< December 21	December 23 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marius, father of Colius I[edit]

I think this article is a hoax for the following reasons:

1. Article Claims that Marius is the father of Colius I King of Britain in 125 AD, but

A. Britain was under Roman rule in 125 AD. (see Roman Britain)

B. There is no article on Colius I.

C. Colius I is not mentioned at List of legendary kings of Britain.

D. Colius I is not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia.

E. Marius, father of Colius I is not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia.

F. There are no red links to Colius I.

G. The only link to this article in the main namespace is at Marius (a disambiguation page) which link was created by the author of this article and deleted by me today.

H. The only Google hits I get for Colius I are this article, Old King Cole, (see below) and some self-published claims at genealogy websites.

2. The claims of Colius being an ancestor of both Charlemagne and Edward III are not mentioned at either of those articles.

3. The claim of Colius being a source of the Old King Cole story was not mentioned at that site until 12 November 2007 with this edit, made by 66.166.10.173 (contribs) probably the IP for Sdccc (Talk | contribs), creator of this article. (Note that they are both primary contributors to this article and to Dave Mitchell), a possible CoI article. I deleted that reference today due to my hoax suspicions.

If this isn't a hoax, it's certainly non-notable.

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as a hoax. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC) -- P.S. King Coel was a real Celtic king of Britain, who is the source of the Old King Cole stories & song. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom says it all, this article is a hoax with a capital H. The evidence is quite clear here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a hoax. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:21, 24 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. east.718 at 23:58, December 22, 2007

New Yorkfrancisco[edit]

Unsourced proposal for a new political entity. No hint of notability. Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 23:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. Speedy delete as obvious silly vandalism, and so tagged. ~Matticus ^U_C 23:54, 22 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 (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Fort Collins[edit]

Clearly an unnotable list. None of the buildings mentioned have their own articles, unlike the buildings mentioned in similar articles, such as List of tallest buildings in Cleveland, which is a notable article. 11kowrom 23:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. If there is to be a list of tallest buildings in a city, I would expect that its top two entries are also in the list of tallest buildings in the world, or at least in a nation. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 23:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non. Non-notable article. Mh29255 (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cannot be expanded as well, since there are only a couple of buildings in Fort Collins. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 03:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rai-me 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious lack of notability. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:16, 27 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: There was too little input to reach a consensus. However, the article improved during the course of the discussion; at the outset there were 0 sources while at the end there were two sources that utilized the term in title phrases and addressed the impact of the societal phenomenon. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this was closed 3hr 31min prior to a full five days of discussion --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Security Age[edit]

Neologism. In a Google search there are a number of hits but this term is used in a general descriptive way but not as a defined term with a consistent meaning. The meaning ascribed appears to be the work of the creator. Delete. TerriersFan (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is a stub now, but may be expanded, clearly defining the term's meaning as described in the G-hits, and explaining the various uses. If the meaning described in the article is that of the creator, the article can then be modified to more accurately reflect what is found in these G-hits (the more reliable ones).Hellno2 (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all these things may happen but to survive the page needs reliable sources to meet WP:V, a policy requirement. TerriersFan (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I am currently working on finding verifiable sources and making necessary improvements to this article.Hellno2 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good. However, the first reference gives a different name to the concept. References 2 and 3 use the phrase but in differing and undefined ways. What this is becoming is a Precautions against terrorism since 9/11 article and if you want to restructure it and move it to that title I should be happy to support it keeping The Security Age as a redirect. This would then have the makings of a decent page. TerriersFan (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Though I have added these references for now for the sake of improving the article, this is just the beginning. But not all the G-hits I found for "security age" seem to pertain to increased security after 9/11, or security against terrorism for that matter. Some of them were written before 9/11/01. I am leaning toward the focus of the article being about the concept of increased security, regardless of the reason. If such an article already does exist, I would suggest merging this one into it.

Though the creator made it sound like the term "security age" refers to the post-9/11 world (and I can see where she is coming from), the concept of beefed-up security has always been with us, and such an article, though it would most likely mention 9/11, would also describe earlier times, and could provide a good comparison.Hellno2 (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nearest seems to be National security if you want a general security page. However, there is scope for an article comparing the precautions since 9/11 with those before and there is nothing suitable. Howsabout Security implications of 9/11? TerriersFan (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response and proposal For the past few days, I have been looking this over. I feel that the ideal article would be as follows:
- Would be about the concept of increased security
- Would name and describe terms that have been used in such situations, such as "beefed-up security." This is where the term "security age" could be mentioned.
- Would describe reasons why security needs to be increased, not limited to terrorism
- Post-9/11 increased security would not dominate the article, but would be mentioned. I vaguely remember finding an article about security increases resulting from 9/11, and this one would be different.
- The article would be written from an international viewpoint, and would not just be about the United States

I do not plan to rename the article before the AFD discussion is closed unless there is concensus to do so. I do plan to make some of these changes within the article's text, and I would appreciate if others contribute, too. If such an article does already exist, I would recommend simply merging this one into that.Hellno2 (talk) 16:30, 26 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 to delete - there are valid arguments on either side of the keep/delete debate. There does appear to be a consensus that this might be an alternate spelling of Batoni; as part of the closure, I will make this move. I will further tag the article with ((cleanup-afd)) as there is a consensus here that more work needs to be done on verifying the existence of the place and subsequently verifying that it is inherently notable from the 'inhabited place' standpoint. A collection of businesses is not an 'inhabited place' per se, in my opinion, as the population is largely transient. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this was closed 3hr 21min prior to a full five days of discussion --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battoni[edit]

This article is about a Hamlet in Italy. A hamlet is not an actual place, not a municipality, and not inherently notable just by its "existence". All a hamlet is is an area that people refer to by the same name for geographical reference, such as TriBeCa. This particular hamlet makes no assertion of notability, and seems to be non-notable. It is also an orphan. CastAStone /^/(talk) 23:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails verifiability since the only reference is to a website which is a mirror of this same Wikipedia article. Geographic places, even if they are no longer inhabited, even if their maximum population at any time was 50 (like this one), have been kept in AFDs as long as there is at least one rock solid reliable reference, such as the US Census, the 1911 Britannica, or some other governmental or scholarly reference to verify its existence. The nominator, CastAStone, states that areas within a municipality are not necessarily notable, and I agree. Such a neighborhood may be notable on the basis of substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Examples of such are TriBeCa as mentioned by CastAStone, DUMBO, Brooklyn, Whitechapel, Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco, California, Chicago Loop and countless other notable areas within a larger municipality. The burden is presumably much lower if the hamlet stands by itself in a county, province, or region and is a census reporting locality, is in the Domesday Book or equivalent. If references satisfying WP:V and WP:N can be found for this hamlet by the end of the AFD period, then I might switch to "Keep." Edison (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If no sources are found, we can use this as a redirect to Pompeo Batoni, whose name is sometimes spelled with two t's. Zagalejo^^^ 09:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Undecided~~. Of course a hamlet is "an actual place". Battoni is a small village/hamlet, and as such is inherently notable. Here's a picture.--Michig (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, there's no entry in the Italian wikipedia. I can't find much about it on a Google search, but if someone with a decent Italian atlas could verify its existence, that should be sufficient.--Michig (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multimap finds nothing.--Michig (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet in the UK and Canada and Hamlet in the rest of the world mean two different things. I think the best way to describe it is that it is like a neighborhood, which is not notable, except it is centered around a group of businesses instead of a group of homes. -CastAStone /^/(talk) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most important issue here is whether or not Battoni actually exists.--Michig (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it's described as a hamlet with a small population it seems to be a hamlet in the UK/Canadian sense.--Michig (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dav nel 03 15:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if it's a problem with spelling? Batoni rather than Battoni. Using the Italian google map for Batoni Pescaglia bring up this, Località Batoni 55064 Pescaglia (Locality Batoni 55064 Pescaglia), not far from Pisa and Lucca and with a postal code too, though it does appears to be in the middle of nowhere! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a possibility. A hamlet with population around 50 wouldn't show up as much on Google maps or satellite photos. I'd rather keep this until someone familiar with the area can confirm the accuracy (or otherwise) of the article.--Michig (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another link suggesting it exists and is named Batoni rather than Battoni.--Michig (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Batoni for which there appears to be verifiable sources that such a place exists. By long-standing convention, populated places are considered inherently notable. The challenge is to expand the article, which may now be possible to do under the name Batoni. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:42, 27 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. Keilana_(recall) 06:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Machiavelli cycle[edit]

Innapropriate for an encyclopedia and a neologism. This pages seems to be nothing other than a placeholder for a quotation. No social scientist who uses this phrase has been identified, making it a neologism. RJC ^Talk 23:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. Show me some academic papers about this first, otherwise it's just one thing among any number of things that Machiavelli wrote. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN 079236533X devotes pages 53–58 to Machiavelli's cycle of constitutions, comparing it to the cycle of constitutions proposed by Polybius in he 6th book of his Histories. It also tells you its non-English name: anacyclosis — which you'll probably have more success looking up.
I'm amused to see an idea published in the 16th century being thought to be a neologism, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This source does not contain the phrase "Machiavelli cycle," and so doesn't establish that it is not a neologism. I don't question that Machiavelli discusses how regimes cycle, or that it is reminiscent of Polybius's anacyclosis: rather, is this a notable phrase that is used in scholarly literature, and one that deserves its own article? I think the answer to both is no. RJC ^Talk 21:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest that you stop being fixated on the phrase and look instead at the subject. This is not a phrasebook that we are writing here. It's an encyclopaedia, whose articles are about subjects. Google's search engine may mindlessly look for two words stuck next to one another in a bunch of text. But we are human beings, who understand what the words actually mean, and know that one can phrase things using different sequences of words. This is why, after all, we have to have such things as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). As you yourself have just written, Machiavelli discusses how regimes cycle. And people have discussed Machiavelli's discussion. So therefore so too should Wikipedia. That no-one has fleshed out an article on it yet is not a reason for deletion, per both our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and our Wikipedia:Editing policy. Uncle G (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that someone has referred to this (and other sections) of Machiavelli's work and spoken of a "cycle". But I would appreciate there being some sources to explain this, because without them, any attempt to illuminate the meaning in this passage would be unsourced OR speculation, and without any explanation of this passage, it is a candidate for Wikisource and not Wikipedia. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An idea published long ago could still be a neologism if given a name that wasn't used at the time; it's unclear to me if that's the case here. Also, we have anacyclosis; since this article is mostly a quotation, perhaps it could be merged there? Rigadoun (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "anacyclosis" isn't actually an English word. It's a transliteration of a Greek word: ανακυκλοσις. It comes from the word κύκλος. When you read κύκλος you'll see what that word means in English. So by a strict reading of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), anacyclosis isn't the best title when there's an actual English title to be had. It's also not the best title when one has read ISBN 3161466756 and realizes that to the Greeks didn't just apply this idea to politics. The full title of the specific political concept, in Aristotelian thought, per ISBN 0415191548 page 11, is in fact ανακυκλοσις πολιτειον.
  RJC implies that xe has read the source. So perhaps xe'd like to tell you what the last three words of the English section title on page 53, as well as the English description on page 48, are. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question is available through google books, if anyone is interested. The question as I see it is whether this concept is important enough for an encyclopedia article, however it is named. Machiavelli also speaks of airy intelligences in Discourses I 56, but it is not important enough a topic to merit its own article. Vatter's book says that Machiavelli disagreed with Polybius: that's not material for an encyclopedia article. RJC ^Talk 06:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is totally unencyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:14, 24 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. Keilana_(recall) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egg (electronic music producers)[edit]

Non-notable French Canadian electronic music duo. This article has been virtually untouched for more than a year, and the one external link provided is a 404. Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable musicians, no relevant links when searching for "Egg electronic music". --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The duo has gone on international tours as noted in this news release which admittedly isn't a reliable soource as we don't know where the press release material came from. But there is an India Times article which does seem to confirm their touring. And one of the members has this article about him. I suspect that there may be more references and sources out there, but as Montreal duo, these may be in French. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This type of articles should be deleted from Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD isn't a vote. What is your reasoning for deleting? -- Whpq (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and NickPenguin. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Whpq as sources are likely in french. -Djsasso (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep: Two of the sources provided by Whpq contain incidental mentions of the group (in my opinion). The third source, as pointed out, is about one of the members ... which suggests that this person might bear having an article about him in Wikipedia, but not the group he is a member of. If references are in French, that is ok - where are they? A single French reliable source citation that focused on the group as the primary topic would be sufficient to give breathing room, a "stay of execution" as it were. ~~Note that playing gigs abroad is not an indication of notability; it is an indication of resources and connections.~~ Actually, according to WP:BAND#Criteria for musicians and ensembles criterion 4, documented international exposure does constitute notability - though this criterion is noted as being in dispute. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC) updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. There needs to be actual sources for me to say keep. Tavix (talk) 05:18, 29 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. east.718 at 00:00, December 29, 2007

Michael Archer[edit]

