Nitin Gupta[edit]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beckwith Road[edit]

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

Non notable road. "The road contains a few bungalows, as well as detached housing". Indeed. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Looks like nonsense to me.--Michig (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete : utter nonsense and completely non-notable per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable location, this is the sort of article that could easily have been prodded instead.RMHED (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hardly a WP:50k road. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete NN street. Mr Senseless (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non notable road. Regan123 (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above points. --Sharkface217 22:47, 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 --JForget 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lala Gulab Chand[edit]

Lala Gulab Chand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO, recreation of speedy deleted material. This person is famous for having a high death tax? Smashville^BONK! 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DONT DELETE:Why cannt someone be famous for paying taxes, including after death. Why only tax cheats have to be famous. In order to promote paying taxes, this article should be retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.143.142 (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Struck comment by blocked sockpuppet — Coren ^(talk)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE: Being an Indian I know how important role this person played in the development of Community. And people paying taxes, including after death should be respected, and not forgotten. After all community enjoys the benefits from the money they paid as tax. Struck comment by blocked sockpuppet — Coren ^(talk)

• PLEASE DO NOT DELETE IT< HE HOLDS A SPECIAL PLACE IN OUR COMMUNITY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin1978 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Struck comment by blocked sockpuppet — Coren ^(talk)[reply]

• MUST NOT BE DELETED: This person played an important role in Reolution movement of India by changing the mind and operation style of Indian revolutionaries like Ram Prasad Bismil. And he payed a significant cost for helping the revolutionary movement in India. How can he be deleted??? Struck comment by blocked sockpuppet — Coren ^(talk)

• KEEP; This article should be kept. It should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dksindhi (talk • contribs)

• Delete the article in the current form. Unless there are independent third-party reliable sources to ensure verifiability and not a promotional page about someone, I can change my opinion. The only reference link given in the article does not say anything about the subject at all. Dekisugi (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it appears to lack verification and likely was created in an attempt to lend notability to his grandson's entry and cricket league. Narson (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nomOo7565 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per notability. --Sharkface217 22:47, 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 --JForget 23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VibroAcoustic therapy[edit]

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

This might be a tough one, especially since the author removed my maintenance tags. Originally I attempted to take this on as a cleanup project, but its a new field and I question its notability. The article is (apparently) full of OR, and is completely written in a way that a lay-person could not understand. I'm wondering if scrapping it and/ or completely rewriting is a better idea. If someone wants to take on a rescue mission, be my guest, otherwise, lets get a consensus going on this. Mr Senseless (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. not notable.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you please tell me what is wrong with the article? I am totally new to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthrifon (talk • contribs)
  • The nominator considers the article to be original research, which cannot be included in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - author apparently not interested in making article Wiki-ready, if such could be done. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An editor's behavior at an article has no bearing on that article's position vis-a-vis deletion. We can't hold an irresponsible editor's actions or attitudes against an article he happens to be editing. We need to consider the merits of the article on its own. If you think the article lacks merit on its own -- independent of any one editor's actions -- please say so. - Revolving Bugbear 23:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like psuedo-scientific nonsense copied and pasted from another source. It seems to claim that playing music to a patient can reduce pain because of the physical effect of the 'acoustic energy' of the music, rather than a relaxing, psychological effect. Nick mallory (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would like to point to Vibroacoustic medicine aswell. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While there are references on the Internet regarding the subject matter, it is not clear whether the article describes a prescribed therapy or a pseudo-scientific alternative remedy. Given the poor & unverified content of the article per WP:V and the likely personal research in violation of WP:NOR, it would be better to delete the article. Mh29255 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reads like somebody's pet theory. And Vibroacoustic medicine should be added to this discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article reads like a personal essay and the material is unsalvageably unencyclopedic in this form. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per WP:FRINGE. There appears to be a lack of independent, multiple sources to affirm the theories' notability beyond fancruft. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:FRINGE. --Sharkface217 22:48, 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 Keep, nominator pretty much withdrew judging by comment at bottom and consensus called for a keep anyway. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candy cane[edit]

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

The tag says it all. It doesn't desrve an article as it doesn't cite any references or have any sources.Maybe redirect to Candy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IslaamMaged126 (talk • contribs)

• Speedy Keep. "It doesn't deserve an article" is not a deletion rationale. And lack of references is not a reason for deletion unless something cannot be verified to exist. This almost 5 year old article can be easily referenced. --Smashville^BONK! 22:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isn't even close. Sources and citations should be easy to come by, and probably once were there, but deletion is not the remedy. Jacksinterweb (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If redirect to candy, maybe there would be a better chance of good sources there?IslaamMaged126 (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and close due to WP:SNOW. This can easily be fixed with sourcing, and how does something so closely associated with the Christmas season for years not deserve an article? Mr Senseless (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just added 3 sources. Which I easily found. Google news has 1,863 hits for "candy cane" in the last day. And yes, some of those are things named after the candy cane...but...the fact that they are named after it makes it notable. --Smashville^BONK! 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Now speedy keep because of Smashville.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 22:40, 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 Merge and redirect, notability is tied to the ship. Davewild (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Theodore Andres[edit]

Eric Theodore Andres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable sailor. No assertion of notability by the author AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Non-notable person Mr Senseless (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to USS Andres (DE-45). Getting a ship named after you confers some notability, but I couldn't find sufficient information for a biography. A redirect seems appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect Per above. The person isn't notable, but the ship is. I'm sure a small blurb about the person could be added to the ship's page. --Sharkface217 22:50, 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. Wizardman 03:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vossenveld[edit]

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

Non-notable student flat in Nijmegen. Not a dormitory, since virtually no university in the Netherlands (apart from Enschede and Utrecht, IIRC) provides housing to the students. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Apartment complexes are not notable unless they are heritage listed. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Decoratrix (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dormitory itself is not owned by the university, but rented to provide housing (see the article text). Therefore it does comply with the "rules"... Erik1980 (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With which rules? Our notability guidelines? We don't have any specific guidelines on dormitories and the like. The only guideline that applies is the general notability guideline. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per above, but it should have at least some sources. Tag it. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there precedent on this issue? --Sharkface217 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:07, 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, consensus is that there is sufficient notability established. Davewild (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Saginaw Mall[edit]

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

Well, this is somewhat of an interesting ride... Initially, I wanted to G7 this page as I'm pretty much the only significant contributor to it (the IPs are also me, back when I had a nasty habit of not logging in). However, my G7 was denied so I prodded it. The prod was then contested too with the rationale "When ownership of a Mall is decided by a court, there is notability in that". Nonetheless, I feel that this page violates WP:NOT#NEWS, as the only sources in the article (except for an unreliable Cinema Treasures link) pertain to a recent court battle over the vacant mall. (Also, I'm rather surprised that I can find three news sources on a mall that's been boarded up for ten years, but I can't find much of anything on Fashion Square Mall, a nearby mall which is more than twice as big and still full of stores...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Locally notable eyesore, but not much else to say. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - contester of Prod - The fact that The State is using powers such as Eminent domain to seize control of a property like this is notable. WP:RS have been supplied. Sure we should have a ((update)) template on it to state that the process is 'in process', but thats why we have that template. The notable event surrounding the property just hasnt finished playing out thats all. If the case had been decided already, would this nomination be here? As per the Locally notable argument ... as usual the awnser is "There is no "local" clause in WP:N or WP:RS" Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say anything about "locally notable" at all. Eminent domain is claimed all the time, there's nothing special about this case. Many malls are long abandoned (Dixie Square Mall, anyone?), so that doesn't make it notable either. And the court case is the only evident assertation of notability here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blanchardb is using the 'Local' card, that is why I mentioned that. I think your (TenPoundHammer) view is to US-centric, I am not from the USA. I have never heard of my country expropriating an entire property of this size or type in anything other than wartime. So, to non-US residents, this sort of thing is extreamly notable in its unusualness. As for 'Eminent domain is claimed all the time' somehow I dont believe you actually mean that. Any extrordinary power such as that, if overused, would be removed from the government by the people. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough. Decoratrix (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mall was greater than 30k sqm GLA, which is in the realm of a sub-regional mall thus making it sizable during its day. Seems to be sufficient information to justify notability, plus there are ongoing matters relating to it. Worth keeping, but mark for future action to plug some of the information gaps. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Appears notable enough. --Sharkface217 22:51, 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. -- Longhair\^talk 23:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nurcha Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record label—not a single notable artist; fails WP:CORP. Also unreferenced—fails WP:V. Precious Roy (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A7, company with no notability asserted, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Also fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CORP Mr Senseless (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Speedy deletion has already been declined, that's why it's here in AfD. Precious Roy (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability. Speedy if possible. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 22:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, very minor fringe record label. If one of their artists makes it big, should not be much trouble to recreate article. Lankiveil (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy Delete No notability. --Sharkface217 22:51, 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--JForget 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodsball[edit]

