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

The result was Redirect to List of Sex and the City episodes. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution (SATC episode)[edit]

Evolution (SATC episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT. Article on an unnotable Sex and the City episode that simply gives the episode plot. Has been tagged for notability issues for over a month and for clean up for two months without any attempt to address the issues. Merge unneeded as list of already provides an episode summary along with director and writer. Failed PROD. Collectonian (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for failing WP:EPISODE. I guess some reviews could be dug up for Sex and the City as a quite popular show, so there might be some real-world information somewhere, but notability is not demonstrated, so the article shouldn't exist, especially after one month of tagging. Waiting for WP:HEY. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Sex and the City episodes. No notable content per WP:EPISODE.Obina (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:EPISODE and please "avoid listing episodes for AfD". DHowell (talk) 06:48, 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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Preparatory Academy[edit]

Utah Preparatory Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is written like an advertisement (content appears to be directly from school's promotional materials) and does not assert topic's importance/notability. (Indeed, it doesn't even actually say that it's a school.) In a quick web search, I failed to find any evidence of notability. I don't think the school merits an article. If it does merit an article, a completely new article needs to be written. Orlady (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Orlady (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for deletion. The Boys Ranch is a subsidiary of the Academy. The article about the boys ranch has essentially the same issues (in fact, it has much of the same content) as the Academy article:

Utah Preparatory Academy Boys Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Orlady (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I... fixed it up. In 5 minutes. You could have done that. Yeah, you. Keep. Fresheneesz (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• holy crap it's not a school after all-then what makes it notable, Fresheneesz? Wikipedia is not a directory of rehab joints. Delete as nonnotable. Chris (クリス) (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable rehab facility. Keep it civil everyone. --Smashville^BONK! 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 29 Google hits, out of which I couldn't find enough reliable, independent sources to create a neutral article out of. No Google News hits. No Google News Archives hits. If it could be shown that adequate sources are out there, I'd change my mind. Noroton (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:37, 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.

NOTE The closing of the above AfD is incomplete. The second school co-nommed has not been dispositioned. A message has been left for the closing admin to remedy this. Before closing-out and archiving the associated log, please ensure this other school is properly dispositioned or relisted. The article still bears the AFD notice which references this discussion page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• closing for this AFD has been modified to delete both by the original closer. Second article has been deleted. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete--Tone 14:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makoa combatives[edit]

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

Non-notable martial art. Created by a User with a conflict of interest. Has been speedied once before. Creator keeps removing the speedy tag, and now my speedy tag has been removed by another editor for what I consider uninformed opinion, so here we are. 7 Google hits. Corvus cornix_talk 18:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I removed the speedy tag because it was incorrectly used, the tag read " Speedy concern: It is an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Now since when has a martial arts system been a real person? As far as I can tell this article is not legitimately covered by any of the CSD criterion, and AfD is the correct venue. RMHED (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • db-nn is supposed to apply to all non-notable events, organizations, companies, products, etc. I can't help it that the wording of the tag isn't correct, I used the correct tag. Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template got changed - I have reverted it - [2]. Corvus cornix_talk 21:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as being about something which lacks third-party sources unless any care to be provided.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Beginning with "rare and little known" is a dead giveaway to NN. SkierRMH (talk) 22:16, 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 Delete. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film)[edit]

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The notability guidelines for future films stipulates that a stand-alone article should not be created until a project enters production. (This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project.) Also, the so-called 2009 release date is not confirmed; it is likely an estimated release year by IMDb, which frequently does so for announced projects. In line with the process found at WP:FUTFILM, there is sufficient detail found at the source material's article, so no information is lost. The film article can be recreated if production begins, and The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (1947 film) should be moved to The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (film) without the 21st century film article set in stone. Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restore former naming as above. There is nothing, nada, zilch in Google News Archive since Myers was attached to the project in May, which is exactly where it was when previous stars were attached. Could be in D-Hell forever. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:FUTFILM, etc. We are not a directory of films in development. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the notability guidelines for films; should the project enter production, the article can be recreated. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 08:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it probably won't get made in 2009. Alientraveller (talk) 19:16, 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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Kreüger[edit]

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

Work as teacher or as consulting engineer is not notable enough to warrant a seperate article. No detail and/or references provided about what are his important contributions to ventilation and isolation. May warrant a mention in article of his cousin Ivar Kreuger, but nothing else of note here. -xC- 18:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory of historical persons, even if they have had their lives taken note of in trivial detail by reliable sources. But I don't really know.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as "head master" of RIT seems to be the equivalent of college/university president. We don't seem to have articles on any of these (I didn't check them all), though, but then WP:CSB suggests we might want to account for more limited non-English sources online and for a pre-WWII topic. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I think head of KTH (think Sweden's MIT) passes WP:PROF, Here's the list of heads of KTH (in swedish, cannot find equivalent page in English). Also, he was structural engineer on the radio towers at a UNESCO world heritage site transmitter station [3], [4] [5]. This is mentioned prominently in the bio on wp:sv, but not in this wp:en version. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep; head of a major Swedish university seems to be a notable position. I would say that people who have had their lives take note of in trivial detail by reliable sources are exactly the type of people that deserve Wikipedia articles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep Fails (verifiable) WP:BIO. That needs to be fixed. School head is not notable per se. "Contributions" are unsourced and fail WP:V. That needs to be fixed. (changing as I missed the importance of the school and of the position but the WP:V issues need addressing 16:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)) --Alfadog (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's not verifiable? [6] is a better source than I've seen for a lot of these articles. Susan Hockfield has an article, and if KTH=MIT, I don't think she's any more notable than Henrik is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, assuming that I have any clue as to what that says, where is the link to that in the article? If something is not sourced properly in the article, then it fails WP:V. And, whether a foreign language citation in the English-language Wikipedia meets WP:V would make for an interesting discussion. Perhaps that question has already been solved, IDK. As regards the other article, please see WP:WAX. --Alfadog (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it has. WP:RSUE. I would might interpret that as meaning that unless a translation is provided, along with a citation of the original source, the citation fails may fail WP:V. The policy is not worded as well as it should be to clarify what is required of foreign-language sources. --Alfadog (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I read as saying that English-language sources are preferred to non-English sources, if equivalent quality sources can be found, and providing certain requirements if a quote is used in an article. That's all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly." does not relate solely to quotes and that section implies that a translation is available. As I said, not clearly worded. --Alfadog (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Pete Hurd. The president of a major university in Sweden is undoubtedly notable. I have cleaned up the article a little bit and added a reference that Pete mentioned. I have replaced "headmaster" with "president", as that seems a more appropriate translation of the Swedish "föreståndare". Perhaps the creator or somebody else could complete the refence to the "Swedish National Encyklopedia" and make clear what it actually references? --Crusio (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I fixed the reference to the "Swedish National Encyklopedia" and added the older reference to Nordisk familjebok linked by User:Prosfilaes. The author of this page, User:Lidingo, has not worked on Wikipedia since the 23rd, and is probably away for the holidays. Olaus (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, without doubt. I must admit Alfadog's reading of WP:RSUE sounds quite strange to me, and in all these years has never even touched my mind, and not only mine, as it's been often discussed and quoted.--Aldux (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as there is a clear consensus that any neutrality and/or accuracy problems with this article are amenable to editorial resolution. John254 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal intoxicants[edit]