Not notable. I couldn't find any references in the newspapers listed about Michael Archer. His only remote claim to fame is being the forensic expert hired by Paulus van der Sloot, father of Joran van der Sloot [1] Much of the page consists of quotes made by an anonymous IP editor, and the quotes don't produce any google hits. Bkkbrad (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someything strange: the article originally started as a page about a games programmer, with a list of his games. Only months later was this changed to the current forensics expert. In any case, the article does not establish notability and I don't remember ever hearing about a forensics expert hired by the van der Sloots in the coverage on the disappearance of Holloway. Even if all this is real, there do not seem to be grounds for notability in that either. --Crusio (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, do you think, if this is agreed to be a deletion, that we should revert to the game programmer, or is he nn too? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I don't know much about games, so I don't know whether that person is notable or not. Some of the games seem to have their own articles and he is mentioned in them. But perhaps you are (or know someone that is) more knowledgeable about that stuff. I guess I abstain on that one. --Crusio (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment most of the game credits list Michael Archer as "lead programmer on a conversion" which seems less than totally notable role. Also, some of the games articles seem like good candidates for deletion, (e.g. Shoot Out a (crystal ball) upcoming Wii game based on an arcade game, my guess is our programmer was involved in the arcade game). In this diff the article changes from game programmer bio to forensics person bio. Then it becomes a bio for a fictional video game character here, then back to the back to the forensics person again here. My 2c is that the forensics person comes closest to notability of the three topics this article has covered. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remark Shoot Out has now been deleted. --Crusio (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and as he is not notable either, we should delete it, rather than revert to an earlier version. This is a coatrack article about a particular case DGG (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yep, three uses that are in the history - the video game developer (non-notable), the forensic scientist (only notable in the context of the Holloway case) and a fictional character from Syphon Filter 2 (only notable in the context of the video game). As for the Holloway case, neither the link provided above nor the link provided in the article appear to contain information on Michael Archer, which makes the relationship between the scientist and the case unverified at present. In fact, if you look at this MyWire article from AP and this USA Today article from AP there is no mention of Archer being part of the team ... he is credited as taking photos for the AP, nothing else, which is odd if he were involved in the case rather than reporting on it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per DGG and Ceyockey. --Crusio (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:20, 28 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). Keilana_(recall) 06:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Sousveillance Day[edit]

The day mentioned seems to be of very little renown (apart from that other holiday celebrated on the same date). All references at the end of the article are either to wearcam.org or to places that have no mention of sousveillance. Google also didn't turn much, so this looks like failing notability to me. Eldar (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are a large number of participants around the world, and WSD has been running for 10 years now, as a tradition that appears will remain. Also, now the issues that WSD stands for are quite timely and relevant with the proliferation of camera phones, and the attempts at authorities to stop people from documenting police brutality, unsafe work conditions, or abuse of power. Glogger (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have nominated this page but did not nominate Sousveillance. The question is whether this entry has any notability beyond the entry on Sousveillance itself. Eldar (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sousveillance was nominated for deletion a while back, and it survived the vfd process. WSD is a separately notable event, i.e. notable as distinct from sousveillance itself.Glogger (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This day is separate from the general academic idea of Sousveillance, and been referred to in other publications such as Wired magazine. --Silent-e (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is significant albeit not overwhelming press coverage of WSD if you look for 'World Sousveillance Day' in Google News, in particular pieces in Wired (magazine) (already in ext. links in the article) and Reason (magazine). I would argue that if there is significant press coverage of an event meant to raise awareness of a practice that has widespread and easy-to-understand impact on a population (and what other type of concept would actually receive press coverage, one wonders) and that practice/concept is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia (which sousveillance is), the event should be considered notable as well. Just a thought that might make a reasonable rule-of-thumb. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comments Since I've nominated this page I've seen a couple of "keep" votes with some evidence of some media coverage. Any thoughts regarding the alternative of merging and redirecting to Sousveillance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldar (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is usually a viable option, but it is an editorial decision that need not be decided here as part of the process. I do not see a compelling reason to conduct a merge at this point. Since we are talking editorial matters rather than keep/delete, I'll delve into precedent. For instance, National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and Breast cancer ... Great American Smokeout and Smoking ... Earth Day and Environmentalism ... there are as many counter-examples as examples, but these suffice to remind that separation of 'awareness event' and 'cause/condition' is not rare in Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible notability. Similar to cruft in that it appears to have notability only as a variety new clip or to diehard fans of this concept. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:53, 29 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 (after some thinking on whether I should place a 'merge' opinion below ... which was banished when I considered an analogy between a 'club club' and side-view and rear-view mirrors on autos). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Magpie Club[edit]

Non-notable coterie group attached to Collingwood Football Club. The article reads as a promotional piece and the only sources offered are not independent of the subject. Mattinbgn\^talk 22:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear and cut, per nom. Shiva_eVolved 22:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - all professional sports clubs have some sort of such support groupings and they are never independently notable. The page lacks any secondary sources to attest to notability. Significantly the Collingwood Football Club page doesn't consider it important enough to mention!! TerriersFan (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TerriersFan above. You'll find that most professional sports club have such an organisation attached. Not notable outside of the Collingwood Football Club. Lankiveil (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Non-notable, crap. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nn. - Longhair\^talk 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. -Djsasso (talk) 23:07, 27 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.

Article has been overhauled since listing, and consensus here has proved the article to be kept. Nomination withdrawn(?). The result was keep. Non-administrator close. Rt. 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC) ===Vagabond (person)=== BLAH BLAH BLAH SOMETHING SOMETHING, TRAMP[reply]

Article consists only of a dictionary definition and a "vagabonds in pop culture" section. We'd probably be better off scrapping this article and finding a suitable redirect. Bongwarrior (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Earlier today, I looked at it hard to figure out how to fix this article and couldn't. I think you may be right that this should be a dictionary definition elsewhere, and we already have articles on homelessness, etc. I don't think it *can* ever be more than a bunch of lists and poor examples. Pharmboy (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Already covered by Wiktionary, so delete per nom. Addhoc (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Merge with Vagrancy (people) and redirect. At least some of the literary mentions might be worth keeping; that may best for now be moved to talk. "Vagabond" is a term used in law in some jurisdictions, but "vagrant" is much more common; the concepts are similar enough to treat together. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This page is a vital source of information on Evan Davis, the most famous vagabond of all time. I don't know why you guys keep deleting this, and taking out all information on Evan Davis. Vagabondprtctr (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)VagabondPrtctr— Vagabondprtctr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I keep reverting the info someone keeps adding on Evan Davis because it is not cited and doesn't belong, and likely is why Bongwarrier came to AFD with it. Start a seperate article on Evan Davis if you like, although I suggest making sure it is verifiable and reliably sourced or it will end up here as well. Pharmboy (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user can't do that now, he/she has been indefinitely blocked for constant disruption. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:Dhartung has added information on the legal term vagabond in medieval England, and it seems relevant and specific enough to make it not worth merging the page. I urge delete-voters to take another look. I would basically get rid of the lists, though, as they don't seem to serve any purpose, being based on quite trivial appearances of the word. Rigadoun (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rigadoun. Addhoc (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change from Delete to Neutral Struck above. It is much better after the work Dhartung did, the original was a bloody mess but the new, concise article is ok. Still worry it will turn into a listfest again. Pharmboy (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is acceptable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (nom) I didn't think that this article could be anything more than a dicdef. Clearly, I was wrong. Dhartung has given the article some much needed context, demonstrating that the article can be expanded, and Addhoc has axed the trivia, which pretty much eliminates my concerns. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a reason why Isabelle Eberhardt's novel is called 'Vagabond' rather than 'Vagrant' or 'Tramp', historically and culturally speaking they're not the same thing at all. It amazes me that people can be so insistent that an article can never been improved, on the basis of no research whatsoever, when they so often are thanks to the efforts of people like Dhartung.Nick mallory (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Nick mallory (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Nice job of recovery and now unquestionably useful. --Lockley (talk) 06:35, 26 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 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Ferella[edit]

This appears to be a total hoax. There are 98 hits for "Gary Forge" and 0 for "Ace Ferella." None of the hits are related to wrestling at all. I see no evidence of a wrestler anywhere in this (a 16-year-old professional wrestler? Seems a bit far-fetched to me). Metros (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "United Professional Wrestling Association" gets exactly 0 Ghits as well. Hoax. Pharmboy (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As you can see at the bottom, I put a reference link to what you are looking for of the UPWA. There is exact proof of what I just said in the "United Professional Wrestling Association" section. Definitely not Hoax. --Blast325 (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. It isn't a hoax. The website has over 15k hits... The Wayback Machine has been tracking them since Jan 2006, but not much has changed and no 3rd parties have written on them in almost 2 years. It isn't a hoax, but it isn't notable either. This must be pretty darn local so far. Pharmboy (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blast325 is the main editor of the article, seems very keen to assert it's not a hoax, and yet he's still !voting to delete it...!?!?!?!? ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 0 hits on google. Sunder land 06 21:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Also, Gary Forge got 98 hits because that is his real name. Ace Ferella is just his in-ring name for the UPWA. Some professional wrestlers like to change their names to something "cool" to them. --Blast325 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, crap! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:25, 24 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) 02:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-Ki[edit]

Delete; Google shows no sources. This leads me to believe that it's a fictional religion created for an in-game universe. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 21:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom. is spot on. Pharmboy (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - advert. Addhoc (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a hoax. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:34, 27 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. Wizardman 02:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gatorade flavors[edit]

This seems to be trivial information on an non-notable subject Marlith ^T/C 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom --Rtphokie (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gatorade is definitely notable, but that does not mean a list of all flavours its marketing team ever came up with is necessary or desirable. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 20:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gatorade is notable, a list of flavors isn't. Pharmboy (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frag it's also got serious original research issues. But man, Midnight Thunder was the best flavor... David Fuchs^(talk) 21:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft Doc Strange (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Listing flavors is totally pointless, in my opinion.Master Bigode (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge partly to Gatorade article. A brief mention of the current flavors should be enough on the Gatorade article, having a list of every flavor that ever existed is ridiculous. 11kowrom 23:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

*SNOW Perhaps?Marlith ^T/C 23:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per llkowrom, in part to Gatorade. Even with Jones Soda, not every flavor is notable. . Changing my "vote" per comments below by jarbarf and Roi. It is significant that there was only one flavor for the first four years, then two for the decade after that. After 28 years, Gatorade had five flavors, and then branched out in 1997. Some of the flavors, like the black "Midnight Thunder" would be considered unusual. On the other hand, an orange/strawberry/caffeine Gatorade might not be. Mandsford (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please for the love of god do not merge, the Gatorade article is suffering as it is. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of a true fan-- the capital "G" is reserved for Gatorade instead of God. Mandsford (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Blanchardb is right. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Wikipedia:Lists. Gatorade is probably the most notable sports drinks and its various flavors is appropriate for individuals doing marketing research. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the "Please for the love of God do not merge" comment made me reconsider. I don't want to be misunderstood. I said "partial merge". I note that jarbarf has done some cleanup, taking out some frivolous pop culture references, which is good. On the other hand, information about when the company decided to introduce other varieties of the product is not at all frivolous. Indeed, it reflects significant changes in marketing made after the involvement of Quaker Oats and PepsiCo. One could sum up, in a sentence, that there were lines marketed as "Frost", "Fierce", "Extremo", "A.M.", etc. On the other hand, I detect a sentiment that information about marketing decisions might be excised from the article as mess or clutter. I think that the article about the branching off of the product is in need of a fix, trying to impart the information in too many ways, but if there's not going to be anything about it in the parent article, erasing all that data is a little bit too "extremo" for my tastes. Mandsford (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' or merge. How is this encyclopedic? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not dead-set against merging, but it would be awkward. Gatorade is notable, and the history of variations in the project is therefore also notable. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put this in a press and squeeze it down to verifiable content then merge that into Gatorade: This is a lot of good original research ... I sat down and started to plot a flavor introduction curve to see what it looked like, but enough about what I do in my spare time. However, original research does not belong here - sorry. I am sure there are articles in business journals about how corporate changes have led to changes in flavor selection methods and how this has impacted the bottom line or either followed or influenced consumer flavor expectations (there might even be a Harvard Business School case study out there) ... but there is not a bit of good business-related referencing going on here. The verifiable content is that found on the site that is linked at the bottom of the article, which lists the current flavor families and their members, as well as an FAQ mention of some flavors that have been dropped (these should be cited separately, in my opinion). To quote a competitor ... "Get to IT!" --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:55, 28 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 (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Creek, Montana[edit]

User:Jason Goldtrap has created article about the setting for a book which is the first book by one Jason Goldtrap, published by vanity press PublishAmerica. WP:COI, WP:ADVERT etc. FlagSteward (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm glad to see FlagSteward has pointed the author to some links which will explain to him what Wikipedia isn't. JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMO, fictional locations are only notable when - like Hogwarts or Middle Earth, they are themselves the subject of independent, non-trivial coverage. The book is maybe notable (although I suspect not); the elements of the book certainly aren't. — iridescent 20:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional community that provides no context or notability outside the scope of the book. Pharmboy (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Eagle Creek, Montana is a fictional community in Sheridan County, Montana." Crap! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:31, 24 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. Qst 14:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WGOT-LP[edit]

