< December 27	December 29 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was Speedy Keep: obvious case of misinterpretation of WP:NOTE and/or a case of WP:POINT. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300-page iPhone bill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Strong Delete This is an article about an unimportant subject. The Talking Mac (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - The subject more than meets the requirements of WP:N--"unimportant" is a subjective judgment, and not sufficient grounds for deletion. Dhaluza (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete not notableSpartansuit (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are using a different definition of notable than the one used on Wikipedia. From WP:N:
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

* "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.…

-- Dhaluza (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Special:Contributions/Spartansuit User's only other contributions have been vandalism. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Dhaluza (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. One, two, and now three nominations to delete, and yet the article remains well-referenced, well-written, and even - dare we say - substantially notable. While no doubt embarrassing to Apple and AT&T, this video (and its creator, and the issue it focuses upon) has received coverage on or in ABC News, PC World and other reliable sources. The article seems rather massive upon first glance, but I believe a lot of that bulk is an unfortunate necessity considering the fanatical POV-pushers involved in most "iArticles". While the title is somewhat lacking, this is the fault of the video's creator, not the article's. --Badger Drink (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it turns out this is a WP:POINT nomination. Wonderful! --Badger Drink (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Has consensus really changed that much since last nom one month ago? Whether important or not is not at issue, it is notable. I hope this is not a case of WP:POINT (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trojan Balllistics Suit of Armor). DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. Seems to be a WP:POINT nom per DoubleBlue. --Smashville^BONK! 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "unimportant"? The article seems to be exceedingly well-referenced and meets the notability requirements; what policy or guideline does WP:UNIMPORTANT fall under? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:40, 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 result was Redirect to Pokemon Trading Card Game. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy card[edit]

This article is redundant with the article on the Pokemon Trading Card Game and this article demonstrates no notability of its own through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this article contains no more information than Pokemon Trading Card Game then redirect it. alex.muller (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care what's done to it. I put it together when there was very little information about the TCG on Wikipedia, and now that there's a lot more (and Bulbapedia becoming a lot more comprehensive), I'm fine with its deletion. Ron Stoppable (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pokemon_Trading_Card_Game#Card_types. Hey Judgesurreal777, I think you should consider Pokémon card and Trainer Card for this Afd as well (If you chose to include them, consider my vote as redirect all). The Bulbapedia version of these articles are more in-depth and in my opinion would satisfy the most curious of visitors.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly generic name 70.55.91.243 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect. A non-notable part of a bvery notable card game. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 05:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pokemon Trading Card Game, because one card does not need an entire article. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺)} 05:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--Tone 15:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Conrad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Complete lack of reliable sources, especially of the caliber that are generally required for a biography of a living person. The vast majority of cites are to Usenet posts, or to the subject's own website. A few others are to blogs and self-published websites, none of which are generally considered reliable sources. There is also original research, like the statement that Conrad claims to have appeared on Larry King Live followed by a Google search of CNN.com which shows no hits. There is no evidence that this person is at all notable in the real world, as opposed to the self-contained world of Usenet. In the past, we've deleted articles like Willy on Wheels, Slashdot subculture, and Gay Nigger Association of America for being too self-referential and lacking any reliable sources. This article should be removed for the same reason. *** Crotalus *** 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable internet bickering. BJ^Talk 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to point out that M. Conrad garners a one sentence mention in ISBN 0595400442 … until I read that book's bibliography, which says, right at the top, that it uses Wikipedia extensively as a source. There are no other books mentioning this person. Nor are there any journal articles.
As for the WWW: Of the 88 actual web pages that Google Web turns up, some are entries in directories of either "wacky websites" or "criticism of Darwinism websites", the overwhelming majority are pseudonymous discussion fora postings, exactly four are the very (and only) four independent sources cited in this article, none of which actually document M. Conrad xyrself (only xyr arguments), and the remainder … turn out to have been written by M. Conrad xyrself.
The hypothesis is only documented in its rebuttal, with no evidence that it qualifies as anything other than original research that the rest of the world does not acknowledge, and the person is not reliably documented at all. Uncle G (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, unverifiable --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uncle G's comment is persuasive. —Encephalon 13:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. and per Uncle G. No legitimate notability, no decent references. Tim Ross·^talk 16:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Uncle G. There is a serious deficiency in both reliable sources and notability. Superm401 - Talk 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient keep consensus after 5 days. Non-administrator close. Rt. 20:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isa al-Jowder[edit]

Notability is not established. DimaG (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think as a signatory of those documents (available on WikiSource) he definitely meets notability. It's just a matter of finding sources to back him up. matt91486 (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added the references Gratpot (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. It could definitely use expansion and inline referencing (including more English sources), but I think there's sufficient notability and verifiability to keep. Superm401 - Talk 02:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--Tone 15:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Sharma[edit]

Contested prod. Seems to be a memorial for writer's mother (see edit revisions). As much as I hate being a jerk, WP:NOT a memorial. Carados (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable by Wikipedia definition. Not even close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomwiki (talk • contribs) 06:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Superm401 - Talk 02:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Pigman☿ 05:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Thurlow[edit]

Musician with questionable notability. Dougie WII (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Notability asserted with insufficient citations. Could any be found? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a lot of references to him and have added a couple of references to the article. I'm not sure we need to know what his hobbies are, however.--Michig (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequare notablity shown per WP:Music. A1octopus (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--Tone 15:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Johnson (musician)[edit]

no evidence of notability. Virtually impossible to do google search, and the article contains absolutely zero references. No evidence that his band The Clerics is notable. No evidence that this is anything more than a perpetual stub of non-notability. Keeper | 76 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete solely due to the verifiability problems this article has, I give much less weight to "notability" arguments. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Coccyx. I could find no musicians named Paul Johnson who were in a band named The Clerics. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete both as hoaxes. BLACKKITE 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minlo Wonlin[edit]

The result was delete. At end of AfD, the article remains unsourced and without WP:V support. Pigman☿ 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vianessa Castaños[edit]

Contested CSD, tagged for notability concerns. Keilana_(recall) 22:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Jehochman ^Talk 22:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, pending the addition of citations and sources. The claims of the article appear to be enough to pass WP:N and WP:BLP, but the content needs to be verifiable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per lifebaka --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. Assertion of notability seems insufficient, and searching Google found nothing significant. Significant stage, TV or film work would help, but I found no evidence of it.--Michig (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Logical NOR; the history remains if anyone wants to merge. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ampheck[edit]

Article is about an anachronistic turn-of-the-century term for the NOR logical operator (and sometimes NAND as well). Could not find any evidence that the term is still in significant use. Original article consisted mostly of original research by a fan of the term's inventor. Tried to rewrite the article, but could not locate sufficient secondary sources to do the topic justice. The last paragraph is still original research, but I haven't removed it since the article doesn't make much sense without it. I don't think the subject can ever spawn a decent article, nor do I believe that it passes the notabilty requirements. I would suggest changing the article into a redirect to Logical NOR as this is what the term most often refers to. (Also, the article's original author has requested that the article be deleted, although that editor has been banned, so I wouldn't put much weight on that consideration.) Kaldari (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Logical NOR. Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an easy enough call to Redirect. Ψν^Psi_nu 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Logical NOR. It's probably useful to have a reference to Peirce's original symbol, but I don't think we need a separate article for it. Tevildo (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, or to a new article on the logic of Charles Peirce, where several similar very short articles could be collected. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to merge, really. Ospix (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say "merge", but like Ospix said, there's not much there to merge - most of the article contains information on the NOR and NAND operators, on which we already have extensive articles. As Peirce is obviously mentioned in both articles, a simple addition of "Ampheck" in the article summaries would suffice. Tanthalas39 (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge whatever's possible, I say. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here to merge. --Core desat 05:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Logical NOR, in brief "History" section. No need for the last para, and also not for the whole quote; it is sufficient to note (with citation) that Peirce observed this is a sole sufficient operator. --Lambiam 12:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, with a strong suggestion for expansion. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petit Copter[edit]

Unverifiable article per WP:V about a possible upcoming videogame. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mh29255 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:V strikes me as questioning whether the two articles from the page are from a "reliable, published source" or not. 12k Google results suggest that the game is coming sometime, and the gameplay seems notable (revolutionary?) enough for an article. alex.muller (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone can dig out some sources that I'm not seeing. The only coverage I can see is some screenshots and a few mentions in fan blogs. Bear in mind that this is either a re-release or new version of at least two games that have been released on PS2 and Xbox, hence why searching for Petit Copter floods results. Even if 'Wii' is used in the search, most game pages have links to the different consoles and thus will show up even if they don't mention the Wii version of the game. The only problem here is that the article's been created too soon, until there's actually something to report it's unnecessary. Someone another (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the sources that exist verify the current stub-state of the article, and the vast majority if not all Nintendo Wii games are notable. Having a stub in place will allow anons to contribute to the article. User:Krator (t c) 00:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although it's true that most Wii games achieve notability, this is because there are a large number of independent channels that give non-trivial coverage to them. This doesn't seem to have happened yet, so this game fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. It may very well make sense to recreate the article at some point after the game is released and receives the coverage, but I don't think it makes sense to leave the article here until then. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It looks like this game (or an earlier one in the series) has already been released for PS2, Xbox and PC. It seems like the game did not receive wide release in the US, but that doesn't put it outside our scope. The article ought to cover the already released game(s) in the series and mention the upcoming Wii release. — brighterorange (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If a version of the game is already released, then crystal ball doesn't apply here. matt91486 (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:CRYSTAL and there are no reliable secondary sources to provide evidence that its development is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Llanelli#Primary and secondary based on the informed reasoning of Dahliarose and Sam Blacketer. –Pomte 05:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penygaer school[edit]

Non-notable school per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carmarthenshire County Council per WP:R. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to (the Welsh equivalent of) district per Dahliarose. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)(updated !vote JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to district (jarbarf) (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on Llanelli where the school is located. The Llanelli article already has a section on Education. This is a Welsh school. There is no 'district' article. It makes no sense to direct the school to Carmarthenshire County Council as no one would expect to find information about a school on that page. Dahliarose (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dahliarose. Some explanation is necessary. "School districts" exist in the USA and in other countries, but England and Wales education since 1904 has been a local government responsibility. Although it is quite common to hear reference to the "Local Education Authority", in practice this is identical to the local authority. In large authorities such as the Welsh unitary authorities (and Carmarthenshire is one of the larger), there are a vast number of schools and it would unbalance the article on the authority to include local authority schools in them. In line with the "Greenwich judgment", local authority schools cannot give any preference to pupils actually living locally. It therefore makes more sense to describe schools which do not merit their own article in the article about the town or community in which they are located. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as a Hoax. BLACKKITE 01:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kk (duo)[edit]

Strongly suspect this is a hoax -- no record found at Billboard of any such album or group Accounting4Taste:talk 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page, a fake album by this fake group:

Comment I was starting to think I was going crazy. The article LOOKS real but nothing about it checks out... then I noticed that someone had admonished the creator for creating hoax pages before. Maybe I am crazy... but I can't find any reference at all to this musical act. Note to closing admin: there is a (possibly fake) album article associated with this page. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Food (Duo album) should be added to this AfD. Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The creator seems to be creating a walled garden of interconnected hoax pages; I noticed the first one but until I was sure they were all a hoax, I didn't want to go forward. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nominated for speedy deletion as a hoax {vandalism). Mh29255 (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have removed the speedy as hoaxes are specifically not speediable.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understand. However, the article is likely a WP:HOAX. Mh29255 (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Gsearch isn't turning anything up, which would be unusual for a recent hit group.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I would add that the user should also be indef blocked, but it's easier to monitor their current account. Cool Hand Luke 23:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I blocked him for 24 hours just to stop the onslaught of hoax pages while I (and other administrators and users, for whose help I'm grateful) sort this out. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both. Hoax. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Keep - WP:SNOW and invalid nomination rationale. Paul Cyr (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Benazir Bhutto[edit]

the article is going to continue more mass killings in the Islamic area. Eldorado91 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a frivolous and extremely ridiculous motion. The article documents a historical event and nothing more.

Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Wikipedia is not censored. --Phirazo 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a baseless nomination. Joshdboz (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, obviously Wikipedia's goal is to document the world as-is, rather than trying to change it. --12.215.100.131 (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Rationale doesn't make sense. 203.160.122.75 (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is historical. Keep it here.--RoryReloaded (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I have asked the user to cite policy, and he has not done so. Another user supporting the AfD is also making legal threats on the article's talk page. SorryGuy Talk 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I second all the above opinions. Two One Six Five Five (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Why are we even considering this motion? It's patent nonsense 81.129.130.162 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is absurd.Kitchawan (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per overriding WP:V concerns. No reliable, third-party sources about this ... venture ... have been cited in either the article or the AfD; the numerous self-published pamphlets and the like are not reliable sources. Also, most of the article's content reads like patent nonsense. This may be the artistic point of whoever is behind this, but not of Wikipedia. Sandstein (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Lettrist International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Nonnotable organization with no verifiable third-party references. This was previously nominated for deletion, but the questionable result was a weak keep, leaning toward merge. However, the same problems still linger. There is simply no verifiable information to say this group even exists, and if it does, that it is of any relevance or importance. Once again, it should be deleted or merged with Stewart Home.-RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I previously added the references to the article and don't understand why they are not verifiable? John Eden (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Without any context, it's borderline WP:NONSENSE. I'm not even sure what context would make it make sense. WP:NOT at any rate. Ψν^Psi_nu 23:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's lack of sense-making is part of the point; see Lettrism and Talk:Lettrism and Situationism. However, an encyclopedia article shouldn't be written from that perspective, so if the organization exists and is notable, the article needs rewriting. (Query: If you don't understand the context, and haven't troubled to look it up, then why are you saying it's not notable? How on earth do you know?) --Lquilter (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. John Eden (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, now I see, sort of, now that the context HAS been provided by the two of you. So Lquilter's second sentence is accurate. Change my vote to Uh, whatever. Ψν^Psi_nu 11:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism Task Force "discussions" list. —Lquilter (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All former AFD participants were notified about this discussion.-Lquilter (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the reiterate my previous comment that the article should be merged with Lettrist International and not with Stewart Home.John Eden (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. This "new" organization shares very little in common with the "old" LI, and is more of a one-man nonsense operation typical of Home. Therefore, it should be merged to his page, if kept at all.
- As to the question about the "references" and the verifiability thereof, all of those references come from publications associated with the members of the "new" LI. There are no verifiable third-party sources to prove any of the claims. For all we know, all of those articles were written by Home himself. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a merge with Stewart Home really. Just so long as something happens. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spoof, not an organization. --Soman (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant and notable. kindly refer to previous discussion for the arguments against the delete. --Buridan (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do explain, please, what is significant and notable about this organization? If this is so patently obvious, why has nothing been done to improve the article since the last AfD? It is now in the same sorry state it was then. And, please be assured, I read the previous discussion, and had I been the least bit swayed by the arguments raised, I would not have nominated the article for the current AfD. The onus is upon you to prove the so-called significance and notability, and to do so with verifiable information appearing in reputable third-party sources. I dare say that no such undertaking is possible or will be attempted. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - because AFD is not an improvement process. afd is only for deletion. if you want improvement, then improve it instead of deleting it. --Buridan (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong again, sir. I have seen a number of articles that were put nominated for AfD, discussion commenced, then the article in question was expanded and improved to the point that the AfD nomination was either withdrawn or a new consensus was reached to keep the article. That could have happened with this article, if anyone was interested enough to find reliable sources. The problem, in this case, is that no such sources exist, nor will they ever exist. This article simply cannot be improved or brought up to Wikipedia's standards because it is nonnotable, insignificant, and can only exists in the vaguest sense. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whilst Re:Action was a publication by Home, three other organisations are cited:

Parasol Post (leaflet accompanying issue 3) [4]

Turbulent Times issue 6 [5]

Dreamtime is Upon Us! - The 2nd Annual Report of the Association of Autonomous Astronauts

These are all verifiable third party sources. User:RepublicanJacobite may be unacquainted with tghis material, but his speculation that Home was behind them all should be treated like the idea that Bacon wrote the works of Shakespeare. It is unfortuante that User:RepublicanJacobite is so adrift on this point, and tries to divert us with his idle speculation fuelled by a log holiday and his strange obsession with Stewart Home (unleess of course he is Stewart Home Sock puppet himself!Harrypotter (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Your accusation that I am a Home sockpuppet is so laughably absurd it does not merit response. As to the rest of what you've said here, I suggest you reread Wikipedia policy on verifiability and reliable sources, because those publications you mention are neither verifiable nor reliable. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that User:RepublicanJacobite found the suggestion they might be a sockpuppet of Stewart Home was a laughable absurdity as I am sure this will help them appreciate that this was just illustrating their suggestion that all the articles quoted were by Stewart Home. I had hoped that they would understand this as a reductio ad absurdum made in the festive spirit, rather to be regarded as some sort of accusation or accolade. As regards the remark about verifiabilitythis seems to cover the point. As these are referred as reliable evidence that these specific groups were involved with the New Lettrist International. Natrurally they can be verified if the querent goes to a good library (like the National Art library in the Victoria and Albert Museum and feast themselves on this material. I hope this helps User:RepublicanJacobite and others pondering this strange request for deletion, and helps sets the tone for a wonderful New Year in 2008, during which I would certainly like to see this article improved!Harrypotter (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I am glad that your sense of humour is still in working order, Harry, but your grip on reality and your understanding of Wiki-policy is slipping. First, I've read the verifiability policy, but I suggest you reread it. The New York Times is a verifiable source, Harry, the Washington Post, the Daily Herald, the Guardian, these are all reliable sources. If you read the specific subsection to which you linked says that "self-published" sources should be used with caution. All this article has are self-published sources---not a single one has any kind of reputation for fact-checking or journalistic integrity. Are you actually suggesting that the average Wikipedia user go to the "National Art Library in the Victoria and Albert Museum" in order to check on the validity of a source they have seen in a Wikipedia article? Clearly, your sense of humour is in good order, but your sense of reality is lacking. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and article has no reliable, third-party sources. Superm401 - Talk 02:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability and sources are all there. They are as much identified with the London Psychogeographical Association, the Association of Autonomous Astronauts, Luther Blissett or indeed the 1st LI as they are to Stewart Home so they could equally be merged with those pages. So keep it separate. Paki.tv (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 05:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Milner[edit]

Non-notable contestant (WP:N) in a Whales beauty pageant that did not ultimately win. Mh29255 (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only verifiable claim to notability is not enough to pass WP:N. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, although I think the nominator meant Wales, not Whales. :-) Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TGreenburgPR (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--Tone 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RSS involvements in communal violence[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/RSS involvements in communal violence

Delete - The page is a fork of the article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Religious violence in India. There is no new info presented. It also is an indiscriminate collection of unrelated incidents and should be deleted as such. Baka man 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakasuprman (talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pov fork. --Soman (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and did it myself. Please delete and redirect when ready. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV fork. Darrowen (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Violates NPOV.-
Rustam
11:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment, The article could be deleted as per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Articles ought to be neutral and not reflect personal opinions. They should not be for or against any individual or organization. Hence, the title is not apt. As for the material, the stuff is nothing new and has already been covered in RSS article. -

Rustam

11:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete, a POV page,unencyclopedian. Shyamsunder 22:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, consensus is that notability has not been established by enough significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScoreHero[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

I'm not convinced by the sources provided that this website is notable enough for inclusion. A large portion of the "ScoreHero in the Media" section describes certain users of the site, and not the site itself. It's also a rather serious issue that the name of a 9 year old is included in this article, which opens up a couple of WP:BLP issues, although those can be fixed. Sean William @ 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I ask all of the ScoreHero forum members monitoring this article here not to interfere with this. Sean William @ 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm going to disregard your request (but try to maintain NPOV still). I would argue that ScoreHero is notable due to how the related game developers themselves have supported the community (citations coming) through large money donations, exclusive access, and even employment. One could also argue that it is by far the largest score tracking site for any game, which is quite an achievement, but I'm not sure if that helps to meet notability guidelines. Jason Patton (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My request not to "interfere" was sort of targeted at the vandalizing types, so you're just fine. Also, the reason I brought this page to AfD was because it was created and expanded, but was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 in the past (under the name Scorehero - the logs are there). I wanted to get a clear up or down on the notability of the subject; my view is minimal, although I did argue towards the "non-notable" camp. If you can argue its notability, which you seem to be doing just fine, more power to you. (I'm referring to WP:WEB when I ask for notability). Sean William @ 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I fail to see the assertion of notability for this relatively new website. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of members are mentioned, yes. However, WuLFe and smokyprogg both specifically mention SH in their interviews, ans there is a lot of notablility to SH itself. In fact, Times Online asked smoky a question almsot entirely about SH. I haven't checked Ben's interview yet, but I'm sure he mentions SH as well.

And I removed Ben's full name. Sorry about that, didn't think much of it, but I see what you mean. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually argued on the forums in the past that the site was non-notable and would probably be deleted. That was before Harmonix and Activision started "woo-ing" the community though. I think the argument then was about the custom song community making the site notable. I'm still not sure how that fits as, in my personal opinion, custom songs are more of a phenomena than something that is really encyclopedic. Jason Patton (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the article clearly falls under criterion #1 of WP:WEB. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 21:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB. Some minor mentions, but this can be included at the appropriate page for the game(s). --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fall under one category anymore, it fits in more than one, so you can't just put it in one. It would be more logical in my opinion to put this as related articles for the Guitar Hero games and Rock Band, and any other game this site will include in the future. Plerrius (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forum shop all you want, but this is a website, therefore it falls under WP:WEB. If you want it kept, best go looking for reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm? It has reliable sources. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 01:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--n1yaN t 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote, please provide your rationale for deletion. Sean William @ 06:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who are voting delete, again:

I think the article clearly falls under criterion #1 of WP:WEB.

