:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Non notable, advertisement. I've re-added the tag (now that the author is blocked). - Rjd0060 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Aquarius  talk 04:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are an idiot

[edit]

There is nothing that makes this "flash" page any more notable than any other mildly humorous flash applet. Urban dictionary is hardly a credible, reliable source. This page should be deleted. ++Arx Fortis 00:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'd never heard of it before this. Textbook non-notable internet "meme". Plenty of precedent for not considering Urban Dictionary as a reliable source, as well. Lankiveil 00:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 as non-notable web item. JPG-GR 01:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As said above, this term isn't notable. - Rjd0060 01:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD A7 (Web) nn web term.--Sandahl 01:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd be apt to redirect to shock site, but this page's prime passed at least four years ago. Nate · (chatter) 02:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, no reliable sources. Chris! _ct 03:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. will381796 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus and rewrite/referencing of Paularblaster (closed by non-admin) . RMHED (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bermudian English

[edit]

original research; notability; false information; page becoming vandal bait (for example, commercial link to whitesmoke.com since August) MoongateAgain 00:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, it seems that there is a specific dialect in Bermuda, whether or not the current details on the page are true or not. If sources cannot be found in short order, stubify the page and start from scratch. Lankiveil 00:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Article is entirely original research - leaves it unable to be "salvaged." The only source listed is not WP:RS per the guidelines. ++Arx Fortis 01:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While it is clearly an actual dialect, Verifiability is needed, however I am unable to provide any. - Rjd0060 01:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. What about this as a source? http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bermudian+English Hmains 03:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately that is a mirror of the Wikipedia article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can you tell whether WP is the source or the free dictionary reference is the source and WP is a copy of that (with just the examples left off)? Hmains 17:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The small text at the end of the freedictionary page where it says that "This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia®" :O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just reread that and it sounded a bit sarcastic, which it wasn't meant to be. Generally, if a page reads almost the same as the Wikipedia article, it could be a mirror of a Wikipedia article, so that's the time to see if there is a disclaimer or note to that effect.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Lankiveil. For example, here is a use of the term in a paper from 1933 [39]. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 1933, of course, was generations ago. MoongateAgain 20:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, a single generation ago in my case (just about). As a rule, notability isn't something that is time-dependent. If something was notable once, then notability is geneally satsified. And there are curent references. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I did not clarify my comment; my complaint was on using a source from 1933 — 74 years ago — to describe how people in Bermuda speak today; as a rule-of-thumb, a "generation" is a timespan between 25 and 30 years (though the wikiarticle seems to push this to 20-30). MoongateAgain 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Caribbean English. Although Bermuda is situated just north of the Caribbean, the influence of the Caribbean is evident. Blackjays1 10:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above, would object to a keep. Twenty Years 13:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article about a dialect of English was probably written by a native speaker of said dialect, and that would explain the lack of sourcing. As for merging with Caribbean English, Bermuda is too far to the North to be part of the Caribbean Islands. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 13:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: per the talk page of the article in question, native speakers would disagree with you. MoongateAgain 20:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I'm not saying that Bermuda is part of the Caribbean, Blanchardb. I'm talking about the influence that the Caribbean has on Bermuda's people because of it's proximity to that region. Bermuda is also a member of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Blackjays1 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The article also states that, while such influence is present in the Bermudian dialect, other influences are present as well, and that leaves me the impression that it makes a language different enough than Caribbean English to be considered separately. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. There's definitely a distinct type of English in Bermuda, but according to this report on Bermudian English, the dialect has been "long neglected" in linguistics. It should also be noted that Bermuda doesn't have its own Creole. If the dialect has been "neglected", that leaves me to think Bermudian English isn't notable enough, and this article should be merged with Caribbean English, if not another article. Blackjays1 (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Oxford Companion to the English Language gives it an individual entry, and in the general article on "English" lists it under "English (Americas)", with "English (The Caribbean)" being a separate class. --Paularblaster 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Or maybe Merge. That college paper provides a lot of sources for the idea that there is something unique about Bermudian English. In any event, it seems evident that an island would give rise to a particular kind of English worthy of study. As for whether Bermuda is part of the Caribbean, I refer you to the schedule of courses for Bermuda College, which offers a class in "Caribbean Literature," as follows: "A study of novels, sort stories and poetry, written in English, reflecting the cultural variety and historical richness of the literature of the Caribbean area. Works by representative authors such as Lovelace, Lamming, Frederick, Patterson, Rhys, Naipaul and Walcott are included." [[40]] Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 22:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the literature course - not a Bermudian among them. --Paularblaster 00:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: "That college paper" only provides a few sources on speech in Bermuda: one from 1933, a mock dictionary by a comedy troupe and some newspaper editorials, one of which the student discounts as being written by somebody who has no knowledge of speech in Bermuda. "worthy of study." - could you provide some such studies? MoongateAgain 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I can't. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding what little I've found to the article itself. There isn't much on Bermudian English (oddly: if I was a sociolinguist I can't think of a better place to be paid to go and do reseach), but all sources agree that it has interesting dissimilarities with Caribbean English, and similarities to mainland N.Am. English. --Paularblaster 00:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of that - there are universities in England, I am sure, that offer courses in American literature, yet last time I checked England was not in the United States. None of the names mentioned is a Bermudian writer - Lamming is Barbadian, for example, and Lovelace and Naipaul are from Trinidad and Tobago. Bermudians tend to fiercely proclaim that they are not Caribbean, FWIW. Grutness...wha? 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than just add the references I ended up rewriting the whole thing - hopefully it will now be apparent from the text itself that it should have its own article, and it shouldn't be merged with "Caribbean English"> --Paularblaster 01:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep based on Paularblaster's well-sourced changes to the article since the AfD began. Wikipedia normally tries to covers every dialect of a language that has been credibly identified by linguists. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 01:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment could you add the correct Bermudian pronounciation of 'Where is that boy?' to contrast it with same statement in the Caribbean English article. Thanks Hmains 05:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Keep. The article is now well-referenced, and it even provides a good example of the dialect in the last sentence. Blackjays1 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Aquarius  talk 04:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eoin O'Hainle