~~Station is not on the air and is still in the construction stages. Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL Rtphokie (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WKEL-FM below. Put a future tag on it, and get the link to the license application, but the policy doesn't say future stations can't be listed *if* there are citations to indicate they will. No different that other 'future' articles. doesn't make sense to delete when it will be an article soon enough, and it isn't speculation if cited. Pharmboy (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whether it is speculation or not, it requires reliable sources to demonstrate its notability. Radio stations that exist (or are guaranteed to exist soon) are not automatically notable. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment My understanding is that all federally licensed stations ARE automatically notable. They are all licensed to serve the public (unlike other businesses). If there is a policy that says otherwise, please cite it. Assuming I am correct, it appears the only question is whether a future tag is appropriate or if the station has to wait until it is broadcasting, which is covered in the linked discussion above. WP:CRYSTAL can't apply, as it isn't speculation when the future opening is documented either. Pharmboy (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:CRYSTAL is clear about what it is trying to exclude: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. This article may need expansion but WP:CRYSTAL in not a valid reason for this deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "LP" means "low power", which is a special type of licensed radio station, and not necessarily entitled to an article. From [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28media%29#Broadcast_media]: "Radio stations... tend to have long histories and while the owners and formats change, the stations generally stay put. Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming. For instance, even a 10-watt station belonging to a high school may be notable, if it's in a fight to keep the grandfathered Class D license with which it's been broadcasting for thirty years. On the other hand, licensed Travelers' Information Stations are generally not presumed notable, but might redirect to an article about the highway, park or tourist facility they cover, or about the company that operates them if that company meets WP:CORP." Mandsford (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article you link and use as justification is an essay, not policy. A LP station also is not the same as a Travelers' Information Stations, so that is apples to oranges. I think you are applying even that essay too strongly. Pharmboy (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previous outcomes have generally kept federally licensed broadcast stations which originate locally a portion of their programming (to exclude translators and repeaters). A low power station is dubious in notability if it has been licensed for 2 years and has not yet broadcast anything, since one could buy the necessary equipment from the internet and be on the air in a a couple of weeks for not that much money. It might never broadcast anything. It is a crystal ball error to speculate about what the would-be operators of such a low power station might do in the future. Its reception would be confined to a very small area in any event. Commercial high power stations have some presumption of notability in that they are likely to receive substantial coverage of their programming and station operations in multiple independent and reliable sources. Low power stations are less likely to get such coverage. Edison (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per Pharmboy's comments and Dravecky's comments. Can't say it any better than they have. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - station is not on the air yet, article does not assert notability, and it's an LPFM station. No reason to keep. JPG-GR (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - I'm withdrawing this AFD. There is some indication that this station will be on the air shortly. Additionally the topic of notability of stations with construction permits needs to be discussed further on WP:WPRS before going any further with these articles.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is listed in the FCC database and will originate programming. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:04, 26 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 confirmed the assertions below and also did some investigation on the Sourceforge site. Apparently this was released (the very first release) on 20 December and there have been a grand total of 41 downloads of the software so far. That would make this article a clever advertisement to increase traffic, now wouldn't it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puggle Desktop Search[edit]

Non-notable search engine: doens't assert notability, doesn't provide references at all other than its own website. Already been through PROD (though removed without fixing the noted problems). DMacks (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources are provided from which notability can be judged. The difficulty of finding any hits at all on Google (other than unrelated hits about dog breeding) suggests that not much has been written about this search engine. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Only Ghit for "Puggle Desktop Search" is the article in question. The first two sections appear to be copyvios of the official website, as well. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 23:18, 22 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/redirect. Keilana_(recall) 06:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obrimos[edit]

Another article that has no notability or meaning outside of the game. Pharmboy (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Editors who comment on this AfD may also want to comment on this, this, this, and this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mage: The Awakening. Subject is nonnotable outside of the in-game universe, per WP:FICT, but content would be useful to include in the parent article. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there's no reason not to cover this in detail. It is mentioned only briefly in the main article. Everyking (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mage: The Awakening - as per lifebaka above. There is some useful information here, but not enough to merit it's own article, nor could it be sourced enough to do so. Web Warlock (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Role-playing games has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. There's no independent coverage so it fails WP:N. Someone should start a minor topics list for the various games, as I don't think any of the WoD splats are going to meet WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:10, 28 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 snowball keep. Real and recognised settlements are automatically considered notable. J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderbilt, the Netherlands[edit]

Non notable location Knorkington's (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless someone can show me the policy whereas a real place has to meet notability requirements. I thought all places (city/state/country/village/district/hamlet) were automatically notable. Pharmboy (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pharmboy, real places are automatically notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 22 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, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of System of a Down Demos[edit]

Duplication of content taken from System of a Down discography#List of System of a Down Demos. gracz54 ^(talk) 19:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pointless duplication. JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to duplicate content, it is better served in the discography article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made the page, but only because I saw request to make the page on the Discography Talk Page. Note that I only use my account for making pages. After I make a page, I sign out. Anyway, I'm going with everyone else. Delete. 12.214.76.88 (talk) 22:03, 24 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 me, for obvious reasons. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Igneuspentheism[edit]

My second made-up religion nomination for today. Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 19:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no references, unencyclopedic, man I wish they had a speedy category for this kind of stuff... Icestorm815 (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think db-group might apply. Regardless, no notability. Pharmboy (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little or no value--NAHID 20:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I was thinking db-web but db-group could work as well; this article is clearly not notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 22 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 silly vandalism, and only a hair short of being an attack article. The only reference is in fact to a book. No such book exists in Yale University Press' catalogue. The red flags come thick and fast from that point on. Uncle G (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bhangra bot[edit]

I believe this article should be deleted because it isn't written from a neutral point of view, it is unencyclopedic, and may possibly contain false information. (I'm questioning the reference.) Icestorm815 (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably just something someone made up one day, judging by the external link. Much of the content appears to have been fabricated as well. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only reference is Youtube, the text is complete rubbish. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 22 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: blatent copyvio against http://membres.lycos.fr/biologie/english/resume_en.htm --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic New Medicine[edit]

WP:NOT: 2.2/2.4; WP:COPY; creator said on the article's talk page, that he/she will add src-s in the next days, but didnt; an IP said there, something about a growing group of users; notability/importance seems to be too low; GNM is already described in Ryke Geerd Hamer... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shiva_eVolved 22:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lol, Based solely on what's written here, it sounds like nothing more than an advertisement. Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 07:47, 26 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. —dgies^t_c 16:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaostar[edit]

Fails criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. No recordings, tours or awards listed. No significant independent third party coverage. Nv8200p talk 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity listing to get traffic to their myspace page. Pharmboy (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be above a garage band, but not quite in the realms of notability. There may be some Italian language sources, but I don't speak it. J Milburn (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Seems to meet two of the criteria for being notable: 1) Released three albums on Holy Records, a fairly well known label with notable artists such as Elend, Orphaned Land, and Septic Flesh. 2) Consists mainly of members from a notable band (Septic Flesh). On the other hand, I've never seen Chaostar mentioned as anything but 'a Septic Flesh side project'. So maybe merging and redirecting is the best way to go. The Legend of Julie Egbert (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with ((refimprove)) in place. Legend of J.E. is correct in citing WP:BAND#Criteria for musicians and ensembles in that this group satisfies multiple criteria ... but it needs reliable sources to verify the assertions that make this decision possible. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Contemporary music has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. As per Legend of J.E. this seems notable enough for inclusion. Unlike a vanity page, this article was created by a respected user Xxhopingtearsxx with many main space edits. However, the article lacks adequate sources and there are no permanent members of this group that are currently notable enough to warrant their own articles. Assuming this page survives the current AfD it will need serious attention. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:46, 29 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 Mage: The Awakening. Keilana_(recall) 21:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mastigos[edit]

Has no notability or meaning outside the game/fantasy. Pharmboy (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this version. If somebody writes a scholarly, sourced article about use of the term in Middle Eastern mythology, then possibly that would be ok. However, this current version merely concerns a minor detail of game. Addhoc (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the term has nothing to do with Middle Eastern mythology. The term is actually Greek. Its part of a game, but if you look on wikipedia you'll find other parts have recieved equal (if not greater) covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekeriyah (talk • contribs) 20:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word is Greek, but is used in discussion of Middle Eastern mythology - see [2] Addhoc (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WAX. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Addhoc. The content of the article is not notable outside the game. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Editors who comment on this AfD may also want to comment on this, this, this, and this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mage: The Awakening. Subject is nonnotable outside of the in-game universe, per WP:FICT, but content would be useful to include in the parent article. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there's no reason not to cover this in detail. It is mentioned only briefly in the main article. Everyking (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mage: The Awakening - as per lifebaka above. There is some useful information here, but not enough to merit it's own article, nor could it be sourced enough to do so. Web Warlock (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Role-playing games has been informed of this ongoing discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 03:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete no independent coverage, fails WP:N Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources and asserts no notability outside of the game. I would say merge , but all of the information that I would consider mergeable is already in the main article. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:32, 29 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 Boldly redirected to Cinema of Serbia. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 20:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian film director[edit]

Vague topic that doesnt' assert why it is notable. Was tagged for speedy, author pulled tag without explanation, going afd Pharmboy (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the topic named in the title was notable, this doesn't look at Serbian flim directors per se but the more general Cinema of Serbia, and is therefore redundant. Perhaps the author might like to contribute to that article instead... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:05, 22 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, even taking into account the comments on the subpage.--Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed O'Loughlin[edit]

Mr. O'Loughlin is the Jerusalem correspondent for Fairfax Holdings, which owns the Australian newspapers The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. As an individual, his notability is borderline — one could argue the case either way. However, this article is not about him as an individual; it is the result of a slightly obsessive anti-O'Loughlin campaigner who edits from a dynamic IP address in Canberra. In his own words, "The very reason for an O'Loughlin entry is due to his controversial journalistic malpractice!" and "Only Ed O'Loughlin - The Mideast correspondent (Jerusalem) has a biography in Wikipedia. And why might that be? He has not won any prizes for his Journalism, nor written any books. Could it be because he is controversial? Could it be because he is regarded by many pundits as being rather an advocate than a journalist?"

This would be all well and good if Mr. O'Loughlin's alleged malpractice constituted a scandal of some note, covered in reputable and reasonably non-partisan sources. However, the sources documenting the "controversy" are all obscure Internet sites and a slew of "pro-Israel" lobby groups, such as Honest Reporting (affiliated with Hasbara Fellowships, which recruits people to advocate for Israel on Wikipedia.) Furthermore, the criticisms have been exaggerated. At one point a source saying:

Ed O'Loughlin frequently puts Palestinian interpretations of events as the leads to his stories, with a paragraph much further down including a statement from an Israeli spokesperson. He also often uses language or interprets the news in ways critical of Israeli policies.

Was rendered as:

O'Loughlin deliberately structured his stories and chose his words so as to favour the Palestinian side in any dispute.

In accordance with WP:Biographies of living people policy, especially the first principle "do no harm," I do not see the need for an article which exists, by the admission of its own main editor, solely to disparage an individual based on chinese whispers from the Israel lobby. <eleland/talkedits> 18:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious coat rack. If someone in the future wants to make a neutral, well-sourced, and verifiable article, they can do so without this mess. *** Crotalus *** 19:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, pending the removal of the second and third sections and the addition of sources to the intro. It appears that the subject is plenty notable by himself, and so there's no good reason to delete the article. The coatrack issues can be handled by pruning (i.e. removing) the second and third sections of the article while leaving the intro intact. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Croatulus horridus. Shiva_eVolved 22:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crotalus. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C1818 (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC) I have been following the discussion about this article for some time. Unfortunately I believe that the editor Eleland is introducing his own bias. His strategy in this and his other editorial endeavours is simultaneously both sophisticated and simple. Unable to objectively refute particular statements that he personally disagrees with, he simply says that the source material itself is not reputable and thus so is anything derived from that source and anybody who uses it. Whilst it is certainly necessary to question all sources, he does not question the sources that he agrees with and seems not to like any form of minority opinion, no matter what its merits may be. In this case, Mr O'Loughlin has a public and demonstrable record of editorial bias in his writing and this represents an essential style of his work that needs to be noted in his biography. This article should NOT be deleted and those that disagree with objective and verifiable evidence indicating Mr O'Loughlin's work is biased toward one side should present their case.— C1818 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NOTE: An extensive (and largely off-topic) digression by an anonymous user has been refactored to a subpage. *** Crotalus *** 11:53, 25 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/merge with Mage: The Awakening. Keilana_(recall) 21:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acanthus (Mage: the Awakening)[edit]

Has no notability or meaning outside the game/fantasy. Pharmboy (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Editors who comment on this AfD may also want to comment on this, this, this, and this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mage: The Awakening. Subject is nonnotable outside of the in-game universe, per WP:FICT, but content would be useful to include in the parent article. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Acanthus article already mentions the use in fiction and the current title wouldn't be a plausible redirect, so, in the context of no real world notability, just delete. Addhoc (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there's no reason not to cover this in detail. It is mentioned only briefly in the main article. Everyking (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mage: The Awakening - as per lifebaka above. There is some useful information here, but not enough to merit it's own article, nor could it be sourced enough to do so. Web Warlock (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Role-playing games has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage, fails WP:N Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:10, 28 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 with/redirect to Mage: The Awakening. Keilana_(recall) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moros (Mage: the Awakening)[edit]

Has no notability or meaning outside the game/fantasy land. Pharmboy (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Editors who comment on this AfD may also want to comment on this, this, this, and this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mage: The Awakening. Subject is nonnotable outside of the in-game universe, per WP:FICT, but content would be useful to include in the parent article. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main Moros article already mentions the use in fiction and the current title wouldn't be a plausible redirect, so, in the context of no real world notability, just delete. Addhoc (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there's no reason not to cover this in detail. It is mentioned only briefly in the main article. Everyking (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mage: The Awakening - as per lifebaka above. There is some useful information here, but not enough to merit it's own article, nor could it be sourced enough to do so. Web Warlock (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Lifebaka. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Role-playing games has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage, fails WP:N Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:10, 28 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/merge with Mage: The Awakening. Keilana_(recall) 21:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thyrsus (Mage: the Awakening)[edit]