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

This whole article is way too detailed for the lack of reference, this article and all the small article comming from it should be deleted or a lest heavely modified. Those article where written by one happy paintball player who wanted to share is experience. that person should read the rule of editing and mainly this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not , there is a lot of thing on that article that fit on what wikipedia is not. Reliable sources are needed, someone stating himself and saying that we have to take is "word for it" just show us how unreliable the article is, i doubt they are holder of universal truth and knowledge. Its not because this is an open encyclopedia that you can write everithing you know to share with other, quoting from the rule page "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars.". More info is not always good, that's why the article failed its good article nomination, simply because its useless. it should be delete or greatly modified GunSlingerFrag (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC) — GunSlingerFrag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. The article needs better refs, and I've tagged it appropriately. I had never heard of "Woodsball" but a google search suggests 311,000 hits, which suggests that there is enough there to support an article here. It needs trimming to a suitable level, but I don't think deletion is the only answer.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a real form of paintball, and it does need better refs, but the term is widely accepted among players. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just because it didn't make good article does not mean it should be deleted. As already said, better refs are needed, but that means work needs to be done, not that it should be deleted. Dissentor (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Dissentor. Better refs. A lack of references is no reason for a deletion. --Fromgermany (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article reads fairly well and although it needs work (sources) it seems like a reasonable topic that a comprehensive encyclopedia would include. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - An encyclopaedic article needing references. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above points. --Sharkface217 22:52, 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--Tone 12:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clovis Towne Center[edit]

Clovis Towne Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall in California, contains sources but none of them are any good. (One is a Costar listing, and one is -- I swear -- a USGS topo map.) This mall falls way short of "super regional" status; in addition, no sources could easily be found in an online search. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough in this market. Better referenced than 90 percent of wikipedia articles. Decoratrix (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mall is nothing more than a typical shopping center with a movie theater attached. One of the main anchors, a Sears, moved out years ago. I have no idea why geological information is relevant to an article on a shopping center. Citadel18080 (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and ors. NN. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Precedent for malls is a bit iffy, although it seems that they are often kept. --Sharkface217 22:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. More then 50% of the article is about the land under the mall. While that may be important for an article about the geography of the area, it does not really belong here and it does not make the mall notable. It seems to have been included for the sole purpose of padding the article with references. Also by US standards this mall is not even close to the 800,000 sqft that helps establishes notability. Also, notability is not inherited. So while the theater may be notable for an article of its own, that does not make the mall notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:49, 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 Delete--Tone 12:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Donaldson[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was "No evidence that the player meets notability criteria for sportspeople as laid down at WP:BIO". PROD nomination was removed with the reasoning "evidence is provided that he is a pro footballer". Being a pro footballer is not enough to meet the notability criteria set out at WP:BIO. A player must play in a match at the highest level of the sport to be considered notable, and Ryan Donaldson has not done that. – PeeJay 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – PeeJay 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If he hasn't played first team football for a professional club, he isn't yet notable enough for an article. Looks like he will probably get there in a year or two.--Michig (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a vote for deletion? – PeeJay 21:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure whether he's played first team football yet. If not, then it's Delete, but I'm trying to find out one way or another.--Michig (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the NUFC website, he isn't even in the senior squad yet, so is not sufficiently notable.--Michig (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per User:Number 57 - fchd (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No first team games yet, recreate when he's played for Newcastle Utd (or whoever). Nick mallory (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Nom makes the common error of presuming that one must play at the highest professional level of a sport in order to satisfy WP:BIO. In fact, the explicit criteria is that amateur players must play at the highest amateur level of a sport. Nonetheless, there may be no evidence that Donaldson has played in a professional match yet.  RGTraynor  04:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has played in 9 matches for England Under 19s. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 20:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - this user does not seem to understand the notability criteria for footballers. Playing youth international football does not qualify someone as notable. – PeeJay 20:40, 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. Although numerically the keep !votes are equal in number to the deletes, the criteria cited by the deletes was per policy/ guideline, and that of the keeps was not. So it was necessary to give much higher weighting to the deletes. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Villains of Ace Lightning[edit]

Villains of Ace Lightning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was originally named Minor Villains of Ace Lightening however the creator renamed it after the PROD notice to avoid deletion (his own words). Nothing else in the article was changed, however. It is still a list of minor villains, which are still not notable. The main villains of the show are already well covered in the main Ace Lightning article. This list fails WP:FICT, is completely unsourced, and primarily WP:TRIVIA, WP:PLOT, and fancruft. Failed PROD (deprodded during renamed). Collectonian (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing more then a original research plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created the original article, but do not see the real proper reason for proposal for deletion. There is another article - Main Characters of Ace Lightning which I could merge the villains article to. This article should nevertheless remain as it is. Only about three people have created it and edited, and I first created it to help boost the acknowledgement of the topic at hand. I am afraid I know very little about the rules of Wikipedia, other then no vandilism, plagarism and flame wars are forbidden, so I just help edit where I can to try and improve articles and Wikipedia. My suggestion for this article is to leave it as it is, or to merge it with another article. Evilgidgit (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The purpose of Wikipedia after all is to provide knowledge and this information is all factual and one of the few places it can be found. I agree it's hard to verify and I know how much stock wiki puts in that but it's information from a pretty obscure show. Isn't the purpose of a place of knowledge to bring obscure things out of the shadows so new people can learn about them? Gladrius (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read policy and actually know what the purpose of wikipedia is before you make statements like this. This article fails every single core policy of wikipedia.Ridernyc (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why not? Many other shows, some with much less notability, have lists of villains. Why not this one? --Sharkface217 22:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a list of villains, its a list of minor villains. The creator tried to rename it to make it seem more notable than it is. All of the major villains of the series currently have their own articles linked to directly from the main Ace Lightning page.Collectonian (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the fictional "minor" villains in the article are main villains, as at least several of them appear on a daily basis in each episode, in particular the one known as Dirty Rat. I put them together in one article as I thought it would be rather stupid making short articles about them all, ending up as stubs. What would you suggest to keep this article? Evilgidgit (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daily appearance doesn't necessarily make the notable or even main villains, particular a main villains henchmen. Do they all contribute significantly to the overall story? Those that do could be merged into the List of Ace Lightning characters article while the rest need no more mention than what they get in the currently missing episode list and summaries. Collectonian (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first five or so all contribute to the overall story, as most of them have had their own main roles in the series. The characters Dirty Rat started a rebellion briefly at the end of the first season with the other villains against the main antafonist. Anvil often is used as a growing force of strength against the main heroes, Pigface is the most recurring villain after the main villains to combat the heroes, Googler was introduced in Episode 7 and has an untold history with the main hero, and Rotgut is mostly used for comedy but tries to follow a human character around to make him a zombie. The character Fred is the transportation for Season 2's villain and appears with him in every episode. As for the others, I suppose they are not entirely notable since two never made it into the series, and one only is featured in the video game adaption. If this article is going to be deleted, regardless of opinions, it would be best to move the notable villains into the character list. The ones who are not notable are included in the main article of Ace Lightning anyway. Happy New Year by the way. Evilgidgit (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unsourced personal commentary. Addhoc (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some fair points on both sides of the discussion.--Kubigula (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Porritt[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was "No evidence that the player meets notability criteria for sportspeople as laid down at WP:BIO". PROD was removed with the reasoning "FIFA U-17 World Cup apperance alone meets WP:SPORTS". I disagree that an appearance at the FIFA Under-17 World Cup makes a player notable by those criteria, despite the competition being an "officially sanctioned international competition", as it is not a fully professional competition, nor is it the highest level of football. It may be the highest level of football for that age group, but there are hundreds of players who have played at the Under-17 World Cup (an annual competition, compared to the quadrennial senior FIFA World Cup), but never went on to have a fully professional career. The other case for Porritt's notability was his involvement in the 2006 tapping-up case involving Chelsea F.C.'s Frank Arnesen. In the original AfD for this article, this was not deemed to be notable enough for Porritt to have his own article, and instead it was made into a redirect to 2006 allegations of corruption in English football. This argument should still hold true today. – PeeJay 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – PeeJay 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The section on footballers at WP:SPORTS does state that it includes Youth players in international sanctioned competition (i.e. FIFA). That was my point in removing the PROD, anyway. It was never based on the corruption allegation, per WP:NOTNEWS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the policy you refer to has been rejected by the community, and therefore is null and void. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - would ANY/ALL players on a professional sports team inherently be notable? (I ask because I've seen some that are questionable but are pro...)
• Delete Appearances in youth competitions don't merit a place. He has to make first team appearances for a major club. Nick mallory (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Over three hundred unique hits on Google UK. 158 hits on UK Google News, including cites from the Telegraph and the BBC. Regardless of the merits of his resume as a soccer player, he seems to clear the WP:V bar.  RGTraynor  04:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Perhaps in the future, but "Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball" and thus putting a page in now is a tad premature. If there are 158+ links/references, then userfying this article, expanding it with references, and then recreating it in a way that solidly references it to show notability would probably be the best option. This is borderline, though, I will give it that and I could see it legitimately falling either way. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I would say that by a very broad definition of "highest levels of amateur sport" allow Porritt to qualify as per Wikipedia:BIO... meanwhile, Google turns up a few writings about the guy, like [2] and [3] Watchsmart (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The two factors combined make it worth keeping for now, if he disappears in 3 years time that may be the time to get rid of it, however for now there is an argument for keeping the article. Ashl (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Vaisey[edit]