Anyway, I vote keep. Not like I have to state that, though. I've already said what I think about the issues addressed. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the article would be better suited regarding ScoreHero the company, not ScoreHero the website. At the very least that would prevent WP:WEB from applying. However, one of the moderators has just now (in IRC) said that there isn't much information about it public yet, so there wouldn't be much in the way of sources. Until there are sources about ScoreHero the company, I'm going to have to err on the side of delete. Andy Janata (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep --JForget 00:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sakal, Sakali, Saklolo[edit]

Delete per WP:NOTFILM Mayalld (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought it was worth pointing out here that the author of the article in question has vandalized this page. I reverted the page blanking and warned them on their talk page. --Dawn bard (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's notable in the context of the Philippines. --Chris S. (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Showing in the Philippines for the duration of the 2007 Metro Manila Film Festival. --Howard the Duck 11:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already won major awards and has offended a significant part of the population of our country (A Senator even slammed this film for the supposed ethnic slur). --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IMDb listing and definite results in Google News Search. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Not only is it a sequel to Kasal, Kasali, Kasalo, a whole lot of Filipinos are aware of the film not only because of its cast (the likes of Judy Ann Santos and Ryan Agoncillo to name a few), but also because of the media might of the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, which is the parent company of Star Cinema and heavily promotes and advertises the film on Philippine television. There's still that level of notability, even if it is only limited to the Philippines. --Sky Harbor 12:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Project Genesis. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Planet[edit]

This article is just plot repetition taken from the Star Trek movie articles and has no notability or referencing of its own. As such, its just plot repetition and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Star Trek III page, or possibly change this to a dab page. Not sufficiently notable on its own but a reasonable search term. JJL (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Star Trek III page. Mh29255 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Project Genesis and source. There are quite a few Google Scholar hits on search terms such as genesis+planet+trek, but one article is sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dharthung. Rray (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and Genesis planet to Project Genesis. Don't delete as there are several incoming links. There is no need to keep the category:Star Trek planets on the redirect page, as List of Star Trek planets: G-L contains a brief but sufficient summary. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qo'noS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Qo'noS

I love Star Trek, but this article should be at a Star Trek wiki and not on Wikipedia, as it lacks notability and referencing, and as such just repeats, in an in-universe way, the plot of various Star Trek episodes and is totally duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Klingons are certainly notable and so an article on their homeworld is merited given the sci-fi context and changing names over various series. JJL (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment & Question - Notability of the Klingons is not inherited by their homeworl. Qo'noS would be worth including in the Klingon article, although the content of the planet article now is just plot summary. Also, how does the planet changing names from TOS to ST6/DS9, confer notability? Sounds more like trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Klingon Doc Strange (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely notable. Ausir (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - How so? Where is that assertion articulated in the article? --EEMIV (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. On most such things, I'd vote delete, but it's hard to describe this as mere fancruft, since "Klingons" have achieved a real world notability that even Roddenberry would not have expected back in 1966. As JJL points out, the backstory about the Klingon homeworld has changed over the years. Mandsford (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Similar comment and question as above: no argument that the Klingons are notable, but how is the planet notable? A changing backstory is just plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would have to agree with Mandsford, i am in no way a Star Trek far, but still when i hear "Klingon" i know what it is referring to. If this was a plant that they lived on, not their home plant, then i would vote delete. I do think it needs more sources, and know they are out there. Tiptoety (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just because Klingons have notability does not establish notability for this article on their home planet. Notability is established by referencing, not by saying it is. If you cannot produce any references to show that it is notable, your keep votes will be disregarded as you are ignoring entirely the nominating concerns. By nominating it, I am not trying to have a vote on whether or not its notable, I am inquiring as to whether there are any references to establish notability, and if there aren't, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree, but am saying that there are references, just watch Star Trek. I am willing to do some research and find which ones include this planet, but may take me a while......like i said, i dont watch Star Trek that often. Tiptoety (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a more constructive way to address lack of referencing is to look for references, not ignore obvious notability and pretend that sources aren't out there. Having miscellaneous of WP wiki's dilutes wikipedia's comprehensiveness. In waht way is much Pop culture stuff less notable or referenced than some obscure diseases, pharmaceuticals, insects, asteroids, stars or historical figures that we aren't debating here? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the basic foundation of notability, referencing, is completely absent and all that is presented is a vague assurance that there may be notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality is not grounds for deletion. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiable, and per Casliber. Improve, not remove. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree with Casliber, this article can be referenced and just because it does not have them at this time does not mean it should be deleted. Notability can be proved through secondary sources, and this topic definatly has them. I have volunteered to find notable references for this page, but it may take me a while. I know this article passes WP:V. Tiptoety (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article needing references should have references added or an unreferenced tag added. It's not a reason for deletion. It's only a reason for deletion if sources cannot possibly be added because none exist, and that isn't the case here. Rray (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I look foreword to you and the others that are voting keep to quickly show that that is true by demonstrating some references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We were actually looking forward to seeing you add some references. Rray (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were any I'd add them, as there aren't, this article is here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the consensus will decide whether or not references exist. Happy new year. Rray (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are certainly plenty of references available for the Klingon homeworld and it's absolutely notable. The article might need improvement but this is not the place to ask for such. - Dravecky (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Klingon -- No salvageable/notable real-world content. Only bit of notable information about the *planet* I can think of is the Emmy the High Council chamber won for "Sins of the Father". --EEMIV (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Klingon until sufficient sources for a more substantial treatment of the topic. --Polaron | Talk 21:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those saying "Add references"/Expansion of my Delete argument - The article has been without sources (and an assertion for why this planet matters outside of Star Trek's storylines) for more than five years. While there's plenty of material out there about Klingons, I doubt there are sources offering commentary/real-world information on this particular ball o' rock. Alas, the burden of proof/substantiation is on editors adding or restoring content, which editors (myself included) haven't done. More fundamentally, though, the difficulty folks face finding third-party references on this topic is that this article right now is entirely plot summary; there is no real-world information that calls for third-party sources. It isn't, as Casliber suggests, a matter of quality; it's the (lack of) any meaningful content. This aspect of fiction is not notable enough to garner attention from academic/third-party/"real world" writers etc., therefore there is no information about real-world significance or development (which is what Wikipedia, as opposed to Memory Alpha, is interested in) in the article, therefore nothing that can be cited. --EEMIV (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC) --EEMIV (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The problem with the article isn't notability, it's in the size and format. There is far more than necessary for this article (see Section 31 and Romulan homeworlds also). Most of Wikipedia, I'm starting to think, isn't notable enough "to garner attention from academic/third-party/'real world' writers". See Fuzzy dice, Arpita Mukherjee, Carmot, Chris Gibson (North Sea Delta witness), Cooties, Dibs, Fish of Oklahoma, Marcos Valdés, and Hate Plague for examples of pages that shouldn't exist but do. I am absolutely not saying that this article should exist because these others do; that would be in improper use of WP:OSE. What I am saying is that, as examples of Wikipedia's less-than-easily-referenced articles, they show that what this article has endured inasmuch as this "article has been without sources for more than five years" is not abnormal for Wikipedia. The threshhold, as I have been oft reminded, is not whether it is referenced as much as that it could be so. (I'm not as much a fan of that logic, but that's the "consensus".) This page could be significantly longer, larger, and more thorough. While not the best, it warrants at the least a hair's width above a "weak keep". There's so much better things to do than deleting articles of this size and nature even... such as fixing articles that need it, like the laundry list above...? Just a thought... VigilancePrime (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And despite this long conversation, there has still been zero demonstration of notability, and after 5 years, the benefit of the doubt has passed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But thank you for starting to take care of some of these others... like Hate Plague. That one in particular is awful. Still, the article in question here is a major part of Trek, and just as major parts of other such series are left, so should this one. Naboo, Alderaan, Death Star, Endor, Dagobah, Hoth, as well as Gallifrey, Mondas, Skaro, Telos, Vortis, etc. This is a better instance of WP:OSE as it is a reasonably even comparison and precedent for this type of article has clearly been set. I stand by Keep on this issue. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, let's not throw Deathstar In with that bunch, that article is coming along nicely...Anyway, as you yourself point out, these articles suck, so why begrudge us a first step in getting ride of them, which is getting ride of this sucky article? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Clarify, I'm not saying that these articles all suck by any means! No, I'm pointing out that major planets in MAJOR SciFi (SW, Trek, Dr. Who) - and even some minor planets (and one forest moon) have articles. It's not a single isolated disturbance either, it's a longstanding accepted practice. In the same way, Romulus and Remus (Star Trek) and Qo'noS deserve an article. The precedent has been set through longstanding and widespread articles of the same nature. To the contrary, I'm not saying that any of the planet articles suck, but rather that they are all notable enough and, like this one, "worthy" of an article on Wikipedia. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now now Js777, remember AfD is not about article quality but about notability...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as article fails WP:V and WP:NOT#PLOT and there are no reliable scondary sources to demonstrate notability. The artilce also fails WP:WAF]; basically there are no sound arguments for keeping this fancruft, as it is so badly written it is not even worth the effort to transwiki to a fansite.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT - WP:WEASEL - WP:BASH VigilancePrime (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as culturally iconic as you could ask. 46,600 ghits, which is pretty impressive for a word that doesn't exist. "vorpal sword" only gets 56,100. Hobit (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, it seems to me that this AFD was inappropriate, given the short time between DRV and AFD. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Product Development and Management Association[edit]

Previous DRV for this article:

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 23

This is an article about a trade organisation, which is sourced from its journals, its press releases, its publications and not much else. The organisation has a journal, holds meetings, mas members, a chairman and officers. In which, of course, it is indistinguishable form any other organisation. It has 3,000 members. That is a very small association. The National Association of Women's Clubs in the UK has more than twice that, I know because my mum is an officer. I suspect WP:COI on the part of the three-times-creator and sole editor. Tone of the article is inappropriately promotional. Deletion review of my speedy was requested by user:Davolson who has fewer than 20 mainspace editos over a period of more than a year; the webmaster of PDMA is... Dave Olson. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article just passed a DRV with unanimous agreement to Overturn and Restore. To immediately nominate for deletion seems inappropriate. The description you give above is sufficiently generic to apply to the United Nations, which has even fewer members, but I doubt that article will be AfD'd anytime soon.-gadfium 01:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. It said it was not a valid speedy deletion (and I disagree there, since all versions are the work of one user who I suspect of WP:COI), but that is a long way short of saying it is a valid topic. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does have a promotional tone and it lacks a criticism section, but it has the needed reliable sources to establish notability. Regarding a possible COI by the creator, User:Nzgabriel, I find convincing the statement he offered at User_talk:Nzgabriel#Netconcepts last February in response to my inquiry, that he is a high school student based in New Zealand. (He has edited an NZ high school article at Papanui High School). The closest he comes to COI is probably his comment I follow some local (Christchurch) companies including Netconcepts. Sometimes the things I write about get me noticed (I got to know a couple people at Netconcepts because of some of the writing I've done), which is cool when it happens but I'm not here just to network. The variety of articles he has worked on show he's not a single-purpose editor. The article sounds like Nzgabriel may have created it by rewriting some company-sourced material, but it's certainly capable of being improved. The Journal of Product Innovation Management that they publish, though it doesn't currently have a WP article, sounds respectable enough to deserve one. The PDMA is also responsible for some handbooks published by John Wiley, who are a mainstream publisher of technical books. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, have you found some independent sources, then? I did not see any, all seemed to derive from self-publication or press releases. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has a few links but they seem to be merely trivial or promotional coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. I'd be willing to reconsider, however, for now self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.--Hu12 (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of independent reliable sources here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list of mainly self-published books? How does that help, please? Guy (Help!) 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - a list which includes many books which are not self-published and write about this organisation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I keep seeing Product Development and Management Association as publisher. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're seeing wrong, look closer. None of those first ten books, except the last on that first page, has any connection with PDMA whatsoever, but merely make an independent citation of PDMA as a valuable source of information. The last book on that first page is the PDMA-branded PDMA Toolbook 1 which, like the other PDMA titles (Handbook and Toolbooks), is in fact not self-published but is published by the large book publisher John Wiley & Sons. (PDMA licenses its name to the publisher, and helps recruit authors, but Wiley makes all of the final editorial and business decisions. They understand PDMA is a valuable "brand" in the field of new product development, which is why they want these books branded that way, to sell more books; PDMA in turn benefits by name exposure and some small share of the book's royalties.) Phil Bridger's very helpful list shows just how widely PDMA is independently cited by authors of books devoted to the profession of new product development, and validates the value of this 31-year-old organization to that profession. There are 115 books listed which refer to PDMA, and only 5 or 6 are PDMA-branded books. So enough about this "self-published" myth. (And while we're at it, let's also end the myth that PDMA is a "trade organisation". It's a professional non-profit 501(c)(3) business organization, and does no lobbying or advocacy for any industry or "trade", but is focused completely on education and research. It is, agreed, a business-focused organization, just like, for one example, the American Marketing Association is, or the American Medical Association for that matter, but should not be labeled with the perjorative of being merely a "trade association".) Davolson (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the record, I believe that Davolson's recent edits of the PDMA article are improper due to his conflict of interest as the organization's webmaster. I suggest that he propose changes on the article's Talk page, and I will try to work with him to improve the article before the AfD closes, which may be later today. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, I have the removed the WP:COI additions, however as suggested this should be discussed on the articles talk page. In the future, avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors and always avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view and verifiability --Hu12 (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how to improve the article, if I'm not permitted to improve it. It seems like a bit of a Catch-22, doesn't it? The article can and should be improved, but if no one involved with PDMA can improve it, and only people who know nothing about the organization can do so, then we have a bit of a conundrum, ISTM. There's no end of information on the PDMA web site about the organization's contributions, value, history, etc. etc. (e.g., www.pdma.org/about), but someone would need to get that up on the Wikipedia page, and I'm not allowed to. PDMA's books have been reviewed in many academic circles and are used in many academic programs around the world, but it will take time to compile that info, and then if I do it's a COI to post it. See why I'm a little confused? I appreciate and understand the COI policy, but don't understand how to get this page improved... hoping that you do allow it to stay up awhile while we try to improve it sufficiently to meet your standards. --Davolson (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-published source isn't reliable at all.--NAHID 18:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to additions of reliable sources such as Business Week, etc. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist query? Is it in order for an AfD participant to ask for a re-list for additional time? See this user talk thread as evidence that a company representative is willing to work with me on fixing up the article. Another five days should be plenty. If this request is not appropriate just delete my comment. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think there's any need to relist. Enough consensus has surely been achieved for a "keep" already. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there seems to be no consensus at this point, and a possible relist to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached seems quite valid.--Hu12 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - I thought Davolson was linked to the organisation. I hate this kind of situation; the only people who appear to care are those who are associated with it. It's a very small association, around 3,000 members. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Product Development and Management Association for some work by Davolson and me on finding better references. Any help gladly accepted there. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the existing article with a new version, per Talk and per this AfD discussion. The promotional tone has been greatly reduced, though I couldn't find reliable sources for everything as I had hoped. Further improvements are welcome. I suspect that better categories can be added, and the reference style can be cleaned up. Of course, new information that comes from reliable sources can be added. Should it be assigned to some WikiProject? Not sure whether this version is so small it should be marked as a stub. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nzgabriel (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning, please? EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE. This is not an argument for deletion at all, it's a vote.--Hu12 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. Here's my reasoning: If it is retained then more work can be done upon it to reach it to a better version than it currently is. I would like to work with other Wikipedians to make this better. Nzgabriel (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn on the basis that reliable sources have been presented. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:48, 29 December 2007 (GMT)

East Fork Road[edit]

Just a side road of California State Route 39. There is no evidence to establish/support its notability. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 20:15, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

Delete. Not notable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this was a major project that was stopped twice: first by a flood and then by budget cuts. [1] has some history and a map; [2] and [3] should be useful if anyone has access to the LA Times archive. There are several more sources in [4]. --NE2 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, it's clearly notable. --NE2 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You proved it was verifiable, not notable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Read Wikipedia:Notability. --NE2 21:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I did. If there are RS, a verifiable subject is presumed to be notable. However, in this case it is not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Why not? --NE2 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's just a side road. Fails WP:USRD/NT. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So what? It's still notable per the general criterion. --NE2 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable road that is the stub of a major highway that was washed out mid-construction. It is the subject of a 700-word article: "HIKING: SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS; Unfinished Road Makes Great Footpath;" JOHN McKINNEY. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 8, 2000. pg. 15. The road was closed due to a rockslide and washed-out bridge in 2005, resulting in 200 people being stranded for a few days, an event event which received considerable local coverage. The road follows a canyon that is a center for gold prospecting in Southern California, and which is deeper than the Grand Canyon. I'm not sure if there are special notability standards for roads, but I doubt that many have articles written about them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are over ten thousand articles written about roads. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant articles in reliable, 3rd-party sources. Being the subject of such an article is one of the usual signs of notability used on WP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The relevant notability standard says:
    - While for the most part, county highways should be in a list article, there may be a select few major county highways that are notable enough to have their own article. These include freeways/expressways, roads that are former primary state highways, or roads with other special historical significance. When writing an article on such a highway, it is especially imperative that the article make a claim for the road's notability.
  - This road has special historical significance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regardless of how notable this road supposedly is, the article (which is what we're discussing here) is unreferenced and makes no claims of notability. If the road is truly notable, it should not be hard to expand it. So I ask those that claim its notability to improve the article. Now you may say to me, "do it yourself", but you have the resources to improve this article; I do not. I don't believe this is too much to ask of those who have commented above. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone in and added some sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article cites no references and makes no claim to notability.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is now well-sourced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scott5114 and Rschen7754. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bridge to Nowhere (San Gabriel Mountains). The "Bridge to Nowhere" gives the road notability. However, this article violates WP:NOT#INFO and it should be merged into the Bridge to Nowhere article, as such. It belongs there. --Son (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with either the bridge or with California State Route 39 (to which it serves as a connector) until such a time when there is sufficient information for a more substantial treatment of the topic. --Polaron | Talk 23:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: all of the delete votes refer to it being unsourced or non-notable, neither of which is true. --NE2 23:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NOT#INFO. --Son (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've written that twice, but I don't see the applicability. This road has been the subject of a medium-length profile in a major newspaper. By conventional WP standards that established notability. What does WP:NOT#INFO say that overrides that notability? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aslan's How[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article is an in-universe plot repetition from the Chronicles of Narnia book articles, and has no notability or referencing outside of them. As such, this is just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seconded (nothing to add to nom's rationale). --Paularblaster (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, and an unlikely search term. JJL (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and transwiki anything not already on wikia. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aslan's How is noted and referenced in at least twenty books besides the original works. Talk of duplication would be more convincing if others weren't simultaneously trying to destroy those other articles too, e.g. Another Narnia AFD today. Seems like a witch hunt :) Colonel Warden (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you find any actual references and not a listing of the Narnia books in which the how is mentioned, let us know. And save your breath about witch hunts, its embarrassing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment none of these references are to Aslan's How as such, but mention Aslan's How as the location of a conversation or plot development. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Prince Caspian; not enough for a separate article. *** Crotalus *** 23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhqps better to List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia? --Paularblaster (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aslan's How features in two books, so realistically couldn't be merged to either. Additionally, books 2 and 4 on the above googel list are clearly independent commentaries or reviews. Obviously it is hard to know what exactly is in the books without reading them but there is enough to suspect there might be a body of work later when someone reads them. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable by reliable sources, and the books themselves --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The books themselves are not a sufficient basis of notability, reliable secondary sources, such as a discussion in a notable publication on how this land was dreamed up by Lewis would be needed, and a few other references that add to it would be proof of notability. As of now, none has been established or even promised. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You are ignoring that at least two are independent commentaries are themes in the Narnia series. They at least deserve a look. have you actually looked at the google books link above? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia. Wikitumnus (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Forgive me if if this is not a proper comment on the discussion, but if usefulness of an article counts for something, my wife and I when listening to Prince Caspian for the first time, were rather confused by some of the terminology used. A how is not a common term in our part of the world. Thanks to the Wikipedia, and that this article was not yet deleted, we are a little better educated, and able to better understand the story.--70.157.18.128 (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, consensus is that he does meet the relevant notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Bergan[edit]

Article has been tagged with notability issues for some time and fails to assert notability per WP:N. Tag to speedily delete was removed. Mh29255 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems notable under WP:PROF though the article is in awful shape. JJL (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails to cite sources and the guy fails WP:PROF. GJ (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable both an an engineer and as an academic. Professor of a major institute at Berkeley. But has anyone checked for copyvio? Sounds very much like a press release. DGG (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I bet the sentence that says "Dr. Bergan also has a grand daughter, Kelsey Bergan, who has acieved a celebrity status through the social utility network facebook." isn't copy vio... but does suggest some COI problems. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 4 of the article is lifted from here, but otherwise I can't find any evidence on-line that the article is a copyvio. The article creator User:Ird306, has made edits to Weigh in motion promoting the International Road Dynamics Inc products (IRD is Bergan & Son's company). I think this is all done in good faith, but in ignorance of WP policies. Looking over some of the links Ird306 posted at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences#People ([5], [6], [7], [8]) I can see how a case for notability might be made. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He would seem to qualify as a significant figure under WP:PROF and while I am not totally happy with the referencing, a google research reveals that verifiable references are there. SorryGuy Talk 07:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--Tone 15:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clonezip[edit]