Has no meaning or notability outside of the game/fantasy world. Pharmboy (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Editors who comment on this AfD may also want to comment on this, this, this, and this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mage: The Awakening. Subject is nonnotable outside of the in-game universe, per WP:FICT, but content would be useful to include in the parent article. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main Thyrsus article already mentions the use in fiction and the current title wouldn't be a plausible redirect, so, in the context of no real world notability, just delete. Addhoc (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there's no reason not to cover this in detail. It is mentioned only briefly in the main article. Everyking (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with Mage: The Awakening. There's no reason to delete--NAHID 08:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mage: The Awakening - as per lifebaka above. There is some useful information here, but not enough to merit it's own article, nor could it be sourced enough to do so. Web Warlock (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Role-playing games has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage, fails WP:N Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:10, 28 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 without prejudice for creation of a proper article ... but I would suggest Tribal democracy as the title considering naming conventions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal Democracy[edit]

Pure Original Research Pharmboy (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. Author has been putting links to a website for the names at the bottom in other articles. --Smashville^BONK! 18:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to like to remove AFD tags as well. Pharmboy (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, seems unlikely to find citations. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now but has potential if the author/editor works hard The editor starting this topic probably has (or at least I have) some good ideas for the article. The topic is potentially notable but in it's current form is quite full of original research. This type of article probably takes a few weeks to properly write. There are sources; I've read some of them in the past (in the newspaper). From a WP policy standpoint, the rules state that article notability, not quality of the prose is the most important AFD decision. From that criteria, this is a "keep" but it needs so much work to fix the OR problem that a "delete" might be the prudent course of action for now. I'd suggest that the author/editor work on the topic in his/her sandbox and re-create the article after there are more references and the article is more concrete. Good luck on this difficult topic. The author/editor may consider editing other articles then creating easier articles first as practice. Starting a difficult article as a novice is even more difficult! Archtransit (talk) 19:57, 24 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 salt --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the talk page has been kept for reasons stated on that page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Cathedral Gardens Subculture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is the second nomination for this article to be deleted (the last, found here, did not reach a consensus). I believe this article to be non-notable, original research, with no reliable source material attributed to it. Full of MOS breaches. Nomination follows discussion at WT:GM. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is first a sever problem with the prose, lines like
"There is also an irony in the dispersal - It is part of the city's culture which Urbis celebrates in their idea of an Urban city".
presents the page as some sort of "attack" on the organisers of the area. A "us" and "them" perception is created, sections like "Moshers vs. Chavs" and "Street wardens" are evident of that. There is no other assertion of notability, citations of reliable sources, or even any other sources, are minimal, and the verifiability of the whole piece is not ensured the through the correct amount of referencing. It also has very serious problems with original research, as stated in the nomination statement. Rt. 22:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all the reasons given by posters, above. DDStretch (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is was created by the CEO of Urbis to distance the "art gallery" from the youths outside. It has some regional newspaper articles about it. I have tried and tried to find more sources but it has been like trying to find gold in the Mersey. Manchester City Council employs an outreach team to liase with the youth, but the outreach site is like a myspace blog and not what I would consider reliable. Headers and article titles can be changed. Personally I cant continue to defend the article without other editors wondering "why?" - if you look at the talk page here and at Talk:Urbis it has been an unrewarding battle from saving it from even more crap. I give up. Maybe a newly retitled article with new prose is needed. If a deleted is made a would ask for a SALT so that a new article can't be created with the current mis-leading title. Mike33 - t@lk 08:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the use of SALT if the article is deleted, for the reasons that Mike33 give. DDStretch (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with salting also. Addhoc (talk) 13:01, 28 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 (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burgz City Is Here[edit]

Likely hoax, doesn't look like this person exists. All Music Guide link in infobox is not relevant. Dougie WII (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Speedy close. This album is probably real, but the article on its author has been blanked after being marked for speedy deletion per A7 (bands) non-notable. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its an obvious hoax and its rap. It has to go. Tavix (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holy cow, most the text of the article is from tags. Not notable, likely a hoax. Pharmboy (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Loads of tags, red links and no sources. Agree that this may be a hoax. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as per many of the above. No referencing, no reliable sources, no verifiability. Maybe a hoax, but already looks like a candidate for speedy deletion to me. Rt. 22:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, probably a hoax anyways. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:30, 23 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. jj137 ^♠ 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fazila Allana[edit]

No assertion of notability. Was tagged for speedy but tag was removed. No claim of notability. Pharmboy (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she produces notable Indian TV shows, and references include Times of India and Variety magazine. Addhoc (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Manish Modi 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep - shes also more famous and notable than you'll ever be hick boy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekeriyah (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Disruptive comments simply because I have nominated some of your articles for deletion are not appropriate. Assuming that I ever lived on a farm simply by the nickname I use is just silly. You would serve yourself and Wikipedia better by keeping it on topic and arguing legitimate reasons instead. Pharmboy (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe... you amuse me. I called you a hick in reference to being some guy who sits around in the middle of nowhere all day with nothing better to do than flag random wiki articles. I assumed pharmboy was a drug reference... though to be honest I'm a bit surprised it wasn't spelled 'boi.' And I daresay a good portion of the articles you've flagged for deletion are more noteworthy than you give them credit for.Zekeriyah (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Most of them will end up redirected and put into a single article where it will all make more sense, and actually be seen by more people anyway. By THEMSELVES, they are not notable, only when together in the UNIVERSE they take place in do they make sense. This is still not the place to express personal opinions. My nomination is purely procedure, I don't know you, it can't be personal, even if you try to make it that way. You also do not know me, as your drug reference comment demonstrates. Pharmboy (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is definitely notable and should be mentioned in the articles of Koffee With Karan and Nach Baliye as its producer.--Anish (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is the producer of two of the most talked about shows on Indian television. And all this achieved on her own steam, without any Bollywood connections, without any godfather. Certainly makes her notable.

Manish Modi 06:28, 25 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 *Bang* (aka Delete) (delivering the coup de grace to this unfortunate mutant). P.S. WP:CSD provides information on speedy deletion options and methodology. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murky buartoonirsimmon[edit]

Completion of incomplete nomination. For my part, ~~Neutral~~ until I look at the evidence. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 9 non-Wikipedia ghits, all of which are either empty or nonsensical dicdefs. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm honestly starting to wonder whether this page was just done as a prank? It can't seriously be considered a true attempt at an article. I'm a native English speaker, and I have no clue what it's trying to say -- it contains a bunch of made-up words and phrases, the grammar makes no sense, etc.; on top of that, there are no external links or references cited. And back to the glaring main issue -- what is the article even about? A fruit? A character from a comic book's fictional universe? I have no clue. This needs to be deleted. Pierce Phillips (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are these sentences even supposed to mean?: "... when saved over a long period of time, dryness becomes harder and harder like a dried persimmon gradually at the progress time." & "It is reported that it is the beginning of persimmon cultivation of Isazawa that Emon VII of Isazawa during Treasure Calendar era took a persimmon-of-wasp (蜂屋柿, hachiyagaki?) in Isazawa from nowhere." Seriously, what is this garbage?! Pierce Phillips (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete next time, use the CSD RogueNinja_talk 09:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I would have if I had had any clue how. Putting an article up for deletion is one of the many things for which the Wiki software does not provide a simple, fast, easy, user-friendly, GUI option. Pierce Phillips (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is patent nonsense and could have been speedied. --Lockley (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I would have if I had had any clue how. Putting an article up for deletion is one of the many things for which the Wiki software does not provide a simple, fast, easy, user-friendly, GUI option. Pierce Phillips (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Pierce Phillips, there was no implied criticism of you there. I agree, the deletion process could use some improvement and clarity. (smile) --Lockley (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete because it is pure nonsense. --Orlady (talk) 04:00, 27 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 redirect. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Numbers[edit]

Completion of incomplete nomination. For my part, Neutral. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:28, 22 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 There isn't any properly verified information to merge into another article. We can leave this as a redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LG U8360[edit]

Non-notable cellular phone. Wikipedia is not a cell phone directory. Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. There are too few substantial, independent references to support a meaningful Wikpiedia article. As a result, we're left with this -- which reads like an advertisement. Mikeblas (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Products can generally be merged with the company articles. --neonwhite user page talk 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipdeia ia not a celphone catalog. This article lacks any references with substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources, so it fails to show the phone is notable. Edison (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are a lot more articles on cell phones than I realized (see here). I'd like to see this and all of the other phones merged into articles based on company. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just think it's a good thing to have articles on cellphones. Greswik (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please read WP:ILIKEIT. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Reply to coment: I have certainly read this. My point is not that I like cellphones more than the next man, but I think this is an encyclopedia, and, then, it should have articles about various subjects people might want to look up. To me, this includes cellphones. I don't think the article you are pointing to here is to the point for my reason. Greswik (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or at least redirect to LG Telecom. Wikipedia is not a directory is the link about the policy. The article itself is really lack of verifiable reliable sources to become an independent article. Dekisugi (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Telecommunications has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I don't think deleting this article is nom. And if the article is to be deleted, almost half of article related mobile phones should be deleted as well. Wikipedia is also not a repository for non-notable Motorola products.--Appletrees (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Plenty of Sony/Ericsson and Motorola phone articles have been deleted, anyway. What is "nom"? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Still, your rationale sounds not enough reason to delete the article. I checked almost all existing mobile phone articles and half of them I've never heard of are stub articles without proper sources but you just nominate LG products. If you want to keep articles about very popular and famous products in wiki, you should've proposed those articles too. What do you think is nom in your perspective? You're the nominee, so please tell me first. --Appletrees (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 No consensus among keep-merge-delete; Withdraw request from nominator --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire[edit]

Disputable notability, many of the characters listed only appeared for one story arc, and for the most part have no real world notability (even though the comic may) Completely unsourced. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 16:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widthdrawn nom. Can an admin formally close this for me? OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 16:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 16:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 18:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unsourced, it's all based on primary source. It's an offshoot of Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire, and in line with our editing policy it should be edited in a manner which preserves the information inherent. Our guidance suggests that lists are a way of branching out information from main articles. Suggest the article is edited to weed out anything which is not self evident from the primary sources, and then perhaps a decision can be made as to whether to keep this a standalone list or merge it back to the parent article. Hiding T 18:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I split the list off as the main page was getting obscenely long. If secondary sorces can be found: keep it. If secondary sources are not found: merge it back with the main page. Deletion in this case is simply inapropriate no matter how you word it: the subject of this article's parent's notability is unquestionable (unless you decide that you know better than Wikipedia policy, like so many deletionists believe they do), and this page is simply split off of that so that they are each easier to look through and load. (Justyn (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep but cut it down a lot to remove any speculation or OR. The minor characters really don't need a huge amount of detail if so little is known about them. However, as an essential part of the main article, which is undoubtedly notable, it should be kept. A partial merge of only the main characters to the main article might be a good idea, and then keep this article for a listing and brief description of all the characters, including minor ones. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or partially merge with parent article. Non-notable, and many of these characters appeared briefly or haven't actually appEared in the comic at all. -Sean Curtin (talk) 07:30, 26 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.--Kubigula (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Reed JP, naturist[edit]

""Robert Reed" naturist" gets 284 ghits, generally unencyclopedic.

2 prev csd (A7) attempts.