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eoin O'Hainle

Unreferenced biography of an alleged IRA member who "attempted to shoot Tony Blair with a home-made potato gun" . Hoax article, plain and simple. Contested prod, contested by IP FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 0 Ghits seems unlikely for someone who attempted to shoot a PM. Jeodesic 00:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like a hoax to me. Lankiveil 00:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Jeodesic and Lankiveil. JPG-GR 01:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a total hoax. ++Arx Fortis 01:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not speedy, as speedy deletion specifically states that hoaxes, no matter how blatant, do not qualify (unless this could be a case of IAR). Obvious hoax though, delete. - Rjd0060 01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete SkierRMH (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spyrus

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Portmanteau word/neologism with no evidence that it is in widespread use. The definition is a little vague, and it's certainly not a "new kind" of malware as described in the article. Google hits are not even in triple digits,[41] and a lot of the results are irrelevant ("Spyrus" as a company/group/product name, etc). Contested prod, giving one source where the term is used ([42]), but this alone is not evidence of widespread usage. ~Matticus ^U_C 00:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - the first AfD is completely unrelated. ~Matticus ^U_C 00:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above, no evidence that this is in widespread use, and no secondary sources about the term as per WP:NEO. Lankiveil 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Per NEO. - Rjd0060 01:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY Chris! _ct 03:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. RFerreira 08:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 12:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Neo. Twenty Years 13:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SNOW. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 14:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recreated material. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dictators. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Undemocratic Leaders

[edit]

Potentially very arbitrary and POV. Pilsudsky or Khruschev should not be together with Hitler and Pol Pot as an example Alex Bakharev 12:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sourced material back to the main article. --Haemo (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Area 51 in popular culture

[edit]