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

This article will always be either biased, or inaccurate because of the variation among jurisdictions as to what constitutes an illegal drug. Aware of the problem of disparity, an editor has almost amusingly tried to repair it with the tendentious claim in the introduction that the UN's Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is to be used as the universal definition of legality for intoxicants. The article excludes the possibility that all intoxicating substances could be ruled illegal on the basis of effect rather than identity, as is the case in some conservative Islamic states, rendering "legal intoxicants" an oxymoron. There's also the trouble of the Federal Analog Act and others like it that by virtue of their ambiguous glob on the category of chemical species confuse the issue to the point where it's impossible to declare any substance entirely immune from legal attack. This is not a theoretical fault, because there have already been prosecutions for 2C-I which is listed on the page. There's also the issue that the indigenous cultures that use the plant based hallucinogens on this list would object to their characterization as intoxicants which can be read narrowly as substances producing a kind of drunkenness. Characterizing these materials of religious import as such adds a taste of cultural bias to the ripening stew. This article has been tagged by another editor as missing citations since June. deranged bulbasaur 18:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the definition is from the what the UN considers legal there should be no isue re differing jurisdictions, not sure what Dernged finds amusing in that, and indeed its the first afd reasoning i have seent hat manages to include an attack against another editor, and for actually trying to make the article better. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valid encyclopedic subject. It may need cleanup, more citations, neutrality checking, but that doesn't require deletion.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to actually address any of my concerns? I wrote quite extensively about why this isn't an appropriate encyclopedic topic, but I can't argue my case against a mere assertion. deranged bulbasaur 22:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have always had concerns about the article; it has potentital to deviate from the individual articles as material (both useful and not so much) is added here rather than to the individual articles. Perhaps it would be better as a List of legal intoxicants, or, more accurately, List of intoxicants and psychoactives not included in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. As long as the article exists, I'll watch it for vandalism, linkspam, and such, but if it went away, I wouldn't be perturbed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The nominator's concerns about bias are noted, but this is absolutely not an indication of any violated policy of Wikipedia. The first sentence, "Legal intoxicants are intoxicating drugs which are not prohibited by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and which people who are seeking intoxication by legal methods use," is certainly beyond controversy, and an encyclopedic discussion of it, if backed by enough reliable sources supporting different views, is the essence of how an article grows and improves. Problems with content do not constitute a reason to delete topics, they indicate that these articles require more care than something about a socially or emotionally neutral one. ◄Zahakiel► 23:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a difference between saying that the article's present content is biased, which thing I have not said, though I think it true, and saying that it's impossible to give neutral coverage to this topic because a bias inheres in it. Everything you said about content problems not being a reason for deletion is completely true and completely irrelevant. Your assertion that the statement "Legal intoxicants are intoxicating drugs which are not prohibited by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" is without controversy astounds me to the point that I don't know how to respond. deranged bulbasaur 23:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... no. Let's take a look-see at that statement, "Everything you said about content problems not being a reason for deletion is completely true and completely irrelevant." Well, we are talking about content problems (you haven't objected to anything else except content, and it looks like you're also talking about potential content, which you don't think can be presented in an unbiased manner) and this is a deletion discussion, so no, it's not irrelevant that "content problems are not a reason for deletion." I'm going to stand by that statement, which seems pretty obvious to me. The line I quoted from the article is beyond controversy because it describes intoxicants that are legal. Since the article is actually about legal intoxicants, it's almost a truism. ◄Zahakiel► 02:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

snowball keep- nominator has been talking erm... not been convincing.:) If there are holes in the article as it stands (which is yet to be proven) fix them. It's not an impossible article. Merkinsmum 00:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's cute how you say I've been talking bullshit without actually saying it. I am the only one here who has actually made an argument. You certainly haven't made one. It must be opposite day and I didn't even know. deranged bulbasaur 00:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems that I am forced to argue against potential articles rather than this actual one, so I will dutifully argue against List of intoxicants and psychoactives not included in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Now, the convention includes no provision against analogs, so all the tryptamines and phenethylamines excepting the few enumerated chemicals in the convention would need to be added as "legal" under the convention even though they are effectively illegal in practically every signatory country. Already we see that should such an article actually stick to its topic, it would soon progress to an indiscriminate and unwieldy list, which could easily be anticipated by the fact that it's defined in terms of a negative. When listing things that are not among a specific finite set, the number of entities fitting the criteria can usually grow almost unbounded. The utility of such a list, given that it would not coincide with the actual law of any extant country, is small. There we hit on an even deeper problem, because UN "law" is not actually law, but a sort of meta-law that countries agree to implement. It does not directly prohibit anything, so the entire topic is without a solid basis. In implementing this convention, countries have exercised considerable latitude in interpretation. Should the list conform to the Dutch interpretation of the convention that does not prohibit fresh psilocybe mushrooms, or the interpretation of most other countries that it does? Should it conform to the U.S. Congressional interpretation that allows Native American peyote use? What about the recent Supreme Court interpretation that allows religious ayahuasca use? If something is allowed only for religious use, is it legal or illegal? deranged bulbasaur 00:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would say the big problem with the article is the title. We have an article on the differing legislative approaches to pornography that different countries have, and there is no reason we shouldn't have an equivalent article on psychoactive chemicals. This articles title presupposes that there are always legal intoxicants, and that there are always illegal intoxicants. Neither is true, universally; but that should not prevent an article being created on the different cultural approaches towards intoxicants, and their legality. The article should merely be appropriately named, which this isn't of course. I would note though, that though some cultures define the illegality by purpose rather than chemical content (such as islamic cultures which quite frequently have nothing against a cup of refreshing coffee) and some purport to do so (but still fail to allow purely ritual use of hallucinogens for instance, like the United States), there are very few cultures that don't define their relationship towards intoxicating chemicals in *some* way. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see where "bias" comes in. Its not biased to define "legal drugs" in a particular way. Bias is about opinion - and this article can certainly be non-biased in that way. As for the issue of the definition of legal drug, just say that if the drug is legal in anywhere notable, then its legal, and say where its legal - problem solved. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is biased to define "legal drugs" in a way that does not congrue with the actual meaning of the words "legal drugs." Taking the topic as legal drugs and then defining legal drugs in terms of a specific document that is just a template for some drugs that should be in theory prohibited among some countries effectively incorporates a fallacy of arbitrary redefinition into the substrate of the article. As for your problem solving proposition, while I commend you for actually offering a solution, your article would be an indiscriminate list for the same reasons I listed in my above comment. It would be populated with an inordinate number of drugs whose legal status is effectively indeterminate for the reasons I gave in my nomination (analog act &c.) There's no way to resolve this emulsion to give drugs that are truly and certainly "legal" in a great many jurisdictions. deranged bulbasaur 02:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article was originally called Legal drugs. The current title of Legal intoxicants is not an improvement because it is too narrow. Much of this article's material is covered by Prohibition (drugs) and Recreational drug use. What's really needed is an overall approach such as a project. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aspirin is legal drug, as is acetaminophen, phenylephrine, and omeprazole. It was in part for such obviosities as this that the name was changed. Until there is some clarity in what the article is about (even if we all agree that it should be Things you can get high on without going to jail in some countries), it will always be a source of controversy.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete everything in excess becomes intoxicating.. even water.. and it's perfectly legal.. this is a never ending story.. eating raw poultry too.. --Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 02:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you mean anything in excess can become dangerous, or poisonous. I don't know anyone who would become "intoxicated" in the standard use of that word, by too much water or raw poultry, but it could certainly kill them under the right (wrong) conditions. If you very loosely define an intoxicant as any substance that can alter brain function then an anvil dropped on a person's head or a dose of cyanide is an intoxicant also :) There's a discriminate enough definition that I think an article about those not regulated by law can be sustained. ◄Zahakiel► 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep valid and genuine encyclopedic subject. Article needs improvement and editing.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to actually give reasons for that in light of what has already been said? I've given several reasons that this is not the case, and they've all gone unopposed so far. Penny for your thoughts? deranged bulbasaur 15:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Article needs improvement and exrensive re-editing for POV checking and more reference should be given, not deletion.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but change to 'Legal intoxicants by country' or something similar to make it clear that no drug is legal in all countries, and that which is legal in one is not necessarily legal in another. This is a clear example of an article which desperately needs more of a worldwide view. (Perhaps the name should be changed to something like 'List of commonly legal intoxicants'.) Terraxos (talk) 19:55, 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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Babikan[edit]