Only assertion of n is running a nude bathing organization that dissolved after he left. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 16:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 16:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No valid assertion of notability. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Australian Nudist Federation. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gotta admin, the quote about very little money for required clothing was almost humorous, but I don't see the notability. Pharmboy (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article suffers from a serious case of m:sofixit, but subject was non-trivially mentioned in New South Wales Parliament, and has been interviewed on the Jenny Brockie show on radio 2BL (NSW). JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability as WP understands the term. POV issues as well. andy (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no solid evidence for notability beyond what could be covered in other naturist articles. SaveThePoint (talk) 23:41, 26 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. Hut 8.5 13:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NBA Surprise Game[edit]

Yet an other unsourced possible WP:MADEUP. Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 15:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Delete Googling for either term in quotes produces exactly 0 returns. Pharmboy (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both The only surprise will be if this isn't a snowball delete. Mandsford (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and WP:NONSENSE Doc Strange (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following passage from the article makes me pretty sure that this a hoax "Also, at halftime, the witnesses will hide under the tables, then they'll yell "3, 2, 1!", then when the Dick Ribbat, the Chi-Chi girls and the Michigan J. Frog arrive, they'll jump up and yell "SURPRISE!!!", then they'll be given free pizza and a large drink from the Domino's Pizza in downtown Cleveland, Ohio."...WTF? Doc Strange (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball? Seems pretty obvious. Pharmboy (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Nothing found googling.--Sandahl 02:00, 23 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 A7 (notability not asserted) by Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 18:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mundism[edit]

Another non-notable religion, possibly made up in one day. Only 6 ghits, none of them relevant. Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 15:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The previous version of the article said it is a "religion that was built by Matt Shank in 2007". -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Repost? Checked. So tagged. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 16:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above. WP is not for things made up one day. Xymmax (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This version doesn't quite meet speedy criteria but is an obvious hoax, can probably be deleted by acclamation. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references. Incoherent. No corroboration in Google. I would have put speedy on it if I had seen it first. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Lockley (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Throwing my snowball in the mix, can't find anything that confirms this isn't made up. Pharmboy (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The praise a deity deemed "Onan"? Reckon that's called Onanism.... Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly Christmas - and look, it's starting to snow! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Onanists do not worship Onan. And it is not even the same one. You say The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is NOT made up? It has been kept. This religion is just as believable as Christianity, because it is true. There's nothing to be questioned. It is faith in society. If Mundism is deleted, so should Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other "made-up" religions. Mattshank (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Matt: it's not that it's made up - of course all religions are made up! It's just not notable yet, is all. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bingo What makes a religion 'notable' isn't how true it is, it's ~~how much they get in the collection plate~~ how many followers and independent reports from 3rd parties. Flying Spagetti Monster isn't a religion, it is a reverse test and application of Russell's teapot that has citations to demonstrate it is notable. Pharmboy (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's certainly not made up, however. I'll admit. There's probably not more than 2000 people who follow Mundism, but we are here and we're just as much of a religion as any others. I can see why you think it should be deleted, but it's frustrating how parody religions can get on Wiki, but real ones can't. I respect your decision if you delete it, but at what point can I then try adding it again? Mattshank (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Other religions have 501(c) tax exempt status, even most cults do as well. Have anything in this area to demonstrate notability? If not, it would at best be a non-notable philosophy. Pharmboy (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment So it's not notable because we don't care to get freebies? Sorry if it's too careless for you. Mattshank (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's for real. Mattshank (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, it was claimed, was the Church of Reality (AfD discussion). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a soapbox and it is not a free web hosting service. It doesn't exist to document the undocumented, or to promote ideas that have yet to escape their creators and become an acknowledged part of the corpus of human knowledge. We are here to document human knowledge, not to create it. Until such time that you can prove that your religion has been properly and independently documented in depth by multiple third parties with reputations for fact checking and accuracy, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 17:55, 22 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) 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 440 Alliance[edit]

Unreferenced, no assertion of significance beyond an unsourced claim of appearing on All Songs Considered and The Next Great American Band (neither of which makes it inherently notable). B (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Group seems to meet notability requirements--two albums and appearances on NPR and FOX programs. There is in fact an NPR source, so the NPR reference is not unsourced. Badagnani (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No allmusic. Not part of the Top-12 so they did NOT actually appear on the Fox TV series. No evidence of charts/tours/awards. NPR link is part of series on "...artists...off the radar..." ie, not yet notable. Self-produced albums don't count towards notability. Ravenna1961 (talk) 03:20, 15 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) 15:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I can find several articles on them (adding to notability) but it would help if the myspace and youtube links disappeared via wp:links and if the second CD was on a label (first was indie). Borderline case but might pass if we had more info. Pharmboy (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, this is a particularly tough one for me. A strict application of the guidelines would probably make me come out with a very weak delete, but they seem so close that one good source would put them over the top. I'm considering them under criterion 7 of WP:MUSIC (representative of particular musical style or local scene), but even then I'm having difficulty nailing down the kind of source that I'd like to see. Xymmax (talk) 16:31, 22 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. Wizardman 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick DeBruhl[edit]

Deletion nomination Was proded for lack of notability. Prod was removed after a few references were added. I still don't think there's much here. This is a non-notable local consumer affairs reporter. He's won a smattering of local awards, but not much. Having a job and doing it well does not make one notable. Even a really cool job like TV reporter. I don't see anything here that passes the relevent guidelines, such as WP:N and WP:BIO. Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. As above, just being on TV isn't enough to warrant a full entry. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:44, 14 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) 15:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't find any of the 'awarding' agencies as notable enough for an article here. Probably a nice guy, but seems to fail notability. Pharmboy (talk) 16:17, 22 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. east.718 at 00:00, December 29, 2007

List Of Bridges Constructed Between 1847 and 1892[edit]

Was AFD'ed after creator removed speedy tag. Wikipedia is not indescriminate info, etc. Why these year spans? Not enough data to merge with anything. Pharmboy (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the place to discuss this, but the years hence discussed are years when our great great grandparents (in my opinion the best generation) used grade a steel and solid constructing techniques that still stand today.Every Generation Has Its Share Of Cocky Kids (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the years are intended to reflect the railway bridge building era of the industrial revolution. --neonwhite user page talk 18:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one item on the list is a non-notable joke article. List serves no purpose and has no parameters: bridges constructed where, anywhere in the world? In your hometown? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I had only the United States in mind, and I should have clarified that. The bridge article linked to it is a little informal, but it's only a rough draft.Every Generation Has Its Share Of Cocky Kids (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely arbitrary time period except to its creator. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info, with a touch of soapbox or WP:POV (take your pick) thrown in. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One so far? No need to research this one any further. Mandsford (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are many. If you look here- http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bridge+constructed+in+1847&btnG=Search and here- http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bridge+constructed+in+1848&btnG=Search for example, you will find numerous bridges mentioned. It's a little tedious, but that's what I plan to do later on today when I research and update the article.Every Generation Has Its Share Of Cocky Kids (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Such articles already exist with more "natural" time periods. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clarityfiend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's highly inappropriate to request deletion on an article 15 minutes after it has been created. You have to give an articles time to actually be created as is said on the main afd page Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. I'm sure it was posted in good faith but i request this be withdrawn until a later date. --neonwhite user page talk 18:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Neon white:: Even if the article were given plenty of time to mature, doesn't the title fatally compromise it? I mean, if this article is OK then why not Ships launched between 1912 and 1975 or Television stations opened when there is an 'R' in the month? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me chiming in again, allow me to offer the solution of seperate articles covering appropriate concepts such as Bridges Constructed in 1875, Bridges Constructed in 1890, etc. If I'm really feeling ambitious, I can always cover other years not in my original timespan such as Bridges Constructed in 1922, Bridges Constructed in 1975, etc. I can also cover bridges in the planning stages if you like. This will obviously be a long term project, so please be patient.Every Generation Has Its Share Of Cocky Kids (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, that would be something for a category, not an article, and individual articles would be for each bridge that itself was notable. As it is, the article is fatally flawed. Pharmboy (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is covering a notable period in bridge building and engineering and some context is added to assert why this period is particularly notable, i don't see why it isn't encyclopedic. Individual articles would be a mess. As long as it isn't simply a list and sourced info about the bridges are added then it could well become a good article. --neonwhite user page talk 00:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why 1847 and 1892? Why not 1846 and 1893? Or 1848 and 1892? That makes it arbatrary, which is the first fatal issue. Unless you can cite and explain why those two years in particular are what matter, the title is automatically fatally flawed, regardless of content. Next is the fact that no assertion of what makes bridges made between these year particularly notable, which is the second fatal fault. We can't read someone's mind and it isn't clear why these two fatal flaws should be 'overlooked'. Pharmboy (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — doesn't make sense. Just write articles about individual bridges (if notable—and, by the way, not all bridges are in the U.S. of A.), then create appropriate categories (if there's enough stuff to populate them). Turgidson (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this list, and the one bridge listed there, seem to have been created only as a joke. We already have Category:Bridges completed in the 1840s, Category:Bridges completed in the 1850s, and so on through Category:Bridges completed in the 1890s, so why do we need a list that's highly incomplete? It doesn't even list classics like the Stone Arch Bridge, Starrucca Viaduct, Eads Bridge, and John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See WP:NOT#INFO. No rationale is given for why the years 1847 and 1892 is range for this article. If a rationale is given that is verifiable, then I'd say keep. Until that happens, I have to go with delete. --Son (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Greswik (talk) 18:01, 28 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. There is no verifiable information to merge anywhere but whatever happens this will need a redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Vecchio[edit]

Another non-notable character from the television show Due South. It has no references to establish notability, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition taken from the plot sections of the tv show and episode articles, so this is also duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:18, 10 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, Caknuck (talk) 18:54, 15 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) 15:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to main Due South article. Character was entertaining on the show, but ultimately not notable enough to have a WP article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and possibly merge to Due South. No need to delete. DHowell (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Due South: a reference is sorely needed for the role the character had in the story and that there was a transition from recurring to main character in the 3rd season. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Canandia TV shows has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:22, 29 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. Xoloz (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kukuru[edit]

I do not think that this character has in itself any notability, out of the video game series in which it appears. Goochelaar (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article isn't even mentioned in the 2nd Super Robot Wars Alpha article. The subject also lacks notability outside of the game itself, stated by nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:18, 10 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, Caknuck (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see where you guys are coming from. If the article is to be deleted, then I think its information is best saved in the Supporting Banpresto Original Characters article. Another page I had created a while ago, Luria Kayitz, most likely also falls under the deletion policy and would also be moved to the Supporting Characters article. Enyce02941 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:59, 15 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) 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2nd Super Robot Wars Alpha. No notability shown to merit its own article. Xymmax (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Supporting Banpresto Original Characters. -Sean Curtin (talk) 07:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Sean Curtin. There's already a section on that page for this character anyway. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Supporting Banpresto Original Characters#Kukuru: Enyce02941 appears to have already done a cut and paste merge of the content from Kukuru into Supporting Banpresto Original Characters. Therefore, the only remaining thing is to convert Kukuru to a redirect and tag it with ((R from merge))((R to section)). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Ceyockey. Someone another (talk) 12:41, 29 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 This seems to be my day to create redirects. There is no verifiable information on a subject that lacks reliable external sources to merge yet the subject is part of a wider notable game. As a possible search term a redirect seems a sensible outcome to this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ComStar[edit]

The article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition of plot points from the various BattleTech games without encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major notable fictional faction.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs references to assert that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:41, 12 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, Caknuck (talk) 18:55, 15 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) 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for a later merge (I couldn't find an appropriate merge target), or delete. Considering that it's been over 10 days and this article still lacks to establish any kind of notability, I guess it's fair to assume non-notability. Therefore, this article shouldn't exist any longer it its current state. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in the same boat, I couldn't find a suitable redirect target, and I think it could just safely be removed. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battletech. Whispe ring 18:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the subject is notable (it appears in a very large collection of books and games), but the information could easily be put into the battletech article or some other article RogueNinja_talk 09:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete: If an appropriate page can be found, then merge; otherwise, delete. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:07, 29 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, based on changes to article during discussion period. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nu-funk[edit]

The page is a non-notable subject and is very POV. It also needs cleanup, is a stub and cites no sources and therefore could be OR. Thundermaster^TRUC 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 08:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who removed the proposed-deletion tag. This article about a music genre could be expanded rather than deleted. Clearly more research and sourcing is needed. But this genre does get discussed by music critics—Example 1 Example 2. Keep but expand. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:27, 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, Caknuck (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I have now cleaned up the article and added seven citations to reliable sources. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:52, 15 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) 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As cleaned up, the article seems to meet notability requirements. Rolling Stone's Tom Tom Club article certainly seems to assume the style exists, and that a notable band practices it. There still appears to be OR elements in the story, or at least its difficult to tell which of the references supply the information, but at this point I think its at the clean up stage, rather than the delete stage. Xymmax (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been improved enough to justify keeping and allowing further improvement. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:56, 22 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. Hut 8.5 15:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Airhawk[edit]

Non-notable character with practically NO SOURCES on the page. Should be merged or article should not exist at all. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroGiga (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 December 2007

Comment Merged to... where? ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:51, 12 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, Caknuck (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real-world relevance, notability, sources or significance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:11, 18 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) 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would vote merge into Fatal Fury, but this character doesn't even seem notable enough to be mentioned in the Characters section of that page. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then re-create as redirect → Fatal Fury#Introduced in Real Bout Fatal Fury Special: Dominated Mind, tagging the redirect with ((R to list entry)) and removing the wikilink that appears in the target section, leaving an editorial comment () referring to this AFD; I often add such comments and would if I were closing this AFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is written in-universe, and has no secondary sources to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 16:53, 26 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 with addition of references: I will add ((cleanup-afd)) to the article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power Symphony[edit]

Was deleted as NN-band, though notability has been asserted on my talk page (see here. So I've restored it, for greater concensus. ^Khukri 15:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the authorship of the article is admittedly COI, the reference provided is not, nor is it the only independent source available. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 16:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the original author. I just added more references to the talk page if anyone's interested. Regards, Sklivvz (talk) 21:18, 15 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) 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their album Lightbringer was published by Pavement Music (http://kzsu.stanford.edu/~hannah/p/powersymphony.html), and the publisher is notable enough to have an article here. I would say that gets them a pass, by a whisker. Pharmboy (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found another review of them and their album Lightbringer. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:03, 22 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) 23:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Suburban Prairie Conference[edit]

high school athletic conferenece with no assertion of notability and zero citations. G search shows no assertion of notability, beyond being an athletic conference. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:51, 9 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, Davewild (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per above. Shoessss | Chat 13:55, 15 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) 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable conference. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't assert notability - Dumelow (talk) 18:15, 22 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. Hut 8.5 13:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motherhood values[edit]

Subject not notable enough for a seperate article. Should be deleted, or merged. Pharmboy (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I have heard this used before, this is more and expression than an actual value. In that vein, I think it is more a neologism, and a non notable one at that. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. Or else, redirect to Family values. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:43, 27 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 - Userify to User:Eugz/Database to ontology mapping - Peripitus (Talk) 04:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Database to ontology mapping[edit]