bog standard IPC article. Will ^(talk) 16:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~Selective merge - This can very easily be a section on the article about Area 51. There is no need to fork this off.Only those sections which are cited should be merged to Area 51, the rest needs to go.LonelyBeacon 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's pages like this that contribute to the high number of low quality articles on Wikipedia. Spellcast 18:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Although the article doesn't quite say so, most of this appears to be references to a secret government location being visited or mentioned, and it's referred to as "Area 51". Or, if it's a very sophisticated parody, "Area 52". There's little worth merging. Mandsford 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Area 51 with radical trim. The Area 51 article has been beset by irrelevant trivia IPC (which obscures the limited but interesting and worthwhile fictional mentions). I've tried to build consensus for (what seems to me like) a reasonable standard for inclusion to the Area 51 IPC, but I've had no response - see the discussion at Talk:Area 51#Popular culture lists. Simply deleting stuff without that consensus is a band-aid solution, as all the irrelevant stuff will just creep incrementally back. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscrminate trivia directory. While it is unfortunate that editors insist on adding this sort of worthless "somebody said Area 51 on TV" material to the main article, creating dumping ground articles to keep the main article clean is not an appropriate solution. Otto4711 23:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keeping this around can help the Area 51 article. That article is a mess. Cluttering the Area 51 article with the popular culture information, however trimmed it might get, does not help distinguish the real world history from the movies, etc. I realize that sounds like I'm advocating creating a dumping ground to keep the main article clean, but that doesn't have to be the case. Keeping the main article clean is very important, and this article can help. All we have to do is establish standards. Plenty of "in popular culture" articles work very well. (That's not an "other crap exists" argument. It's saying to use those others as models to make this one work.) Wryspy 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a dumping ground that's exactly what you're suggesting. Regardless of how well its maintained. Trivia sections add nothing to articles. If references in pop culture are really that necessary for understanding a particular subject then work it in to the rest of the article properly. I haven't seen a trivia/pop culture section in an article yet that's lead me to any greater understanding of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have, plenty of times. Why are you assuming every reader will have the same experience you do? Torc2 (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then demonstrate one where it was beneficial to an article and really lead to a greater understanding of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of the more important ones may be worth a mention in Area 51 but it isn't worth a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve with references and more prose. Definitely notable topic that has had tremendous influence on popular video game, film, and television culture. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly a sub-article of the main Area 51 article. Merging it back in would make that article too long and stylistically awkward. This really should be treated as a content of that article rather than judged in complete isolation.Torc2 21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be Sourced. Otherwise, merge. 00:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

So you're suggesting merging unsourcable information? Otto4711 03:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, I added a reference section to get the ball rolling. Sorry, I don't have more time, but I'm grading. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing doesn't make this information any less trivial and non-important to the understanding of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have an uphill battle to prove references about "Area 51 in Popular Culture" don't add a level of understanding to an article called Area 51 in popular culture. At the very least, the references satisfy WP:V and WP:N enough to allow the article to be kept. Torc2 (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was made that this was a sub-article of Area 51. Sources or not don't allow the article to be kept.There are more policies out there that govern an article than that. Including WP:NOT. We don't collect every single trivial piece of information about a subject and store it on wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But improve. A cleanup tag would be appropriate here too, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Rray (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would you improve it? Its a list of trivial information about the subject which doesn't really tell you anything about the subject than "these pop culture things thought this was worth being mentioned". A quick paragraph with a few citations can convey that information to the reader without the need for an exhaustive and unnecessary list.--Crossmr (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These don't add anything to the greater understanding of the subject. If any of these items are truly notable enough to add to greater understanding of the subject they should be in the main article and explained properly.--Crossmr (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Seal Clubber (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability of Area 51/Groom Lake's cultural influence is established by reliable sources including books such as Weird Las Vegas and Nevada: Your Alternative Travel Guide to Sin City and the Silver State, and academic papers such as The flight of the ordinary: narrative, poetics, power and UFOs in the American uncanny. "Not adding anything to understanding the subject", "useless", and "worthless" are subjective value judgements which are not reasons for deleting popular culture articles and lists when there are clearly a significant number of Wikipedia editors and readers who independently find them valuable and useful. DHowell (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia list. Notable, referenced content can be blended into the main article. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Copy That Floppy

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The page makes no assertion of notability apart from being "a viral hit", a fact that is unsourced. Basically, a giant plot summary. Will ^(talk) 21:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for decent sources have been found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just kidding. I say keep and find some sources for it, AfD != article improvement drive. Sources are out there: 22 hits on Google Books alone. Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article does need work. However, on a Google Scholar Advance search, for just this film, it did get 25 hits [43] which is impressive in and of itself. Shoessss | Chat 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
potential sources:

Geni 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep basically for the reasons already given by others. --Cheeser1 01:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to SPA 132.205.99.122 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now sourced, a legitimate topic of inquiry. bd2412 T 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Geni.—Lividfiction (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Perkins (Entertainer)

[edit]

No sources provided. I conducted a search on the name and barely got results (a MySpace page) Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE (again). From what I witnessed this article was speedy deleted, then reposted in defiance of the rules. It clearly violated both WP:BIO and WP:SPAM (and in fact was double-speedied), and the (single-posting) author made no effort to follow the procedures for dispute resolution. He/she simply reposted, with the addition that the subject was "going to be famous next year," which of course completes the trifecta with WP:CRYSTAL. It's nice that Esanchez7587 has gone to the trouble of taking it to AfD, but this could have been respeedied as well. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, I tried many times and even put up the warnings. At the last chance, the creator kept removing the speedy tag and simply decided to put it to AfD. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn entertainer and per nom. tomasz. 20:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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