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

This article was prodded, with the reason "Non notable, no reliable sources." The problems with finding reliable sources were probably due to a typo in the name of the article: Babikian instead of Babikan. Robert Babikan has raced in a number of racing classes, such as the British GT Championship and the European Le Mans Series. I am bringing this discussion to AFD, to decide on whether racing in such classes constitutes notability. Procedural nomination, no opinion. Aecis·(away) ^talk 17:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - From my search of results, he ran British GT in 2000 (22nd in the championship), 1 race in 2001, and 1 race in the European Le Mans Series in 2001. No wins, nothing to really make him notable as a driver. The359 (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a one sentence article it should be deleted, probably near speedy limits as WP:CSD#A1 (no context). That being said, he raced in several quite notable series. Even though he had only a few total races in those series, the criteria needed to satisfy the sanctioning bodies in those series probably make him notable. So my opinion is that starting in just a few races in these internationally well-known series make him inherently notable. This discussion is about his ability to be notable, not the cleanliness and size of the article. Royalbroil 02:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO, no assertion of notability and, all due respect to the previous, I am not inclined to assume that he is notable because he started notable races. --Alfadog (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: According to this site, he won the British Porsche Carrera in 1996. Would that make Babikan notable? It's just a national one-make series. --Pc13 (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not for me. And as far as the "Le Mans" racing, that was not the 24 Hours of Le Mans, it was a short-lived series that bore the name in which he raced a GT car (lowest class on the track) as, I think, a privateer. Little notability there. --Alfadog (talk) 18:59, 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 non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webb Miller[edit]

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

This article asserts notability but doesn't really show it. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails notability tests such as WP:PROF. Like most college lecturers, has written one or 2 things, but not broken out from the norm.Obina (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable for BLAST. Seems a frequent collaborator and co-author with Eugene Myers. I added some titles to the article. I would say that he meets the barest threshold of WP:BIO. --Alfadog (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A Google scholar search shows, besides a truly ridiculous number of citations to BLAST, many other highly cited works. This is a level of academic impact well above the average professor and I think should be enough to pass WP:PROF #3 and #4. He has also received recent popular press attention (including in National Geographic and the Times of India) for some research involving mammoth DNA, and a broader search finds newspaper coverage of some of his other research as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Without having to do anything other than read the article as it stands, I note that BLAST is highly, highly notable--what percentage of biologists today use it? It's astoundingly high, I'm sure. Moreover a regular collaborator with Gene Myers is likely notable. --Lquilter (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even someone who's in the least prestigious spot on the list of BLAST authors is notable without any doubt. --Crusio (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Crusio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:26, 30 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. I'd like to urge participants of the debate to flesh out the merger proposition at the talk page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter newspapers and magazines[edit]

Harry Potter newspapers and magazines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page describes a fictional topic without any real world context or information - it is effectively a plot summary for a specific part of series of books. It has been decided by consensus and put into policy that articles of this type should not be included in Wikipedia even if they meet standards of verifiability and notability - see WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:DEL#REASON (second reason on the list). I do not think that the information and sourcing required to bring the article up to standard - by basing it around real world information such as the development, reaction and critical analysis of the fictional concept - exists at this point in time. Guest9999 (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep adequate notability at this point thanks to the movies as well as the books. JJL (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - General consensus is that notability is not inherited (links to an essay), I believe (having not actually been a participant in any of the discussions) that the issue has come up several times in the past and in each instance inherited notability has been rejected by the community. Also since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it has been decided by consensus that certain types of article - such as detailed plot summaries - are not suitable for an encyclopaedia. [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment The introduction is currently very short, but that is where notability and tying into all other HP articles is established. Perhaps it just needs some expansion. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 22:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the last deletion went to deletion review and was overturned due to the real world notability and significance being clearly established. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason was given for the deletion review decision by the closing adim and I would dispute your interpretation. The main points brought up during deletion review were that there was no consensus to delete in the original AfD and that several arguements for deletion simply stated there were no sources - which was incorrect as sources were found during the course of the debate - both of these reasons were perfectly valid. [[Guest9999 (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Personally I still do not think that the topic is notable (due to lack of significant coverage by independent secondary sources) but my main point in nomination was that the article is effectively just a detailed plot summary - which are specificly excluded by policy; also note consennsus can change. [[Guest9999 (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

• Keep I know lots of people use Wiki to write fanfiction, and I know I do. Deleting this would hurt the poeple who want to learn and use this to make their fanfic factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.204.26 (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely people writing fanfiction will have read the books, there is nothing in in this article that is not in the books. If you didn't know already, there is a Harry Potter Wiki [7] which would probably be a better source for any fanfiction you want to write as its content is not limited by such things as notability or the requirement for real world information. It is - likely - compiled and edited by people who have a great interest in and are big fans of Harry Potter who are probably more in touch with the needs of a fanfiction writer than the general Wikipedian. [[Guest9999 (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

• Delete, still fancruft with no real world notability. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and notability is not inherited. --Coredesat 10:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Harry Potter universe. Despite the real-world sources, there is no real-world content, but I can see why some of the content in this article would be of interest. Yes, Harry Potter universe is already long, but the answer is to trim the unnecessary stuff, not expand the plot into new articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I don't think the article has enough content in it to justify separation from the main universe article. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. Insufficient real-world context for an independent article and smacks of fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What about merging into Fictional books? Lord Opeth (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it concerns a memorable aspect of the film, the article is presented in a discriminate manner, and the article contains references. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment every article descriminates (apart from List of Everything) - not a reason to keep. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Therefore, calling this article "indiscriminate" is inaccurate and not a reason to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think anyone has called the article indiscriminate - what people have refered to is the policy WP:NOT#INFO, which states Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection fo information. Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of all information, it is an encyclopaedia and so discriminates in it's content; therefore sometimes even if content may meet standards of [[WP:V|verifyability] and notability (which I do not think this article does) it is deemed not suitable for inclusion. It is essentially a counterpoint to WP:NOT#PAPER: Wikipedia could potentially be about anything but is not. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • If Wikipedia is established with the goal to "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge", then we can and should be more open-minded with our content than any other encyclopedia. Some think Wikipedia should be a collection of as much factually accurate information as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that some - maybe even a large proportion of Wikipedians - agree with that view, however current policy goes against it (with WP:NOT#INFO and other inclusion criteria) and policy is meant to represent the consensus of the community as a whole (if such a thing actually ever exists). [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

• Those pages are also edited practically daily and we also have an ignore all rules policy. Regarding consensus, if a page is deleted and consensus changes to keep it, it is much easier to just leave the article or redirect/merge without deleting so that when consensus does change everyone doesn't have to start over from scratch. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but in that case why delete any article as consensus can always change. If the consensus is that an article shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia now then it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia now. If consensus does then change, deleted information can be retreived by an admin if it is deemed appropriate. Leaving the history just allows users - who often aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidlines - to go against consensus and spend time creating articles that will be speedy deleted (G4). [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

• Truthfully, we probably should not delete any article that is not libelous or a hoax as the community clearly does not have a consensus on what is and is not "encylopedic." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you then say that the many current policies and guidelines which deal with inclusion criteria (such as WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NN, WP:OR) are not supported by the consensus of the community? [[Guest9999 (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

• To some extent, I think it is accurate to say that a sizable segment of our contributors are not entirely in agreement on those policies as their talk pages and edit histories would suggest. Clearly there is no firm consensus on what is and is not notable or what Wikipedia should or should not be, as these clarifications are debated almost constantly. Consider the last couple of weeks of edits to the NOT article. If you look in the edit summaries, you'll see, "rv, it is not an attempt to slant anything, thanks for the assumption of good faith. it's a statement of the way things are," "rv policy alteration with no consensus nor discussion," "you might want to discuss and seek a consensus for that edit," "people keep getting this wrong," etc. With all those reverts, how can I even cite that article as policy, considering that the time at which I might cite it might look notably different than it will a couple of hours and edits later? Thus, we should err on the side of not discouraging or turning off good faith editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the reality is that whatever happens to the policies and guidelines a significant proportion of the community is not going to be happy. If the issue persists the result could well be some kind of schism or exodus from the project. [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