(Version nominated can be found here) Contested PROD (PROD'd version can be found here), on the rationale "give articles time to grow". Article is incomplete, and has been so for the past week. Lacks content and context to establish notability and is very difficult to understand. Appears to just be a list of various software tools, which makes it borderline advertising. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Give it about a month. The person contesting the PROD did not take part in editing this article. That was an admin. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be bringing this here if I did not feel that I had already given the article adequate time. I don't believe there is enough content for other editors to know what the author was attempting to do with this article. However, if any editor states that he/she plans to work on the article, I will gladly retract this nomination. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 06:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without enough content or context to make a good judgment call about its verifiability or its.... uh... content or context, this one is really problematic. In finished form, this big project may not be suitable for wikipedia. In its current form it's definitely not. --Lockley (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks context or content; incomprehensible in present form. If there's anybody out there actually working on this, I'd suggest they create the article in comprehensible form in a sandbox, then post it here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Eugz/Database to ontology mapping: There is a note on the talk page from the original and primary contributor that they intend to expand it. My guess is that they got sidetracked and don't know when time will be available. Given all evidence, I would suggest userfication as the most equitable solution. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this, so long as it is moved out of the main namespace. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:20, 29 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 Culture of Iran. This is not a disambiguation page. It contains nothing that is not in Culture of Iran. The redirect will still allow editors to use [insert ethnic group] art and architecture. Bduke (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian art and architecture[edit]

I'm not at all sure why this page exists. It claims to be a disambiguation page, but isn't. The two pages to which it links, though related, are quite distinct and do not need disambiguating. In the discussion page, two editors seem to have considered it a pointless page back in February. However, a note in the edit screen of the page says "This page is designed to map from 2004 EB topic "Iranian Art and Architecture" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2004_Encyclopedia_topics" which means nothing to me but may or may not be significant. If it is significant, then I am happy for the nomination to be withdrawn. Emeraude (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even as a simple dab page this is useful, since there are a lot of [insert ethnic group] art and architecture articles in Wikipedia. So keep for the sake of Wikipedia's overall coherence. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 15:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the one above.--SkyWalker (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blanchardb. The current article is a stub. The subject is very notable. I'd expect editors to build it into a substantial article. Give it some time. Majoreditor (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been art in Iran. There has been architecture in Iran. The current article is a stub. Tell me something I don't know. Mandsford (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1 "there are a lot of [insert ethnic group] art and architecture articles". Oh yeah? Not French, Italian, German, Spanish, Canadian, Mexican, Japanese, Indian to take a random sample. At least, not as Disambig pages - there are on ot tro as REDIRECTS. 2 It's NOT a stub. It is no more than directions to Main articles. There has been no work on it since it was created in 2005, so why "give it time". Please refer to the comment in the Edit page that I referred to, which does seem to suggest that this page serves a function, but it is definietly not Disambig. But, since I don't know what it means (my reason for this proposal) I make no vote. Emeraude (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Culture of Iran Although there is a significant amount of important art and architecture coming from Iran, I think these subjects are much better covered in this much more general Culture of Iran article, and then these subjects are given much more specific coverage in the existing Iranian art and Iranian architecture articles. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 29 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. east.718 at 00:01, December 29, 2007

Squirrel (eavesdropping)[edit]

While there are 4 listed sources on van Eck Phreaking (which has it's own article) not a single of these sources use the term "squirrel" anywhere. The entire first paragraph is unsourced (and the second paragraph is a long, seemingly off topic quote). Also, WP:NEO. Andrew c ^[talk] 13:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only thing new in this is the term "squirrel", which is unsourced and WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article that doesn't list sources and one for which sources would be impossible are two different things. Only the latter should be deleted (WP:AFD). In general, only articles that cannot be improved should be nominated for deletion(WP:ATD). After "all attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed" (WP:DP), the article can be nominated. Regarding WP:NEO, I did a Google search for squirrel and "van Eck Phreaking" together. Apparently, the term "squirrel" is already being used as it is in the article. Valerius (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, WP:NEO. KurtRaschke (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Human rights has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:04, 28 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. Hut 8.5 13:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Healing Machine[edit]

Three-episode fictional medical device from Babylon 5. It's important to the plot, but only in these three episodes. Minor fictional objects are ten-a-penny in most sci-fi/fantasy settings, and this one doesn't warrant bending the rules for. Nydas^(Talk) 11:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 41 google results but no reliable sources - appears to be non-notable. Addhoc (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor and non notable fictional element. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Is this not worth merging into a B5 page? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:44, 27 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 WP:CSD G11/G12 (blatant advertising and probable copyvio). — Edokter • Talk • 01:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strand Lighting MX[edit]

User:Strandlightingmx created this article and Strand MX of which both contain the very same content. We don't need 2 articles of the same thing. -- ALLSTARecho 11:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pointless duplication. JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless duplication, very likely COI. STORMTRACKER 94 12:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Addhoc. Lack of sufficient number of reliable sourcing, poor prose, and most likely a conflict of interest on part of the creator. Also, delete as duplicate of Strand MX. Rt. 14:48, 22 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. Hut 8.5 13:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Nebula Falls[edit]

No sources, nothing on google outside its own web site and a myspace page. In another article the article's creator describes this as a "fake school", so I guess Wikipedia is not for schools made up one day applies. Deprodded. Weregerbil (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 6 google hits in total - doesn't appear to be notable. Addhoc (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. docboat (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Come back when there's something more. Mandsford (talk) 16:42, 22 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.

Closing as nomination withdrawn. Non-administrator close. Rt. 14:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal Finitism[edit]

Contested PROD. This is unsourced (the book quoted does not exist on Amazon), a probable hoax, and anyway nonsense. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable soures, possible hoax. STORMTRACKER 94 12:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - google books gives a trivial mention so could be a worthwhile topic, however delete this version. Addhoc (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that mention is anything to do with this. JohnCD (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Addhoc (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN - changed to speedy keep as Uncle G has completely rewritten the nonsense into a good, in fact splendid, article. JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 22 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. Hut 8.5 13:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Van Dyke[edit]

Non-notable travel agent who fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks independent media coverage Addhoc (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (sounds like an echo in here...) Pharmboy (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the nom I say delete.--WaltCip (talk) 16:41, 22 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. Bduke (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route H18[edit]

London Buses route H19 also included in this afd.

A non notable bus route that is split over two articles (H19 is the reverse of H18). Wikipedia is not a directory, it is not a guide and it certainly isn't a mirror for the London Transport website. London Transport is notable, but that does not mean that every product/service they offer is. I can find no coverage of this service that is not trivial and certainly none that would meet the requirements of WP:NOTE. Nuttah (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Ridernyc (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems hard to argue in favour of something so mundane but the deletion of something so obviously innocent makes me quite uncomfortable so here goes:

There are quite a few hobbyists who are deeply interested in transport minutiae. For example, I had a cousin who was obsessed by trams and a colleague who was a aircraft spotter. This demonstrates that there is a readership for this material, per WP:5. See bus spotter.
There is lots of material out there written for this hobby audience and so good sources are there to be found. For example, as a simple first cut, Google Books has 662 hits for London buses. Has the proposer checked any of these sources?
There may some national/class biases at work here. North Americans perhaps rate the automobile most highly and so US highways seem to be considered notable automatically. Buses are quite a respected institution in London and seem comparable as significant threads in the transport network. Note that London has an especially notable history, a larger population than most countries and that its red buses are one of its notable features.
The article is trying to be more than a directory entry by including the history of this route. In this, it compares well with the thousands of articles on asteroids which seem likely to be kept. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. STORMTRACKER 94 12:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: try a less restrictive search string. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or even one that doesn't mention buses --Paularblaster (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This search produces 21 results, which comprise of primary sources and copies of the Wikipedia article. There isn't any coverage by independent sources. Addhoc (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you consult some of the searches I've already directed you to, you'll see that a different search string gives a lot more hits than that - and that they include questions before the London Assembly, Arriva bus company webpages, Transport for London pages, and commuter group pages. That's primary sources from three/four different points of view. No, none of them are secondary - but give the people who actually care about bus routes a chance to work on this, and allow the rest of us to turn our attentions to more fruitful topics. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus routes in London Lugnuts (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden above; there is notable, valuable historical information here. At the very least, Merge into a suitable article. KurtRaschke (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I will never understand why Wikipedia contains "articles" about bus routes. High schools I understand. Asteroids, yes. A bus route? No. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first of the five pillars specifies that wikipedia content is that of "general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." Yes transport history is specialized (and of no particular interest to many of us, including me); but no, it isn't unnotable or unencyclopedic. And WP:NOT#DIRECTORY does not apply: none of the bus route articles (and I see them continually, not because I'm interested in bus routes but because over-eager deletionists keep bringing them to AfD) is anything like a "directory" listing or a timetable. In response to the lat remark above, beyond simple snobbery I can't think of any reason that individual bus routes should be any less suitable for inclusion than individual asteroids (another specialized minority interest). --Paularblaster (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The main difference between buses and asteroids is that I can find coverage of asteroids in independent reliable sources. If someone can provide that coverage for this bus route, and references to back up the information in the article, I'll willingly withdraw the nomination. Nuttah (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how sources produced by asteroids might not be admissible, but I'd have thought that the information provided by the bus companies and Transport for London can be considered reliable, and the London Assembly, bus enthusiasts and commuter groups can be counted as independent - at least to the same extent that astronomers can when it comes to their (paid) pet interest. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject London has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not because I feel that individual bus routes are any more important than asteroids, but for the simple practical reason that if there is not a single repository for information on a bus route, its timetable, operator and even the bus type, then the individual location articles where this (or that ...) bus calls will be inundated with repetitive detail. At the moment I can delete that and point the obsessive to the relevant bus article. I, for one, value the service the people who maintain these bus articles, provide. Kbthompson (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and possibly merge - however, we can wait for sources - Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Lack of search engine hits should not be a criteria to keep or delete, there could also be published sources on this. --Solumeiras ^talk 16:50, 28 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. Hut 8.5 18:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualo and the Movement[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable musical act. I can't find any sources on their current name. Two short mentions under their old name from 1998 and 2004 show up, but thats it. Appears to be a local Chicago act only. Delete, doesn't meet current notability standards. Lawrence Cohen 08:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nn music act, fails WP:MUSIC. STORMTRACKER 94 12:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:50, 28 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. Hut 8.5 13:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PICF[edit]

Church with questionable notability. The article does not assert any notability, and Googling for it yields only 300 hits (and no news articles). — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 07:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Doesn't seem to be notable at all, reads like an ad. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable unless some sources beyond the two blogs that mention the organisation. Nuttah (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Dougie WII. STORMTRACKER 94 12:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - COI problems and lack of sources. Addhoc (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy No notability is asserted. If it is notable, it should have been at least declared in the short article. Pharmboy (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at all, no sources are given. It's only a promotional article. Dekisugi (talk) 13:03, 26 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. Hut 8.5 13:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Law (producer)[edit]

Does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 07:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:Bio. BJ^Talk 09:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete unsourced non notable. Nuttah (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Also unsourced. STORMTRACKER 94 12:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and doesn't appear to be notable. Addhoc (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this page six months ago, apparently as part of some sort of disambiguative process, and can't even remember why. It doesn't appear to have any notability and I suggest it might be speedied. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:33, 22 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. Bduke (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Apostles Episcopal Church (Satellite Beach, Florida)[edit]

Church with questionable notability. Independent references noted sound like relatively trivial mentions/photos. Dougie WII (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large number of references. Shouldn't delete on the basis of references that an editor thinks sound trivial. Looking at the one secondary source on-line I find: "Again, in 1959, Satellite Beach made national news with half-page picture features in the 28 September issue of Life magazine and in the November issue of Popular Science on moving the sanctuary of Holy Apostles Episcopal Church from Fort Pierce by barge up the Indian River in July of that year." Not too many churches make it into Life and Popular Science. Hobit (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still, just a passing mention in a local website. As far as the magazines cited by that webpage (that, btw, was added after this AfD was filed), they're just about the movement of the structure and many, many structures such as these have been moved in a likewise manner over time and certainly not all moved structures are necessarily notable. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has consistently been strongly maintained and supported at AfD that all denominations however small are notable. There is realy no other rule that can let us escape unending controversy. How many Christians were in the first Church? How many followers did Mohammed have at first?--Hu12 (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not its own denomination, but rather a parish of a church that nobody disputes is notable. Rigadoun (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to references sourced in two independant sources (Hellier and Rights) including an extensive write up in one (Hellier). Dsmdgold (talk) 19:52, 25 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 - NON Admin Consensus clearly shows a keep, though the argument is very weak. Only one minimal web reference provided that actually talks about the person and so notability is only just asserted. -- maelgwn - talk 04:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vikki Petraitis[edit]

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nn author, possible COI. STORMTRACKER 94 12:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have tidied it up a little and it looks a little more presentable now. I agree the creator of the article has a likely COI, but it is not gratuitous or overly self-promotional. The Five Mile Press is a legitimate publisher, not a vanity publisher and so is Black Inc. She was nominated in the 2007 Davitt Awards, which are well known enough to receive coverage in the The Age, Melbourne's leading broadsheet newspaper - see here. There is also this information on Petraitis here; it is from a blog and not reliable enough to use in the article, but it states that she won an award, has appeared on the television show, Sensing Murder and wrote a book on the Frankston, Victoria serial killer, Paul Denyer, in whose article she is listed in the "Further reading" section. The article needs work, but I think it can be saved. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commen t: Can somebody explain how someone whose first work was published in 1993 was one of the first writers in the true crime genre? True crime has been around a lot longer than since 1993. Corvus cornix_talk 05:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is uncited - remove it if you think it is wrong. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mattinbgn is convincing despite the COI issue. --Lockley (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per awards that she's nominated for. Just falls over the notability line, in my opinion. Lankiveil (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, I agree with user:Lankiveil (above). She has a little bit of notability, enough to keep the article.Lester 05:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per previously cited opinions of Mattibgn, Lankiveil and ors. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:39, 28 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 allow resubmission. This proposal has been completely badly formed since 22 December. It did not even have the article name, as a heading, until I added it. If the nominator still feels strongly about this, they can resubmit it. Bduke (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iraq War resisters[edit]

Delete. I nominated the article. There are no persons that are notable on this list except for Hinzman or Watada. The rest are people that tried to get out of war-time deployments for whatever reason. Equinox137 (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Hughey and Key are more than notable. I myself am a Resister and I was not in Iraq, but chose to leave when I recieved orders. Deleting this is pointless.