Non-notable/hoax article. Page was created by person in question (User:Vaz21. Vaisey's nickname is listed as "Vaz", of the few Google hits that aren't Wikipedia mirrors is a deviantArt account under the username "Vazie", with the full name "Ben Vaisey"). I cannot find any mention of the person on the websites on any of the clubs he supposedly plays for or has played for, and there are little to no Google results for his name in conjunction with these clubs that aren't WP mirrors (Ben Vaisey + Nashville Metros, +Norwich, +Llanelli, +Leeds (see here), +Wrexham). Page has also been deleted in various guises twice in the past, and the only reason why I didn't put this up for speedy was because a prod was removed in the past. Note, Ryanovski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempted to delete this page earlier in the year, and created this page, but seemed to have not followed through with all the steps. As it was not a complete AfD nomination, I decided to overwrite this page rather than create a 2nd nomination page. The previous version of the page can be found here. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable and no sources. Decoratrix (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Assuming the text is true, and this would require some sort of sourcing, even something as simple as a lineup listing from a team website. I tagged the article ((unreferenced)) as well and would, if I could remember the tag nomenclature, tag it with the "this reads like a resume/VO/biography". The edit history does show it was created by the Vaz, but the vast majority of edits are not (though many are IP). VigilancePrime (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the article with ((likeresume)). With regards to a listing of players, the Nashville Metros official website does not list him in their roster of players, despite him allegedly scoring more than a goal every two games. It could be argued that this is because he "has" recently been loaned to Wrexham, and thus been removed from the roster, though the Wrexham site also does not mention the player. There are also no Google News results for the player's name, which a real player - who had actually signed for Wrexham, and had actual interest expressed in him by Notts County and Grays Athletic, and had actually been tearing up his league - would have. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it appears to be a hoax unless some evidence is provided for any of the claims made here. JavaTenor (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be a hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hoax article. – PeeJay 11:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep without a clear consensus. I am assuming good faith that BlackJack has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field. However I cannot ignore that this biography fails our basic criteria.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:COI issues are not motive to keep or delete this article. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 17:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Leach (writer)[edit]

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

I am the subject of this article and in view of a dispute that has arisen on the talk page and in the content of the article, I believe it is right that the Wikipedia membership should be asked to reach a consensus. I believe that due to possible conflict of interest, the cricket and philately projects should not take part and the decision should rest with the wider membership. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not sure what the rationale for this nomination is. Reading the talk page, it appears that Mr Leach (BlackJack, the nominator) feels that he passes WP:BIO (so the article should be kept), but has nominated the article for deletion so that his notability can be confirmed. I would remind him that stare decisis does not apply to Wikpedia, and that, even if this AfD results in a "Keep", there's no restriction on the article being re-nominated immediately. If not exactly a bad-faith nomination, it's certainly out-of-process - perhaps the best thing to do is close _this_ AfD, and wait until one of Mr Leach's detractors raises a genuine objection to his notability. Tevildo (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. There are some potential claims to notability here, but I don't see how we can necessarily document them using independent sources (i.e. not the organization that publishes him). Procedurally BlackJack is allowing this notability concern to see the light of day. I think it's a legitimate beef, although there are some accusations of bad faith (see Talk), but if the original article doesn't meet our standards anyone should be allowed to object. --Dhartung | Talk 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Entirely agree with your last point. I would point out there has been no bad faith unless the minor details input by User:GeorgeWilliams contravene: he and BlackJack are known to be personal friends but it seems that all George did was correct the date of birth and a few other minor points. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Following Tevildo, I am quite happy to question this fellow's notability. There are zero reliable sources about the subject; simply links to web articles of his. Numerous unsourced statements and peacock terms puffing up his alleged credentials riddle the article. Zero hits on Google Scholar.  RGTraynor  04:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see what you mean about "peacock terms" and I have removed words like "significant" and "major contribution" to try and make it NPOV. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment: I commend to you WP:PEACOCK, one of the elements of Wikipedia's MoS, a term well-known to AfD regulars, if possibly less so to those editors who focus their attention on cricket. I've just added some content dispute tags, given that the article is not anywhere close to NPOV; there are many unreferenced and unsourced statements of opinion.  RGTraynor  14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think a bit of work is needed. Leave it with me. --AlbertMW (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've written to both your talk pages, as you should have noticed, but can you two please leave the article alone now for the duration of the AfD as constant chopping and changing will confuse other readers. The article has been pared down to a stub and has got the necessary references, etc. with any remotely POV words removed. As it is a stub and therefore, by definition, an undeveloped article can we please just leave it at that for now and not try to transform it into the greatest stub ever written? Please. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Talk page discussion not very relevant here. Notable enough. Certainly lots more notable and substantive than thousands of wannabe rock stars, cartoon characters and quasi athletes that are uncontested on wikipedia. Decoratrix (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I had hoped not to intervene, but “Albert’s” whitewash job won’t wash with me. I don't underestimate Jack's many, often maverick, contributions to WP (he is one of the great fiddlers in terms of moving stuff around, but has also contributed a lot of very good material about early cricket). And his ghostly presence is still evident in many articles, though he himself has been absent for a while. But I worry that, when I generate a short random list of WP articles that mention his internet work From Lads to Lord's, nine out of 10 "references" or "external links" seem to have been inserted by him. I have read the review of this work in the ACS journal (I have also read some of the book in question). The review is not particularly favourable: that doesn’t bother me, but the authors of other monographs or books reviewed by the ACS don’t, in most cases, seem to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, so I’m not clear why this one should. And the CZ cricket editor accolade? Well, there does seem so far to have been only one substantive contributor to CZ's cricket articles, so I’m not surprised that he is “the editor” there. Over the past few months, there have been several instances where an external dispute between Jack and the ACS has spilled over into the pages of Wikipedia: this in my view does neither side any favours, nor the Wikipedia project. I suspect this is but the latest manifestation of this dispute. I wish Jack would get back to establishing his notability through his valuable contributions to Wikipedia: he has a lot to offer, and this is just a side-show. Johnlp (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. For very good personal reasons, I decided to drop the BlackJack name several weeks ago and I have used two different names since then (Maverick and Ghost) and only since then. The only other name I have used was my own when I first joined. I am not GeorgeWilliams (a personal friend who joined WP when I did) and I am not AlbertMW (whom I met via WP because of our shared interests). I decided to reutilise the BlackJack name because it is associated with the "dispute" you speak of and the "latest manifestation" is a personal attack via this article. If you check the contribs of my Ghost username, you may perceive that I have been trying very hard to "get back to establishing his notability through his valuable contributions to Wikipedia". But if certain people will not let sleeping dogs lie, what can I do? I suggest you look at the article's recent history and talk page and also at User talk:Richard Daft. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The subject of the article is notable enough for inclusion. Rray (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. Seems notable enough, if only just. --Sharkface217 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I believe that due to possible conflict of interest, the cricket and philately projects should not take part... I don't think that this makes sense, as members of these projects are surely most likely to have expertise in these fields, and hence best qualified to judge whether Mr Leach is notable. However I will respect it and not give an opinion on Keep v Delete. JH (talk page) 14:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. Having said that.... Well, there are two aspects to this: cricket and philately. And this discussion so far has virtually ignored philately. Read the philatelic section of the article and notability is not in doubt. End of argument so far as the article goes. But I think something should be said about cricket too. Read the attempted character assassination perpetrated by this Daft person and the conclusion must be that he has shot himself in the foot: he has proved the subject's notability. He claims that the ACS is "authoritative" (though he cannot spell it) and tells us that the last two quarterly ACS journals (i.e., over a period of six months) have been largely taken up with discussions of this subject's work by two people in particular whom he considers "eminent". The eminence of these people may be his opinion only but, nonetheless, even if they do consider the subject's work to be controversial, they have confirmed his notability. Otherwise, why are they getting themselves into such a state about him? He is controversial as far as they are concerned: they say first-class cricket began in 1801, he says it began in 1660 and, to them anyway, that matters. Hence all the fuss. For what it's worth, I believe he is right and they need to get up to date, but that's not the point. The point is that this article is about a notable subject who, as User:johnlp said, has made great contributions and has much more to offer. Come on, settle this and move forward. --GeorgeWilliams (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as a cricket WikiProject member, I'll respect BlackJack's wishes and not give an opinion, but I point out the obvious, that users' personal opinions of BlackJack the editor on Wikipedia are irrelevant to the opinion as to whether or not this article passes WP:BIO. --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 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, consensus is that he fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Mackay Steven[edit]