The subject of a previous prod [9], the article has drifted since then into incomprehensible nonsense. The only reason I'm not prodding again is its previous prod. Fails WP:NN and WP:PN "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - un-encyclopedic as per nom. --Pmedema (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as above, reasoning by WP:PN. alex.muller (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense; I can't make head or tail of it. *** Crotalus *** 23:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a technical term that might not make sense to a layman. Could make a decent article if (a) it's real and (b) someone finds some sources for it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is more of an unpopular neologism than a technical term. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The principal argument for deletion is that this concept, either as "Anti-Pakistani sentiment" or as "Pakistanphobia", is not the subject of sufficient reliable sources. A random sampling of the article's references confirms this. The "keep" opinions do not address this WP:NEO/WP:SYNTH issue. Sandstein (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanphobia[edit]

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Pakistani sentiment

Wikipedia is getting flooded with 'anti-foo-ism' or 'foo-phobia' articles. Generally, these are concepts constructed within wikipedia, disparate incidents and vague understandings of chauvinistic feelings are grouped together for political purpose. Just cause there is a antisemitism article doesn't mean that every ethnic/religious/national group should have its own 'anti-' article. There absolutely no reation between chauvinism in India and discrimination against Pakistani migrants in the US. Soman (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator that just because there's an "anti-" something article, it doesn't mean that "anti-"everything else articles have to be created as well. If there are verifiable sources to support the article, then fine. The sources cited in the article do not support the anti-Pakistani sentiment but rather facts such as the creation of Pakistan and UN resolutions. --Kimon^talk
Delete per nom. Doc Strange (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 2 google news hits [10].Baka man 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's a lot of work for a simple WP:NEO that appears only once or twice in the whole big wide world. Is it possible that this is some sort of WP:COAT article? Does it matter? I have keepophobia about it. Ψν^Psi_nu 23:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I conceded this article needs to be improved. But it is clearly notable. There are currently 28 sources that make reference to the term.Bless sins (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. Bless sins (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Comment: there is Indophobia with 25 references, which is less than the 28 references for this article.Bless sins (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My logic would apply for that article too. I'll post an afd there as well. --Soman (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: have a say at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indophobia. --Soman (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I am not sure about Pakistanophobia, since I don;t have too much knowledge on this topic. However, the term Indophobia was coined by American Indologist Thomas Trautmann [11][12]. Google books shows 77 hits [13]. term is used by academics such as here [14] and here [15]. This is definitely a long-used term in academia. There are many parts of the article that are OR, but the term itself is notable in the context of scholarly discourse, and a cleanup is required, that is all.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I didn't go through all of the 28 references, but out of the ones that I did, none of them used this "Pakistanphobia" (or Pakistanophobia) neologism. Gizza^Discuss ^© 06:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was originally located at Anti-Pakistani sentiment. If kept, it should be moved back to that title, as "Pakistanphobia" is a neologism. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move back to original, neutral and descriptive title. The fact that wikipedia is "flooded" with something means that this something exists. "chauvinism in India and discrimination against Pakistani migrants in the US" has one very important thing in common: the target of discrimination: Pakistani `'Míkka >t 17:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Anti-Pakistani sentiment, which it is now called, this is no different from Anti-Americanism. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms. Should be moved back to anti-Pakistani sentiment.Noor Aalam (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete per nom.--D-Boy (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, consensus is that he fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacq LaMarche[edit]

Non-notable writer who fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable writer, no source, ~~total crap~~. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem notable enough as WP:BIO, mainly edited by one contributor (Mdb1370), no recent edits, no external links or references. alex.muller (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We're not judging the work of the author, just whether he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. alex.muller (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: indeed, an author can have great work, but it's not Wikipedia's job to report on them until they are notable elsewhere. Wikipedia reports the news, doesn't make it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO, upon search. Might want to nominate From Petoskey to Prague as well. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Comment: Should the input of User:Mdb1370 be restored - in full or in part or in summary or not at all? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 07:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete both. Davewild (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Halo[edit]

Album with no claim of meeting WP:Notability or WP:MUSIC in article. Band's article has been repeated deleted as non-notable and is now salted. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Comment - Could Orchids and Ammunition be bundled with this? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Fabrictramp (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, albums by a non-notable band. --Dhartung | Talk 19:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the band doesn't rate an article on WP, the albums shouldn't either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrestrial Based Relativity[edit]

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to have been written by the person who devised the theory, and links only to a website with his presentation of the theory. It does not appear to have been published or discussed in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, and receives only a handful of mentions on blogs or websites [16]. Does not satisfy the basic requirement of notability by having substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Wikipedia is not a forum for initial presentation of new scientific theories. Edison (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a verifiable theory, outdating Special Relativity. As well eliminating Special Relativity's Twins Paradox. It is in the interest of sharing new information on the subject that it was submitted. If someone can verify that it is incorrect, then it should be edited or deleted. Special Relativity is only assumed to be 100% correct and is still debatable. TBR does debate the validity of Special Relativity. I say let the article stand and see what experts think of the actual theory, before deciding to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve D. Gage (talk • contribs) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Nothing must be included in Wikipedia that has not been peer reviewed, fact checked, published, and acknowledged outside of Wikipedia first. Your article should be deleted from Wikipedia.
  The places for publishing novel theories in physics, and peer reviewing them, are physics journals. Please use them. This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Please go elsewhere to publish your novel theories to the world. This is not the place. Uncle G (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Theory is at http://www.fourthway.us/Relativity.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve D. Gage (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and cannot be verified. There is no publication of such theory in any academic journals. Dekisugi (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments by Dekisugi. Mh29255 (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Wikipedia does not publish original thought, even if it it true and correct. Such matters should be published in primary or seocndary sources first. Also, there is a substantial problem with WP:COI - the author of the paper on line is also debating keeping the article he wrote here at WP. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Publication in an academic journal would not be necessary but the article does not mention anything else than a single website. I know about a Czech author who claims he found alternative to Special TR and published two books about it. The TTB theory doesn't have any such coverage. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone in this very onesided discussion actually comprehends the theory. It is verifiable by the Haffle and Keating experiment results. Discoveries are documented in Wikipedia. If TBR is valid, it is a discovery. IMO, there is no one yet in this conversation qualified to prove or disprove it's validity or significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve D. Gage (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In wikipedia you have to abide by wikipedia rule, and inclusion of article is strictly followed in care of notability. Original research are not allowed here. The theory may be true, but the matter is of notability. Provide references by which its notability can be established.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Sorry, Steve. We're not professors or scientists. We're just a bunch of editors who like to share reliable knowledge for everybody. We're not interested in the theory itself, whether it is correct or has some flaws. If you are a scientist who developed this theory, then you'd probably known yourself that this is not the correct media to publish it. Dekisugi (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: with millions of articles Wikipedia needs to follow rules to keep the boat afloat. Every topic should obtain enough of real-world significance first, at least that's the ideal. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real world significance? One point of TBR is that there is no linear motion in the Universe [motion in a straight line]. It literally cannot be accomplished. Even in drawing a line with a ruler, the earth has turned, and revolved around the sun. You have drawn an arc. This and other significant points in the theory lead to the logic of the true nature of motion, force, time dilation, etc. If it is correct showing Special Relativity to be less than fully descriptive or correct, we should keep the faulty theory link here and delete the correct one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve D. Gage (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ...but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Dekisugi (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears we've come to a relatively strong consensus to Delete. I'm having a hard time coming up with a test on which it DOESN'T fail. I'll be surprised if it lasts the hour. Ψν^Psi_nu 00:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since no one seems to have mentioned WP:FRINGE, allow me to be first to say that it doesn't contain enough independent source material to meet that criterion. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this page it says "help wikipedia change the world." New information does just that.Steve D. Gage (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you look at it more closely, they're implying that money does that, a far more accurate assertion. Also, since you're a Man of Science, by now you should have realized that you're pushing against the limits of the Sixth Law of Wikidynamics: "The strength of the protest of the originator against an AfD is inversely proportional to the merit of the item." Consider yourself advised. Ψν^Psi_nu 11:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per most delete recommendations above. I don't want Wikipedia to try to change the world if that would mean ignoring our policies and guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, original research, or conflict of interest. If TBR achieves some level of acceptance by the scientific community, it can have a Wikipedia article at that time. On the other hand, if the scientific community actively denounces TBR (not just ignores it -- but rejects it in a well-publicized manner), that would also justify having an article about TBR, since it would then be a notable fringe theory. Right now, all we know about TBR's level of acceptance is that the creator of the theory published it on his own web site. That's not enough to justify a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as just another crackpot theory whose creator exemplifies on his webpage his lack of understanding of Einstein's relativity (and non-notable, improperly sourced, etc). Someguy1221 (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Garou: Mark of the Wolves. --Stormie (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hokutomaru[edit]

Short article covering a non-notable fictional character with no sources. Delete, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Airhawk. Pagra shtak 18:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 18:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garou: Mark of the Wolves, the only game he's playable in. No need for merge as the game article already has enough description of his character's role in that game. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NeoChaosX. JuJube (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a sourced article of a character from a notable game series. Happy New Year! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that's sourced is that the character actually appears in the game. This article needs reliable secondary sources to assert notability, if those sources exist. Pagra shtak 19:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemist british power metal band 1985-1991[edit]

Non notable, no sources and no google hits. Seems to fail WP:BAND. Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if all they put out were demos. Corvus cornix_talk 18:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi we were equally as big as several metal bands on here. i still get mail about our band to this day. please do not delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony marshall (talk • contribs) 19:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC) — Antony marshall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:N and WP:MUSIC. And the "shift" key. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Also the user is just self-promoting the band. --Madchester (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

listen wile i understand your justifiable cause to keep wiki free from self promotion it would have been easy for me to log on under an assumed name and post as a fan. i did not my e-mail address and name are open to see and would be happy to post them. we were an influential band at one point the biggest unsigned metal band touring and recording demos. i think our entry is fully justifiable. hopefullly it was correctly spelt and not one long advert. please advise how we could get a listing then, maybe if we cheat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony marshall (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you had logged on as a fan or not has no bearing on whether or not your band meets the Wikipedia guideline at WP:BAND. From your own article, you admit that you only ever released demos which sold in the neighborhood of 1000 copies, and you never signed with a major label. Those are big strikes against you. Corvus cornix_talk 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and i totaly understand this however in total we probably sold 4K+ and toured extensivly. by your standards radiohead would now be in danger because they are not signed to a major lable but there own! delete it if it makes you feel better but i thorgh the whole point of this was to have fun and enlighten people maybe its just so a select band of people can act as god? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony marshall (talk • contribs) 20:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Your method of arguing grows increasingly strange, especially when you begin comparing this band to Radiohead, which has sufficient documentation establishing their notability. As of yet this article has no sources whatsoever, and if you have any that support this bands claim to notability, then I might consider changing my vote. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources to indicate this is anything other than a small-time unsigned band like a million others past and present. The article itself pretty much makes the case for non-notability by stating that the band recorded some demos then split up without ever being signed to a label. Oh, and reading it made my eyes bleed ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC easily. Lets see: Sales: 4,000? Charting Singles: None, on a label of note: nope. Yeah this doesn't seem to be notable. And couldn't they have called the article "Alchemist (British band)" or something? No All Music Guide entry, no scrobbles on last.fm, all google hits are for an Australian band called Alchemist and the anime Full Metal Alchemist. Doc Strange (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable band, per the reasoning of everyone above me. If the article's creator wants to nominate Radiohead's article for deletion, he's welcome to try, although I doubt he'll like the result. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i was not asking for radioheads entry to be deleted just said that if major label status was needed then theres a point in question right there. i understand the rules please feel free to deleate as it is the crime of the century to have someone most people have never heard of on wiki. by the way i run a pub probably one of the most sucsessful out there we have won or been runner up in 9 major awards in 2 years and shortlisted in 2 others next year (including the proud of pubs pub of the year award in the publican awards) could i enter this pub in wiki?? oh no because most people have not heard of it! please deleate this as it will make you all feel great and who am i to stop this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.196.51 (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major label status is helpful in establishing the notability of a band, but per this page it's not the be-all and end-all. As other contributors here have pointed out, Radiohead meets and/or exceeds a vast number of the other criteria on that page. Nobody's calling this "the crime of the century" or anything like that - it's simply the case that this band, good as I'm sure they were, don't pass the criteria for inclusion. These things happen. As far as the pub goes, you're welcome to contact me on my Talk page and we'll see what we can see - something that wins awards and gets shortlisted for others may well be notable, the fact that "most people have not heard of it" is neither here nor there, as we've tried to tell you throughout this discussion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Radiohead has several things that this band does not: Charting Singles in several countries including a Top 40 US hit, several Top 10 singles in the UK including One that hit #3, a single that hit #1 in Canada, A Grammy-winning album - considered by many in the music business to be one of the best of all time - that has sold over two million copies in the United States alone, An album that hit #1 in both the US and UK, Grammy Awards, and actually were at one time on a Major label of note and if you haven't been paying attention to music news lately, have recently signed a deal with Another record label of note. Whereas your band has none of these accomplishments and has never come close. I'm sure your band is a very good band, but Simply comparing your band to Radiohead in terms of notability is extraordinary frivolous. Doc Strange (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jesus read the post i am NOT comparing us to radiohead jesus i hate there music anyway! we were far better! only joking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.196.51 (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are not. But the examples I show in my comment show why Radiohead is notable per Wikipedia and yours isn't. You claim sales of 4,000. This isn't notable. Your band has no page on All Music Guide, no scrobbles on Last.Fm, no reviews, no singles that made any of Billboard's charts, no singles or albums that made any chart anywhere, no appearences on a TV show of note, no albums on a major label, never been signed to a major label, no Google hits pertaining to your band and no awards, whereas Radiohead meets and exceeds all of these. I was just giving an example of what Wikipedia considers notable per WP:MUSIC by using the example you mentioned above. Doc Strange (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yep no prob. i know in the great scheem of things we were nothing but big up the little guy. oh and our guitar player has collated all our demos for our planned myspace page but if it does not fit then sorry im very new to wiki.

A MySpace is a handy thing for a band to have, but it doesn't count here, no. That said, there's always hope. I can't remember the name of the British band who scored a massive record contract just by having a MySpace that someone stumbled over, but things like that do happen. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks we are not after a contract as we now are all married kids ect just recording our little band for postrerity. by the way we were in numours magazine in the late 80's early 90's still we tried ah haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.196.51 (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flag game[edit]

Article fails verifiability, since the only reference given is a blog posting. Accordingly, the absence of coverage fails to establish the notability of this game. Wikipedia is not for things made up in the youth hostel or before leaving university for summer break. Finally, the culture section borders somewhere between original research and POV. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable game per WP:N and unverifiable per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Google results, although whether they are reliable sources is up for discussion. Appears to be a meme, notability is dubious at best. --Solumeiras ^talk 18:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting Google hits is not research. Research involves actually reading the things that Google finds. Have you read any of the things that your search found? The first 30 have nothing to do with this subject at all, 18 of them being about capture the flag, and provide no basis whatsoever for your conclusion that there's a meme of some sort. Uncle G (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V that I can tell. Yes, backpackers collect flag patches, which are supposed to represent the countries they've visited, but I suppose not always. The sex angle sounds more like a joke. I've been in an international organization and there is a lot of semi-competitive trinket collecting just for the heck of it. How one could distinguish this from that is beyond me. --Dhartung | Talk 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not even notable amongst backpackers. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is insufficiently documented and is not a focus of sustained reporting or scholarship; thus, an encyclopedia article is not possible. —Encephalon 13:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. Unverifiable.--Kateshort forbob 23:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dying to Say This to You EP[edit]

Promotional EP with no claim of notability in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication this EP is specifically notable. Album it comes from charted but this is not inherited by this promotional EP. Pigman☿ 18:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. The Sounds are notable, as is the album, but the promotional EP is not Doc Strange (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a promo EP does not need a page unless it has independent notability. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet WP:N --Pmedema (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, consensus is that this list does not fail any policies and should be kept. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia[edit]

This seems to violate: What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Every location in a notable book series, doesn't automatically make every location notable. The important locations have articles already, and are linked from the template as well. Also I want to point out: this had a prod on it, but was removed for no reason. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep, or on second thoughts merged with Narnia (world) - not just a notable series but regarded as one of the most notable in the genre. Did not have a huge list of different places but was rather well-circumscribed for fantasy writing, hence a significant proportion exist in popular consciousness. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I concur rather with your first thoughts. Given the notability of Narnia, I would have thought this was a perfectly useful list per WP:LIST, and merging would needlessly fragment and overburden Narnia (world). --Paularblaster (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Narnia is highly notable as can be seen from the large body of secondary work about it - 1364 hits from Google Books, for example - and so merits good coverage. This format is preferred to a myriad of separate articles on these places. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given how popular the stories are, and with TV and film versions as well, this seems a perfectly legitimate spin-off from the main articles on each of the volumes - and a handy reference for anybody writing about the series. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But phone numbers are a handy reference as well. Just because it's handy doesn't mean it's encyclopedic - to my knowledge. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly comparing like with like. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Some contributors to this discussion seem to think that lists need an assertion of the notability of each item they contain. The topic needs notability; the items just need relevance. Olympic coaches and competitors, for instance, should all be listed but should not all be given individual articles. Per WP:LIST and WP:CLS, lists need to present information in a structured way that takes the weight off articles, and complements categories. This list does just that. Stand-alone articles about each of these places are hardly desirable (so the category should not list all of them); incorporating the items off this list into articles about the volumes, series, or the fictional world would overburden those articles. WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV etc. apply in full force, but are hardly criteria for deletion in this instance. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not every location is notable. Nor does every location have or merit an article. Feezo (Talk) 23:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Narnia world per suggestion - The list demonstrates no notability through reliable sources, and should be merged as was suggested. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Narnia (world). *** Crotalus *** 23:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists are the way to go, much better than individual articles that might occur if this were deleted. RMHED (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Narnia (world). Just because the "parent" subject (Narnia) is plenty notable, it does not follow that everything regarding that subject is notable - otherwise, the six degrees of separation would dictate that every conceivable person, place, and thing would be notable, by virtue of being associated with something else that's indisputably notable. Surely there's a Narnia-oriented Wiki for material such as this? --Badger Drink (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable by reliable sources, especially the book itself. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is verifiable A merge is fine too, but it might make more sense to keep as a seperate article. Enough of the places on the list are independantly noted in works studying the chronicles to merit seperate articles. Considering the number of places in total, it makes sense to have a list of them for various reasons. —siro χ o 07:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the world of Narnia is significant enough to justify an article about places in that world. Wikitumnus (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Why are lists so misunderstood by so many Wikipedians? This is clearly as useful and valid encyclopedic glossary-style list as clearly described in WP:SAL and in WP:LIST. Read them, learn them, live them (and stop AfDing list articles! *please*)Earthdirt (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Just as a refresher, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary but it does contain glossaries as described in WP: LIST under "Types of Lists" ... "A Glossary page presents definitions for specialized terms in a subject area." Earthdirt (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep Per all the above comments. Harland1 (^t/_c) 09:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. J Milburn's argument is pursuasive. If Mr. Boyle becomes a subject of coverage (rather than a passing mention) by reliable sources in the future, the article can be recreated.--Kubigula (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Carleton Boyle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/David Carleton Boyle

I am not convinced that simply being a candidate for govenor is enough assertion of notability. Press attention appears to have been minimal. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Mr. Boyle's media impact may not very large, he has had a significant impact on the people and politics of New Hampshire. A great deal of Mr. Boyle's progressive efforts have been stunted by Concord, New Hampshire officials. This entry is an attempt to document his achievements precisely because the media attention he has received has been unreservedly underwhelming. With time, this content of this page will rival the deeds of David Carleton Boyle. People need to hear of his story and life because the noblest spirit embiggens the smallest man

I'm sorry, but we don't keep articles about people simply because we believe that they are inspirational, we keep them if they are proven to be notable. As there are no reliable sources about this person, he is not notable. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Concord Monitor and Fox News don't count as reliable sources? Boyle is a homeless person running for President. His platform is very strange, though there is not yet any material about it online. If it emerges, I'll add it to the article. In the meantime, why the rush to get rid of facts about him? Why does notability rest on the whims of mainstream media? 71.194.38.132 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with our notability guidelines, please raise them at the relevent talk pages, but, trust me, suggesting that we don't need reliable sources in articles isn't going to get you very far. The problem with the sources currently cited is that they are trivial, tiny mentions. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no suggestion above that Wikipedia doesn't need reliable sources. The suggestion is that The Concord Monitor and Fox News are reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.38.132 (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn- I'm an idiot, and didn't research this properly. I will redirect the article to the more substantial article on the same person. J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Ahmed Mohammed Ali Al-Badawi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jamal Ahmed Mohammed Ali Al-Badawi

Wikipedia is not a news service. This person has no notability outside of certain court cases, and not much notability within them. We cannot have a full biography about this person, and the article could potentially have coatrack and BLP problems. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT, seems to be a reference to Jamal al-Bedawi Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think this was an overly hasty ((afd)).
- Note: Nominator placed this nomination FIVE MINUTES after the article was created. The various deletion policies and guidelines urge nominators to refrain from nominating articles that have just been created for deletion, because some people start them in stages. The result of overly hasty nominations is that those starting those articles have to stop working on the text of the article, and respond to the overly-hasty nomination.
- The guy is listed on the FBI's "Most wanted terrorist" list, for crying out loud. Don't responsible nominators spend fifteen seconds doing a web-search, prior to making a nomination, so they don't waste everyone' time? Aren't responsible nominators supposed to consider whether the topic of the article merits coverage, and not judge newly created articles merely on their nascent state? Geo Swan (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right, this is a hasty nomination. I disagree with hanging around for six weeks while editors look for sources that don't exist, but I do admit I was an idiot not to check for more sources myself. As the article mentioned only trivial mentions in the case against another suspect, I assumed there wasn't much to this guy. As such, I will withdraw my nomination and redirect this article to the more substantial one on the same subject. Apologies. J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted as copyright violation. delldot talk 17:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omnitrix Aliens[edit]

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, as improved.--Kubigula (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Seldon Plan[edit]

non-notable band Mhking (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanispamcruftisement, and top ghits are all either selling something or blogs. Thin boy 00 @778, i.e. 17:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, this is a stub. Second, the page was vandalized and I am not sure by who or why, but I am going to revert this to the original page. Third, going by criteria for notability, this band as far as I can tell has been in a couple films, was associated with the notable Lonley girl 15 series, has been in national press (I found a couple articles in The Baltimore Sun), and has been on tours with national acts. They were also featured on National Public Radio and I have found a whole bunch of NPR station interviews with them. I think all of this is pretty good evidence for notability. And again, it is stub. I can find no evidence of this online, but it mentions an appearance on Current TV. I think that this argues for some notability as well. Especially based on the fact that this is a stub, I think it should stay until more info can be fleshed out. AS far as links selling something, every band website (including huge bands) has records for sale...that should not be criteria for deletion. If that were the case all talk radio pages and music websites should be deleted.