• Well, I definitely agree with you there. By the way, I might not be able to reply again for the next few hours as I am thinking of getting the PPV for UFC 79 to watch with my dad. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per User:Sgeureka. Luckystars (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-Just needs some work that's all. Sources and what not can come if it is worked on. H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One thing this article is not is a "detailed plot summary". The subject runs through the entire series, and a detailed plot summary of that would be about 60 timers longer than this article. Even the briefest possible plot summary would be longer than this article. When WP:NOT says "plot" it should br read literally. plot, characters, setting, are all separate elements of fiction. And I dont see what indiscriminate has to do with it--this is about something very specific things, and the more important received the greater coverage. If we started covering all the magazines invented in fan fiction that might be open to reasonable objection. DGG (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As stated above, the policy in qestion (WP:NOT#INFO states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection if information" as "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". The policy is not meant to refer to the topics of individual articles, all topics (apart from List of Everything discriminate information to some extent, making the idea almost meaningless. [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

• Keep, agree with DGG, appears to be a misunderstanding of WP:NOT.--Aldux (talk) 14:25, 30 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) 00:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O. Richard Bundy[edit]

O. Richard Bundy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this "music" academic truly notable? This article has been AfD'ed once before in December 2005, and was kept as "no consensus" despite a majority of "delete"s. I still don't think this article shows notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The Penn State Blue Band seems on the right side of notability, and the current director would probably be notable by default. StaticElectric (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I disagree that notability is inherited as StaticElectric is suggesting. I don't see this passing WP:PROF, I'm willing to be swayed on him passing WP:MUSIC, I'll watch for further debate. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep if the band he conducts is sufficiently notable. I do think in this case the guy who runs the thing has notability. DGG (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Seems notable for his field, given Penn State's size and all. MBisanz 10:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep per StaticElectric. --VS ^talk 22:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a complete failure to meet any of the notability standards; conducting a notable band doesn't make one notable. There is also a failure to meet the policy requirement of WP:V for much of the article content considering the lack of all sources. TerriersFan (talk) 22:45, 31 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--Tone 14:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organisms that are dangerous to humans[edit]

Organisms that are dangerous to humans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is highly indiscriminate and vague. It is woefully incomplete and has little hope of ever reaching completion. It purports to list, among other things, all animals that have been known to injure humans in self-defense. Practically all animals, even docile ones, have some instinct of self-preservation that will make them lash out at an attacker. It is hard for me to conjure an example of an animal that either does not lash out at an aggressor, or that completely lacks the means wherewith to cause some injury to man. Any such pathetic creature would be evolutionarily disadvantaged to the point of preclusion from existence. Even promising examples like small frogs or caterpillars will usually contain at least a mild toxin or have the capacity to bite, at least in theory. However, even if that would not make this voluminous enough, then we come to the plants. Most plants are toxic. Even when this toxicity does not rise to the level of notoriety or lethality, plants are known for their secondary metabolites which generally have structures (alkaloidal, for example) wherein some degree of pharmacological effect is almost inevitable. Even plants that are commonly eaten will usually have some part other than the edible one that contains a toxin. Issues of vagueness arise from consideration of whether allergens, such as peanuts, fall within purview of this list. There are also plants such as cycads that inherit some measure of toxicity from a symbiote (e.g. a cyanobacterium), raising yet another issue of vagueness. The same issues for plants also apply to fungi. Then we come to the microbes. Some of the microbes already listed are almost exclusively infective to those with compromised immune systems (e.g. Bacillus subtilis), being otherwise innocuous. Given that in cases such as AIDS even one's own healthy gut flora can cause infection, we come to the now familiar situation where it would be hard to exclude any organism from the list. In abstract, there's nothing wrong with simply drawing the line, but it's too involved an issue to be handled in a disinterested way for a topic as broad as this one. deranged bulbasaur 17:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Theoretically, any organism bigger than a dime could be dangerous to a human, if it got lodged in their esophagus and caused them to choke. Highly indiscriminate list. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

• Changing vote to wait until this article can be rewritten, since the creator seems motivated to redevelop it. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if completed the list would include pretty much every organism. [[Guest9999 (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
• Weak keep if converted to List of organisms which have been verified as having attacked humans which I feel would be the most encyclopedic and objective format for such a list (not necessarily at that exact page title, but with that concept). What do people make of this idea? It'd render the neutrality concerns moot.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even the rename suggested by HSR would have its inherent oddities. Given that, as pointed out, anything could kill a human, the list becomes pretty indiscriminate very quickly. Grutness...wha? 22:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a worthy, and possibly-workable, idea in there somewhere, but as it currently framed this list is too broadly defined. --Lockley (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, joke. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "List of..." or Categorize contents. Flibirigit (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seems to be a fair bit of work that went into this, and it's an interesting topic. I disagree that the majority of oganisms are dangerous to humans (dangerous = can do permanent harm / are life threatening in a normal interaction), there's plenty of organisms for whom we're simply not a typical predator so they don't need defense, or which use other tactics for survival.