Gary Mackay Steven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Original concern was "No evidence that the player meets notability criteria for sportspeople as laid down at WP:BIO". The PROD was removed with the reasoning "BBC article reference does prove that he has been signed by Liverpool, a pro team". The mere fact that he has been signed by a professional team does not mean that he is a notable footballer, as he may still have his career cut short for some reason, and he has, as yet, nothing notable to his name. If he had been given a squad number and played a match for a pro club, then he would be notable, but at the minute he's not worthy of an article. – PeeJay 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – PeeJay 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if he hasn't actually played I might vote to delete myself. I don't follow soccer. But 1) Liverpool is a notable team 2) his signing was important enough to warrant a reported six figure transfer to the Scottish team and 3) be reported by the BBC. He sure seemed like a noteworthy player, at any rate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. Wasn't he already with Ross County F.C., a Scottish professional team, before joining Liverpool?- Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but he never made an appearance for Ross County. – PeeJay 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Until such time as he plays a game, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BIO. Don't worry, Shawn, if you're unsure then the right thing to do is to create the article and let others decide. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I didn't create the article -- I wouldn't presume to do so on a sport I know so little about! -- but did remove the PROD.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Until he plays for a major team. Nick mallory (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and as former prodder. Punkmorten (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, at least not yet BanRay 16:36, 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, consensus is that the article is not encyclopedic and unmaintainable. Davewild (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Place names with English meanings[edit]

Place names with English meanings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article's creator said "I am not entirely sure that this is either notable or encyclopedic." After observing the article for a while, I have concluded that it is neither. The article's stated premise is that it consists of "place names which look or sound like English words, but have no etymological connection to them," but in fact (1) very few of the place names are supported by references that support this etymology assertion (in fact, few listed names are supported by references and many of the blue internal links do not point to Wikipedia articles for these "places"); (2) many of these place names actually do have etymological connection with English words (for example, see the articles about Gas, Kansas and the village of Horseheads, New York); (3) I believe that in many instances, there is no reliably sourced information available on the origin of these names; (4) the principal sources cited in the article are children's books (not confidence-inspiring); and (5) many of the entries that get added to the list are nothing more than place names that reminded somebody of a "dirty" word of some sort. With due respect to the creator(s), I do not think this article adds value to the encyclopedia. Orlady (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article. I entirely agree with your feelings about this material. As I explained on the talk page when I created it, the justification for this article is simply to keep this second-rate stuff in one place and out of other articles. Of course if we can get a Wiki-wide consensus just not to include this anywhere, I would be happier still. But if the choice is between having this article and having cheap jokes in an article on a mountain because its name (Wank) is so hilarious to the puerile, I say let them have this playground. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom's persuasive arguments. I disagree that the puerile will be attracted to this article rather than the places' individual articles. Deor (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A qualified Keep. While I agree that this collection of place names is of marginal value to the Wikipedia, and perhaps only good for a chuckle, the introduction to the article states that "The collecting of place names with such unetymological meanings, especially when the meanings are potentially amusing, has become an element of popular Anglophone culture" and I believe there is some merit in that. Pasquale (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I'm glad both that Orlady nominated it and that Pasquale voted a keep. Because it was nominated, more people will see this than otherwise might have, and because someone voted keep, it won't be taken down immediately. Lists like this are entertaining, and would make an interesting feature for a newspaper, but not suitable to become a permanent part of an encyclopedia. In that spirit, the eventual delete should not be taken as a put-down. Because of the rules in WP:NOT, we're only saying that it can't stay forever. Mandsford (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm also pleased to see this discussion occur. Having defended -- and sometimes managed to help rescue -- more than a few AfD candidates, including several lists, I know that an AfD discussion can turn out to be a positive thing. :-) --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. (edit conflict)I think one of the reasons this article is in bad shape is because it's mainly written by anons and newcomers. Since there are so many, it's hard to check for accuracy, and another big problem is that some of the places that have no articles are actually not notable at all, considering they may be a single building, if you check Google Maps. Since there are so many, it would be hard to keep track of all of them, and also hard to controll and add any place names that have been missed. Remember, Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. It is a process, not nessecarily a finished work. Some of our articles, most of them in fact, are just in their beginning stages. Is that a reason to delete them? No, but we need someone experienced to work on it, otherwise it will slowly rot away. Some articles are almost never monitored. In fact, before I started editting and looking through Joseph Howe, for example, vandalism by an anon had went undetected for what, a month? The thing is, we need a larger responsible taskforce. We need someone to work on these articles sooner, and we need this to happen to more articles. Should we really set a mental time limit, not known by the other editors, and then delete the article after the article isn't getting attention? Well, I guess you could argue both ways. We can normally say that The World Will Not End Tomorrow, and that, someday, our articles will get better improved. We can also say that, if we leave the articles to rot for a long time, more and more people will come across low-quality articles, and as the number of new readers increases, more people will see our articles in bad shape, and our overall impression will decline. Well, do all those notices and templates and lists begging for improvement of whatever article really even work anymore, that with so many articles in each of the lists and categories for improvement, and not enough people skilled at editting or not enough awareness of the articles that need to be improved? Someone needs to be bold in situations like this, pick an article, and improve it. Now, I could probably work on this article if it doesn't get deleted. I don't have enough time today, and since there are so many, this would be a long, difficult process. If we need better sources than Google Maps, which only prove that the place is probably real unless said person did something wrong, then we'll need to search for sources, remove the ones that can't be sourced or convincingly don't exsist, and remove the ones that don't belong in the article. Why does this article even belong here? Well, remember that many of the places listed actually do have articles. They can't all be irrelevent to the encyclopedia, right? If they are known and notable, even if it's mainly because English-speakers find it funny, it should have an article. It always helps to have a place that directs to links to articles on a specific topic, such as this one. Yes it needs more references, and we do need more experienced people working on it. Will people have time to help? That depends on the individual person. Remember, one person can make a big difference in any article, big or small. We do need to clean it up, and I'll try to add references and such, given enough time. Remember when I added two books as references? That pretty much sourced the ones I added at that time. Well, since no bot will probably be intelligent enough to automaticly perfect the article, we need to work together to help improve articles like this. If it's an incomplete list, I find, often the experienced users find something else to do, and the people that are less experienced go right at it. Sure, sometimes this stuff can get boring if you need to do a lot of work in a given amount of time, but that's why we're here, after all. We need to all collabrate to work on articles, and ones like this I think can be saved if we work on it in just the right way. So, we should find more sources, remove ones that don't belong, and add more legitimate ones, then do some cleanup work. Hopefully I'll have enough time soon to work on this. Is it "innapropriate"? Wikipedia is not censored. Is it turning into a laugh pub? Well, English-speakers who find it funny are probably why the places became notable in the first place, and the place names themselves are usually just called a "funny" name because English-speakers find it funny. Are there too many in the list that don't belong? Be bold and remove them. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No encyclopedic value. Really, what is the point of saying "There's a town called Needham, which, heh, sounds a bit like 'Need Ham'". You may as well have a List of people with funny-sounding names. Marasmusine (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, see List of unusual personal names. That list is not supposed to include people whose names merely sound funny, but those types of names do get added with unfortunate regularity. --Orlady (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Like I said, if we discover ones that don't belong, we could just be bold and remove them. I'm not sure which ones exactly don't belong, so I'll try to remove a few of the ones that don't seem to belong. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion. See place names considered unusual over there? There are several dozen potential references waiting to be used! Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. There, now is that a bit better? Now what do we need? Footnotes? Individual references? Articles for some of the more notable place names? All this can be completed if we are given the right amount of time. Remember, this can be worked on, and we do have a bunch of related articles. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nominator but with due respect and regrets. Whether or not any particular town name belongs on this list will always be a judgment call, and hard to maintain to any standard, without adding much value to the encyclopedia. --Lockley (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weeke-upon-Dellette, Nottintoshire, UK With all due respect to all effort put to this article, I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for this; Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and this is the kind of topic that lends itself wonderfully for OR - not only in form of random additions from random passers-by, but in a form that is somewhat redundant with "professionally" compiled sources. I'm sure someone has done this before; I'm not sure if we can just slap a list here and let it grow... It's a giant big shame, of course, because the topic is both fascinating and amusing. Hmm - let's form a "compile fascinating factoids" group in Wikiversity, or whatever? (and by the way, did you know that "Napa" is Finnish for "navel" or "pole"? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what would be gained or in what way Wikipedia would be improved by the deletion of this article. Notions of what is 'proper' in an encyclopaedia do change over time. While this article is odd, it does have a serious side which sheds some light on the processes of assigning names to places. Read Accident for example. I would 'vote' to retain. --80.229.61.44 (talk) 18:29, 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) 10:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified American Football[edit]