--Goferwiki (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good assertion of notability, and it would really help if you could cite those specific Baltimore Sun articles etc. so others can verify that info. I've found a few sources that I'm adding. –Pomte 06:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt. 16:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC#1; several non-trivial citations have been added, as well as details of the coverage Goferwiki discusses. Rigadoun (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Morgan (defendant in landmark drunken driving case)[edit]

Prod and prod removed. Myself and another editor tried to help the author of this article in bringing it up to standards, 2 weeks later he has done nothing to improve it or provide us with info so we can improve it (see his talk page. The claim to notability in this article is that this person was the defendant in a landmark case, but that's clearly not true (it was a trial case), and the outcome isn't really that shocking: He was accused of car theft, but never intended to steal the car, so he was acquitted on that charge. Not uncommon (that's why we have the crime of joyriding). Summary: Neither the person nor the case are notable, despite the fluff piece used as a source. UsaSatsui (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems fairly straightforward. If this gets resistance feel free to poke at me on my talk page for a more in depth explanation.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not an expert on Irish law, but I'd be very surprised if this is the first time that the doctrine relied on by the defence (theft requires an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property) has come up in the Irish courts. In any case, the title is misleading - the "landmark" nature of the case is due to the legal definition of theft, not drunken driving. Tevildo (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Written like a novel and unreferenced. This is not just a stub. Thin boy 00 @775, i.e. 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Unreferenced & non-notable. Mh29255 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:COATRACK (biography intended to introduce the novel defense theory). Fails WP:BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 19:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only claim to fame is involvement in an completely unremarkable court case, and the alleged "precedent" is not even mentioned in the short amount of coverage cited. I can find no additional sources. Hut 8.5 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a court case can be notable for any of a number of reasons. It may establish legal precedent, it may etablish a de facto precedent in the sense that it teaches lawyers how to acomplish their results by using certain tactics, the case or the results may be infamous in a way that is notable, etc. However, this article merely asserts that this case changed the law without explaining how. It seems to have been made by a lower court (a district court in Ireland is the court of first instance, i.e. the trial court rather than the appeals court that usually considers the larger issues). Therefore I doubt that it changed any legal principles. The comment that it changes the way drunk driving trials are held in Ireland seems to be a bit of exagerration or is perhaps based on an incomplete understanding of the law. Every case, in isolation, might be interesting in how it relates to the law and legal tactics but few are notable. This article would have to argue, and show, why the case is worth knowing about. Additionally, even if the case is notable it does not make the parties notable. If it is found notable it should be renamed and directed to an article about the case, not the defendant. Wikidemo (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia policy is that we don't pretend that an article on a specific incident is a "biography" of one particular person involved in the incident. If the court case itself is notable, write an article on the court case, and, if necessary, redirect the title to there. *** Crotalus *** 23:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikidemo is correct. As of now this is a biographical article about a person based on their (unwilling) participation in a legal matter. If someone wants to scratch out the legal case info and present it as a legal case, without the BLP material, then that can be considered separately. --Lquilter (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is exactly what I attempted to do. My efforts met with no evidence this case was notable whatsoever, and no assistance from the author came. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunplus Data Group[edit]

Delete Non-notable company. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for a mention of Sunplus Data Group in a reliable secondary sources and was unable to find anything. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Completely non-notable company per WP:N and unreferenced per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Redirect. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sally hurst[edit]

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to The Brightonomicon. "Brighton zodiac" only gets 70 ghits, none of which shows any notability (nor little use outside the novel). Many ghits for "Sally Hurst", but none for this particular Sally Hurst in the first half dozen pages of hits.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:FICT, or redirect to The Brightonomicon. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as A7 (non notable web content) by me. J Milburn (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otaka's scoop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Otaka's scoop

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't this be sent under WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of significance? A very brief search turns up one hit: itself. I haven't looked at Cosmos, BlogPulse, or the other "blogspheres", but I'm not sure if that would even add to notability. Yng varr 16:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I agree, there is no assertion of notability here, no evidence of it, it qualifies as non-notable web content, and it was speedied once before. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article has so many problems with notability, OR, and so on, that it would likely take longer to list them all than this discussion will last.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as A7 (non notable group} by me. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supply-N-Demand[edit]

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteJust promotional spam. What I ate for breakfast is more notable than this.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy G1 by Nlu. Tevildo (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loval Intelligence Agency[edit]

Delete Non-encyclopedic. No hint from google search. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense, hoax, fantasy. Acroterion _(talk) 16:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 12:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ny yankees playoff (by year)[edit]

Orphaned and obsolete with New York Yankees seasons already existing. Ksy92003(talk) 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NY yankees article has complete listing on infobox (plus in depth coverage of many seasons). Not sure why the article at issue only includes playoffs since 1994? Lazulilasher (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to New York Yankees seasons. NN and redundant by itself. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete because it simply regurgitates information from New York Yankees seasons. Doc Strange (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, although it isn't clear to me that that is necessary, I am fine with it. The article is obviously redundant, and there would seem to be little to merge. SorryGuy Talk 07:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, and unlikely search term. Secret ^account 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. --Stormie (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson K200[edit]

Non-notable cellular phone. Too few substantial third-party references exist to write a meaningful article about this product. Indeed, after removing un-encyclopedic catalog information (an unreferenced "features" list), there's really nothing left. Wikipedia is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Wikipedia is not a cell-phone catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, fairly straightforward.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No refs presented to satisfy the notability requirement. There were some articles mentioning it when it was released, based on the manufacturer's press release, but substantial coverage is needed. Absent substantial coverage by multiple independent and reliable sources about a particular model, it makes as little sense to have an encyclopedia article about every model of phone made by Sony Ericsson as to have separate articles about every model of hammer sold by Sears Roebuck [17]. Edison (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We should not be hearing all of the cell phone deletion nominations in isolation. It is a solid, well written article about a popular phone with good sales. There is a general tendency to keep these articles, and fairly complete encyclopedic coverage of the major phone lines (that is, until people start taking pot shots at them and the articles get deleted randomly according to who happens to comment on and close the nomination). If someone has a point to make that they don't think individual cell phones should have articles they should take it up at the policy level, not trench warfare here at AfD.Wikidemo (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable by reliable sources, and per Wikidemo. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another mobile phone. No notability of it's own. - fchd (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not aware of any "non-notable" cell phones from Sony Ericsson. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikidemo. Greswik (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy G7 by Od_Mishehu. Tevildo (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domus Pauli[edit]

Reads like advertising of a church. It was tagged for speedy deletion, but deletion template removed by user. It does not meet notability criteria. NAHID 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Google reveals some notability, there might be more outside of the web for a church in Malta; however, just not enough at the moment to warrant a Wiki article. Another option is to remove the advertising and stubbify. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article isn't about the church. The church is the Collegiate Parish Church of St Paul's Shipwreck. This subject is, apparently, a "few doors away from the church and on the opposite side of the road". Uncle G (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. There are still a few references out there to this 'museum'(?), but you are correct - this makes my vote for deletion stronger. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete advert Thin boy 00 @785, i.e. 17:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. The Collegiate Parish Church of St Paul's Shipwreck would be a suitable target article. However, only content that is independently verifiable from a good source ought to be merged - does the Lonely Planet book have a relevant passage? —Encephalon 13:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The author has blanked the page, so I have put a {db-author} tag on it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep --JForget 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Manor[edit]

Unreferenced article about a single, seemingly unnotable ride at a theme park. Mostly just a detailed description of the ride with quite a bit of stuff that reads like original research. Tagged as unreferenced since March and still unaddressed, seeming to indicate there are none available. Collectonian (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a precedent to have individual articles about individual Disney park rides. See Haunted Mansion for an example. Corvus cornix_talk 23:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so because others have articles they all should? Also, note the difference between the two articles. also, from the references, Haunted Mansion is a notable ride with an actual book written about it. This ride has no such claim of notability. Collectonian (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Corvus. Shiva_eVolved 00:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note:WikiProject Disney has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but eviscerate. Nine months without any references is WAY too long, and most of the details are, well, too detailed for Wiki anyways - Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this article reminds me of the 50K plot outlines of little-known fiction books. However, I think that there is precedence for this article (and, frankly, I think it meets notability guidelines). I anticipate WikiProject:Disney will want to keep this article, too. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:WAX. Thin boy 00 @786, i.e. 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this article is deleted, the same fate should be upon almost every single Disney theme park ride article, and there are lots of them. That said, a thorough rewrite is in order. SergioGeorgini (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 11:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is more than reasonable to assume each and every Disney theme park ride should warrant an article on Wikipedia. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it needs a clean up, but just because some people think it is not notable, doesn't make it not notable. Maybe it doesn't get the same attention as The Haunted Mansion or The Pirates of the Caribbean, but it looks to be one of the most amazing rides at the park, with vast differences from Haunted Mansion. --blm07 08:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well after reading most of the texts and headlines. Some of them are fan-created not from any source. Like almost everyone here says, it needs clean up and also to expand. But using their own knowledge, which it is good. The article is great, but it needs to be longer, the history of the attraction, and a story of Phantom Manor. I recommend taking some outside photographs from http://happy-haunts.com and putting it into the article to improve. It does not need to be deleted for obvious reasons, because of it's flowery sentences. It really needs to be retyped with true facts of the attraction. So, KEEP this article. It does not violate Disney's copyrights at all. Please don't delete. SilverWerewolf 1:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep, this is just another disney attraction. I say that it deserves it's own page.--Baitt (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete both after transwiki. Sandstein (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 13198 and Executive Order 13199[edit]

Transwiki to Wikisource. Corvus cornix_talk 22:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just finished formatting the text... so whoever's transwikiing can have an easier time. Good luck. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikisource already had s:Executive Order 13198 and s:Executive Order 13199; I've imported the en.WP history anyway. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have put ((Copy to Wiksource)) tags on each article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, transwiki is complete. There's no issue here. --Dhartung | Talk 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect all to Kultur Shock. While I have closed Kultur Shock's own AfD as keep, I do not believe that these articles stand alone, as none of them contain any content other than a tracklist and a non-free cover image. No prejudice against converting them back into stand-alone articles in the unlikely event that some reliably sourced content can be added. --Stormie (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Came To Take Your Jobs Away[edit]

Delete nn apparently self-released album from band that is either nn or just barely so (to be determined below), and three more also:

I am also nominating:

Kultura Diktatura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fucc The I.N.S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Live In Amerika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per argument below. Rigadoun (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, per the argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kultur Shock, the band that released these albums (directly below this in the day's logs). Since I think I show they are notable, their albums would be notable too (by the usual guideline at WP:MUSIC. Rigadoun (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of these are not notable. The band is not notable and certainly their albums are not. Also, even if the band were notable, it does not necessarily mean the albums are, it just means that they are much more likely to be. There are still plenty of exceptions. Aside from notability guidelines, there is not enough verifiable material on these albums to justify a well-written article about any of them.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Oni Ookami Alfador. Thin boy 00 @791, i.e. 17:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary or independent sources. No reviews at Amazon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep - while it is hard to determine the exact notability of the band due to so much of the coverage referenced being in non-English-language publications, there is sufficient evidence that I have to say "when in doubt, don't delete". --Stormie (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kultur Shock[edit]

Delete fails WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They seem to have considerably wide press coverage, consider this article in Bulgarian, this one in English, and this one in Turkish. That almost certainly means they've done international tours (someone who can read Turkish could help if that was a single date or more). Their albums are on Koolarrow Records (yeah, that's not in the article) which seems to qualify as a significant indie. So I'd say they meet WP:MUSIC #1, 4 and 5. The article could lose the promotional tone, but they seem to be notable. Rigadoun (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "considerably wide press coverage" is just a bunch of grassroots and non-substantial music sites fromthe looks of it. Just because they have done tours doesn't mean anything. A band could fund their efforts for quite a long time and still not be notable. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. While the article doesn't assert enough notability to pass WP:BAND, that page does mention that it should be treated with common sense. Perhaps the 3 international articles (if the Bulgarian & Turkish do indeed relate to them) make this band enough of an exception. alex.muller (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is about the band that is representative (one of rear) member of alternative Balkan music (WP:MUSIC#7). The band had has released two or more albums, (the next one will come in January 2008.) (WP:MUSIC#5). They also have made an international tour, and they are going on another one in march (WP:MUSIC#4). Thus article is related to the articles on few different languages. I agree that this article is not very well written, there should be more validated resources, but this doesn't mean it should be deleted, it is unfinished, not unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nveljkovic (talk • contribs) 00:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Convert the "Press" section to proper referencing. [18] demonstrates sufficient notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep and the article will be moved as well. --JForget 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish slave trade[edit]

This article has no prior versions that are free of POV pushing. It was created by a single edit account, and it has become a coat rack. I believe that there is insufficient NPOV content to support a separate article. Any useful content can be merged into Slavery or one of it's sub-articles. If this discussion results in keeping the article, then it must be moved to an NPOV title such as Judaism and slavery. We already have Islam and Slavery, and Christianity and slavery so we should follow that convention. Jehochman ^Talk 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Amended 19:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - This article is prone to POV edits in one direction or another, and as a result should be rewritten. Atari400 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being "prone to POV edits" is not a valid reason for deletion if the subject matter passes notability and reliability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point. Atari400 16:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a vote one way or the other in terms of deletion. But, while I agree with Tarc's comment about how "being prone to POV edits" is not valid for deletion, I think that this should follow the convention of the other two major religions as stated by Jehochman. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Judaism and slavery. There is the potential for an encyclopaedic article here, despite its status as a magnet for POV pushers, but the current title does not seem neutral and is potentially inflammatory. 'X and slavery' seems to be the approach used for other religions, so should be used here. Terraxos (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that we have Arab slave trade under a similar name, but that article is somewhat better referenced than this one, and anyway I can't think of a better name for it (Arabs and slavery seems even worse). Terraxos (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worse, perhaps, but logically more correct. After all, it was not Arabs that were being traded, for the most part, such as the case with the African Slave Trade. Atari400 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that those are sub-articles of History of slavery. There is almost new mention of Jews in that article. I suggest merging NPOV content from the present Jewish slave trade into History of slavery. When there is enough content for more than a short section, per manual of style's summary style guidelines, we can create a sub article for Judaism and slavery, as we have for the other, larger religions. Jehochman ^Talk 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fundamental problem is that many of these pages, at least at the time of their creation or through further edits, become not just highly POV, but actual attack pages. This particular article is not unique in that regard. Personally, I think the article should be renamed and rewritten to reflect current scholarly views of the matter(mostly debunking the notion, but in a historical context). Failing that, it probably should be deleted. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen, as too many editors wish to inject their own personal feelings into the matter. I learned that the hard way, just trying to rename another article into something more academic. Also, you seem to think I am the one who actually created this page, which I do find amusing. Atari400 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, change title, as above: I wasnt sure about this but then references 1, 2 and 3 do suggest there's a sort of relationship between Jews/Judaism and slavery. Also see this, so I support Jehochman's title Judaism and Slavery. Atari400 has been move warring here. Also, slavery is such an old concept, I'm not surprised that it was found almost everywhere so this article didn't come as a shock to me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move for the above reasons, and Judaism and Slavery is a good name, unless Allegations of Jewish Slave trade gains traction. :) Tarc (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (EDIT CONFLICT) This article is prone to POV issues but so is almost every article involving a religious viewpoint or history. I think personally that the best thing here would be to rename the article per the previous suggestion and to keep vigilant watchover it in the interest of neutrality. This all of course, depends on the availability on substantially verifiable sources and information--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should also add a summaries and links to History of slavery and Religion and slavery. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep no valid reason for deletion, though plenty of reasons for merge/move. Thin boy 00 @794, i.e. 18:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move and/or split There really seem to be two vaugely related smaller articles in this one, one regarding Jews as slaves and the other of Jews as slaveholders. The chronological pieces seem so disjoined as to appear to more properly be pieces of other articles.Naraht (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Renaming/moving the article to Judaism and slavery, might be a good option then as it should, as long as the article was cleaned up, cover the scope of both topis fairly well.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the third name mentioned, Abraham ibn Yakub, has a stub here: Abraham ben Jacob. The article would be better with more information about the scholar debates, not just link few names events together. There's almost no mention of slavery outside medieval Europe. If kept and the text doesn't get better within a year I suggest to propose it for delete again. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current name "Jewish slave trade" is fine, but "Jews and slave trade" is good as well. "Judaism and slave trade" is not appropriate because the article discusses Jews historically, and does not make any references to the Torah or other Jewish scriptures.Bless sins (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename As suggested per NPOV. Lawrence Cohen 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and see IZAK below, no need to rename for reasons below. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Judaism and slavery as suggested above. Springnuts (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Judaism and slavery. The article should be titled in parallel form to Christianity and slavery and Islam and slavery (per naming guidelines). Furthermore, much of the article is not about "slave trade" that is Jewish but rather on: Jewish laws on slavery, Jews who were slaves, Christian restrictions on Jewish slave ownership, etc. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not rename because the Jewish slave trade and Judaism and slavery are two entirely different subjects, although as with most Jewish/Judaic subjects there is some inevitable overlap, but not enough to force a move of the contents from this article to Judaism and slavery (which would deal with the Torah's view and Jewish law's views of this subject, of which there are many.) This article cites enough reliable historical and academic sources, one of which is from the Jewish Encyclopedia, from which there are almost verbatim cut and pastes here, see and compare this [19]. So the conclusion has to be, indeed edit and monitor for NPOV issues and problems, but there is no running away from the fact that all people in positions of economic and political power in the olden days, and not just Jews, but also including Jews as citizens and sometimes as slaves themselves were involved in the Old World's economy of slavery (they did not have reliable machines in those days so slaves were needed and bought by those who had the means), which it should be noted, in those days, and until fairly recently, actually until the rise of Abolitionism was not considered a crime and was practiced by all nations and cultures. Historically, the ancient economic systems based on slavery and the Feudal System, were brought to a final stop by two historical upheavals, the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries and finally by the American Civil War of the 1860s that put the final historical nail into the coffin of international slavery. IZAK (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Jews did own slaves in antiquity, and Jewish halakha discusses slavery extensively. However, rename to Judaism and slavery as suggested by Jehochman. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyme Minister Chris[edit]

No verified notability, no sources. Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. JodyB_talk 15:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also fails WP:COI. The article was created by Cnorwood@otgt.com, who says on its talk page that "It was not my goal to advertise who I am, but to clearly state brief history and facts as it relates to my history in the hip hop industry". So strong delete. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete vanispamcruftisement. See talk page for spam. Thin boy 00 @795, i.e. 18:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BAND, I cannot find any information that would add notability. And also the WP:VSCA problems noted by others above. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted as nonsense. Joyous! | Talk 15:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Beatie[edit]

I declined the speedy because it claims to be a notable, important person. I strongly suspect this to be a hoax but that is not a CSD justification. The sourcing is poor and does not verify notability. This, in my judgment, fails the following: WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. JodyB_talk 15:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) Delete As far as I can see, the information in the article are false, especially the one about the mayor position. I still think it falls under CSD-G1 (patent nonsense) if not anything else - check this (from part "The Mystic Aphrodisiac Hand Gesture of Sexual Magnetism"): "The Gesture is his most powerfull move, and he uses it to attract the opposite sex with a 100% success rate. The gesture stirs within a woman what no man has ever been able to, which means he can have any girl he wants, without trouble." and I've marked it now as such. Peasantwarrior (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. There's just too much to list, but for starters, his claims of being the mayor of Harrogate conflicts with the official web page [20] Yng varr 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Patent autobiographical nonsense. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:MUSIC as per JodyB above, as well as WP:COI for good measure. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep --JForget 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Pat Clarke[edit]