What is the notability of any of these individuals other than they deserted the military? There are thousands of servicemembers that deserted prior to 9/11, some of which are located/arrested/imprisoned, some not. What makes these people (or yourself, for that matter) any different, other than that they did so to avoid the Iraq War? Where is the notability? Cindy Sheehan is notable. Hughey or Key are not. Equinox137 (talk) 03:25, 24 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. I would have gone for keep if the dates predicted for it opening were not in the past. This needs to be watched and brought back if it does not open. Bduke (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WKEL-FM[edit]

Article is about a radio station which has yet to sign on the air. While the "rule" that any fully licensed radio station deserves an article may or may not be valid, a radio station that has yet to broadcast at all is surely non-notable. JPG-GR (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, crystalballery. May be notable once it actually broadcasts. Lankiveil (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. STORMTRACKER 94 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or Redirect - While it is a "future" station, 99% of that information came from Fybush.com. Scott Fybush (who operates 100000watts.com) checks and double checks his information. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 13:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect, it's owned by EMF (a.k.a the K-LOVE people), if the station makes it to the air (and after looking at the FCC info, I can't tell how along the application/construction permit is) it may just be a rebroadcast of one of the Educational Media Foundation services, which is why it should redirect to either Air 1 or K-LOVE, although a discussion over at WP:WPRS should happen about how notable stations not yet on the air should be (At what point are they notable?). Mr mark taylor (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Originially it was supposed to be an Oldies station, but you are probably right. It will probably either by Air 1 or K-LOVE. I would also support a redirect as well. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 14:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - As the articles about this station point out, as a licensed commercial station it will be required to keep local studios and follow other federal regulations regarding these facilities. Yes, the EMF will probably apply for a non-commercial status at some point and up will spring another chain of non-commercial translators but now we're getting into double-future speculation and it's wrong to make this sort of decision on this sort of speculation. - Dravecky (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep License is issued, as are permits, so as long as it has a future tag on it, it is reasonable to keep. This wouldn't be the first example of a future 'thing' on Wikipedia, and it is well documented. I didn't see anything in policy that directly says it should be deleted, seems that we are reading the policy backwards. Pharmboy (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it's unusual to have an article before the station goes on the air, it's not "crystalballing" when the FCC license has been issued. Those licenses are so hard to obtain, it's unlikely that this will not come to be. I suppose that, yes, we could delete now and have the article come back up when WKEL 98.5 is on the air, but is that really necessary? Mandsford (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Borderline WP:CRYSTAL. However, the _license_ already exists. So if we interpret this as an article about the license, then CRYSTAL doesn't apply. Add the "future" tag and keep. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a reminder from previous debates, it is not an official policy that a broadcast license makes a station notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I don't mention this to start up that whole debate again (though fear it will), but since this station has yet to broadcast at all, if the only claim for it's inclusion is based on a non-existent policy, there's little reason for keep. (If the station does begin broadcasting, I'm all for the re-creation of the article at that time.) JPG-GR (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to labor the point, but the policy doesn't exactly say that the station is only notable *if* they are broadcasting. Just as now defunct stations may be notable, this is one that has citations to demonstrate it will. It isn't that big of a deal, but it seems pointless to create/uncreate the article when there isn't a solid point for delete. Pharmboy (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta go with Pharmboy on this one. It is silly to delete something that we may recreate in a day or week from now. I say leave the "future" tage as Squidfryerchef suggested and Keep. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's not notable because it's not broadcasting. I'm saying that it appears the only claim to notability it has is the existence of a license, and that's not enough. JPG-GR (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...the "only claim to notability is it's license" arguement has been drove into the ground and we all know it got shot down. The station could launch tomorrow for all we know. Deleting the article and then bringing it back as it is, is just silly. The "future" tag will work just fine until the station launches...which, again, could be any day or next month. Ya don't know and neither do I, for that matter. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The WKEL-FM article could certainly stand a bit of expansion to explain this better but the construction permit itself has already garnered some coverage. I've added a few references to this article that discuss WKEL-FM, the Educational Media Foundation's plans for the station, and the controversy this has sparked. - Dravecky (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Macy's 123 21:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To everyone quoting WP:CRYSTAL, you might try actually READING the policy. The first line says Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation meaning that if the article has citations that are verifiable, then that policy doesn't apply, as it isn't speculation. Pharmboy (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I think most people read the headline then skip the text. The next lines are All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. which means that WP:CRYSTAL actually supports keeping this article, not deleting it. - Dravecky (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - FCC licensed station which now has verified references added to the article to meet WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. I have advised the WP:WPRS to add references to future created articles to avoid other articles being nominated for deletion. --tgheretford (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, announced in media, FCC-license issued. 23skidoo (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Licensed full-power radio-stations are inherently notable. ViperSnake151 01:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but before this "inherently" dance starts again, let me direct people's attention to Wikipedia:Notability (media) which is still up for discussion. More comments on this proposed guideline are welcomed and encouraged. - Dravecky (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It would be an easy "keep" if it had multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage, or if it were actually a licensed broadcasting station in operation, with some locally produced programming. Neither of these criteria are presently satisfied. No prejudice against creating an article if they ever get on ther air. Neglecting for a moment WP:BEANS: Should I create articles for all the broadcasting stations which obtained licenses, but never actually broadcast? The only difference between a station licensed in 1929 which never went on the air and this one is crystal-ballery.A "future" tag is not an excuse for firing up the crystal ball. Edison (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Another key difference between this station and that hypothetical 1929 failure is that WKEL-FM is licensed under an existing FCC-issued construction permit that will expire if they're not on the air after a set amount of time. Oh, and this article does now have multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of this CP and the surrounding issues. - Dravecky (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as FCC-licensed stations are indeed notable. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Licensed by the FCC" =/= "notable, and "Not existing yet" = "crystal ball". So, delete. --Calton | Talk 17:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Allow me to quote Dravecky directly from above: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. which means that WP:CRYSTAL actually supports keeping this article, not deleting it".

Also, allow me to quote Pharmboy from above as well: "To everyone quoting WP:CRYSTAL, you might try actually READING the policy. The first line says Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation meaning that if the article has citations that are verifiable, then that policy doesn't apply, as it isn't speculation." So, please check out the policy before citing WP:CRYSTAL, Calton. It doesn't mean what everything thinks it does. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 17:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it is in the FCC database. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:12, 26 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. east.718 at 00:01, December 29, 2007

Microfederalism[edit]

Microfederalism gets 10 ghits. No sources, nothing.

nn political ideology. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 05:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete several of those 10 ghits seem to be re-inventing the word; haven't checked JSTOR but see no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably falls under WP:NEO, but non-notable enough even if it doesn't. Lankiveil (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
delete as non notable idea and a neologism, Nuttah (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google books returned 4 hits and google scholar gave 5. The hits on both searches do not discuss the ideology.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. STORMTRACKER 94 12:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of those "it could happen" type things. It's not very likely that a government, that has the power to abolish states, would then redistribute sovereign power to "very small, local political units". Dictatorships tend not to work that way. Mandsford (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. No prejudice against the concept should it someday become notable, but that has yet to happen. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 18:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Macy's 123 21:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is one that is discussed in social science circles. Admittedly, what is written so far is more of a dictionary definition than an encyclopaedic topic but that doesn't merit it for deletion: it simply needs expanding to better explain the concept and distinguish it from, and parallel it to, other forms of decentralisation, such as the break-up of the USSR. --Interesdom (talk) 16:24, 25 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. A7 - not even an assertion of notability let alone actual notability. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Showdown[edit]

""Santa Showdown" high school" has 48 ghits, notability not established; unsourced. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 05:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a local event (at one school) without wider significance or notability. Lankiveil (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as a piece of very non notable trivia. Nuttah (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local nn trivia. STORMTRACKER 94 12:58, 22 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. Addhoc (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Novak[edit]

Probable COI creator (Tpnovak (talk · contribs)); "Tom Novak" has 3,110 ghits, I don't do too much with bio AfDs, so not sure what people think of 3k+ ghits; does not appear to be notable, only reason for inclusion would be the published works? OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 05:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 05:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what a dreadful photograph. There definitely needs to be some references to support the article's claim that Mr Novak has worked at virtually every significant university in North America. Unfortunately, Google is relatively quiet on the matter, and even his own CV shows this his roles at Vanderblit have been relatively minor. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he doesn't meet WP:PROF. Lankiveil (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, fails WP:PROF. STORMTRACKER 94 12:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "not sourced" isn't valid for deletion anyway. I found http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=1286 and http://www.internetretailer.com/internet/marketing-conference/92844-retail-romance.html in the first page of googling. The topic may seem a bit obscure, but there are plenty of edu and others writing about him. Pharmboy (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — for the reasons given by Pharmboy. GreenGourd (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pharmboy. Sunder land 06 12:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has only about 20 publications in Web of Science, but those got a total of over 1000 citatons in other scientific publications and the most-cited articles got 379, 165, and 152 citations. Could somebody get rid of that horrible photo?? Aryticle definitely could be improved upon.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusio (talk • contribs) 13:07, 29 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. Hut 8.5 13:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Gloria Road[edit]

This road seems to have little notability. It's not a highway or anything, it just seems to be a road that connects a couple of other roads. It doesn't even seem to be mentioned in the articles of the two highways it connects. In addition, the article lacks any reliable sources or sources at all. Metros (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; The road might have some distinguishing feature or local purpose, but it's considerably nn Ikasu (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable road. Highways and major thoroughfares are notable, but local shortcuts are less so. Lankiveil (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 13:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is mentioned in U.S. Route 101 in California at exit 310; it doesn't look notable though. --NE2 13:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, didn't notice that because it's one of several hundred exits on the highway. Plus, I was searching in the article for "La Gloria" and the article just lists it as "Gloria Road". Metros (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a very nonnotable (dirt!) road. Nyttend (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the road in question does not have any possible reliable sources other than current maps to establish notability, it is not notable. Delete 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:36, 24 December 2007 (GMT)
Delete, nothing more than a generic local dirt road in rural California. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete re above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a dirt road for crying out loud. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. I love the inherent irony of the statement "well maintained dirt road". --Son (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:15, 27 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 already speedy deleted as CSD A7. Non admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c

The Lego Movie[edit]

Very WP:CRYSTALly. No reliable sources provided. "The LEGO movie" -wikipedia -youtube -blog gets 48 Ghits, most of which seem to be video-sharing sites similar to YouTube. sho y 03:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:CRYSTAL. JPG-GR (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, removing everything that is WP:CRYSTAL would leave not very much at all. Lankiveil (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dougie WII (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Kids mucking around. WWGB (talk) 08:34, 22 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. Wizardman 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. N. Other[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not worth an individual article. Delete, or merge and redirect to placeholder name. Full of original research, and dicdef-ish. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pseudonym or similar; no notability for this particular one, it seems to me (cf. Anon E. Mouse). JJL (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or smerge, but I wouldn't say that it's a non-notable -- it's actually quite common and would definitely be a good example of an anonymous pseudonym in the Pseudonymity article.Ikasu (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, a notable pseudonym, but a lot of this article is not verifiable or original research. The bit about the F1 driver should also be merged if it hasn't been already. Lankiveil (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So there aren't enough references in the article for you but you also want to get rid of one of references as well? Nick mallory (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirection to Placeholder name does not require deletion which is all we are here for. Also I suspect national bias against British usage - see the similar John Doe to which this article might aspire. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common expression in Britain. There are more than 20 similar names in this category and A.N. Other is certainly one of the least obscure names. If this gets merged to 'placeholder name' then why not merge "John Doe" too? Finding sources for it seems hard because search engines won't differentiate between "AN Other' and 'an other'. Anyone know a way round this? Nick mallory (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick Mallory. STORMTRACKER 94 13:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; topic has enough popular usage, and article has enough content, that it can stand separately from pseudonym and placeholder name. -Sean Curtin (talk) 07:33, 26 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 Emmerdale. Hut 8.5 13:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britt Woods[edit]

Non-notable TV character. Epbr123 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emmerdale (nn character). JJL (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JJL. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no indication that this character is notable in the wider world outside of her television programme. Lankiveil (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect per above. STORMTRACKER 94 13:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Macy's 123 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all above. --Lockley (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. TGreenburgPR (talk) 16:16, 27 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 Self-close. I misspelled the name when I did a Google search. My apologies. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Bicchieri[edit]

Non-notable university professor. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should do a better job of explaining why she's notable, but her curriculum vitae (named professor at a top university, three editorial boards, six books, many articles) and 168 citations to "bicchieri, cristina" on Google scholar all point to an individual who meets WP:PROF. BRMo (talk) 02:34, 22 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. Hut 8.5 13:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Site5[edit]

Non-notable web host. Article reads like an advertisement and has no secondary sources. Fails WP:V and WP:Corp. BJ^Talk 02:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like advertisement. Has no secondary sources. Chris! _ct 02:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete non notable company with no independent sourcing. Nuttah (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 13:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no particularly noteworthy claims. Pharmboy (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no outside sources to support this article. PrestonH 22:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Jjohan35 added this to my reason for deletion "All criticisms get deleted every month." BJ^Talk 02:53, 24 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.