Simplified American Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article appears to be an essay or an instruction book that was 'forked' from the American Football page after a disagreement. I put a prod on the page that was contested so, moving it here for discussion. Narson (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. Narson (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Mr Senseless (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Technically we do have Category:Introductions, which this could be a version of. I'm not sure that American football is really so complicated (contra particle physics) that we need a for-dummies version of our article, but I think it's at least worth considering. This is nowhere near a comprehensive article, though. --Dhartung | Talk 03:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant -- Whpq (talk) 01:09, 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 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scally[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for original research concerns for several months. No proper reliable inline referencing. Makes several sweeping unverified claims. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There seems little chance of this getting deleted and for good reason. If the article is somehow deficient, it needs fixing, not deleting.--Michig (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Several reliable sources say this is basically identical to chav, just a local variation in terminology. I think we need some strong sourcing for the differentiation, else merge. --Dhartung | Talk 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is certainly not Chav, the "chav" culture stems from imported hip hop and american sports wear. The sources link to a defined subculture whose interests in "casual" were gleaned from european fashion styles and pop music. The Bling was from Ratners not ebay. Mike33 - t@lk 08:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is going to be about regional terminology or actual distinct groups and this is a delete then we seriously have to consider deleting Ned (Scottish) which is less sourced than Scally and is basically identical to chav. Mike33 - t@lk 08:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article isn't verified, but is verifiable. Addhoc (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Michig. There may be a lack of sources, but the ones that are provided may be reliable, and verifiable should come with that. I don't see a serious problem with original research, maybe just stick ((cleanup-afd)) on the page, and see what happens. Rt. 11:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In years to come, what happened in Liverpool in the 1970's will be seen as important to the 'evolution'- if I can call it that - of this working class / underclass. Therefore a page on it is important, and people like it. Scally and Chav are are different descriptions for different things - with a different history. This has all been debated before. The page is fine and has more references than a lot of other wikipedia pages.--Johncollinswork (talk) 14:56, 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 Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh[edit]

Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a POV fork with no discernible use. It duplicates information that could either be handled on Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan or on the division section of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or in a mention on Nagorno-Karabakh - and, in fact, is already handled in the first two, and possibly the third. There is no mergable information that I see. I only envision this article creating strife and supplying nothing in return. If we have this, why not one for all the other areas of Azerbaijan? Lower Karabakh, perhaps? The Azeri point of view is that the NKR doesn't exist, yet this article seems to give that area a special status. (note that for the time being on Wikipedia, "Nagorno-Karabakh", without the word 'Republic', appears to always mean the region. In this case, if it meant the republic, that would be a vastly unjustifiable title, as it would be saying Azerbaijan dictates the divisions of another country.) Golbez (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Also everything that could be described about this topic is already very nicely done in Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic#Administrative_divisions. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Azeri administrative division of Nagorno-Karabakh deserves its own article as a recognized sovereignty as much if not more than unrecognized and illegitimate "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic". Atabek (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. No need for a separate article for something that is essentially useless and exists only on some dusty piece of paper.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The raions/districts indicated in the article are recognized territory of Azerbaijan. They should be available for information to the readers as well. Ehud (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Needs further work. Grandmaster (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article represents the de jure situation. If anything, this is the article that should be kept. It does require improvement though. Parishan (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic#Administrative_divisions also describes the de jure situation and is very nicely written and doesn't look like it needs expanding. If it does, by all means expand it. Another article on this topic is not necessary and is a POV fork. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Ad nauseum arguments about the NKR's "illegal" status have become stale.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with sadness. Note that probably as much could be written about these divisions as about the NKR itself, so saying "cannot be expanded" is fairly false. - Francis Tyers · 14:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But it is still a FORK, you have forgotten that Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast article exist also, 4 articles about the same thing is excessive. There already was three articles when Grandmaster created this fork and Grandmaster was free to work on the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast article insteed of creating another one. What he created is a non-existing entity since past officially part of Azerbaijan which should be covered in the the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast article in a section which covers what followed, there is only the De facto republic. So any justification one can give won't change the fact that as a FORK this article should go, it is according to the policies and guidelines and we should vote according to them. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic#Administrative_divisions isn't the appropriate place to expand upon this topic, it can be expanded in the articles for Khojali, Khojavend, Kalbajar, Khojavend, Goranboy, and Shusha. The problem with this article is that there is no longer a Nagorno-Karabakh according to the Azerbaijani government so why would there be an article on Azerbiajani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as Karabakh in general in Azerbaijan, the region just does not have an autonomy. Grandmaster (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But Nagorno-Karabakh does not exist as an administrative entity according to the Azerbaijani Government. Hence there shouldn't be an article on Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pocopocopocopoco, actually, I think you're misunderstanding the term Nagorno-Karabakh. "Nagorno-Karabakh" in translation from Russian means Mountainous Karabakh. Azeris and previously Soviets have and are dividing the Karabakh region into Upper (Mountainous) and Lower (Lowland) Karabakh. The wording of the upper Karabakh is sometimes represented by Nagorno-, Nagorny-, Mountanous, Upper (sorry, don't remember the Azeri transliteration), etc. Hence, when some people refer to the region as Nagorno-Karabakh, they don't necessarily refer to NKAO (Nagorno-Karabakhskaya Avtonomnaya Oblast) which as you said, does not exist. They mean the upper part of Karabakh. Moreover, since the region has existed in international media and literature as Nagorno-Karabakh, Azeris have refrained from using the term "Upper Karabakh" so that there is one concrete terminology. Ehud (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am aware of that but it's good that you posted it. As per the information you provided, Nagorno-Karabakh is considered a region only and not an administrative entity according to the Azerbaijani Government. Hence there shouldn't be an article on Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh. According to the Azerbaijani Government, Nagorno-Karabakh is a region in the same way the Rocky Mountains are a region. Having an article on the US administrative divisions of the Rocky Mountains would be as equally meaningless. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, but the United States is not in a frozen conflict over internationally recognized US territory of Rocky Mountains with either Canada or Mexico. Nagorno-Karabakh (Mountainous Karabakh/Upper Karabakh)region is an internationally recognized Azerbaijani territory and as long as we have articles on de facto Nagorno-Karabakh under Armenian control, we should also have the above article available to the readers.Ehud (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The official status is already mentioned in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Nagorno-Karabakh. It makes no sense to have this article just to underline this. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • And by the same token, the page Nagorno-Karabakh Republic can be added to this page which would make sense, wouldn't it? After all, it is the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic which was self-proclaimed on the territory of Azerbaijan. Hence, the article on the former could be added as a section of the latter. Ehud (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So you want to get rid of the entire Nagorno-Karabakh Republic article and put it as a section under Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That would make sense to have Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as a section of the article Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh Ehud (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I'm changing my vote. This article is a FORK of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast VartanM (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If one wanted to look at most of the maps published in these days, s/he would not find boundaries of Nagorno-Karabakh, despite the fact that the geography and terminology itself has not disappeared. After 1993, Azerbaijani authorities have not renamed the Soviet era names of regions composing NK, but have divided its administrative regions among other neighbouring regions. Therefore, it is important to keep this information here. Another option would be keep it inside NKAO or Nagorno-Karabakh articles, but rather under its own/current title. Article or sub-article can be expanded with more information, such as when and under what decrees these administrative were divided, be it only legally and on the map. --Aynabend (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wouldn't the article on the NKAO be the most appropriate place to put this information including how the NKAO was divided and the decrees on how the NKAO was divided? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:22, 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 delete --JForget 23:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Walker[edit]

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

Non-notable. Kingturtle (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think every individual tsunami victim is notable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Kristian Walker actually does have mention in a BBC Article, however while this story is interesting, I don't think that it makes him particularly notable. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : while tragic that this individual was killed, so were approx. 250,000 other people; hence, no assertion of notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 23:52, 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. Wizardman 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Alexander Wilson[edit]