Just because rabits can't kick a tiger's ass it dosen't mean they're extinct, there's also running, living in a different habitat, multiplying like well.. rabbits :D, you get the ideea. Maybe it should list organisms by number of fatalities per year or something so that we can eliminate the theoretical cases that never really happen and get a relevant picture. If there's an article like that already it could be merged/checked with that.--Helixdq (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I lol'd at this page. It is, for the reasons addressed above, clearly an indiscrimiate list. There might be something in shifting the page to a page of animals that are notoriously dangerous to humans, but how we would define that, I don't know. I believe the current form should be deleted, with the possibility of recreation with much more defined criteria. I (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I created the page a year or two ago because I thought it was a topic that interested people. Judging by the number of edits, I feel that was a fair assessment. Even though the definition of "dangerous to humans" is ambiguous, I don't think readers are at risk of being misled: anyone who is curious will link to the articles that interest them, on the various organisms. The key strength that Wikipedia has over Encylopaedia Britannica, other than its larger content, is its richness of linking and listing. The supposed consensus that Wikipedia is not a list is total pap: referencing and indexing and listing are all closely related, and they are how we humans organize knowledge. The real question is this: Does this article mislead or confuse readers or waste their time? No, the topic is relevant, and the article can be improved.Anthony717 (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I'm encouraged to respond constructively by altering the article's name and contents to comply with my original intent: Name, "Deadly organisms", and first paragraph, "This is a list of organisms that are known to kill humans. Inclusion on this list requires a certain notoriety, such as that gained from news reports; and each included organism must have repeatedly killed humans in a certain way. For the sake of inclusiveness, "organisms" includes viruses, in addition to animals, plants and others." The list would be drastically pared down, and inclusion of any contested organism would need to be defended by two references.Anthony717 (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm starting to think full keep now. It's an encyclopedic topic that needs cleanup, sourcing, etcetera, but not deletion.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, animal attack redirects here. We should have an encyclopedic article on the concept of the animal attack as suffered by the likes of Timothy Treadwell and Steve Irwin.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article is non-notable per WP:N, highly ambiguous and not supportable given the high number of potentially dangerous organisms to humans. Mh29255 (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I still stand by my nomination despite the rewrite. The new premise is better than the old one, but most of the original concerns still apply. I encourage everyone who's enthusiastic about the rewrite to take the time to actually read the nomination, since I spent considerable time developing my reasoning there. In fact, this list has the potential to be even more arbitrary in a sense, because basing it on number and severity of reported incidents will give undue weight to organisms with which humans have routine contact. Canis familiaris is bound to remain, even though fatal dog attack is unlikely from any given animal, simply because the dog is such a common creature. The peanut example from the nomination exemplifies the same problem. There are plenty of very toxic plants that are unlikely to produce fatalities simply because they are bitter tasting, but how many people have died from anaphylaxis due to peanut? deranged bulbasaur 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here are a few more problems with the new version from the top of my head: horse riding accidents, rabies and syphilis. Does the horse belong on the list? There are plenty of fatalities to choose from, many of which are the result of the horse's direct action (say, bucking the rider off ), still it doesn't sit right with me that an animal should be on a list of deadly organisms just because people fall off of it and die. Rabies has the potential to make just about any mammal deadly. Fatalities due to rabies (a horrible disease) are fortunately a thing of the past as far as I know, but historical occurrences are easy to come by. Syphilis is an example of a disease organism that has completely succumbed to antibiotic therapy, and there's little danger of missing the symptoms so that it goes untreated. Is a once dangerous organism still game even if it is not dangerous anymore? Anybody have a story of someone gored by an Aurochs? deranged bulbasaur 01:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Continuing to defend: I have made quite a few changes. The definition of "deadly" can be made very precise, and that by consensus. We could give a general minimum of about 100 proven deaths per organism, with allowances for a few notables. We could rule out most rabies vectors, except bats generally ("the bat"), since they include many otherwise non-deadly mammals, like raccoons. The total number of organisms is unlikely to exceed 250. Considering all the shows on cable television about sharks and the like, a "one stop" list for readers to link to other articles seems really useful. As for "what Wikipedia is not", Bah. If its educational, improve it or leave it. Anthony717 (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ooh, Ooh, I've got a perfect one. Mr. Hands. You can't rule that out on lack of notoriety, because it was all over the news and even resulted in a change in the law! deranged bulbasaur 01:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Viruses seem to be included in the lists even though there is some debate over whether they are living organisms. If they are to be included I believe there should be many more than the two currently in the list, from regularly watching House I think that the list might extend to thousands. How many of the "organisms" included in List of viruses have been fatal? Other questions, mosquitos are included but aren't they only a vector, should only the arasite be included? Should the snail that hosts the paraite before the mosquito picks it up be included? So basicly still delete even with the changes as it is a hard to define, unmaintainable list. [[Guest9999 (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
• Comment the new name "deadly organisms" is much worse. For starters, all predators are deadly. Punkmorten (talk) 09:54, 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--Tone 14:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hellhound (Buffyverse)[edit]

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

Delete - fails WP:NOT#PLOT as nothing but a re-hash of the plot of the episode in which they appear. This one-off species has no independent notability. Also a chunk of original research with its assertion of similarity to other single-appearance species, implicates WP:V. Otto4711 (talk) 17:31, 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 Delete--Tone 14:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As It Turns Out[edit]

As It Turns Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claim to notability CultureDrone (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as being extremely non-notable, with only one trivial mention in a source of questionable reliability known to exist. Author appears non-notable too, but he doesn't have an article. In fact, this is so non-notable that we may as well snowball close this now. It's a student play production.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. There must hundreds of plays at the same level of 'notability' as this - let's not go there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable article. Mh29255 (talk) 23:46, 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Of The Land (film)[edit]

Princess Of The Land (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Prod claims this doesn't meet WP:MOVIE and WP:CRYSTAL, and I highly agree. Creator's only contributions are this and some changes to a template to include it, plus some reverts. UsaSatsui (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Is there any source for the existence of this project. Animation is quite long to produce, longer than a classical film, 4 years or more, so it could already be in production. But a source is needed. Hektor (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one turns up, I'll gladly withdraw, but I haven't been able to find one.--UsaSatsui (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then Delete except if the creator of the article can provide a source. And if possible more than one. Hektor (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No citations, no sources. WP:NOT a fan site, etc. SpikeJones (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unable to turn up any sources with a search for the film title and pixar. IMDB has no entry for it. Completely fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the reasons made by the nominator, and also WP:V.--Aldux (talk) 15:23, 30 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 three of them into Replay Publishing and make these three redirects. I will leave any further merge of content to the main article. It can always be found in the history.Bduke (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Season Pro Football[edit]

Second Season Pro Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game, speedy was declined. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

Replay Basketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Replay Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Replay Baseball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- added by me (originally an A7 speedy by me, restored on request for hearing with related articles here) Xoloz (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. No evidence of notability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect baseball, football, and basketball to Replay Publishing, per slight improvements to article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• While I agree that the other Replay pages could probably be rolled into the main Replay Publishing page, I think that the Replay Publishing page qualifies as a notable subject. At least one game this company produces has been in the sports simulation community for over 30 years, and was only temporarily out of print due to rising costs associated with Major League Baseball licensing. The article includes references to prominent sites within the gaming community (boardgamegeek.com, tabletop-sports.com, and tabletopbaseball.org, which all give information and/or reviews of the product(s)/company in question. As such, it provides at least as much notable evidence as the APBA page, which does not even give sources for evidence of famous players that are listed as having played the game. I am the author of the Replay Publishing page. Kezzran (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent sources, no evidence or assertion of notability, slightly advertorial. Xoloz (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as lacking reliable independent sources unless these are found.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep but I'm not convinced that the third-party coverage is substantial enough.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 22:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This being my first article, I'm having some trouble understanding where it falls short in notability, reliable sources, etc. I'd be most grateful if someone could enlighten me, in plain English. :) Specifically, I'm comparing this article to the APBA article, and am uncertain how mine falls short while that does not. I could probably point to other pages, but that is an easy one as it's part of the same genre as mine. Any information on how I could better prove notability and reliable sources (beyond the boardgame sites mentioned in the article) would be much appreciated. Again, identifying myself as the author of this article. Kezzran (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can tell you where the article falls short when it comes to reliable sources: There are external links, but every single one of them is to a site owned by Replay Publishing. Although such links are useful to the casual reader, they must not be used alone: you must find non-trivial sources written by independent third parties such as magazines, newspapers, or anything not related directly to Replay Publishing. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 05:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the reply Blanchardb. I must disagree with you that every single external link is a reference back to the site owned by Replay Publishing. In fact, one of the two external links is owned by Replay, and in my references section I site three independent sources that review Replay and/or discuss its history. My understanding is that sources for material go into a references section, and that external links are simply provided for additional information. If rectifying the article so it will meet the standards of Wikipedia is as simple as adding some of the reference/citation links to the external links section, I'll gladly do that. I'd like to reference the APBA page again, which has 5 external links, 3 of which point back to the company itself. It would seem that this article would also qualify for deletion based on this criteria. I'll change things up on the page, and I'd like you to take a look at it again to see if the article is up-to-snuff. Again, thank you for your time, I hope I can bring this article up to standard so that it may be included alongside similar articles, such as APBA and Strat-O-Matic. Kezzran (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable article per WP:N and lack of sources per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated the page with link to a newspaper article as well as providing more information on the main article Replay Publishing rather than linked pages of each game they produce. Continuing to cite sources and provide links in an attempt to demonstrate notability and proper sourcing. Currently seeking information from the book Strat-O-Matic Fanatics: The Unlikely Success Story Of A Game That Became An American Passion by Glenn Guzzo, the seminal book concerning the sports simulation community, which I've been told gives mention to Replay Baseball. Once I have this, I will provide that data on the Replay Publishing page. The page now has a significant number of citations and links, in comparison to other articles of the genre (see APBA). Further comments on the page would be appreciated, especially if it is now up to par, which I believe it is.Kezzran (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added citation of two books which discuss Replay Baseball, from Replay Publishing.Kezzran (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one article only. I originally put speedy on Replay Publishing but the author has improved it since then. He has added references and, while work is still needed, there is proof of independent coverage of at least some of the games. The author is new to Wikipedia and he is struggling a bit to get it right but he is trying to do the right thing and I think that an acceptable article can be achieved. I recommend folding all the good content into one article, probably Replay Publishing. The others can be redirects. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Replay Publishing article still looks like an ad, but at least its subject's notability is asserted and sourced. I will not withdraw my nomination of this one without consensus to do so (though I support a withdrawal), but I feel that, should it be kept, the other three articles nominated here should be merged to it. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article Second Season Pro Football and merge other three nominated articles into it per comments by Blanchardb. Mh29255 (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments everyone. I do think it would be more logical to merge the other articles into Replay Publishing, being the umbrella company that publishes the three games. Thoughts? Kezzran (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Replay Publishing and redirect the others into it per above commentspossibly cleanup and add sources to it. Frank Anchor, U. S. American (talk, contribs) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Keep Replay Publishing and redirect the others into it Per notability and possible spam issues. MBisanz 10:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I like the thought process by previous commentators and now think that a Merge of all into Replay Publishing and then a good rewrite to remove the advertising style would work. --VS ^talk 22:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent, what is the process from here? Do I do the merge and redirect the other pages, or is this something an admin must do? Following this, I'll try to work on the re-write to make it more informative and less advertorial. Kezzran (talk) 22:54, 31 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 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin and Bean: We've Got Your Yule Logs Hangin'[edit]