As a person whose entire notability is for serving on the Baltimore City Council, she fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria for Politicians having never served at the international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office nor recieved significant coverage other than for the routine duties / election of a city councilperson. Toddst1 (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the Baltimore city council members with article fall in to this category. Putting Mary Pat Clarke to AfD as a trial. Toddst1 (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If she's the most notable city council member she may not be the est trial balloon. --Lquilter (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Failing the criteria you note above does not mean she is not notable. Having served 25 years on the council including a term as council president suggests that she "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." It is also likely that she has received significant press coverage as she is the first woman to serve as president of the council. Perhaps some more work is needed but not deleted. -JodyB_talk 15:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is one of the more notable politicians in Baltimore, one of the larger cities in the United States. She was a high-profile mayoral candidate in the 90s as well as City Council President (a city-wide elected position). --Jfruh (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Scanning the Internet for her I see third-party neutral comments like "Clarke is practically an institution in Baltimore"([21]) and there are plenty of cites referencing her in the media. --Lquilter (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 141 articles on members of the Maryland House of Delegates. Each has a district the size of a Baltimore City Council district in terms of total population. None of those articles have been tag for deletion. Marylandstater (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Past President of the City Council, not merely being a run-of-the-mill councillor. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily redirected as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikee Lee. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikee[edit]

Not only is the page ambiguous, the said person (Mikee Lee) is not notable beyond being a housemate for Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition. Also, it uses only one's given name as the article title, not the appropriate name for it. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete - it had at least 2 days to expand but failed to do so. --JForget 00:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smasher Films[edit]

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have simply started a page. It will be completed soon, and will be a complete encyclopedia of Smasher Films history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasherfilms (talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Actually, maybe merge this with Universal Studios. We are a similar company, who both put out good films, so I would be relatively happy for the merge to happen, even if we are a better company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasherfilms (talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Google search reveals only one 49 second "film" on YouTube, an alleged trailer for a movie that doesn't exist. No mention at all of this "established" film company on imdb.com.-Hal Raglan (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the film will be completed shortly, and we don't have an imdb page yet. We currently have around 20 films which are released on DVD (Debt and Dead, Live Another Day...I hope), so we are quite established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasherfilms (talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Let's see if we can get yet another "merge" vote from Smasherfilms. Prove how you are established, and I will reconsider. Telling us that something "will be completed shortly" is most certainly not grounds for a Wiki article. I need to see that your films and/or company were reviewed or covered in multiple significant, reliable third sources. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Why should the article be merged into Universal Studios? What association does the company have with Universal? Do they distribute the films? What does the "...I hope" comment mean after the films listed? Does Smasher Films actually have titles released on DVD or not? Why does a Google search show nothing at all for the two titles mentioned? Can links be provided to reliable sources that have reviewed any of the films? The simple fact is that the article, as it stands now, shows no notability, or even existence, of the subject film company. If the article can be expanded, it should be done now.- Hal Raglan (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no meaningful content. If you really want an article for this, wait for it to come out and then make an article, not a "comming soon" page. Thin boy 00 @804, i.e. 18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Marasmusine (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BattleTech 3065[edit]

Article is about a community-hosted server running tabletop games. The community and server are not notable. SharkD (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. SharkD (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search finds no reliable sources, nor any other sources that indicate there's any out there we have yet to uncover. Because of the age of the server, it could be possible it had a large influence on online gaming as a whole. If an editor with more experience in the field can prove this to be likely, I'd gladly reconsider my opinion. I could not find any evidence of such influence myself. User:Krator (t c) 19:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Krator STORMTRACKER 94 14:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirected to the Holy Rosary Academy dabpage. This was created at the same time by the same author of Holy Rosary Academy (Alaska). I've moved the infobox there, and otherwise the content is the same. Edit history is intact. –Pomte 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy rosary academy[edit]

Delete this because it is an exact copy of the already existing Holy Rosary Academy article! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 18:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Copy of original page. STORMTRACKER 94 14:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redir'ed There is a disambig page at Holy Rosary Academy which contains the link tot eh Alaskan Academy; I've redirected this to that DAB page based caps of of prior redirs, etc... I'll let an admin (or someone else) close this, I'm not too comfortable doing non-admin closures, sorry of that is a cop-out! Yng varr 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect this should not have been taken to the AFD page. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, consensus is that it notable. Strongly suggest adding some of the sources identified below to the article. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Island of the Aunts[edit]

Seemingly non-notable book, tagged thus since March. May fail WP:BK, but it is a close call for me. It's been mentioned in reviews in the news, by quite a few different newspapers, but not much else of an impact. Montchav (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think part of this book's trouble is that it's actually been published under two different titles: Island of the Aunts and Monster Mission. (The article does mention this, but in a section at the bottom for some reason.) Some reviews refer to it by one title, others by another. In any case, reviews of this book do exist: Books For Keeps, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Book Page and School Library Journal (also made their best books of 2000 list) for example. Surely that means it passes the multiple, non-trivial, independent published works criteria? What more of an impact does it need? Although, apparently, it was also at one point #10 in Publishers Weekly children's bestsellers list. This article definitely needs a cleanup, but I think it is notable. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per KittyRainbow. STORMTRACKER 94 14:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The book shows up on school and library reading lists, and Amazon shows reviews from major sources. Needs major cleanup to make it more than a plot summary, but as a stub, it's legit. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. JIP | Talk 18:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living Greyhawk Gazetteer[edit]

Non-notable game guide. No reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of D&D publications. Gavin Collins (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm not seeing it there... Hobit (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. --Jack Merridew 09:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has independent reviews the equivalent of most gaming material, whether RPGs or computer games. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At present there is a single independent secondary source given: a user review on a fan site. This is pretty feeble as sources go in non-RPG articles. If it really is typical of articles on RPGs (as you say), then people with an interest in such articles should really get their act together and source them better, instead of getting all defensive when an editor wants to apply the general guidelines. I'm sure that anyone with back issues of gaming magazines would be able to find more sources and fix the problem easily enough, but I can't see why a single "World of Greyhawk" article isn't enough (with the supplement-by-supplement proliferation confined to wikia). D&D has "real-world" notability; and so has "Greyhawk" to a certain extent - but it still has to be shown that this Greyhawk supplement does. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nom did not read the article before nominating it. Jtrainor (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Do you have any evidence to support this uncivil claim that appears to be a violation of WP guideline for assuming good faith? GundamsRus (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Going through his edits, I find that he votes keep on every AFD, and also makes frequent uncivil claims. RogueNinja_talk 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop WP:STALKing me, GundamsRus. I will not argue anything with a disruptive sock puppet. RogueNinja, I know full well you havn't actually looked, because your claim is demonstrably false. I'm not even going to debate it with you as the closing admin is quite capable of clicking my contribs button themselves. Jtrainor (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have indeed looked through your contributions. I urge any admins that you bring into this to do the same. RogueNinja_talk 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I imagine he did, and like me thought that a single fan review on a "community" website is insufficient sourcing. If you can find better sources that indicate why this supplement is notable enough for a stand-alone article, please do so. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Jtrainor & Caliber. Gavin has a habit of not reading &/or misunderstanding articles, as evidenced by his history. One can read more here.--Robbstrd (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Casliber and Robbstrd. BOZ (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is getting beyond ridiculous. Gavin.Collins needs to take his self imposed jihad against RPG articles somewhere else. This article is referenced, it does have real world significance (it is part of the Living Greyhawk campaign) and given time I can uncover half a dozen or so references, third-party or otherwise, to support this claim. Nominator is now going beyond civility into being a WP:DICK. Web Warlock (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RPGnet.com is not a "fan site". Book is notable and article is sourced. If the article needs additional sources, a refimprove tag might be appropriate. But a deletion nomination isn't necessary or helpful. Rray (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. This is a good article, it just needs to be fixed a little, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.81.182 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Added a link to a number of reviews. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think any of the sources cited can be classed as reliable secondary sources. The enworld reference is a fansite, which is effectively a form of self-publication and cannot be classed as a reliable source. The RPG.net article is mainly regurgitated primary source material, and the review ends with the words If "vanilla" D&D is your idea of a good time, this oldie is still a goodie, which is hardly a strong indicator of notability by any standard. Without reliable secondary sources, the guidelines indicate that this game guide is not suitable for Wikipedia, as the RPG.net article says it all.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In this context the work is said to be "vanilla" because it is the standard D&D world. Think of it like vanilla ice cream. Not non-notable (it's the most common form of ice cream AFAIK), but because it is so standard it is considered bland. That's what makes it notable. Again, as mentioned here it would be helpful if you understood something about the area you are editing in. Hobit (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also, enworld is pretty darn reliable. It is well respected in the field for certain. Again, it would help if you took the time to learn about the stuff you are tagging/AfDing/commenting on. Hobit (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is so little content, context or analysis in this article, it does not take more than a moment to see that it lacks real-world notability, even for a non-expert such as myself. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you follow the links to each of the reviews? The page itself is just a quick plot summary, but it links to each of the reviews. Some of them are fairly shallow, others aren't. Hobit (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, any idea why this isn't showing up in game-related deletions? Hobit (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom (who is most often right) --Jack Merridew 15:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Webwarlock below; ~~nb: his merge target World of Greyhawk redirects to Greyhawk, so merge there.~~ --Jack Merridew 09:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting and see Talk:Living Greyhawk Gazetteer#Merge Proposals --Jack Merridew 13:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; one non-trivial independent source isn't sufficient to establish notability. I'll change my vote if a second gets added. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the one source quoted (RPG.net) is mainly a regurgitation of the primary material, so I am not sure what you mean. If 3 reliable secondary sources are added, I am duty bound to withdraw the nomination, but I have not found any so far. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added some, still digging for more. Web Warlock (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note three new references have been found that support the comment "Living Greyhawk Gazeteer was better recieved by players. Most reviews were generally positive". This is trivial coverage, and does not support any claim to notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And...I am still working on this, I have actually read these articles, you have not. Besides "trivial" is a personal opinion and can not be used to delete an article per WP:ITSCRUFT. Web Warlock (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the references themselves are fine. The article is very short, there is no reason to dive into each review, nor is that required for notability. They the articles exist and are relevant meets the notability issues raised. Certain the article can be improved, but that's not what AfD is for. Hobit (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NEW VOTE - MERGE - New plan. Merge to World of Greyhawk. I have spent a few hours researching and I have enough I think to close this debate at 'No Consensus' I do not have enough for the inevitable re-listing that is sure to happen in a couple of weeks after this. SO. This would be better suited merged with World of Greyhawk with some information also shared with Living Greyhawk. Does that work for everyone? Web Warlock (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a merge, if that's what you want to do. You've done a lot of fine work that I'd hate to see lost, although you are right to say this looks like it's heading towards a no consensus. BOZ (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would produce a better, stronger article. Plus it would take 5 weaker articles and reduce them to just one. Web Warlock (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list the 5 you are referring to; a close as merge could apply to all and and could produce results many parties would be happy with. --Jack Merridew 09:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gavin: Would you be willing to remove your AfD here on a good faith basis to allow me 24 hours to complete edits and a merge to the Greyhawk or World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting (don't know which yet, want to see what people want first)? That way I can work on the article(s) in question and do a proper redirect. Web Warlock (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you will get a concensus to merge from RPG editors, so I decline. I doubt this article will be deleted if it gives you any comfort, even though it should be deleted or merged with a notable topic supported by reliable secondary sources.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - at this point I am waiting to hear back to see what everyone else has to say. I could do this either way, but in the end I think a Merge would produce a more useful article. Web Warlock (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Web Warlock. Relevant material about this book, and various other books, would likely be better served in one article that would address them all, including all sources and such for each. As to Web Warlock's suggestions, probably one article at Greyhawk would be best including this book, and others such as World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disagree with the merge. This is a book and has a large number of reviews associated with it. If that isn't enough real-world notability it is a large part of Living Greyhawk, and 8-year long running game with a huge number of players (not to mention websites). Hobit (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view. Right now I no longer have the bandwidth to look up more sources for this. I was even diving into LexisNexis just to be sure I covered all my bases. Web Warlock (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's probably going to be kept by a "no consensus" decision, this article will only be brought up for deletion again soon enough. Merging this article, with others that are related, will create a stronger overall article that will have lots of secondary sources. See the proposal at Talk:Living Greyhawk Gazetteer put forth by User:Webwarlock. I think that putting together all of the relevant articles into one is a much better conclusion. Frankly, even if this article is kept with a "keep" conclusion, I still expect to see it put up again for deletion in the future (despite my good faith in the process). The number of websites devoted to the Living Greyhawk campaign isn't really relevant in terms of the WP:N guidelines for notability. The preponderance/lack of "Google hits" isn't a valid measure of (non) notability by themselves. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability and verifiability guidelines. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referenced, with reviews that demonstrate notability within the field, a field that wikipedia should be covering according to the first pillar. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overall there appears to be a disparity regarding how sources are being evaluated between members of the RPG wikiproject and everyone else. By the standards that usually applied to articles, none of the sources provided are reliable. For example, this is a noticeboard, which doesn't wouldn't usually be considered a reliable source. Also, none of the magazines listed appear to be independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Greb[edit]

Possible hoax. Already prodded a couple of times. Montchav (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "and will stop at nothing until she gets what she wants" is very similar to Lara Croft promotional material. Thin boy 00 @811, i.e. 18:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Details in this article such as the single and album titles actually refer to Elena Risteska. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like some kind of hoax, the hits I find from this page ends up with another person, Elena Risteska (and that's just what Phil Bridger just wrote. ) Greswik (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per consensus, (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Hall High School[edit]

Another school previously prodded, no claim of notability Montchav (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant high school in its community. Sources available from which the page can be expanded. We develop Wikipedia by keeping and growing stubs not deleting them. TerriersFan (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan the article needs more work in the way of prose, but obviously deleting won't solve that. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've done a bit of work on it, added some sources. The article now meets WP:N, I think. And all high schools are notable, in my opinion.Noroton (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weak nomination. The article provides context to assert the notability of the subject. Obviously the article does not provide sufficient content to domonstrate its notability, so we should all punish it harshly by calling it a stub and pressing the edit button on it. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easy vote Victuallers (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. Thanks to Noroton for demonstrating what can be done. With time, any high school article will be expanded appropriately. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per consensus, (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orillia Park Street Collegiate[edit]

Another School with unclear notability Montchav (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, high/secondary school precedent. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. High Schools are not notable inheritently. GJ (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While in principle I agree with you, I wish you lots of luck getting any kind of consensus for that as an actual policy statement. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant high school in its community. Sources available from which the page can be expanded. We develop Wikipedia by keeping and growing stubs not deleting them. TerriersFan (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides context to assert the notability of the subject. Obviously the article does not provide sufficient content to domonstrate its notability, so we should all punish it harshly by calling it a stub and pressing the edit button on it. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N with some prominent alumni, even more sources are bound to be added, since they can be presumed to exist for all secondary schools. Noroton (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expanded and cleaned-up since nomination. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in its present state it's not bad for a school article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comments on talk page are enough. I didnt get where I am today without agreeing with Reg Perrin Victuallers (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Wizardman 17:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of the Desert School[edit]

Another school AFD. No claim of notability made in article Montchav (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This a high school, and precedence has been demonstrated to my satisfaction, that all high schools can be assumed to be notable. As well, this school is unique in that it is a combination preschool through high school, and has been in continuous operation for 25 years, so I believe there are likely valid references available which will mention it non-trivially, although these have not yet been included in the stub. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a perfectly clean, fully sourced, informative article and I fail to see how Wikipedia might benefit from its deletion. We develop Wikipedia by keeping and growing stubs not (unless we are going to do away with the stub concept) deleting them. As said above its structure of preschool through high school is notable as is its primary aim of saving souls rather than educating the students! TerriersFan (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks notable enough to me. RMHED (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge & Redirect per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert "Bud" Marquis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Robert "Bud" Marquis

The article covers the person based one event, against WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Anything useful from the article can be added to Eastern Air Lines Flight 401, but that article saw fit not to mention him, and at best all that is needed is a mention, which doesn't reach the level of requiring a merge. Prosfilaes (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. That article should mention him. Redirects are cheap, and the survivors certainly make much of his role. --Dhartung | Talk 18:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article should mention him and more than just his name. I agree with above, merge and redirect. --Gnosbush (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Agreeing with Dhartung, after the 35th year anniversary of the crash Mr. Marquie (now 78 years old) is getting a lot of notability but I think an encyclopedic summary of his role would fit better in the context of the event. That would change in the future say if some of the awards he has received were then also given to other notables and he needed to be referenced further. But until then I still see his notability and therefore his encyclopedic relevance as specific to this event. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The recent news coverage of this man is the reason I looked up the crash article in the first place. His role should be expounded upon in the article, but since he is notable only for one event, barring further information he shouldn't have his own article as of yet. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, then. It looks like it's close to snowing, if someone feels like closing this and redirecting it; on the other hand, there's a case that a redirect is too dramatic to do with only six hours discussion on the day after Christmas.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snow. I'm going to be bold and merge/redirect, since there is a copyvio problem. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A redirect doesn't seem to work w/ the Afd text there, but I'm hesitant to delete that. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soor Plooms[edit]

I created this article, but I can't determine from the sources whether it is truly notable. Generates a considerable number of Google Scholar and Google Books results, and featured in an Oor Wullie cartoon, but I'm not convinced about notability. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like every time I create a new article, I have notability doubts, and nominate my own new articles for deletion regularly. Is this necessarily a bad thing?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable and notable enough. --Lockley (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For borderline notability, I am inclined to keep until there is convincing evidence that this can't be expanded. I have added a couple more historic facts to the article. –Pomte 09:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's definitely better now. I just wasn't sure how to wire the source information available into the article, and you've done it well. My initial doubts arose considering whether the coverage is more than trivial, but it definitely is, and it's not advertising for a brand-name product in any way. Definitely notable and this AfD should be closed as keep.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Stormie (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Boulevard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

version of article at time of AFD-nomination: This appeared as a PROD-nomination, though it had previously been deleted via AfD. No reason was provided in the PROD, but the real reason why I'm bringing this here is that the prior AfD was clearly closed on the basis of vote-counting. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject U.S. Roads has been notified of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that the older AFD was for a street in Tulsa; this one is in Kansas City. This does appear to be a major road, and was part of the Santa Fe Trail ([22]). --NE2 18:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment hmm, sorry for the confusion - I won't change things right now, but if this is kept, should probably move it to a name that distinguishes it from other roads of the same name. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think being part of the Santa Fe Trail is notable enough; it's not even notable enough to write into the article on the Santa Fe Trail. The road has some Mexican restaurants on it, crosses through a couple of neighborhoods, and has a regional brewery on it. Definitely not notable enough. --Son (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been on this road, and as far as I could tell, it was an ordinary inner-city arterial. The article as it stands contains no references. Note that a redundant copy of this article exists at Southwest Boulevard (Kansas City); should this be kept, this article should probably redirect there. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. --Stormie (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Christian School, Canberra[edit]

~~Prod removed without change to article. Non-notable school, no assertion of notability, no references. Article written in promotional style.~~ Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep following the useful changes made by JERRY and after reading this [23]. I will leave this discussion going however, rather than withdrawing the nom, as others than me have suggested deletion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant advert. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "School Fee's" - I really hope they didn't have their English section write this. Promotional material for a non-notable organisation. Lankiveil (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Major faux-pas to use the article maintenance issues as justification for delete. If it has advert tone, then edit it. If it contains trivial information that is inherantly non-encyclopedic, edit it. It it is poorly written and non-wikified, edit it. If I was the closing admin based on the comments I've seen above, I'd close as no-concensus... no valid arguments have been made. I reserve my vote until I can do further research to determine if multiple independant reliable sources exist which discuss the subject of this article non-trivially. That is the only criteria that needs to be determined. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that article formatting issues are not a reason for deletion. My reason for starting the AfD however was non-notability. I did a Google search [24] before posting the AfD which revealed only the school's own sources, plus many listings type entries. I would have gone for speedy deletion A7, except that schools are not covered for speedy non-notability deletions. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd better read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, and explain on associated talkpages why the first reason given there is a "major faux pas". --Paularblaster (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO, the second reason was the faux pas, the first reason was just plain inaccurate. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a rewrite the article still lacks an assertion (let alone a demonstration) of notability; it still reads like a prospectus, so it still meets the number one criterium of Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, and comes perilously close to criterium 11 of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General_criteria. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a high school (k12) with over 1080 students which has a currently planned expansion. All schools of this size are surely notable, let alone all high schools can be assumed to be notable already. The article has been improved since the nom and new comments here should take into account these changes. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not reach the inclusion criteria at WP:ORG or WP:N and no other endorsed criteria exist for schools.Ga rr ie 11:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per GarrieIrons and ors. notability for the article subject has not been generated by any means, and despite the changes made it still goes against the key points of WP:NOT#DIR. If the school was notable in some way, through significant academic achievement, had a reasonable quantity of notable students, or has in some way shaped or affected the course of education delivery or policy within its region, as long as those facts could be verified and referenced, then it would be worthy of remaining. However, none of these criteria are acceptable to the article at hand, therefore no reasonable argument beyond WP:ILIKEIT can be made for its keeping. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Needs adding to, not deleting. I have so why not help? Victuallers (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are inherently notable IMO Hobit (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From WP:N (schools), an admitted work in progress: "A school article that fails to establish notability will not be deleted, if the school can be confirmed to exist." Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High schools are notable and article has been improved. --Oakshade (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not highlight anything notable about this high school. There must be tens of millions of high schools around the world - surely they're not all notable! --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tens of millions of high schools in the world? Are you sure your stats are correct? With the earth's estimated population at 6 billion, let's for the sake of argument make the extremely liberal and likely over-estimation of 1 billion of the earth's population being in high/secondary school (ages 14 to 17) at any given time. If high schools have an average count of 1500 pupils (mine had 3000), that would bring a rough estimation of 666,666 high/secondary schools in the world. --Oakshade (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, article has been improved. Rebecca (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, although users are certainly free to discuss merge. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uka Uka[edit]