Larry Alexander Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Entire article seems to fail no original research, especially with the authors name at the top! The only substantive changes have been made by the author. Half of the article is about various colleges, rather than the person, and this also applies to the references cited. CultureDrone (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep NPOV issues, needs to be severely cleaned up but it doesn't need to be outright deleted yet. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete . notability unestablished. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no notability suggested. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, accomplished broadcaster and now chef, but no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no mention of particular notability and there doesn't seem to be an effort to unorphan the article.Lazulilasher (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : no assertion of notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. The article has no good sources; three of the sources don't mention the subject (and one of those is a mirror of a Wikipedia article), and the other one is an unpublished interview with the subject by the author of this article, which constitutes original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:37, 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 Merge and redirect to Byron, Ontario, as redirects are cheap and the content has already been merged there is little harm in just keeping as a redirect. I will protect the redirect if anyone brings repeated recreations to my attention. Davewild (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Somerset Public School[edit]

Byron Somerset Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Newly built middle school. Nothing special about it. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The school is relevant to the ever-growing cummunity of houses surrounding it. Since the early 1990s, it has been a cummunity center as well as a school. Keep. LondonOnEric-^Me•MyEars

You might want to take a look at WP:SCHOOL. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doesn't meet any of the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (schools). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and no assertion of notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Thames Valley District School Board per established precedent. TerriersFan (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to district: Contrary to TerriersFan there is no "established precedent" for this: it's been done, but keeping or deleting is more common. But I think it's a good solution as it has the potential to keep information, keep it together, and make a single good article rather than a collection of permanent stubs. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP Rather than engage in a kind of deletion warfare, we should promote article development for the good of Wikipedia and to encourage good editors. This article was nominated for deletion precisely one minute after it was created. The nominator doesn't appear to have had any way of knowing how notable it might be. For this particular article, I think we should be extra prudent and wait months before even considering deleting or redirecting it. Before ultimately deciding whether it should go or stay, I'd like to see whether or not the creator of the article or other editors can add citations to multiple, independent, reliable sources. Perhaps the nominator can explain to the rest of us how this article came to be nominated for deletion so fast. Noroton (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is hardly notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge>Delete to Thames Valley District School Board per de facto guideline that seems to be gaining momentum at WP:SCHOOL. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)!vote changed per Vegaswikian JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would not have objected to a merge, but there is nothing to merge. Not even a year it was opened in. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Byron, Ontario where it has already been merged. Having looked into the situation this school district seems far too large to carry summaries of primary schools. It is vastly bigger than any US school district for example. I have therefore merged to its locality where it fits rather nicely. Because of GFDL considerations deletion should not be carried out (because it destroys the history) but the redirect can be protected if thought necessary. TerriersFan (talk) 05:24, 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 Delete. Hut 8.5 11:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Wilson (Fatal Fury)[edit]

Bob Wilson (Fatal Fury) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character with no secondary sources to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Article is mostly a list of unsourced trivia. Pagrashtak 16:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 16:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – game character no notability on own. At best merge into game's article after a complete rewrite. Shoessss |  Chat  17:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. non notable and poor references. Decoratrix (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete character is not on the level of comparable characters Kyo Kusanagi or Terry Bogard in terms of video game industry notability. JuJube (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into List of Fatal Fury Characters --Badger Drink (talk) 07:30, 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, if anyone wants to create a redirect from the properly capitalised title they can do so. Davewild (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little saigon in san jose[edit]

Little saigon in san jose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This does not seem to be an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps appropriate for wikinews? The very model of a minor general (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a news article. WP isn't the place to for news articles. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Little Saigon#San Jose, where the issue is mentioned. Article should be renamed in Title Case after AfD. Alansohn (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since this is already covered in Little Saigon#San Jose and this article is simply a regurgitation of what's there Doc Strange (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Until completely re-written in a WP:NPOV manner than redirect as Doc and Alanshon pointed out or just delete since it is already covered. Shoessss |  Chat  17:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not an encyclopaedic topic and part of it isn't even in English! Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete San Jose resident here and just utterly bewildered by the amount of bickering and petty political spats this controversy caused, just over the name of a neighborhood. On the topic of the article, it is already covered at the main Little Saigon article and isn't really significant enough outside of the San Jose area (the only coverage of this has been in the San Jose Mercury News and not much else) to really warrant a separate article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge / redirect to Little Saigon#San Jose, after renaming in Title Case, all per Alansohn above. --Lockley (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with cheers for improving the article.--Kubigula (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory[edit]

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert context for notability per WP:N. Article reads like an advert, and was obviously written by somone connected to the subject. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I say, based on the articles shown in Google News as posted here; [4]. In addition, there were more than just a few hits in Google Scholar as posted here, [5], which makes for a pretty strong keep argument. Happy New Year. Shoessss |  Chat  17:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remark It seems mainly to be a copy and paste from the RMBO website, eg the education section is from www.rmbo.org/education. The words 'we' and 'our' are prominent throughout. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If that is the case, Tag it for copyright violation. However, I believe that the organization itself still deserves an entry in Wikipedia. If necessary I'll start the piece myself and get some help in cleaning it up. You want to volunteer :-). In the mean time,I will check it later tonight and see what is going on. Thanks for your input Shoessss |  Chat  20:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kasuba[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unnecessary article, and yet it creeps me out :(.^Mitch32^contribs 15:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 15:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are plenty of equivalent slang terms for this in English. No need to have an article for a slang term in a language whuch by itself barely passes the test of notability. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat off-topic, but why not try actually reading Meitei_language and tell me whether you think, with all the scholarly papers there and the millions of speakers it has, it's "a language whuch by itself barely passes the test of notability" cab (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DICT. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – At this point it is only a term in the Meetei/Meitei community from Manipur. Until it becomes widly used in English, and at that point it would still be listed in Wikitionary not in Wikipedia. Shoessss |  Chat  18:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A word's being English or not has nothing to do with whether it has gotten non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (in English, a language of the country it originates from, or a third language) or whether the concept it describes is encyclopedic or not. cab (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Please, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not a place for NN slang terms. Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DICT. cab (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing interesting or encyclopedic about a foreign language slang that has no notability in english usage. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. one would really want some notability for it to be here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 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. Davewild (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Rajput[edit]

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

Visual effects artist on some big films. Notability however is not inherited. Also SPA and likely COI issues. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost certian COI, also spam. STORMTRACKER 94 15:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Vanity piece. Shoessss |  Chat  18:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Per Stormtracker. Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He is indeed into the film industry and has worked in notable films. However, he is just another member of the team with no significant achievement of his own to justify his inclusion -
  Rustam
  11:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beth rodford[edit]

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

While the team itself is notable, I am not sure if she is notable just for being on said team. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 15:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nn rower, fails WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 15:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Seems to have gained notability from reliable and verifiable sources as shown here; [6] in Google News. Shoessss |  Chat  18:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Stormtracker. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per STORMTRACKER 94. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 18:39, 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 Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Chippingford-Watson[edit]

Hugh Chippingford-Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax. There are no google hits for the subject, the content is implausible, and the image is of Ralph Thoresby (I tagged the image for speedy 12+ hours ago, it may disappear by the end of this debate). Contested prod. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I want to think this is a funny joke, but most of it is just.... odd. I like the portrait of Thoresby, though. I've always wondered why aren't hoaxes subject to speedy deletion....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. The article is unverifiable at the very least. The edit history shows that the article started out as a bio of Thoresby and was progressively replaced by nonsense. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Shoessss |  Chat  18:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Before deleting this please allow me to e-mail a link to the article to a colleague who teaches ballet at Barnard College and The New School and who is an expert pointe shoe fitter:
  • The portion about the ballet shoes just might be true though the date is very early.
  • The absence of Google hits doesn't necessarily prove much in the case of people who predate the WWW and who toiled in obscure fields (and pointe shoes are obscure except to those who wear them.)
  • As The Fat Man Who Never Came Back writes, it may not be a hoax, it may be just odd, and if being odd were the criterion for deletion of articles from Wikipedia more than half of all articles would have to go.
  • But the bit about Coco Pops does make one suspicious. Robert Greer (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hoax:
      • Though I have not yet heard back from Professor Carpenter, I pronounce this a hoax derived from the article for Ralph Thoresby.
      • Go to the history for Hugh Chippingford-Watson and compare the earliest version with the article for Ralph Thoresby.
      • The sixth revision includes the name of his wife, Anne-Marie Dufresne, the purported ballerina.
      • There are a number of living Anne-Marie Dufresnes but none that I can find in any dance reference.
      • If one clicks on Compare selected revision and toggles through the revisions via newer its true nature becomes apparent.