Kevin and Bean: We've Got Your Yule Logs Hangin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album, but no speedy criterion available. A tell-all statement: Notes: Only 10,000 copies produced and distributed by Music Plus record stores. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources to indicate why its subject is important or significant. Tiddly-Tom 17:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Kevin and Bean Doc Strange (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge, of whatever relevant content, but I'd be inclined more just to delete as lacking relevance even to that article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:15, 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 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PHOLED[edit]

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

This article's contents have remained substantially unchanged since its creation by an anonymous editor in September 2005. The article is in substance only sourced by references to the website (which is offline) of the company owning the trademark on "PHOLED", Universal Display Corporation. Most or all internet coverage I'm immediately able to find on "PHOLED" seem to be press releases by this corporation. If no substantial coverage in reliable third party sources is uncovered in this AfD, this article should be deleted as non-notable and unverifiable. Sandstein (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but clean up spammy article that reads like a press release. NYT coverage and if you sift thru the PR on Google News Archive there's a bit more. --Dhartung | Talk 17:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. PHOLED is a unique lighting/display technology that is more than qualified for its own article on Wikipedia. Graham Wellington (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Graham is right, PHOLED deserves an article in Wikipedia. --Danh (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be so, but an article requires substantial coverage by independent reliable sources, so as to satisfy our guideline WP:N and our policy WP:V. The NYT article cited by Dhartung is a good start, but be need a bit more. Sandstein (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep, no point in keeping a withdrawn nom open now is there? Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

York Steak House[edit]

York Steak House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability tag since March, unreferenced tag since March Sbowers3 (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Unsourced material can be deleted. Well, this whole article is unsourced and has been tagged for nine months, so the whole thing can be deleted. Without sources, notability cannot be verified. It has been tagged for notability for nine months. If someone thinks the subject is notable then provide some sources, and then remove the tags. Otherwise, the article should be deleted. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn now that it has been improved. Thanks to those who had the interest and energy to do it. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:V, WP:CORP per lack of sources. Sandstein (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep assuming that I can find additional sourcing, although not something that I intend to spend Christmas Day doing. From the internet is this appetizer [8]. This is one of those things that would be hard to believe now-- the somewhat tacky "medieval England" theme, placing a steak house in a mall, etc. -- but it was successful in a different era. These were a fairly prominent fixture in malls back in the 1970s, numbering in the hundreds. There was a time when families would go to a mall ("dressed up") for a nice dinner, and the "family restaurant" was as exclusive as an anchor store. In those communities where stores were closed on Sundays (blue laws were not uncommon prior to 1980), the steak house and the movie theater were among the few businesses open in the mall on a Sunday afternoon. The 70s also featured the trend toward the franchising of low-cost, cafeteria-style steak houses with "western" or, in this case, "old England" themes. The General Mills corporation made a foray into the restaurant business, and absorbed the losses as restaurants and malls changed. Google search is somewhat hampered by more ghits for "New York steak house" than for "York Steak House". Notable, however, on a variety of levels. And before anyone says, "go find the sources", I say, "Later. It's Christmas!" Mandsford (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but source. Part of a suite of restaurant concepts from General Mills, of which the two chief survivors are Olive Garden and Red Lobster. Since these went under in the 1980s sources will be limited. AFD is not cleanup. [9][10][11][12]

--Dhartung | Talk 17:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As these cites provided by Dhartung show the article meets the standards of WP:Note. I tried to do this earlier this year and ran into the same issue of news stories. I managed to learn there is a location still open in Columbus, Ohio. So here are a couple of more cites for you:
  • Sam Reading (2003-12-26). "York Steak House photo galley". Smugmug.com. Retrieved 2007-11-14.
  • "Travel guide listing for York Steak House in Columbus, Ohio". Mytravelguide.com. Retrieved 2007-11-14.

The Smug Mug site is the work of a professional photographer/video producer thus it is a primary source, but I believe it meets the standards of WP:PSTS. This also appears to be a case of "I don't like it" by the nominator as when he prodded it, I removed the prod tag as the chain is notable.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's the lack of sources that I don't like - and it's been nine months since the unsourced and non-notable tags were put there (by someone else). Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia and without sources we don't have verifiability and we don't have notability. I'm going through old articles at Category:Articles lacking sources and Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability and prod'ing or afd'ing as many as I have patience for. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dhartung and the fact that a national chain should be notable by default, right?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but improve - I found two good sources and added them to the list at the end of the article -- in less time than it typically takes me to nominate an article for deletion. However, I did not work on improving the actual article... --Orlady (talk) 22:19, 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 a1 empty, a7 no assertion of notability, g11 advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kick it touch football[edit]

Kick it touch football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No prejudice against recreating this article once the sport becomes notable, but for the time being, this has no place on Wikipedia. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:58, 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, and the article has improved during the process.--Kubigula (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Libertine[edit]

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

This is a non-notable, porno-movie stub. It doesn't appear to have made a lasting impact to, been at the top level of noteriety of, or was recognized as a critical part of its genre Mbisanz (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - First this is not porno, this is a soft core erotic film like Emmanuelle for instance ; second it made the headlines in France due to the fame (at the time) of Sophie Favier (a TV host) who played in it, unfortunately for her, just before becoming famous. Hektor (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:N, pending the addition of references to reliable sources to support the claim by Hektor above. Sandstein (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You put me in the classical situation linked to pre-Internet (1983... ) events. If I m lucky I will find a source, but this is of course not the most likely outcome, and I have no complete sets of Le Monde or Paris Match of the 80s in my attic. Here is a DVD review which has some elements (at the bottom) to support my claim (CAUTION : SOME NUDITY) and a small piece in French communist daily L'Humanité : here Hektor (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I would vote keep but the articles author just basically admitted to violating WP:OR. Ridernyc (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not exactly, I wrote it from memory which was OR, but it happens that my memory is not too bad after all and after checking I have found sources which corroborate what I wrote and I have updated the text accordingly. So it was OR, and now it is sourced. Please judge the article on its current status. Hektor (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; seems notable enough, and the cites exist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The film seems to be reasonably notable and the article is cited. Also, I see no reason to disbelieve Hektor that the film was reviewed in Le Monde as Sophie Favier did have a long television career in France according to the French wiki. Hopefully, Lady Libertine can be expanded and a source can be found. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:21, 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 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dtn (printer designation)[edit]