Unnotable video game character with no real-world significance. Article is almost entirely game plot regurgitation, Original research "supported" by a glut of game quotes. Tagged as such and suggested merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Tagging was labeled vandalism. On closer inspect, the list of character covers this one adequately enough, so merge is probably not needed anyway. Collectonian (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable character. Plot summary is way to long, the sections that refer to character development are unsourced. All sources used are primary sources. I doubt there are any reliables 3rd party sources to sources this article. Ridernyc (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is not "non-notable", never has been and never will be. He easily fulfills the criteria set-out. Plus you're insisting we delete something a simple edit would fix. CBFan (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if it can be fixed with a simple edit stop fighting with everyone and fix it. Ridernyc (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We did that, and Collectonian blatantly deleted it. Realisticly, if you want to delete Uka Uka's article so badly, then you'd have to delete EVERYONE else's articles except Crash's and possibly Cortex's, because otherwise it promotes biasey. And don't say that, it's uncivil and not very professional. CBFan (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a diff to backup your unfounded accusation that I deleted your attempts to provide REAL-WORLD notability. Collectonian (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will, ONCE you post proof of REAL-WORLD notability for any OTHER fictional character. You're clearly being biased. CBFan (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, CBFan. Collectonian, darling, no offence but do you have some sort of pathological grudge against fictional characters who have not been heard of by every human being on the face of the planet? Saying that Uka Uka is a non-notable fictional character is preposterous, he's a major antagonist from a well-known and successful game series which has had quite a bit of merchandise. There is no original research because all the statements in the article are backed up with quotes from the game series to support them. There are references, citations and external links and all the allusions made to Uka Uka's personality are drawn from a variety of information provided by the games themselves and the production notes. None of this is original research at all. Furthermore the references to the plot all describe Uka Uka's role in the games and his effect on the storyline. It also contains a short section on his character's creation and a long and very interesting section on his personality. If you're going to delete the article on Uka Uka you might as well delete Ganon as well. Not that that would be such a bad thing. --Illustrious One (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that CBFan has canvassed other users to "save" this article, including: User talk:Freqrexy, User talk:Illustrious One‎, and User talk:Cat's Tuxedo‎. Collectonian (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that I never did anything of the sort, and that Collectonian is telling lies about me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBFan (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He most certainly is not. You are canvassing, which is inappropriate. In addition removing others' comments is extremely inappropriate. I suggest you desist. I (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you are beating a dead horse, because we've already made a compromise. CBFan (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. As the nominator, I still stand by this AfD, and I stand by my ANI report of your behavior in this whole affair. My recent edits on the remaining articles is simply finishing the plan I had started before this mess started, per your implication that you would not block it, and an attempt to do what was unable to be done here. Collectonian (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, as I told you, I am no longer interested in continuing this silly affair now that we've made a compromise. I'm now for merging, not keeping. CBFan (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Collectonian (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any secondary sources that establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). If this character has real-world notability, could you please provide evidence of such? The article needs more out-of-universe information—it currently has only two paragraphs of real-world content at a glance, and even this is filled with unsourced speculation ("It is thereby possible that Uka Uka's (and Aku Aku's) voice is computer-generated") and generic text that fluffs up the paragraph, such as "a number of different concept designs were conceived...before the final design was decided on", which could be said about any video game character, really. Problems like this are typically associated with non-notable characters, which I suspect this might be. Pagra shtak 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to provide proof, not only as to why you want only Uka Uka deleted, but also as to why you don't want every fictional character who has an article deleted. Uka Uka is a video game character. He is not a real character. He exists in a video game universe. You have a very poor argument on your behalf, which, as far as I can make out, is "He is a video game character so he can't have an article". And, as I've said before, and as many Crash fans will agree with, Uka Uka has appeared in 10 games, 4 of which were canon, so he is easily notable. CBFan (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, did I ever say I want the article deleted? Please don't put words in my mouth, it's incredibly rude. Secondly, the burden of proof lies in the other direction—it falls upon the supporters of the article to prove notability. All I did was ask for someone to provide evidence of notability, as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), but I have yet to see it. That the character has been in 10 games does not show notability, as the games are not secondary sources. Pagra shtak 20:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a simple case of mistaken identity, there's no need to flip. Besides, we've reached a workable agreement. CBFan (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the above reasons. Pagra shtak 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Compromise already sussed out between myself and Collectionian, there is no longer any need for this as far as I'm concerned. CBFan
For God's sake, what are you nutters on? This is a brilliant article about a notable character from a notable computer game and you've got it in for him. If you're going to delete the Uka Uka article you're going to have to delete the Crash article, the Cortex article, the Coco article and all those other Crash Bandicoot articles. It would be the most ridiculous genodice since all the Fictional villains categories were deleted. --Illustrious One (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is why we're merging them. Not Crash's article...his is staying. And before anyon says anything, I didn't even tell him anything concerning that one. CBFan (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I think most people would agree that this article doesn't deserve to be merged. Uka Uka warrents an article of his own. --Illustrious One (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought it was already compromised several weeks ago that only various notable characters would end up getting articles. With Uka Uka appearing in four canon games and 6 spin-offs, that warrants more than enough information to build an article based on him when matched up to other characters. But if a merge has to happen, then that means another line would have to be drawn concerning which Crash characters would have their own articles and which would not. Freqrexy (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe there is enough real world information available to satisfy the relevant guidelines (WP:FICT, WP:GAMECRUFT). User:Krator (t c) 16:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The motion is passed. Keep. --Illustrious One (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no it hasn't. I don't see a clear consensus here; therefore, please allow this discussion to remain open so consensus may be reached. Terraxos (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I jumped to concusions. --Illustrious One (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, though, I personally support a Keep. Terraxos (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, consensus seems to be towards merge and not keep. Pagra shtak 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about X? Thin boy 00 @988, i.e. 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki, This is a canonical example of gamecruft which would be an excellent featured article on a dedicated CB wiki but which has no place here. Defenders aren't covering themselves in glory by acting like five-year-olds while defending it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd agree with the Illustrious One that this boarders on a personal attack. I agree that some of those arguing for keep aren't on the best of behavior, but grouping all "defenders" as "five-year-olds" is a rather broad brush. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cunningham, kindly refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. --Illustrious One (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am relisting this, as the original listing has somehow been deleted from the December 27 log. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Now if there's one game that I haven't played in a long time, it's Crash Bandicoot 3. Jeez. Brings back memories.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge as above; there's some nice out-of-universe information here (voice actors, sketches, etc) but I would strip most of the in-game stuff; the Characteristics section, In-game history etc, as we are an encyclopedia and not a gaming wiki. There's not enough notability presented to warrant its own article - and by notability I mean the usual "independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage." Marasmusine (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Marasmusine's solution, if not past experience showed me that it is usually just a small plot summary that is merged, while all the nice out-of-universe information is left out or put together in a "out of universe information" section at the top of the list article. The theory behind merges is that sometimes information is better presented in a large article (note my mergism userbox). I don't think that is the case here: the information on Uka Uka (which we all agree has some place in Wikipedia) is better presented in its own article. User:Krator (t c) 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection I agree. --Illustrious One (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a major character in a major series. Further the article is really quite strong, I'd hate to see it go. Any merge involves a LOT of material. Also, as a bit of trivia, 14,500 ghits on an English-only search... Hobit (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't address the concerns of the nominator—namely the lack of real-world notability and over-reliance on plot repetition. Pagra shtak 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, a major character from a major series is notable. On the plot, I'm not too worried, WP:PLOT's major task is insuring that we don't end up with Readers Digest summaries here (see WP:PLOT talk page). I don't think this is that or anything close to it. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. It is not sufficient to say "major character from a major series". You must show why this particular character is notable in the real world—not within the game series—and back it up with reliable secondary sources. If the character is indeed notable, this should be an easy task. Pagra shtak 16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. If the base article is too long, spilling out makes sense. It's the base article that matters for notability, the rest is just organization. WP:NOTPAPER
WP:NOTPAPER is not a catch-all to add fancruft. There's a CB wiki on Wikia which would be a thousand times better to develop this articl on than WP is. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see latest draft of WP:FICT (in talk). General view is that spilling out can make sense if it helps the article. While not binding (hey, WP:FICT isn't either) it shows the direction of consensus. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be added in the series game characters article, not have a article of its own. Ihsbislns (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Ihsbislns[reply]

Keep. Sufficiently notable. Needs rewriting as per WP:WAF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget. 14:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable, secondary sources do not appear to exist to establish notability. The article is also mostly WP:NOT#PLOT without real-world context, so there is little content to merge elsewhere. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aku Aku or delete, not notable on its own. I find it funny over two-thirds of the "references" are from the game. JIP | Talk 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still stuck trying to kill this boss, eh? There seem to be enough references out there to demonstrate that the world has noticed this character. Google Books, Google News. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ok, when I searched, the news coverage mostly referred to a notable sailing boat. From your searches, there does appear to be significant news coverage. Addhoc (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant news coverage and other sources provided by various people above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy close and keep. The nominator has been blocked for disruption and after reviewing all his edits it is clear that this AfD proposal is part of that disruption. Bduke (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Bristol Spelæological Society[edit]

Not worthy of it's own article/waste of bandwidth Sab Cav (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - bad faith nom by indefinitely blocked account. Addhoc (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability asserted and shown - ot sure what more is wanted. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warlock (Charmed)[edit]

No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Redirect to the LoE per WP:EPISODE. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

This isn't an episode of Charmed. WP:EPISODE isn't relevant here. Jay32183 (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I completely read this wrong or something, guess I was a little too tired at the time I looked at this or something. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of minor characters from major show. Better this than each having their own article. And merging into parent isn't reasonable given size of parent. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important to the mythos of the show. It is sourced within the context of the show and per Hobit. Web Warlock (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is required that the article is sourced within the context of the real world per WP:PLOT and WP:FICT. A list of minor characters requires such sourcing as well, because the concept of minor characters from Charmed would need to be notable to justify a list of them. Jay32183 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Such sourcing clearly exists in main article. Having a minor character page for a major work has historically be the "right" thing to do (FICT 04/25/06), and I think deleting things that were "right" 8 months ago is a bit much. Hobit (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, such a thing is Still policy, see WP:SS. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The main article does not clearly demonstrate the existence of "significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject" for minor characters in Charmed. Jay32183 (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Correct. It demonstrates it for Charmed, and the Charmed article is already too long. So the right thing ot do is to split it into multiple articles in a way that is useful and readable not one where each page can be shown to be notable. The goal here is to provide information in a clear way and if splitting over multiple pages is that right way, it should be done. WP:IAR Hobit (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Every individual article must show independent notability for its topic. Try reading WP:N before insisting something is notable. WP:SS does not allow you to make a page for a non-notable topic because it is related to a notable one, WP:NOTINHERITED. Jay32183 (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The eleven references? They're all to en.wiki articles and thus can only be referring to a primary source - so we have no secondary sources here. --Jack Merridew 08:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Trim&) Merge with Magical beings in Charmed (article was just started). Warlocks (Charmed) is another victim of the old WP:FICT, which didn't encourage enough of secondary sources and summary style, but Charmed has now lost its fandom to longer keep their articles within (updated) wiki policies and guidelines. I presume it can establish notability with the other articles in a new merged state. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This worries me. As writing sytles/guidelines change will all articles that lose the interest of people be deleted/merged down to the bone. If something _was_ notable, it is still notable per WP:N#TEMP. This is a back-door way making notability temporary and makes for a horrible precedent. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, was it ever notable? I never watched the show and can't tell, and the article makes no claim of being so, having not a single secondary source. And the more time has passed since the show's cancelation, the less likely it becomes that someone establishes notability or that someone can properly judge real-world notability. What's happening/should happen is to cut down on the Plot and Original Research to give the article/topic a better real-world/in-universe balance as outlined in WP:WAF. Leaving the page history intact (by merging or redirecting) also enables editors to retrieve plot information when they wish to improve/expand this topic in an encyclopedic manner later (if they wish to do so). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Trim&) Merge with Magical beings in Charmed per sgeureka . Regarding the "does this make notability temporary": If it can't survive in time, this may just show we were wrong to ever think it was notable, and this is most likely the case here. Greswik (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the real-world notability of this character. The article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and its in universe style fails WP:WAF. This article needs to be deleted and transwikied to an appropriate fansite. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect (or merge for consensus) to the page Magical beings in Charmed per sgeureka echoing the points made above. Lots of Charmedcruft that needs to be cleaned up. Eusebeus (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging may not solve the problem, since no reliable secondary sources have been provided for Magical beings in Charmed. Moving all the in-universe information to one place does not the fact that there is no real world context provided for the topic. Jay32183 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could do it. I have a stack of books here on metaphysics, witchcraft and the like and quite a few of them mention Charmed and how it's mythology relates to real-world myths, the work of Margaret Murray and so on...I can easily provide 6-8 independent third party resources, some of them academic papers (cultural anthropology is an academic discipline after all as is media studies). I am curious to see where this merger is going first. BTW the earliest I can provide these would be Monday. Web Warlock (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - see the last few references for the Book of Shadows (Charmed), I added those and most of them are also valid for this article (most pagans have an issue, one way or the other with the term 'warlock') I also have a couple others besides those. Web Warlock (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here are the sources I will be adding. They deal with this very topic in varing detail. Buckland for example was very amused that a warlock character was named after him.

Buckland, Raymond (2002). The Witch Book. Canton, MI: Visible Ink Press. ISBN 1578591147.

Illes, Judika (2005). The Element Encyclopedia of Witch Craft. Hammersmith, London: HarperElement. ISBN 000719293.

Genge, Ngaire (2000). The Book of Shadows : The Unofficial Charmed Companion. New York: Three Rivers Press – Random House. ISBN 0609806521.

Morrison, Dorothy (2001). The Craft: A Witch’s Book of Shadows. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Publications. ISBN 1567184464.

Aoli, Peg (2005), "Enchanté...Not", in Cruise, Jennifer, Totally Charmed: Demons, Whitelighters and the Power of Three (1st ed.), Benbella Books, November 1, 2005, pp. 240, ISBN 1932100601 Web Warlock (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Charmed, as without independent references it doesn't deserve it's own article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Charmed is too long, too bad. Find another way to split. The concentration of original research here is too great. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely doubtful secondary sources exist to demonstrate notability. The article is almost entirely plot summary and original research. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources are reliable. Addhoc (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Result was transwiki & redirect. Already done, so this is a procedural non-admin close. <eleland/talkedits> 19:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basted egg[edit]

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wiki is not a how-to. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks; people need to remember to do this when they find stuff like recipes, before nominating for deletion. —Random832 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC) -- redirect to Fried egg - there's a section that's appropriate (I've added the term, ~~it already described this method~~). —Random832 04:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks not encyclopedic, it's a recipe.--Sandahl 19:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete yeah, what they said. —Random832 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GPT Scam List[edit]

WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. I can't really see this becoming encyclopedic. RichardΩ6 12 13:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as tagged. It was a copyvio, and now is author blanked. --Onorem♠Dil 13:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 14:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, fails to meet standards of notability per WP:MUSIC. --Stormie (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Flame[edit]

I declined a speedy delete request because of some assertion of notability. However I will leave it to the wider community to decide if this band is notable. Their label has an article but it is not a label in the usual corporate sense of the word. A former member is with a band but it is borderline as well. JodyB_talk 13:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the original editor who nominated the article for SP, I still feel that the articles does not meet WP:NOTE. Wisdom89 (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with you and that is why I brought it here. But I could not delete the article under CSD because I thought it failed WP:N. The article does seem to assert notability and that makes it ineligible for speedy delete. Sounds like a lot of process but there is good reasoning behind doing it this way. -JodyB_talk 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know, I understand your motives - I was merely indicating that my opinion hasn't changed, that's all. There is some assertion of notability, so yes, the community should take a lengthy look. Wisdom89 (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine, sorry I misunderstood. - JodyB_talk 15:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nn band, fails WP:BAND. STORMTRACKER 94 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator of this page, I am very happy that it is no longer considered for speedy deletion. Thank you all for opening a discussion. However, I must argue that the article is necessary, if not because their music is available world-wide and that they have a large fan base, then because the former member is now a part of a band that is deemed "notible" by Wikipedia standards. This former member is also now part of another band called Gorgeous Frankenstein with Doyle von Frankenstein and tours with Danzig. I was reluctant to play the "seven degrees of separation" game in my article, but perhaps it is necessary? Sincere thanks... Collectivehunch (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notability is not inherited in either direction, up or down. Thin boy 00 @990, i.e. 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand your point Thinboy00, however, the guidelines for notability for a band clearly states that a band is notable if it "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Andrew Winter (A.K.A Jesco Devilanse) became a part of the group Blitzkid (notable on Wikipedia), and then later joined in a new band with Doyle Wolfgang von Frankenstein, a former member of The Misfits. Collectivehunch (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Stripes is apparently a non-notable member of The Misfits, since he isn't even mentioned in that article, so Southern Flame fails WP:Music on the member who is a member of another notable band criterion. -Freekee (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never claimed that Andrew "Stripes" Winter (A.K.A. Jesco Devilanse) was a member of the Misfits, however he is now in a band with one of the most famous people of the Misfits, Doyle Wolfgang von Frankenstein. The name of the band that they are both currently in is Gorgeous Frankenstein. You can check the article here, or the official MySpace here. Collectivehunch (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for misreading the text of the article. However, the assertion of notability here is that someone from this band went on to another band, Blitzkid, (which is only barely notable enough for an article), and is now in Gorgeous Frankenstein, which seems to be notable only for the fact that it contains a former member of an even bigger band (and for which there is no article). As someone who works on band articles, I would never bother to write an article on someone as non-notable as this. I still give it a Weak Delete. Sorry. I suggest copying the text to re-add the article if they do anything more notable (like get signed), in case it's deleted. -Freekee (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Custom writing service[edit]

Vaguely promotional tone, but more importantly this is already covered in Ghostwriter and Essay mill. Lankiveil (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Macy's 123 review me 15:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as in effect G11, advertisement. Essay mil has been edited by the same person to insert the same inappropriate links Thisis slightly disguised commercial spam. DGG (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This should have been a speedy delete WP:SPAM --Pmedema (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete spam and advert, per previous votes, and per nom Thin boy 00 @992, i.e. 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information Generation 3[edit]

Essay of original research, neologism Dougie WII (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above. While ghits aren't a valid measure, in this case, a total of five are returned. The most interesting hit is located at [25], which mentions Jeff Barker creating the term. ~~Since the author of this article is User:Jrb17a, I'm gonna call this WP:COI as well.~~ Yng varr 13:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious WP:OR, but don't you think it's a bit of a leap to say that User:Jrb17a is Jeff Barker? Lankiveil (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as complete OR. STORMTRACKER 94 14:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was non-admin keep per consensus. SorryGuy Talk 08:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paizeis?[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Paizeis?