Grant Bond (cartoonist)[edit]

The result was a non-admin WP:SNOWBALL close as a keep, with notability having been established under WP:BIO and consensus endorsing such. SorryGuy Talk 08:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor and non-notable comic book artist. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep minimal notability...very minimal. But, several covers and a movie adaptation [3] and an apparent fan base at his forum...merits keeping. JJL (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've some reviews for comics he drew. This one isn't exactly glowing, but then this one is a little better. Incidentally, both are at the bottom of the page. He also seems to have been a guest at a comic convention. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thank you for taking the time to investigate my notability. please visit my forum and find news threads on all my comics in the news forum. you have selected very obscure reviews. there are much more notable reviews from much more notable people. [4]. Grant Bond —Preceding comment was added at 08:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has notability and plenty of ghits. STORMTRACKER 94 13:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 18:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has sufficient notability under WP:BIO but the myspace cite is questionable. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:35, 23 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 proposed move can be discussed on the talk page. Bduke (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean De Benedictis[edit]

Non-notable minor musician. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried searching for both Dean De Benedictis and Surface 10, and I got a handful of results, but none of them notable. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
undefined per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 13:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surprisingly (to me) he's notable. Numerous releases on notable label (Cleopatra), has its own WP entry, huge part of the LA punk/goth scene. Note that the article consistently calls the label Hypontic/Cleopatra, I'm almost certain it should be Hypnotic instead. Subject was the featured artist during the second half hour of the Echoes program, which is distributed nationally [[5]]. Also was nominated for an Emmy for one of his compositions way back in 1979 [[6]]. Xymmax (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Emmy nomination and radio show, plus releases on Cleopatra, push him into notability territory. 23skidoo (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and move to Surface 10. His performing name gets more hits than his actual name. There's no page for Greg Gillis, but there is one as Girl Talk, his stage name. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:47, 27 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. Hut 8.5 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Lomax[edit]

The subject (a young child) doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The only argument for subject's notability is that he pitched in the Little League World Series (an international baseball tournament of teams for children ages 11 through 13). Although the tournament generates considerable media coverage, coverage of him and other players in the tournament is incidental to the overall reporting on the games and should be classified as "trivial" according to WP:BIO. Because the subject's only claim to notability is one event that already is covered in its own article (Results of the 2007 Little League World Series), this is the type of article that is discouraged by WP:BIO1E. Furthermore, several hundred children participate in the Little League World Series each year. Permitting articles on each of them is not a direction that Wikipedia should allow given the concerns about WP:BLP. BRMo (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. A kid that happens to be on a successful Little League team does not inherit that team's notability. There are no articles on the teams - why would there be an article for a particular member of the team? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little Leaguers don't need articles. That would open a huge can of worms. If they get to the majors, then they'll get articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable kid. Yes he competed in a tournament, but that's about it. TJ Spyke 04:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no way. Under 19 cricketers who represent their countries in youth test matches aren't held to be notable unless they've played first class cricket so little league players of 12 can't possibly be notable in their own right. Nick mallory (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't know if this matters or not; but the articles was the only edit made by it's creater (and that was back on December 8). TJ Spyke 07:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls a long way short of notability. Nuttah (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nn baseball player, fails WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 13:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, based solely on lack of significant coverage. The Lake Oswego paper is a small town paper -- this type of paper (I subscribe to two and read their sports sections every day) will give significant coverage to every member of any Little League team, because the parents will buy lots of papers. The mlb.com article is only a passing mention. Other sources I've found online only mention him in relation to the new pitch count rules, which affected a number of pitchers. If someone can come up with significant coverage, I'll happily changed to keep.--Fabrictramp

(talk) 14:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely nn docboat (talk) 14:29, 22 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 Excalibur (comics)#Excalibur vol. 2 (2001). Addhoc (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadband (comics)[edit]

Non-notable, minor fictional character. Ravenna1961 (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for insufficient notability. Doczilla (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into ~~Genosha~~ (merge into Excalibur (comics)#Excalibur vol. 2 (2001) instead - wasn't sure where it should go at first - BOZ (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)). BOZ (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 13:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Excalibur (comics)#Excalibur vol. 2 (2001) per policy, style and guidance. Hiding T 15:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Excalibur (comics) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 06:21, 24 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 Excalibur (comics)#Excalibur vol. 3 (2004). Addhoc (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purge (comics)[edit]

Non-notable, minor fictional character. Ravenna1961 (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into ~~Genosha~~ (agree with NickPengiun instead - wasn't sure where it should go - BOZ (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)). BOZ (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. But Excalibur (comics)#Excalibur vol. 3 (2004) seems like a much better place to redirect to. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nn comic book character. STORMTRACKER 94 13:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Excalibur (comics)#Excalibur vol. 3 (2004) per policy, style and guidance. Hiding T 16:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Excalibur (comics) as per Nick Penguin and Hiding. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:30, 23 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 recreated as dab page for the name. Someone may wish to create Irina (comics) as a redirect; I think it is an unlikely search term. BLACKKITE 23:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irina[edit]

Non-notable, minor fictional character. Ravenna1961 (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Xavier Institute student body. BOZ (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. STORMTRACKER 94 13:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Xavier Institute student body per policy, style and guidance. Hiding T 15:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not redirect, a common female given name. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Irina (comics), turn that page into a redirect, and then turn current page into a disambiguation page? (Or, more simply, just create Irina (comics) as a redirect, and turn the current page into a disambiguation page.) BOZ (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest disambiguation page: Irina is common Slavic female name, comics, Irina Palm etc. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And we don't need to create Irina (comics) as a redirect, that doesn't fit with guidance and policy. Just add a dab along the lines of 'Irina is a fictional character who has appeared in Marvel Comics as a member of the Xavier Institute student body. Hiding T 12:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as character has no real-world notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:54, 26 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 Excalibur (comics)#Excalibur vol. 2 (2001). Addhoc (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book (comics)[edit]

Speculation about a minor fictional character. Ravenna1961 (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into ~~Genosha~~ (agree with NickPengiun instead - wasn't sure where it should go - BOZ (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)). BOZ (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but redirect to Excalibur (comics)#Excalibur vol. 2 (2001). --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Excalibur (comics)#Excalibur vol. 2 (2001) per policy, style and guidance. Hiding T 16:32, 23 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 Big Hero 6. Addhoc (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baymax[edit]

Unreferenced minor fictional character. Ravenna1961 (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Big Hero 6. BOZ (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BOZ. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge and redirect per BOZ. Stephen Day (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Big Hero 6 per policy, style and guidance. Hiding T 16:31, 23 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☿ 19:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic past[edit]

Someone's essay unreferenced for long time. `'Míkka >t 01:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely OR in current form. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR Doc Strange (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, and I do not know whether the concept is already known under another name. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 15:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author can find some sources. Hint: use a service called google.com. Type in the words "tragic past". Look for books and articles that discuss what you've observed. Tell us about it. Mandsford (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blanchardb. The concept is interesting, although perhaps there is a better name for it, but the current article is just original research with no citations. Pharmboy (talk) 21:46, 22 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 Xavier Institute student body. Addhoc (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longneck (Marvel comics)[edit]

Largely WP:OR about a short-lived minor fictional character. Ravenna1961 (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Xavier Institute student body. BOZ (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Xavier Institute student body per policy, style and guidance. Hiding T 16:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Xavier Institute student body. Also, the redirect Longneck (comics) is for the same character. It points to List of X-Men teams#Planet_X_Street_Team. And, the first "C" in "Marvel comics" should be capitalized in keeping with Wikipedia's naming conventions. --GentlemanGhost. (talk) 07:35, 24 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 Big Hero 6. Addhoc (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Lemon[edit]

Unreferenced minor fictional character. Even www.marvel.com doesn't have a separate page for this character. Ravenna1961 (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Big Hero 6. BOZ (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. JJL (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BOZ. Stephen Day (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Big Hero 6 per policy, style and guidance. Hiding T 16:31, 23 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. —dgies^t_c 16:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation security officer[edit]

It does not seem to me that there will ever be enough material to justify this as a separate article. Anything that might go in here can just as well be included in Transportation Security Administration. ColinFine (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the TSA article. BJ^Talk 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to TSA, not enough info for seperate article - Dumelow (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TSA. Addhoc (talk) 13:14, 29 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 Big Hero 6. Addhoc (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoGo Tomago[edit]

Unreferenced minor fictional character. Ravenna1961 (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Big Hero 6. BOZ (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per BOZ. Stephen Day (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Big Hero 6 per policy, style and guidance. Hiding T 16:30, 23 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 Big Hero 6. Addhoc (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiro Takachiho[edit]

Prod removed. Unreferenced minor fictional character. Ravenna1961 (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Big Hero 6. BOZ (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per BOZ. Stephen Day (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Big Hero 6 per policy, style and guidance. Hiding T 16:30, 23 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 (G4) and salt; pure WP:CRYSTAL, and already deleted as such. — Coren ^(talk) 01:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan's Third Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Crystal ball, Perezhilton as source, just deleted last week in slightly different form Kww (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Crystal. BJ^Talk 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery, and possibly a dash of salt too, at least until a couple reliable sources can confirm the info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:48, 22 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 Sexi and keep Mixi. Pigman☿ 19:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexi (sexual networking site)[edit]

This has been needing citations and notability establishment far too long. Some 3rd party coverage is needed here. While it has a vague claim to notability of 1.5 million users, that doesn't meet WP:WEB. I'm also nominating Mixi because its existed even longer without an establishment of notability. Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sexi and Keep Mixi. Sexi is definitely non-notable, while Mixi has an independent source claiming that it is the largest social network in Japan. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 15:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't even claim that Sexi is notable, just describes the site. Mixi *may* be notable, but nothing in the article makes that claim and no citations are listed that show independent coverage. Someone might want to add them fast if they exist. Pharmboy (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sexi and Keep Mixi. Mixi is a huge site, and there are Wiki articles for it in five other languages, including Japanese. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:50, 27 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. Keilana_(recall) 21:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netfirms[edit]

Non-notable web hosting company. No secondary sources provided other than being ICANN accredited. Fails WP:V and WP:CORP. BJ^Talk 00:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That the sources are not provided by the editor is not grounds for deletion if those sources do exist. It's when the sources cannot be found that we delete an article. By Googling "Netfirms Web Hosting", I found this sponsored link (yet independent of Netfirms). --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 04:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How does the source you provided show notability? 1000's of web hosts are listed and reviewed on the internet. How is this host notable? BJ^Talk 06:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Marked 9th most valuable, by an independent evaluator that took the time it takes to evaluate it. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No links that show actual notability. They prove that the company EXISTS, but that isn't enough to pass the sniff test. Pharmboy (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Pharmboy. I'm skeptical on its notability. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The link provided by Addhoc, and the subsequnt citation to Forbes in the article, is a good assertion of notability. Pastordavid (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All the sources shown by Addhoc, including the Forbes "article" are just press releases and therefore do not demonstrate notability. The NYTimes reference is just a trivial mention. —dgies^t_c 20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've replaced the Forbes citation - I didn't notice this was a press release. Addhoc (talk) 21:11, 29 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 (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sitesled[edit]

Article is contentless stub that is a short description of services provided. No sources provided in the article. Fails WP:V and WP:CORP. BJ^Talk 00:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert for a non notable company. Nuttah (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. docboat (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - it's not overwhelmingly advert-like, however there is a lack of a good number of reliable sources, verifying the claims. May also fail business guidelines as stated in the nomination. Rt. 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this passes corp either, and no assertion of notability exists. I would have tried to speedy it if I had found it first. Pharmboy (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to be an advert for a company that seems non-notable. Jhfireboy Talk 22:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an advertisement (spam) plain and simple. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:38, 23 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 Fathom Five (comics).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodtide (comics)[edit]

Minor comic book character. She is a member of Fathom Five a team that briefly appeared in late 2004 and early 2005. This group hasn't appeared since. Its debatable if the group itself is notable, but the individual members certainly aren't notable enough to be given their own separate articles Stephen Day (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Fathom Five (comics). BOZ (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. JJL (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BOZ. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Fathom Five (comics) per policy, style and guidance. Hiding T 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Fathom Five (comics). --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:50, 23 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.