Dtn (printer designation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. This information (and related information on other printer designations) should be added as a section in Computer printer, not created as an orphan page. Mayalld (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no info and no sources. Def only Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as a sentence or two into Computer printer. Not notable on its own. Also note that only the first two refs really relate to the acronym; the second two are just general sites for the two printer companies mentioned, Lexmark and HP. Tim Ross·^talk 00:51, 23 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) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge, trivial, WP:NOT#IINFO. Sandstein (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge per Tim Ross, but preferably just delete as obscure jargon dicdef.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:21, 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 Delete ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuantLib[edit]

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

Notability for this open source financial package has not been established. Ronnotel (talk) 20:39, 19 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) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the article basically says: "we are here" and not much more. While the project may be popular (the activity on SourceForge suggests so) the current text brings almost no information to Wikipedia readers. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:V, WP:N per lack of third-party sources. Sandstein (talk) 15:36, 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 delete. Kurykh 01:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Salfia (India)[edit]

Jamia Salfia (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article about nn school or mosque. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:01, 19 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) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:V, WP:N per lack of third-party sources. Sandstein (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sandstein. Unsourced stubs are worth little, anyway.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:23, 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 Delete. Walton^One 12:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content strategy[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability. It calls it an emergent field, so it may be a crystal ball issue, too. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now 18 million ghits, but the few I looked at were all advertising or wern't related to the article itself. This might be a valid field, but it shouldn't be here until notibility can be asserted through indpendent reliable sources. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mr. Senseless, and hopefully if it's recreated there'll be no weasels to be seen, because this article is full of their words, despite being quite short.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm editing the original entry to add citations supporting its notability. Bare with this newbie!--Jeffmacintyre (talk) 03:45, 21 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) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A very fine example of marketese, many words saying little. There are two references to Jacob Nielsen but the mentioned articles do not define the term and do not claim there's a novel way to create and organize content. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've tried to be more concrete in defining the practice up front. It is a very real and existing, albeit emerging, field of practice. I've also drawn an extensive reference from a job description for a 'content strategist' that outlines various responsibilties for the role. This should help inform my point that content strategy need be differentiated from copywriting per se. See copywriting's entry to get a hint of that distinction, too. I hope this is helpful.--Jeffmacintyre (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now, too much of a how-to article. MBisanz 10:15, 31 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 to The Warriors (film) and redirect. I will leave further merge of content to others. It is available from the history. Some content is already there. Bduke (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Turnbull AC's (gang)[edit]

The Turnbull AC's (gang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A fictional gang from a movie and video game. There are no independent reliable sources, or any other indication of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See the edit history of User:WölffReik to see several similar articles recently created by that account. If the Turnbull AC's article gets deleted, then the other articles about fictional gangs from the Warriors film and video game should be deleted too, because they have the same issues. Spylab (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to gang nominate the lot of them if this AfD results in a clear consensus for deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the relevant articles and redirect the page. --Neon white (talk) 19:55, 19 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) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge in part to The Warriors (film). Sandstein (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Not notable on own. MBisanz 10:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely a merge into The Warriors due to NN reasons. --VS ^talk 22:37, 31 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, withdrawn by nominator. CitiCat ^♫ 13:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone[edit]

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

Also nominating: Riz Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• This band and its leader, Riz Story, struggle to meet WP:MUSIC. Only one album on a notable label (Roadrunner Records), and no songs that reached any national singles charts. The band appear to have been semi-inactive since then. I tried looking for sources and found a few, but not many. Kerrang magazine noticed them briefly around 2001. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only had one album released on a notable label, so therefore fails WP:MUSIC. Lugnuts (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want this page to be deleted particularly, but what I am sure of is that this band's notability or non-notability is definitely borderline (it's certainly not an A7) and worth having an AfD for.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also I forgot to add that they may meet WP:MUSIC criterion 8 or 9 in that they were named best new band by Kerrang! magazine, which is not a major award but they did win one of the larger minor awards...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, I feel that this band and its leader should be notable. But I really do have my doubts at the same time.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:31, 20 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) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No substantial third party coverage of this band is cited. Sandstein (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is an interview in Kerrang! magazine a reliable source? I used to have the exact magazine where this interview came from.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Found another non-trivial source.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Riz Story also directed a pornographic film and I am effectively certain (ha, oxymoron) that it is the same person as the guy in this band.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I seriously consider anyone voting delete take a look at those sources. I don't want to lose this article, but I nominated it for deletion as a test of notability. Clearly there are multiple, non-trivial reliable published sources about this band.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom withdrawn due to my finding of many more third-party sources. When closing this AfD you may wish to consider that although not much third-party coverage is cited yet in the actual article, since the AfD began I have found enough sources for this to pass WP:N. I may merge Riz Story to Anyone and redirect, though.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:09, 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 Wisin & Yandel. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Duo Dinámico[edit]

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

The album that this stub refers to was renamed, and has its own page: Wisin vs. Yandel: Los Extraterrestres. El monty (talk) 15:33, 19 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) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wisin vs. Yandel: Los Extraterrestres. This would not have needed an AfD. Sandstein (talk) 15:44, 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 Delete. Walton^One 23:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maithreyi Seetharaman[edit]

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

I can't find reliable indedependent sources on this person. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, leaning towards weak delete. There's this, this mention of something she wrote... but a lack of real third-party material.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am not in favor of deletion. I have added two external links. One shows Maithreyi's biography from the Globalist. She is a real journalist on Bloomberg TV (from USA). She regularly reports live from the NYSE floor. She has also sat in the anchor position on Bloomberg. Sorry for the lack of development on the article. Emmadi (talk) 12:00, 23 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) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The external link to Maithreyi's biography on the Globalist was deleated. Here is the link that verifys that she is a journalist (author) http://www.theglobalist.com/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=864 - Emmadi (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Even assuming assertions are true, I'm still not seeing a notable merida personality. MBisanz 10:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• she also reports for Bloomberg from the Nasdaq. She was also an anchor for CNBC in India. She did their evening shows..there are pictures of her in www.tvheads.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemoadi (talk • contribs)
• Delete - there is enough about her on the Web to confirm the facts in the article. However, nothing really hangs together that she is notable enough to meet WP:BIO; for example there are no significant profiles in WP:RSs. TerriersFan (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough evidence of notability to be including in WP.--VS ^talk 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-flite P-47D Thunderbolt 400[edit]

E-flite P-47D Thunderbolt 400 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable advertising like article AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At minimum it needs a strong clean-up. It does read like a catalog page. Probably a delete unless someone has a good reason to keep it.--159.221.32.10 (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry the above was my comment. Wasn't logged in.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:11, 19 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) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no not trivial external sources. Lobojo (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MBisanz 10:19, 31 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. Kurykh 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shams Beer[edit]

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

Notability not asserted. I could find no secure information that the brand was ever made in America - though it may have been imported at some point.. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 12:47, 19 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) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced about the existence or notability of this beer prior to the Iranian revolution. The only source provided talks about a copycat currently being produced in the US. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Asserts no notability whatsoever. Only source is a link to a letters to the editor page which in turn links to a page of drinks people have emailed in that they remember from before the revolution and does not give significant coverage to Shams other than a name on the list. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Pain Pro Wrestling[edit]

Pro-Pain Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG. Tagged for numerous problems 2 months ago and no response. Plenty of statements that have no sources and could well fail WP:OR !! Justa Punk !! 12:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a Google search seems to show likely notability, though the lack of news coverage is worrisome. Needs WP:RS. JJL (talk) 14:32, 19 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) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for now anyway. Nikki311 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable pro wrestling company. Kris (talk) 02:26, 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. Davewild (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crawford's Corner[edit]

Crawford's Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

User:Kelvinc is also nominating the following related pages because it was created by the same user for a subject related to the original nomination and also fails WP:V:

Crawford the Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ran into this article while searching on green cats (these are cats that acquired a green coat due to drinking water with a high concentration of copper, in case you're wondering). Anyways searching for Crawford's corner Perennial Pictures Film Corporation gave 177 hits, not all of them states the show in question. Searching for Crawford's Corner alone yields a lot of unrelated hits. However, that google search did turn up pages on imdb and youtube that is directly linked to the show. Judging from various other media-related Afd's, having articles on those sites do not assert enough notability. The article only have the studio's site, the show's site and a blog. ---Lenticel ^(talk) 08:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: WikiProject American Animation has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm thinking this might violate a a speedy, the one on advertising. Hiding T 16:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also nominating Crawford the Cat, made by same user. Kelvinc (talk) 09:24, 25 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) 13:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak delete per nom. Has been broadcast, but appears to lack third-party sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to lack that lasting impact or widespread knowledge. MBisanz 10:20, 31 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, but added refimprove template to article. Davewild (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Cervenka[edit]

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

Notability problems; while I can find some references to John Cervenka in searches, they are only ever passing mentions in articles about MXC or a few one-episode parts he's played in sitcoms. Though he did seem to host Love Connection and Burt Luddin's Buffet, I can't find anything else about it. PirateMink 08:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject really does not have any presence on the searches that I ran. As noted above, passing mention at best for this comedian/actor. --Stormbay (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article doesn't mention it (yet), but Cervenka and other MXC people are alumni of the Groundlings. Borderline notability but my vote is, let's keep it to be conservative. --Lockley (talk) 16:23, 23 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) 13:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, seems to have scattered claims of notability but I think he might pass WP:N -- one major role as announcer, one as game show host, and a handful of bit parts, plus a background as one of the Groundlings. Could stand to be sourced though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I have a feeling that this article is not sourced in any meaningful way because no one is finding material. It can be kept and left inadequately sourced, if that is the consensus. Stormbay (talk) 22:38, 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. Kurykh 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Blankets Orphan Care International[edit]

Warm Blankets Orphan Care International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was CSD'd, notability is uncertain. Keilana 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really know if this is a necessary article. I know there has been some discussion lately about orphans/foreign adoptions (how it has become sort of an industry in which women are paid to have babies that are in turn sold to naive Americans). Many people think that foreign orphan adoptions help, but 99+% of orphans left behind with no one to care for them. That's where this organization steps in. I could eventually add more info about human trafficking or foreign adoption if it would help it to be a worth while article. Or, just delete it, and I could maybe write an article just on foreign adoptions down the road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBethany (talk • contribs) — MissBethany (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Tentative delete. The only references provided either originate from the subject organization, or simply prove that it exists. If verifiable third-party citations can be provided showing that this organization has achieved notability, I'd willingly switch to "keep." --Russ (talk) 19:01, 19 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) 13:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since no one has claimed any notability. --BozMo talk 22:38, 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. This certainly needs much work, but the copyright violation is not demonstrated and we do not delete for lack of sources. We add sources. Bduke (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etruscan coins[edit]

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

This appears to be an original research piece on Etruscan coinage, or a copy vio. I'll note the manuscript style inline citations, and the fact it was uploaded at one entire piece of prose by the creator. Also, the first version, prior to some wikifying, had the author at the end listed as "Italo Vecchi" Therefore, I submit this is either the original research of "Italo Vecchi" or its a copy vio of some existing piece. Mbisanz (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated This appears to be from the forethcoming work "Coinage of Etruria and Umbria. Parte 1.The coinage of the Rasna: the gold, silver, and bronze coinages from the mints of Cosa, Luca (?),Pisae (?),Populonia,"Velsnani",Vetulonia,Vulci and Uncertain Mints from V century to III century BC" by Italo Vecchi here http://www.edizioniennerre.it/ENcatcerca.php . I used his name and followed it to this website which he references in the submitted article. Granted if its unpublished, we can't be sure its a copyright, but I do think its still inappropriate for inclusion on the basis of copy right issues and/or original research (none of the many parenthetical citations are completed). Mbisanz (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well, this brings some more (but not much :-/ ) clarity to the whole affair. I checked the contributions of the main author of the article as well, and it does appear to be an exerpt of his own book, and thus though not necessarily a copyvio, since he retains copyright to his own text; the problem remains of it being awfully close to spamming his own book, and kind of problematic for that reason. I suppose the test of the pudding would be on what the reaction to wikification and editing of the article would be... <deep gulp> -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well pulling this random line out of "The Etruscans were not frightened to experiment, as is illustrated by the case of an extraordinary struck bronze series with incuse reverses, presumably from Populonia and based on a hundred units (or centesimal system) which may correspond to the struck Roman sexantal as, theoretically of about 54 grams." the amount of original, unsourced research in that one statement makes that statement almost unsalvagable to me. I mean in theory we could wikify all this citations, but they'd still be his interpretation of them, which would be OR to me. Not seeing how this is saveable, other than to stubbify it. Mbisanz (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was invited to this AfD as editor of the article, but my only contribution was the removal of a speedy tag for copyvio of an unspecified URL, which I couldn't find myself. If the article is to be deleted as copyvio, its source needs to be found. The mere presence of a signature is by no means an indication of a copyvio. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't citations mean it is not original research? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That should be judged case by case. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, let me rephrase that. Aren't citations evidence against a presumptive judgement of original research? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the text, as it is now, is very likely copied from somewhere and unencyclopedical in style. I wonder whether it would of any use for anyone trying work on the article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (Deleted by Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  I suspect when you say unsourced, you mean to say unattributed. Those are two entirely different things. Not that Unattributed is better. Just tell us what text tehy are plagirizing, and we will all be much more satisfied. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Articles should not be deleted for copyright violation based on suspicion and belief. If anything more substantial than the present innuendo is produced this vote is of course inapplicable, but I can only make a judgment on what has actually been presented. From what I can actually observe, this seems to be acceptable and even valuable material that simply needs wikification. deranged bulbasaur 16:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (Deleted by Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  I think the point you may be missing here is, if we knew what it was supposed to be a word for word copy of, we could check if it really was such and it could just be zapped... needs to be specified a copy of which text though, before taht. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You're making unverified allegations of illegal activity against a living person. This isn't mainspace, but what you're doing cuts pretty close to libel. I still don't see any actual evidence. You may well be right, but your matter of fact accusations in absence of proof are so highly inappropriate that I considered deleting your post. deranged bulbasaur 22:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Point taken. I've gone ahead and deleted the posts myself, particularly in light of Mbisanz's research. By definition, one can't plagiarize himself; if the author of the article took someone else's work, word-for-word, that would be a different matter, of course. If this is drawn from something that is copyrighted, however, the copyright still lies with the publisher. I agree with you, however, that we have to be careful when we voice our opinions that something is a copyvio or a hoax. Without an explanation of what the sources are, I still say delete. Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete in light of elaborated circumstances. For most journals, the transfer of copyright is contingent on the actual publication of the material and would not occur before then. So, if this is submitted to wikipedia first, it is licensed under the GFDL by the author. He can then transfer the copyright, but the new copyright holder would still have to honor the license because it cannot be terminated. However, this situation is iffy enough that it would be best to err on the side of caution and delete. deranged bulbasaur 20:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and avoid copyright paranoia. We delete copyvio when we know what is being copied. The website give the title of an article, which may or may not have been published--it says forthcoming, but the date given is "04". If this is is from an extensive article, of the sort scholars write, and the sort which by itself would make up what appears to be the entire annual issue of a journal, this will just be the introduction and it would be fair use, meeting all 4 tests. We have no idea of the licensing of this material; journal practices vary very widely. The author may have kept the copyright and given the publisher merely a license to publish it. Arrangements vary. I see no attempt on the talk page to ask him aside from our conventional notice. DGG (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a fairuse intro from a book, wouldn't that still be Original Research or at least be something that should go to wikisource? MBisanz 05:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless the article is stubbified by an editor (and anyone can do this as they please under the guidelines) removes all material that is unverified and/or uncited.--VS ^talk 22:43, 31 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.