An album that didn't perform well. There are no sources supplied. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, albums for notable musicians are usually considered notable enough to keep. Lankiveil (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above; precedent is that albums officially released by a notable artist are themselves notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is one of the exceptions to the "notability is not inherited from X" rule. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy closed. the wub "?!" 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevena Tsovena[edit]

This article describes about Nevena Tsoneva, hence the title of the article is typo. There are much more description on the article Nevena Tsoneva, so it seems to be better to delete this rather than merge this to Nevena Tsoneva. --Peccafly (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as good-faith duplicate/fork. Lankiveil (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect; redirects are cheap, and this is a real world misspelling that is unlikely to mean someone else.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. per Prosfilaes, as it's not that likely for a Nevena Tsovena to come along. Perhaps a comment on the typo'd page to explain the situation, saying that the redirect can be replaced. alex.muller (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy close. The redirect is in place - it just needs the AfD tag gone. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Bduke (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XCritic[edit]

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Disputed speedy deletion (see Talk:XCritic for a discussion). This article was created by the subject. It has sources but fails to assert notability. Talk page discussion from author admits that the website is just starting out. Article reads like an advert and there's a clear CoI in it being authored by the subject. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to assert why this is notable. Overly fine level of detail such as what the sites first review was (IMO unencylopedic). If most of the unencylopedic information was removed, there would not be much of an article left. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revised based on your feedback, eliminated first review striped down to encyclopedic infomationGkleinman (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references you have added are a.) not reliable sources or b.) do not assert the significance of this site. You references to Janes guide appear to be one of the only statements that assert the signficance of this site, which however appears to be related to the site in itself making it unrelaible. I still believe this needs to be deleted. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author is a newbie, so first iteration may have come off more like and ad than an article. The desire is there to make this article compliant with wiki guidelines. Rather than delete the article I'm asking for some help on bringing it into spec. I'm also committed to working on the article further as well as ensuring other authors who have information or sources related to the article contribute so that it IS more balanced. So rather than delete it, can you please have some patience with me as I work this article? Thanks Gkleinman (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author is not a newbie when his first edit was back in 2005 (admittedly with a huge gap until the start of the month). --Blowdart | ^talk 12:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't recall when I registered but I am still learning. Rather than delete, please work with me to get an entry for this notable site so it is compliant Gkleinman (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable new web site, created by site owner with obvious COI. (I originally tagged it with db-web) --Blowdart | ^talk 12:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please re-evaluate based on revisionGkleinman (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional material for a site that does not meet WP:WEB. Lankiveil (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Revised, please re-evaluateGkleinman (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does a site which reviews adult material automatically get deleted? we're working to help advise people on adult entertainment and want to connect that in a scholarly way to wikipedia. Again I ask for assistance here.Gkleinman (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep being pointed to WP:NOTE and keep using excuses why you should stay rather than attempt to address the issue of notability. Instead you've waved WP:BITE and now you're wondering if it is because your site is about porn. Again, no. Your site is new and you have made no attempt to prove notability. So, again, please read WP:NOTE and address those issues rather than attempting to duck and dive and claim persecution. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i thought I had addressed notability with 3 independent sources - Investor's Business Daily, AVN and XBIZ. I will work to add more, but I was referring to the note that was added re: list of deletions I don't mean to wave WP:BITE at everything, I am really working here to bring things to spec. But I am asking for some patience and some help. Gkleinman (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those make for notability, they're reprinted PR puff pieces or links to the fact you ran a competition. The only thing that's even close is the Investor's Business Daily and that doesn't reference the web site other than pointing out the person they quoted was employed by you. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I revised it with the sources more appropriately placed. They may seem like puff pieces, but in the adult industry AVN and XBiz are considered definitive sources.Gkleinman (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The pornographic nature of the site is not an issue. Insufficient objective evidence of notability is. Normally, notability is proven by continued interest over time by reliable sources. Failing that, recognition by RS of durable achievement or importance will do. Editor conflict of interest here hurts as well since a neutral point of view is needed and we don't have enough to do a NPOV rewrite. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reads as an advertisement, also fails WP:WEB and WP:NOTE per above. Wisdom89 (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The sources are just barely adequate, and more can probably be found. "Continued notability over time" is not the criterion. Notability is the criterion. A new site can be notable, if it attracts enough attention. "Durable" achievement is not the standard. Achievement is the standard, and we go not by what we think achievement, but by whether there are sources. (The exception, of course, is for transient news events under NOT NES, but this does not apply to other sorts of articles.) COI is not reason for deletion, just for looking carefully. "We don't have time to a NPOV rewrite" is the wrong approach entirely--we always prefer to improve articles, rather than delete them. It has taken years to get a NPOV approach on many articles. If it is desired to change the fundamental nature of WP:N, the Village Pump is the place. DGG (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is in my opinion abusive to nominate articles initially lacking sources for notability immediately after they have been written, rather than simply ask for additional sources. Newbie or not. All editors deserve time to develop an article. DGG (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use disruptive words like "abusive" about established editors when they are acting in good faith. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 16:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the sources are pretty marginal; they're either basically press releases or they are passing mentions of the site. If the site were to go down tomorrow, these sources would not be enough to justify the notability of a continued article. That said, it's a very new site, and if it keeps going at this rate, the sources will become enough soon, and we'd just have to recreate the article in a few months. But that's somewhat crystal ball gazing (prediction is very difficult, especially about the future) so I won't kick and scream too much if the decision is to delete for now. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Added a third party review of the content "Jane's Guide" this should satisfy the notability issue "Jane has been quoted as an "expert in the field" in articles by the following publications: Wired.com, The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Orange County Weekly, The Boston Globe, U.S. News and World Report, The SF Gate, AVN Online, MSNBC, WNYC (National Public Radio affiliate) and many others." notability of Jane's Guide as Definitive source in field.Gkleinman (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Err yea except the janes review is of the site you spun off from, not XCritic itself, so to my eyes it's not applicable. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which are one in the same. Also Jane's is going to do an updated review, but that takes time. Again more time here will resolve about 90% of the issues. Gkleinman (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment if they were one and the same then you don't need two seperate articles, xcritic could be merged into DVDTalk. Time is not an issue, you're free to recreate with better citations and proof of notability should the delete happen. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment actually you make an excellent case here for why the article needs to exist. The spin off is NOT one in the same with DVD Talk it's actually now owned by a different company and that fact is important to be out there (the wiki is the only place where that story is spelled out). Also the updated Jane's Guide review of XCritic is forthcoming. So a delete is unnecessary. Gkleinman (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentSo make up your mind; either site is the same as you said above and thus the Jane's review is applicable, or it's different as you have just said and the Jane's review is not. Forthcoming counts for nothing BTW. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Blowdart | ^talk 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think you need to recuse yourself from this Blowdart it's clear you have an issue with me as an editor Noticeboard#Gkleinman_edits, ive tried to call a WP:Truce but you skoffed at it User talk:Blowdart. It's important to note that the ENTIRE deletion path was initiated by you. If you continue to make this personal I'm going to call for WP:Mediation Gkleinman (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the "deletion path" was initiated by me, not by Blowdart, and your edits were brought into the spotlight by you yourself, when you started complaining to the admin noticeboard that you weren't be left to get on with your self-aggrandizement. The "truce" you've tried to call is actually that this AfD and being called about your self-promotion on your self-penned biographic article should stop (nothing about what you would do in return; just that you should be allowed to get on with it). I for one support the idea of mediation: it's a useful step on an inevitable path that will see us parting company. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the original db-spam tag which caused the first attempt at the page to be deleted wasn't mine either; I had used db-web. I also find it interesting that for someone who claims to be new you're very well versed in the wikipedia mediation and complaints procedures. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well given dealing with someone who is being unreasonable I've had to learn quite quickly about the process here. Gkleinman (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify who is being unreasonable in your eyes. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 23:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously i feel the AfD unreasonable, I raised the issue about Blowdart on the admin page as if you look at his talk page he does get a number of complaints about his speedy delete tages. I'm more than happy to have the discourse here especially CONSTRUCTIVE comments that I've actually taken and updated the piece with. I think the core issue to me is that looking at WP i see pages that have far less creditable sources and yet it seems there's little that will sway some of the editors here. If you break down the issues, I feel we've met WP:NOT by siting key sources from the adult industry plus a quote from Investors Business daily. The issue of WP:COI is inherent to the fact that I as editor of XCritic created the page. But again this page is far from the only page on WP that has this issue, and its one which will be resolved as others contribute to the page.

Ultimately I think I've put forth an extremely solid case for Keep and spent the time here as a newbie to learn how things work and what is needed. If you compare the first iteration of the page with what's there now you'll see a lot of work has been done to make it conform to WP standards.Gkleinman (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - the site is an invaluable resource for anyone looking for information on the adult entertainment business. As for credibility/notability...it has been mentioned on some of the most influential adult news sites on the web (avn.com, xbiz.com, etc...). It would be a shame to see this page deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottshootsdotcom (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC) — Scottshootsdotcom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Interesting case, but • Gene93k summed it up nicely. Too early and too little to pass on WP:NOT and WP:WEB, and the WP:COI clinches it for me. Ψν^Psi_nu 23:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing i think would be helpful is to have more time. The entry was JUST created. The possible issue with WP:COI will be resolved, but it's not something that can be done under the gun. I propose that there be a stay of execution here for 1 month and then if it doesnt pass muster revisit the deletion argument. Sound fair?Gkleinman (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete.~~ Delete. The reliable sources currently in the article aren't strong enough to convince me it should be kept. I'd switch my vote to Keep if the article could be rewritten before the end of this debate so there is no remaining content referenced to a non-reliable source. WP:COI is not by itself a reason for deletion, but it's a reason to be very cautious in the AfD. I can imagine the survival of a very factual, very small article, but I don't imagine the creator of the article agreeing to that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Updated my vote to a full Delete after looking more carefully at the sources. There is no information in the current article that I can see as derived from a reliable source.

A guy from XCritic was quoted in Investors Business Daily, but only to ask him a question about HDTV formats in the adult entertainment business. In other words, the content of that interview is not a source of any usable information about XCritic itself.
Even if we stretch our definitions to include Jane's Guide as a reliable source, we find

(a) Jane's offers a review of DVD Talk, not XCritic, the subject of this article.

(b) Jane's review has only nine sentences, of which none seem to be relied on for any of the text of the current article.

(c) Jane's review can't be construed as high praise: There are good and bad reviews on the site, so they don't appear to just be running ads. That doesn't set the bar very high.

AVN's commentary on XCritic offers such hard-hitting language as the following: "We're excited to have two of the hottest up and coming new contract stars contributing to XCritic.com," said XCritic editor Chris Thorne. "We can't wait to see what's next." What's next could be a Wikipedia article, if there were any sources we could trust that did any serious evaluations. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see X-Critic being the subject of only one independent article. Everything else was either a press release or the mention of the website is ancillary. I feel it flunks WP:WEB, and there's the issue of WP:COI in considering the arguments for notability. Vinh1313 (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced enough to pass significant coverage, albeit barely. The three year span of coverage in the references invalidates flash in the pan claim, which shouldn't have been applicable in the first place.Horrorshowj (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, considering XCritic started in October 2007, I don't think there actually was a 3-year span of coverage. Coverage about DVDTalk is only relevant towards considering DVDTalk's notability, not XCritic. Vinh1313 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah but Xcritic is effectively a spin off from DVD Talk, and as part of DVD Talk as an individual section it was/is very notableGkleinman (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Xcritics's notability must stand on its own in order to have an article on wikipedia. It should not derive its notability from DVDTalk's notability. You are always free to include information about XCritic in the DVDTalk article.Vinh1313 (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with DVD Talk article. Web site is not notable enough for its own entry. Note that any further edits should not be done by people associated with the site (owners, admins, etc) due to conflict of interest. -- -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't merge with DVD Talk as the site is specifically now NOT associated with DVD Talk anymore.Gkleinman (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So why do you keep insisting that a review that's now over 4 years old, referring to DVD Talk (and doesn't even mark it as notable) is applicable to your new site? --Blowdart | ^talk 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because this site is a spin off from the other one and the review goes directly to the content which is spun off. Gkleinman (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not inherited just because its a daughter organization/company of another site. As mentioned, it must stand on its OWN for an article to be written. It cannot feed off the notability of something else. Wisdom89 (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that AVN and XBiz, the two leading adult trade publications have covered XCritic should be more than enough to satisfy notable. Additionally the site has been referenced in a few adult film credits including a major release [26] but how do you cite a film reference? Again I think we've satisfied notability and will continue to add citations as they appear. I know WP isn't a crystal ball but I feel we've shown enough for a recently launched site to satisfy notability. Gkleinman (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was USERFY. JIP | Talk 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpraj[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem notable/important enough to have a wikipedia article. Delete. Peasantwarrior (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, nay feeble, keep At the risk of arguing other stuff exists against arguments to avoid, there are a number of personal name articles (Sarah (name) or Park (Korean name)). Although, at the very least, this is probably a WP:COI article based on the history. Yng varr 11:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Keep as above~~ Delete. ~~We have lots of articles for common Western first names, as well as some uncommon ones. If this is a common South Asian first name, then why not? Lankiveil (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC).~~ Changed opinion based upon below. Lankiveil (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I highly doubt it is a common South Asian first name. Google search only returns 453 (first number it gives is 5,210) unique results [27]while Sarah returns ~~149,000,000~~ a lot more (first number Google gives is 171,000,000, but the final result is probably much less) results.Peasantwarrior (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, to play the devil's advocate, a large number of potential incidences of the name could be in Devanagari rather than Latin letters. But I agree, it looks like it may not be as common as claimed. Lankiveil (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong delete I'm Indian and this is not a common name (non-notable). In fact I personally know of no one with this name.Antorjal (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that the common European/American/Judao-Christian name "Sarah" should be compared to an Indian name via a websearch alone. The web may produce a pro western bias on information you turn up. That said, Weak keep--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The commonness of the name should have no bearing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:WINAD, the name meaning may be transwikied to Wiktionary, the rest seems WP:SPAM. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia includes the encyclopedia of names. However, evey name needs sourced info on meaning, origin, first use, frequency of use, etc, to make it more than a dictionary entry --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Leave, As different people may have different opinion so I assume that I am not challenging any particular opinion. I ask for an apology if so. This name is a good nominee to be included in wikipedia. If it seems that this is not so common name then the common word can be deleted from so that it is not claimed as it says. If my opinion can be considered then I would like to bring this in your kind notice that I have seen lots op people with this name including some of the famous people. Infact there are 2 more persons in my company who share this name. Rest is up to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushpraj (talk • contribs) 13:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless this can be turned into a disambiguation page. Articles on names, unless encyclopedic or disambiguation pages, don't belong here. utcursch | talk 11:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for User:Pushpraj. Needs reliable references, which surely exist (a book on names?). Please contibute using reliable sources, not from personal knowledge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Bduke (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The creator of this article has recently created articles that are variations of one Chabad type. So far at least three others have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yossi Lazaroff, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad of Brazos Valley, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Aggies that are essentially WP:VANITY pages. This article is about a fund-raising organization of the Chabad Hasidic movement of which there are thousands similar ones in the world. Wikipedia is not Chabad.org meaning that it is not here to further the publicity and propagandistic aims of the movement. Chabad has its own plentiful websites and Wikipedia should resist a stealth invasion in this manner, (see the bloated ((Chabad sidebar)) template that exhibits "an ambition that does oe'r leap itself" -- to quote Shakespeare in Macbeth.) This article is part of a trend that violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site; and just plain Wikipedia is not your web host of which, and for which, Chabad has plenty of. IZAK (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is just a Chabad run charity to take in money. News archive shows non notable. Vanity. Lobojo (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above voter also describes Chabad rabbis as "(cultish self-promoters)" [28]. I would appreciate it if the anti-Chabad comments and arguements could be kept out of this discussion. This is not the place to profane religious leaders of any kind!!! Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, chabadcruft? Definitely not encyclopædic, as outlined above. Lankiveil (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

*Keep I feel that this deletion attempt is a bit hasty, this subject should be expanded on as it encompasses the entire Chabad movement in Texas. If anything, more needs to be written about this, more articles should be created as well. At present the article is underdeveloped, but that is no reason for deletion. Culturalrevival (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I was too hasty, the article I linked too was about Chabad Lubavitch of Texas, which I feel would of been encompassing and believe to be a notable subject. This is not that article. Culturalrevival (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It encompasses nothing, it is just a fundraising group that raises and distributes monry. On what sources should it be expanded? Lobojo (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge important info from Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch, Chabad of Brazos Valley, Yossi Lazaroff, and Jewish Aggies into Texas A&M University#Student life. Don't worry about that section getting to big. All these articles are stubs that basically have the same info. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge see Brewcrewer. Culturalrevival (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for Non-Notability. Springnuts (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any claim that there are reliable sources mentioning this organization? As always, I would handle this one by the notability without assuming any particular motives. If this organization has special notability we might not be aware of sources need to be produced. Otherwise, merge per Brewcrewer. --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for non-notability per WP:ORG or merge per Brewcrewer. The only independent source produced mentions the organization only in passing, saying nothing about it except that it is the Texas regional headquarters of Chabad. A keep vote requires a notability claim backed by sources. This article has neither. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to notability and sourcing problems. I have no objection to merge (per Brewcrewer) but it's not necessary for deletion. HG | Talk 04:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently this group exists. Not much more can be said about it, and there seems little likelihood that much more will ever be said about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd guess that it's a group for fundraising/support. Lacks notability. HG | Talk 15:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N and WP:ORG. No need to have an article for every Friends of Chabad unless they actually have notability of their own.Collectonian (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad of Brazos Valley[edit]

The creator of this article has recently created articles that are variations of one Chabad type. So far at least three others have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yossi Lazaroff; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Aggies that are essentially WP:VANITY pages. This article is about a synagogue of the Chabad Hasidic movement of which there are thousands similar ones in the world. Wikipedia is not Chabad.org meaning that it is not here to further the publicity and propagandistic aims of the movement. Chabad has its own plentiful websites and Wikipedia should resist a stealth invasion in this manner, (see the bloated ((Chabad sidebar)) template that exhibits "an ambition that does oe'r leap itself" -- to quote Shakespeare in Macbeth.) This article is part of a trend that violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site; and just plain Wikipedia is not your web host of which, and for which, Chabad has plenty of. IZAK (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I'm all for notable buildings or organizations, this one seems to be neither. Only eight hits for its name in a google search, mostly for its own site and here. No assertion of notability for this particular location and Wikipedia is not a directory. AnmaFinotera (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because a spiritual center to strengthen the Jewish Faith is an important subject indeed worth for 'our' free and open encyclopedia--יודל (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Yiddisheryid: Sure, every single shull, shtiebel, school and Jewish kindergarten is an important Jewish spiritial center. Even when Jews are in the Merkava tank and they make a minyan it's an important spiritual center from a metaphysical and mystical POV, but it is not fit to have every place a minyan gathers as an encyclopedia topic. For that there are minyan and shulls lists/guides like Go Daven, the OU synagogue guide, and even Chabad.org's Find A Center. Wikipedia is not starving anyone of their spiritual needs when the Internet has lots of easy Judaic resources to find and people will not come looking here for the spirituality of "our" people, so see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable only has 8 ghits: [29]. Lobojo (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above voter also describes Chabad rabbis as "(cultish self-promoters)". [30] I would appreciate it if the anti-Chabad comments and arguements could be kept out of this discussion. This is not the place to profane religious leaders of any kind!!! Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, really not notable; no indepedent references. Lankiveil (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This article is about a religous community, it is notable and well sourced as shown by articles such as this one [31] from the Jewish Herald-Voice. I also hope that this debate well leave aside the defamation of religious leaders and/or communities (see above Comment) - This debate is not a place for anti-Chabad rhetoric!!! Thanks. Bhaktivinode (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge important info from Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch, Chabad of Brazos Valley, Yossi Lazaroff, and Jewish Aggies into Texas A&M University#Student life. Don't worry about that section getting to big. All these articles are stubs that basically have the same info. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article should be expanded, may change to a week keep as is. Culturalrevival (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been expanded, and is still expanding. Thanks. Bhaktivinode (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment this can be best combined with the article on the current rabbi ;better to have one strong article; even better, with Jewish organisations at Texas A&M--there's more than chabad. Mwerging into the main article is going much too far, considering the size & improtance of the university, but a more comprehensive article would be better. DGG (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing a merge with the Rabbi article or a new article? On a similiar discussion I advised a more encompassing article on Chabad Lubavitch in Texas. These articles might be too specific to local communities to stand alone, while a larger narrative might suffice. I assume this is what you are discussing above? There seems to be more information of this subject. Otherwise Brewcrewer has suggested a merge with the student university section, a good proposal as well. Culturalrevival (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge the few crumbs of info that exist in all these articles into your A+++ grade article on History of the Jews in Texas? Lobojo (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References do not show Notability. Springnuts (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. References establish existance but not notability, and wikipedia is not a directory. Karanacs (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently this group exists. Not much more can be said about it, and there seems little likelihood that much more will ever be said about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or merge into Texas A&M University#Student life The organization has the core notability requirement of multiple independent sources which cover the organization in detail, so an inclusionist argument could be made for a keep. However, it doesn't seem to meet any of the standard criteria of WP:ORG, and the sources don't demonstrate anything that makes the organization especially remarkable. The articles seem of a run-of-the-mill sort analogous to wedding and obituary announcements, which ordinarily don't support a notability claim. They all describe very ordinary, common activities like the organization opening its doors, a Friday night dinner, an education program, and other very standard things that this type of organization typically does. They tend to indicate that this organization is similar to hundreds of other Chabad centers, and indeed tens of thousands of religious organizations catoring to university students, throughout the United States. They don't suggest any special basis for notability. However, the organization could certainly be mentioned as part of Texas A&M University student life. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sites running the LiveJournal engine[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. This list is an indiscriminate collection of websites which apparently have one thing in common: they run a particular software, the pertinence of which fact escapes me. The list is also subject to a lame edit war about whether a particular website should be included or not; see WP:ANI#List of sites running the LiveJournal engine, Talk:List of sites running the LiveJournal engine. Sandstein (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 11:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion, lists like this are better handled as categories to which items notable enough to warrant their own articles can be added. GreatestJournal and DeadJournal both appear notable enough to have their own articles. I'm not sure if any of the others are. Neitherday (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim. The two news stories already cited provide the reliable secondary sources needed for most of the list, and the active populations of these sites range from the size of a small town to the size of a small country. Remove anything that has no secondary sources. Note that this article was, until very recently, a section in LiveJournal; it would also be acceptable to me to merge it back into that article, but I think it should not be deleted altogether. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One of the reasons for me proposing the move was the section gave Undue weight to other communities and issues other than the LJ virtual community. It is hard for the LiveJournal article to be complete and balanced because it is a service, software, and a company ... maybe the issue is which takes priority. --Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. Which is why I'm happier with keeping the list as a separate article than merged back in. But it is highly relevant for the LiveJournal article that some LiveJournal users have migrated to other hosts with similar software, as the News.com article indicates, so this "List of..." article is convenient as something that can be linked to from the main LiveJournal article in that context. In the context of WP:UNDUE, I think it would give rise to similarly unbalanced coverage of LiveJournal if we were to remove any mention of these alternative sites and the user migrations to them from the LiveJournal article, as I think would be likely to happen if this list is deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: To me, it sounds like we should have a separate article for each function (service, software, company), then. Should we split the LiveJournal article into three parts? If so, this page can then be easily merged into the LiveJournal (software) page. Admiral Memo (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list appears to be a coatrack existing as a proxy for standalone articles on a series of websites that can't meet the standards of WP:V by themselves. If kept, it should be pruned back to a list of websites (as opposed to a series of promotional blurbs about said sites). I generally don't like to advocate deletion for sub-articles that are forked off from larger ones for reason of length, but I don't think this material should've ever been a part of LiveJournal in the first place. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep in entirety, or else Delete. Either way, it should not be allowed to be used to promote POV bias. -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the very least revert the LiveJournal article to it's orignal form with all material on the article in discussion. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 22:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I included a pointer to this discussion on Talk:LiveJournal — given the relative newness of this list as a separate article, my guess is that few people have it on their watchlists, and therefore that mentioning it on the LJ article's talk page will be more likely to attract informed participants to this discussion. I hope my message there is sufficiently neutral as not to run afoul of WP:CANVAS. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to LiveJournal as it was before. If any of these are considered to be notable enough, they can be split off each into their own article (i.e., one article for one site, rather than having this page listing them all). Mdwh (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge back Or, on the talk page I suggested a rename of the article to focus on the software - which is independently notable as an open source blogging server engine. The list then is not the focus of the article, but a small piece of a larger scoped article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Very weak keep. The list cannot be merged back because it gives Undue weight to communities not related to the LJ community but the LJ software. A few of these communities are probably notable enough for their own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejerm (talk • contribs) 01:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A mere mention is documentation, not undue weight. The weight of the list itself is evidence of the LJ blogging engine being notable independently of the LiveJournal website. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

True. However, the content in question is not a mere mention of sites but is a fairly detailed list of other sites running the LiveJournal engine and why/why not they are better/worse than the original LiveJournal engine. So the list should stay because that is what it is, a list (but then Sandstein notes Wikipedia is not a directory). OR it should go and the sites on that are votable enough could have their own article while LJ merely states the presence of other sites. --Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 02:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge back to LiveJournal. These sites do not have sufficient coverage from reliable sources, and are not notable in their own right; a collection of non-notable sites isn't notable either. Terraxos (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and remerge for reasons stated above. Admiral Memo (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only allow entries that are sufficiently notable to have their own wikipedia articles. This seems to be the case, except that some of the articles haven't been written. The list should exist primarily as a navigation aid with summary information only. Most of the content belongs in the individual articles. This article needs to be fixed, not deleted, as per policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if any of these are notable, then create articles, and include a category. Addhoc (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mäkmélíâ/Makmelida[edit]

AfDs for this article:

((Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M%C3%A4km%C3%A9l%C3%AD%C3%A2/Makmelida))

Contested prod. Looks like something that was made up one day. ~~May be eligible for speedy deletion since~~ The author acknowledges that "There are no Sources that even mention Mäkmélíâ as a language."[32] -- Shunpiker (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure nonsense to me. Something is screwy with the AFD box text though on this page. Mbisanz (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a personal conlang, probably made up by the author to test various constructs. I think the screwy text has to do with the accented characters... Yngvarr 10:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think the screwiness is due to the embedded slash in the title of the page. It plays havoc with templates. I had to rename this AfD page (without the slash) in order for it to properly embed within the December 28 AfD page. -- Shunpiker (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To quote the page, "Note: This is the first documented page on this language" - fails NOR, completely original research - though that isn't a criteria for WP:SPEEDY. -- alex.muller (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if not a hoax, then certainly a very obscure and non-notable conlang. Lankiveil (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Snowball this nonsense Thin boy 00 @998, i.e. 22:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete why is it so hard to believe that "this conlang" is real? We speak it as if this was our mother tongue... Me a bunch of other people just wanted to spread the language... Although, I do admit to violating the NOR policy so I will delete the article myself... I will look for some other place to put my work. Cheesemeister01 (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I believe that original research on constructed languages is welcome at the conlang wiki. (Also: KneeQuickie, and the FrathWiki.) -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cordectomy[edit]

This defintion has been moved to wiktionary.