Robert Greer (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. House elf named Dolby (I deleted that as nonsense)? Yeah, right. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:11, 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 Delete --JForget 23:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Camp[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails notability - nothing in the article even asserts notability, and there are no sources other than the camp's own website Dawn bard (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to be a genuine and worthy activity, but not, in the WP:N sense, notable. Springnuts (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC). Also NB Speedy tag removed by IP address. Springnuts (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. NN. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertisment and not notable. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 17:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:N. Macy's123 review me 17:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – As “Spam”. In addition, no News articles found regarding the camp other than promotional. Shoessss |  Chat  18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like a brochure for the summer camp. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:04, 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. Addhoc (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shachiku[edit]

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

Japanese neologism. No indication whatsoever that the term found its way into the English language. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Does this count as a WP:DICTDEF? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No references provided to show the word is in use. The top few Google hits are not obviously relevant. Delete unless references are added. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can add more info on where it came from and why it's notable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Actually have found the word with an explanation of the meaning as shown here; [7]. But that is the problem…it is only a word that would be more suited to Wikitionary, and even here I would question its inclusion, than Wikipedia. Shoessss |  Chat  18:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Contra nom, a word's being in the English language or not has nothing to do with notability. However, this word itself doesn't seem to be worth an article, and I don't see any evidence that it could be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. The jawiki page ja:社畜 is just as bad as this one, and Google search in Japanese shows plenty of hits [8], but no actual coverage jumps out at the eye. All this suggests it's a concept that would be better covered as part of an article at a descriptive title like Corporate culture in Japan or something. cab (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. No use just tossing out a perfectly good dicdef when it can just be moved to the correct site. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:31, 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. Davewild (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Schreiber[edit]

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

Game character. Not notable. There are no sources and nothing that would lead us to believe that this has any real world significance or notability. Does not meet: WP:IN-U. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 17:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No secondary sources to establish notability, no out-of-universe information to warrant a separate article. Pagrashtak 17:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The newspaper articles within the games are neither here nor there. The developers did attribute them to one name, who happens to turn up in Silent Hill 4 as a character, but going into more detail than that is wading through obscura. His role in SH4 is to act as narrator for one cut-scene to explain away what's going on - hardly a major character who needs an article. List of Silent Hill characters has him covered already in about as much depth as he warrants. Someone another (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No references or notability. Article seems to original research. Icestorm815 (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough real world information exists. User:Krator (t c) 16:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Agents: Jack Warrior[edit]

It would appear that this is a a hoax, but the tag keeps being removed. There is no evidence or citations to suggest this game exists. Closedmouth (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also nominating:
  • The Agents: The Legacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • The Agents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Smokey (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Horace (The Agents) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Smokey & Horace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

for the same reasons --Closedmouth (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt Nothing relevant shows up in Google, no mention on the website or at game sites. Hoax. Xymmax (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoaxes. Closing admin, be sure to check the "what links here" before deleting as they have been seeded in valid articles. --Alfadog (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoaxes, and block the editor from creating new ones. (See also: sockpuppet case.) -- Shunpiker (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoaxes. The Agents is certainly a hoax, as it proclaims to feature Andy Dick and this role is not listed in his imdb page where it would be if this was real. I agreee with Shunpiker on how we should deal with the user who keeps making these pages Doc Strange (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I did a bit of searching before adding Hoax tags to several of these after a mention of the supposed 1992 The Agents movie was placed in an actor's article; nothing found on Google or IMDB. AUTiger » talk 23:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolute bollocks. Someone another (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Knowles[edit]

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

Completely unnotable entry.This entry does not meet any of the Wikipedia requirements for a Biographical entry. Jeff Johnston (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vanitisement. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no showing of notability. Article created by User:Knowles.graham, only edited one other article. Xymmax (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speddy Delete as A7 [9]. Shoessss |  Chat  18:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. TGreenburgPR (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Maurice Falkon Benbassat[edit]

Jack Maurice Falkon Benbassat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a man who apparantly manages a company that manufactures notebook covers in Peru. The only google hits on his name are those that are copied from either this page or List of Peruvian Jews. List of Peruvian Jews is in itself a pretty controversial article. It was a composit of several lists that were deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Peruvian Jews. The main list itself remained undeleted after its deletion was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February. The result was a sort of crazy attempt to find more Peruvian Jews that brought us to, believe it or not, things such as List of Jewish Peruvian astronomer and the various articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Peruvian activists.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, this Jack Maurice Falkon Benbassat is a non-noteable guy whose article is on wikipedia for the sole reason of providing a few good links on List of Peruvian Jews. Because he hasn't really done anything that is noteable, I believe that his article should be deleted. I also believe that if his article is indeed deleted, his name should be deleted from List of Peruvian Jews. Descendall (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a joke screams to be made linking "notebook cover manufacturer" with "notability", but it's late here and I can't come up with something off the bat. What is boils down to is that this guy is essentially a non-notable businessman, and being Peruvian or Jewish isn't going to make him any more notable. Lankiveil (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. The idea that one can be notable for being part of an incredibly obscure subset of categories is also jokeworthy. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can find no reliable sources to establish his notability. Xymmax (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A7. Shoessss |  Chat  19:32, 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 'Merge with Michael_Jackson. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's finances[edit]

Michael Jackson's finances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Yes, Michael Jackson has money problems, but is this one man's financial situation such an important part of human knowledge it merits its own article? This page serves no encyclopedic purpose, and is a minefield of BLP-questionable content, along with several copyvios in its edit history. I'd suggest a merge, but everything here is either unimportant or already covered in the main article. szyslak 10:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agree that there is WP:BLP issues with this article. The man is famous for being a musician and possibly a kiddy-fiddler, not for being a financial whiz. Agree wholeheartedly that this is tabloidy trash that has no place in Wikipedia. Lankiveil (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, there is no good reason why this should exist as a standalone article except as a POV farm. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the Michael Jackson Doc Strange (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to main article. I consider myself to be a fairly strict interpreter of the WP:BLP guidelines, but this article really isn't so bad on that score. The negative assertions are properly referenced, and have been widely reported. MJ is a top-tier public figure, so there's much less concern than there would be about having a similiar story with a less notable person. Accordingly, I don't think deletion is required. Still, in order to place events in a proper context and avoid undue weight, I would include the material with the main article. Xymmax (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Michael Jackson. Seems to be an important topic for the main article to cover, but not important enough for its own article. It's properly referenced so that isn't a problem. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. As a separate article, it fails WP:BLP. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Michael Jackson's main article. There is valid, reliably sourced material here, but not enough for a separate article. *** Crotalus *** 18:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per above. Shoessss |  Chat  19:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Michael Jackson article. However, it should be read carefully - old versions had a LOT of useful information no longer there. Michael Jackson fans are the worst on the planet for modifying Wikipedia articles to suit their agendas but do it in a more subtle way than a 'vandal'. I'm on a crusade to attempt to put everything in a neutral perspective and this article's one that I know will come under fire very quickly and has done already. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge per above discussion. Do not keep this messy POV fork. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge-as per everyone else. It should be merged with the Micheal Jackson page, for it has little amount of merit and plus it won't really make that page bigger than it is. H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Doesn't deserve it's own entry. Phantomwiki (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a re-write is necessary before a merge; this thing is so POV! The comments aren't, but a lot of negative details have been left out on the grounds that we can't trust the tabloid press. I agree, but you can't just pretend they didn't say it. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as a POV fork. Davewild (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2004 DoE panel on cold fusion[edit]

2004 DoE panel on cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a POV fork of cold fusion, which is already a battleground due to attempts by the authors of this article to skew cold fusion towards ever greater support for the fringe view that low temperature nuclear fusion is a reality. This article appears to serve mainly to undermine the credibility of the panel, which panel has no particular significance outside the very small world of cold fusion advocacy. This article, moreover, is an essay on the report written by its opponents. It is highly sceptical of the report. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the 2004 DoE panel generated a lot of interest "outside the very small world of cold fusion advocacy". See here a partial list of newsreports: [10] [11] [12] [13]. If the article shows POV, this should be addressed by editing it, not removing it. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a definite POV-fork. This panel is not notable outside the general topic of "cold fusion". There is no indication that we need a separate article. We should content-fork properly (when the article that discusses the subject becomes too big) not artificially (just to create a walled garden). ScienceApologist (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure yet - The article sucks, that's for sure. At the time of my comments there is only one ordinarily reliable source used in the footnotes, the rest seem to be selfpublished comments on the panel and its work. So, notability is a question. pcarbon has some poential sources that might make a better article, but if it's not fixed up and the self published comments removed, I don't think we should keep it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The fundamental problem here is that it's Pcarbonn's essay on why the DoE panel was wrong not to fund more research, wy they were wrong not to find that the effect exists, why they were wrong not to be convinced by the pro cold fusion lobby and why their methodology was wrong, in that it did not lead to the conclusion the pro cold fusion lobby wanted. If anyone is going to write an article on this subject, they would first have to overcome the fact that all the detailed commentary comes from people pushing the pro cold fusion POV. And that's why I think it needs deleted: the mainstream read the report, nodded and filed it under "we already knew that". Guy (Help!) 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with deletion as the lack of reliable sources indicates a limited notability for inclusion. Generally, I think of myself as an inclusionist, I don't mind there being some fairly short sub-articles on topics, but they have to stand on their own, and I'm not really seeing the case that this does. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that this article summarizes 2 different documents: the one presented by cold fusion researchers to the DOE panel, and the report written by DOE panelists. All statements in the article can be sourced to one or the other document. Both are cited in the page in the source section. This article is not an essay that I would have written to prove anything. Also, please check the list of news related to this panel: [14] [15] [16] [17] Pcarbonn (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of your sources are in the article. A review of a government report is hardly encyclopedic. Delete --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – to the Cold Fusion. There is information out there primarily concerned with exactly the point the article makes. However, there doest not seem to be notable attention regarding the event to have its own entry in Wikipedia. As such, reduce the article and merge to Cold Fusion Shoessss |  Chat  19:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's already there, at least as much as is not undue weight, though Pcarbonn would love for there to be more material undermining the board. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although it would, I think, be possible to demonstrate notability for this review, notability is a necessary not a sufficient condition for the existence of an article. In this particular case, the only worthwhile summary of the review that could be constructed would be too short to merit a separate article and would be better placed within Cold fusion, which it already is. The greater part of the article as it stands is not appropriate for Wikipedia - in particular summarizing a scientific paper from any discipline by Wikipedia editors is borderline original research - we should rely on reporting summaries written by specialists. Moreover, the 'Conclusions' section is totally unreferenced (in spite of being the section where one would expect the most diligent citations) and appears to contradict some parts of the preceding sections. If we were to cut the elements of the article that are undesirable (even in a rewritten form) nothing would remain that is not already covered elsewhere. The label POV Fork is difficult to apply without being able to judge some measure of intent and so I have no opinion on that issue. CIreland (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I did not summarize a scientific paper, but instead relied "on summaries written by specialists", ie. on the summary report submitted to the DOE panel by the cold fusion researchers. Please note that there are 2 documents in support of this article: the one submitted to the panel, and the panel report. Hence the apparent contradiction. Both are cited in the page in the source section. If more citations are needed, they can be added. Pcarbonn (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above - it's PoV-fork rather than a topic notable outside Cold fusion, the existing page is heavily arguing the credulous PoV with most sources taken from a single vanity site. A year ago I asked for a cite to these alleged reviewer comments, and the only source for that seems to be the Rothwell site. --Noren (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as obvious POV fork. However, its main reference should be put into the Cold fusion article. Cardamon (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty sure it's already in there. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:54, 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 --JForget 23:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of free audio software[edit]

List of free audio software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is duplication of category: free audio software and isn't going to evolve into anything else. The term itself is a non-notable description of an essentially arbitrary collection of software, and shouldn't have an article to itself. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep - The list includes vital information (i.e. what type of audio software) that is lost in categories. Category vs. list shouldn't be an either/or decision (per WP:CSL). Torc2 (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - I agree. I often use software lists such as this for research before downloading or installing freeware/shareware/etc.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, lists and categories are not redundant, but complementary. Both are ways of organizing and navigating the wiki. In addition, lists allow much more context to be added (as in this case the non-alphabetical, but categorical sorting of the list). --Reinoutr (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - duplication between lists and categories is not a valid basis for deleting lists. See WP:CLS. The Transhumanist 02:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting that guideline: When developers of these redundant systems compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted simply because they overlap, they are doing Wikipedia a disservice. First, editors defend their systems of choice vigorously, so forcing confrontations between them in deletion discussions wastes the time and effort of contributors who would be better utilized by allowing them to develop their respective systems. Second, these pages often have links that their counterparts do not have - simply deleting such pages wastes those links. Third, deleting list pages just because they are redundant to categories may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system - this is a form of instability. Fourth, lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list -- deleting link lists is a pointless waste of these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive. The Transhumanist 02:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm not opposed to using that guide as a counter to this nom, I think it would have been appropriate for you to have pointed out that the last edit to make substantial edits to that paragraph was, ummm, you. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep - Article can be organized finer than category. Add entries from category, link harder to relevant articles and categories, maybe to free software templates. 85.140.16.66 (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC) ( Lurking user from Russia, Moscow )[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dischord Records bands[edit]

List of Dischord Records bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

With the combination of the Dischord Records catalog and Category:Dischord Records artists, this page seems relatively redundant. The article hasn't been edited in months, and is pretty sparse on encyclopedic content anyways (the whole article only has one complete sentence). Drewcifer (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As lists go, this seems ok to me. The list format highlights redlinked artists that won't appear in the category, and it's much easier to view this information here than scanning through the discography. If it hasn't been edited for months, maybe that's because Dischord haven't released anything by new artists in that time. I don't see how deleting this would help Wikipedia.--Michig (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list is not redundant with the category, as it may include bands that do not (yet) have articles. However, no objection to merging with the catalog page. On second thought, the careful noting of the years each band was associated with Dischord convinces me this is worth keeping as a stand-alone article. Note that items in list or table formats can be just as encyclopedic as prose sentences. Chubbles (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - The category is irrelevant; per WP:CLS, duplication between categories and lists isn't sufficient to delete either. However, I just don't see anything here that necessitates a List article separate from the Catalog page - at most, this could be a two- or three-columned section within the main Dischord article. I don't see any sources on the List page, and it's also unclear whether the dates are supposed to be the dates of each band's existence or the dates they released albums on Dischord. Torc2 (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Seems harmless, and the bands are notable. I'd prefer to see the artists catalogued by way of category, however. --kingboyk (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per sources identified in this debate. Davewild (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stoozing[edit]

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

Original research, neologism, unreferenced. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable neologism as described in WP:NEO. Lankiveil (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. The complete lack of references (even from the purported birthplace forums) is a good indication of non-notability, and it reads like an essay. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article may be unsourced but stoozing is certainly a widely recognized term, it gets over 238,000 ghits [18]. RMHED (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment google hits don't equal notability. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, equally, a "per nom" argument that has clearly had zero effort put into it to double check it independently, which is what you are supposed to be doing, does not have any weight. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Multiple people independent of its inventor have documented this activity in depth, as a mere 1 minute's looking at the results of a Google search reveals. (John Stepek (2006-02-27). "How 'stoozing' could bring down the global economy". MoneyWeek. Digital Look Ltd. ""You can avoid paying interest altogether"". The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. 2004-09-11.) The PNC is satisfied.

  Although RMHED's argument is based upon not looking for actual sources that document the subject, so it seems are the arguments of all of the other editors above, as well.

  I encourage all editors to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Unverifiability means that no sources exist, not that no sources are cited. You are supposed to look for sources yourselves. An article is only unverifiable if you don't find any, having looked. Moreover, having multiple editors doing so is the safeguard that is intended to be incorporated into the AFD process. You don't help to improve the encyclopaedia by not doing the research at AFD and instead simply parroting the nominator. Neither are you being of any help at all to AFD. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Nominator's comment: My bad. I admit that i didn't bother looking for sources, because the whole outset looked like a blatant neologism - a silly-sounding nickname from a community website that became an investment strategy. However, the sources that you offered look convincing enough to me. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Would that they had been added to the article in lieu of being presented here in the form of a lecture. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per RMHED, and Uncle G. I've worked on the article and can confirm the term is more widely used... but I don't have any statistics, so... -xC- 18:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly a fairly new phenomenon for which no other non-neologistic term exists. Well documented usage in the public domain. JFW | T@lk 21:13, 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 --JForget 23:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz the Bee[edit]

Buzz the Bee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unnotable character. Being a Disney character should not equal instant notability. Article has been a two sentence stub since 2005! Not sure if this character exists at all...couldn't find any other sites discussing it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None notable-bee (!) He can buzz-off... Lugnuts (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well, it's not a hoax - see this 1951 movie on IMDb including a user comment in which the user calls him "Buzz-Buzz the Bee". Anyhow, regardless of how many onomatopoeic words are in the bee's name, he's non-notable. •97198 talk 10:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Buzz Off, fictional character with no wider notability outside of the Disney universe. Lankiveil (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, fictional characters really need some real-world notability to deserve their own articles. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparently he was only in a couple of under ten minute cartoons between 1951-52 and after that disappeared totally. Completely NN character. Doc Strange (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to appearing in 1 toon for not a long time. Not notable. Soxred93 has a boring sig 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]