Tonytypoon (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a lot more that can be said about this subject. See Google Books search Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colonel Warden is quite right, even a five second google search shows that a good article can be written about this entirely legitimate medical topic. I'm assuming the nominator did such a search before nominating the article, but then I fail to see why he'd have nominated it if he did. Nick mallory (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep as per WP:HEY and above comments. Earthdirt (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. There is enough material to expand this article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 07:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Soulville Records[edit]

Non-notable record label. Only ever released one single. Lugnuts (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yep non-notable Mbisanz (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very minor record label with no references provided. Lankiveil (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Stormie (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viral records[edit]

Non-notable record label with zero incoming links and spam. Lugnuts (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty spammy to me. Mbisanz (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable label, has never had a notable artist or band on their roster. For all we know, just some guy operating out of his bedroom. Lankiveil (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect all.

Mickey McFinnigan redirected to "Peter's Two Dads" - character only appeared there, no real content in character article not in episode article.

Bertram (Family Guy) redirected to List of characters from Family Guy - I have added references there to the two episodes in which he appeared, no real content in character article not in those episode articles.

Thelma Griffin redirected to List of characters from Family Guy - I have merged in a small amount of descriptive content.

--Stormie (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey McFinnigan[edit]

Three NN characters with no real-world significance and have only been in a few episodes and can easily covered at the List of characters from Family Guy. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 07:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also NN characters:

No real-world significance agreed. Should this be a merge discussion? The norm with articles like this is to redirect to appropriate pages. I'd say:
- Redirect Thelma Griffin to List of characters from Family Guy.
- Redirect Mickey McFinnigan to Peter's Two Dads
- Delete Bertram (Family Guy) as readers are unlikely to include " (Family Guy)" in their search strings. Links to the deleted article should be redirected to List of characters from Family Guy#Bertram. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Readers are not unlikely to suffix their searches with (Family Guy), considering other articles end with it. Should be redirected as a plausible search term. –Pomte 09:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Television-related deletions and Fictional characters-related deletions. / —edg ☺ ☭ 08:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything useful, and then Redirect. All are minor fictional characters with no wider significance outside of the Family Guy universe. Lankiveil (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Agree with nom -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect all as above. No basis established for requiring individual articles about these characters. Eusebeus (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters from Family Guy. Redirect where makes sense. Minor character in major series. Hobit (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters from Family Guy nn characters. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to whatever target is deemed most appropriate for each article. No justification for separate articles for any of these minor characters. Otto4711 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No notability via substantial coverage in secondary sources per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Keilana^talk_(recall) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patronus Charm[edit]

This article is written in an almost completely in-universe style, and, so far as I can see, it does not warrant an article and should be integrated into Spells in Harry Potter. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable outside of the Harry Potter universe. Lankiveil (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into Spells in Harry Potter per nom. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we are going to delete an article for being too "in-universe", then half of the Harry Potter articles should be up for deletion, I would think. Not to mention other spheres of interest. I would normally agree with the merge option, but the Patronus Charm is explored much more than any other spell in Harry Potter, and there is more information to cover. Is the article of United States House Intelligence Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management (which I wrote) notable outside of the House of Representatives universe? Quite possibly it's not. But it still deserves to be there. Nevermore27 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment blatantly disregards policies such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, when you refer to other Harry Potter book-related information not being nominated for deletion. I think they all should be deleted; I might soon nominate all such scourge, such fan-cruft. Your comment regarding the House of reps "universe" is a bogus twisting of words, and I think that is readily apparent to you and anyone else who reads that piece of text. So far as there being more to be said on the Patronus Charm, and it being explored much more - this is true of many of the spells seen cataloged at the Spells in Harry Potter article, yet they all conform to inclusion in that list without having their own article. Signed, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a policy. PeaceNT (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh,yes, of course, I used the word losely there, referring to the fact that the ideas in that essay are indeed commonly accepted, at least in some part. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found three references in books before tiring:

A Muggle's Guide to the Wizarding World by Fionna Boyle - Page 178
Looking for God In Harry Potter by John Granger - Page 141
Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter by Galadriel Waters - Page 181

Also, the style in which an article is written is not a valid reason to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References aren't really the problem here. It's the fact that it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion as a sep. article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article to which you want to merge this is already too large, being 85K, and so should be broken into smaller articles per WP:SIZE. Smaller, separate articles such as this one. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SIZE is just a guideline. We have hundreds of lists that size and more; if you wish I can find you examples. No, that would just be doing something for the sake of it. Common sense should always be applied, and fracturing a topic because the full content is very large so far as the amount of text it takes to convey the full information makes no sense. Creating articles on subjects that do not merit articles is an extremely poor way of fixing a problem in any instance. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really can't complain about WP:SIZE just being a guideline when you try to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is also just a guideline. Both have shown equal histories of being supported and are equally valid. In fact, you even complain about the use of WP:SIZE by "violating" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS anyway. -- Masterzora (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Spells in Harry Potter, which appears to handle the job quite nicely. Yng varr 10:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above Will ^(talk) 12:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the requirements for existing as separate article is that it's notable; that Colonel Warden has shown. It is possibly the most notable spell in Harry Potter, and should not be merged into an article that's already 85K. SIZE is just a guideline, but I fail to see the value in merging against that guideline.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The value is that we are talking about a minor figment in a work of fiction, a figment that should be included in a list of similar figments, but which is not. We are not merging against policy here, but rather because of policies, such as those cited in the notability policy pages. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A minor figment? We're talking about a major feature of the most major book series of the 21st century and a major movie series. Things don't have to be real to be notable. If you do have a policy that the existence of this article violates, it would be nice to explicitly mention it. We have the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that WP:N demands.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is, when the whole work of fiction is summed up, a minor figment. By policies such as WP:NOTE, it has become common practice to clump this sort of information into relevent common articles, so that information not warranting a sep article can be not omitted. Minor Harry Potter characters, Deatheater, Relatives of Harry Potter are all examples. Now we have Spells in Harry Potter. Several of the spells in there are readily known among Potter fans. Take Wingardium Laviosa. Say that aloud, and I'd say at least 1 in 15 would know it was a spell from Harry Potter. Does it have an article? No. It has conformed with the practice of binding relevent content, just as this article should. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The primary demand of WP:NOTE is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We have that. The Patronus Charm is different from Wingardium Laviosa in that it was a major part of three of the books, with visual side-effects that provide insight into the characters. Having this article does not affect Spells in Harry Potter; it becomes one of many articles that have a section split out into its own article.--Prosfilaes(talk) 15:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm probably one of the few people in the world who just does not care two whits for Harry Potter. In this issue, if I were ever to feel like looking up spells for Harry Potter, I'd probably type a search terms to the effect of "harry potter spells". A single clearing-house of information is of more use for non-concerned individuals. The article right now is mainly for those who already know, but that is not what the whole point of an encyclopedia is, is it? Yng varr 15:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If I was looking for cities in Germany, I'd search for cities in Germany. It doesn't mean we should merge all those articles into List of cities in Germany. Spells in Harry Potter will have links to all appropriate subarticles, so there's nothing lost by keeping this a separate article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Prosfilaes, I understand your point of view. It is clear to me that we simply differ on this matter. I just see it as being more useful to the content if it were merged into the spells article. Policies aside, and thinking of what would best benefit the encyclopedia through application of common sense. All that needs to be said can be summed up in a short spiel in the spells article; I think we can all agree the current article is terribly verbose. That way, all spells in Harry Potter are all in one lump, and no information is lost. When thinking in terms of what wuld actually benefit the reader, does this not sound reasonable? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And, just to say, I agree entirely that non-real things can be highly noteworthy. We have whole series of article relating to Harry Potter to show that. I just think we might be going overboard in some ways. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your own arguments work in favor of keep. You use Death Eater as an example, but we can see both that it is lengthy and should be broken up and that particularly notable Death Eaters (Draco, Snape) have main pages with a stub on Death Eater and that Relatives of Harry Potter is way too long. It makes sense to have Patronus Charm on a separate page and then have a stub on Spells in Harry Potter -- Masterzora (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No it doesn't! My arguments work in favour of common sense, which in turn equals merging an article about a spell in Harry Potter with the list of spells in Harry Potter article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If it were common sense, it would be possible to generalize: that is, we should merge an article about a city in Germany to the list of cities in Germany. Likewise, we can have a List of Christmas films that has some films unlinked (that aren't notable enough to have an article themselves) but has many films having articles of their own. Hence this is purely a judgment call, one which WP:SIZE says should go to having a separate article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:N is not policy either, by the way. --Goobergunch|? 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adequately sourced. This is a notable concept, mentioned on author's website and in various interviews, would not be sufficiently explained in the already-long-list of Spells in Harry Potter; also per WP:SIZE, as noted above by Prosfilaes above. This article is a sensible way to organize the materials, and it has chance to be improved. WP:FICT is a guideline, not a policy, and if anyone just take a look at its talk page and archives, this guideline appears to be disputed all year round anyway. PeaceNT (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into spells in Harry Potter. If there's a way to transwiki it over to the HPWiki, that should be done. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This spell is a major plot element in the third book, it is a notable concept. ViperSnake151 18:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Spells in Harry Potter. Not notable as an encyclopaedia item, except in a study book in Hogwarts. Dekisugi (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Patronus has shown notability outside of the series via reliable secondary sources and the current article has information beyond the scope of Spells in Harry Potter. -- Masterzora (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIZE. Article satisfies WP:V, which actually is policy. --Goobergunch|? 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect there is no notability in this article, and it lacks of sources. Merge into Spells. Lord Opeth (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per User:Dekisugi - fchd (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiable, sufficient number of reliable sources. Rt. 13:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is very true. It is well sourced. If you would, however, review the reaosn it is nominated, it should be merged, pretty much regardless of its well-sourcing. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Hmph. Considering the arguments for both merging and keeping here—I retain my keep decision, per: the size of the general page, notability and the article has potential beyond its current status as per what Masterzora explains. Hope this clarifies my positioning, Rt. 13:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, thank you for clarification. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Does not conform to requirements for notability and referencing and must establish some or be deleted. Arguments to keep the article should be ignored unless someone promises they know about some actual referencing that exists and not continually saying "It's notable". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody above listed 3 references that they found in a quick search, so I believe your condition is satisfied. Further, since AfD is not cleanup, the article really shouldn't be deleted on grounds of "lack of references" until proper notice and time have been given for rectifying that. -- Masterzora (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable due to lack of significant coverage by secondary sources - I do not think the sources required to establish notability exist to be found. Information within the article can be covered adequately in Spells in Harry Potter. [[Guest9999 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep - The style can be changed, the article it would be merged to is too long, and of all the concepts of the Harry Potter Universe, the author spends a significant amount of time detailing it, and there are plenty of sources. There are plenty of Star Wars/Trek and other series with far more trivial concepts. -- Legendary (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not cleanup, adequately referenced by things mentioned here and works better separate. I'd like to encourage the nominator to ask people about objectionable articles and try to do some personal work on them before nominating for deletion. AfD'ing is a fairly extreme step and the best result is often found by less extreme means; not looking for those before concluding that there are none is just plain inconsiderate, which is not a minor thing on a website not only based on but vitally dependent on communication and cooperation. --Kiz o r 23:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Spells in Harry Potter. It doesn't need to be DELETED, it exists. This is an encyclopedia. :< 68.62.50.9 (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - too big to merge, and has entered common parlance. Has external refs too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the references present are either from fansites (not reliable), the author (not independent of the topic) or do not mention the topic in question at all (only related through synthesis). [[Guest9999 (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment And what about the references Colonel Warden found? AfD is not about deleting working articles that aren't well enough sourced; if there's a passable article, and the subject is notable, then it stays, even if cleanup is needed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since many people are disobeying WP:WAX, maybe I should too. (For the record, this is sarcasm) Let's see, a far more notable spell, Avada Kedavra (redirect to a section of a more general subject), doesn't have it's own article, thus this shouldn't. In fact, all three Unforgivable Curses have only one collective article. The more used and more well known Expelliarmus doesn't have its own article. As for the complaints about size, I guess I'll violate WP:WAX again by citing List of England international footballers (alphabetical), which is just one of the many articles several times larger than the spell list mentioned. The size argument can also be refuted with the argument that WP:WAX is not a policy, by citing that WP:SIZE is not a policy either:

“

However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

”

The prose, tone and style (or lack of it) are mostly irrelevant in this case. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 05:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in the case of the Unforgivable Curses and the Disarming Charm, they each do not have their own article because they have a singular effect. The Killing Curse kills, the Criciatus curse tortures, etc. The Patronus Charm has varied effects, and have a far more facets of their use than any other spell you listed. I reiterate: Keep. Nevermore27 (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does the Patronus deserve an article? Do we really need to list every character's Patronus? Do we need to list every character killed by the Avada Kedavra curse in the books and each death's significance? Do we really need to explain the special role of the disarming spell in the books in a separate article? THe Patronus has two purposes; more than any other spell, I admit. However, one of them (the messengers) is extremely small and can be condensed into one sentence. More than half of the rest of the article can be cropped off as useless information. I reiterate: Delete Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 18:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. It is a referenced article from a notable series. Happy New Year! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I'm a bit confused having now read the essay; the main reason given for not deleting things is that the time taken up by deletion debates and discussion could be better used. However now that a deletion debate has opened for this article surely the best way to try and make sure less time and effort is expended in deletion debates would be for it to be deleted so that it couldn't be nominated again? Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

The article is clearly verified, I don't think anyone disputes this fact. However, verification does not always give notability; just verification. In this instance, there are no sources that indicate that this specific aspect of the Harry Potter universe has independant notability. It has does have significant coverage, but those sources are not independant of the subject. Fansites and author interviews are not independant, and thus they do not grant notability. Because the subject does not have independant notability, it should not have its own article. I believe that this article should be redirected to an anchor title in the List of Spells page, and move the sources too. I (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find annoying that no one will address the cites that Colonel Warden brings up. Furthermore, fansites are of course independent; how is a fansite any less independent than a published critic?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites are (generally) independent, however they are not reliable as reqired by the primary notability guideline (A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject) - one reason for this is that they do not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Anyone can start a fansite and put up any kind of information they want, true or otherwise. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Of course fansites are less independent and reliable; in general fan sites are pretty much inherently POV: a group of people who are fanatics about the subject matter. Hardly neutral. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, fansites are not considered reliable, but they're not less independent. Of course putting up a webpage shows so much more fanaticism than spending ten years of your life getting a Ph.D. on a subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does that relate to anything? And no, it doesn't - people get a PhD so they can have a well-paying occupation; what is in it for the people who spend hours furnishing their fansites? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It relates to your dismissal of people as fanatics. And few if any people get PhDs so they can have a well-paying occupation; people who want money get MBAs. People who get a PhD in modern literature become professors, people who spent more time in school than 99% of the populace, to become better paid than 87% of them (according to our article). I've read academic works on Alexander Pope that failed to understand why anyone might have had a legitimate beef with him, a fanatic position if I ever heard of one. As people who spend hours furnishing their fansite, how is that any different from spending hours on any other hobby?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the argument is void now anyway considering you just admitted that it was irrelevent except in regards to my supposed "dismissal". And I'm not dismissing people as fans. I am telling you that they are. Are you trying to assert that people who run a fansite are not fans of the subject matter? No, you couldn't be - that doesn't make sense, much like some of your other arguments at this AFD. I care not to bicker any longer. Kind regards, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between fans and fanatics, no matter what the origins of the word may be. Your confusion there is offensive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although referencing is poor (each is either not independent or not reputable (bloggy)), and this needs to be fixed. Rewrite as per WP:WAF. I expect that coverage of the subject in independent reputable sources will exist, but if you can't be wait for them, merge into Spells in Harry Potter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significant coverage from reliable secondary sources is necessary to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Google news search which generates very vaguely related results can hardly be counted as "significant media coverage". Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no idea but I'd not call those "very vaguely related". The term is used in the articles in a meaningful way. And we are talking ABC, Time, etc. Is that enough? Eh, I just edit here. 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The result was Withdrawn with no !votes placed, so no need to keep it open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honorable George F. Fitzpatrick[edit]

If the claims in this article are true, then this person is certainly notable, but I can't find any references. This may just be because records of Trinidad and Tobago's government from the turn of the century are difficult to find, but even so I would think that someone with as distinguished a career as the article claims Fitzpatrick had would leave some trace. Taking it to AfD just in case I'm missing something. Lankiveil (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn by nominator, was able to find a reference confirming he was a member of the Legislative Council. Lankiveil (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Aside, if the consensus is to keep, I suggest moving the article to George F. Fitzpatrick, as per pretty much every other article for parliamentarians in Westminster systems. Lankiveil (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was redirect. The history remains and any content can be merged in by any editor through the normal processes. Chick Bowen 06:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel[edit]

This is the descriptionof a minor US political office. Per WP:BIO this is an appointed ad-hoc office that is not in the Constitution, is not elected or senate-confirmed. Most of google hits are for invites and by-lines. Simply not more notable than the President's butler or the Chief of Staff's chief of staff. This doesn't say a person holding this position can't be notable, just that on its own, the position is not notable. Mbisanz (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Executive Office of the President of the United States (I think that's the relevent article). Generally, official titles, positions, terms, etc. that are not notable on their own but singularly notable as part of something bigger that is notable, should be redirects to that larger concept. --W.marsh 06:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per W.marsh. This position is subordinate to the Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel, from what I can tell (our own EOP article says it's a "third level" position, less prestigious than a Deputy Assistant), and is well down the salary list[33], beneath many deputy assistants. About the only thing notable about either position is that several people who have held it have later held more important jobs. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Without imputing bad faith on anyone's part, I believe this article was created by the editor mainly to help build a case for notability for his/her article on Eric Motley, DePRODDED by the editor without comment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article I will be getting to later. I just need to look up the individual in greater detail. Mbisanz (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my attitude is not so much that I want to build a case for notability in such instances by starting a new article. In borderline cases, I don't make snap judgments about an article; I say, "Create 'em all and let the deletionists sort them out." I also view the ((prod)) template as just someone prodding me to add a reference or something to take care of some verifiability issues or whatnot. Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the PROD notice does ask that you offer an explanation in either the edit summary or Talk page when removing it, and if you've cared enough to create an article I should think you would welcome the chance to explain why you think it's worth retaining. It is requested, at any rate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some users use PROD and AFD to push for sources, I try (and sometimes fail) to avoid that sort of thing, since a deletor should at least make sure they can't find a reason to keep the article. I'm stilling working on the Eric Motley issue. I want to see how exactly he gained his various public offices, since Sarsaparilla is an experienced editor who I doubt would push a COI issue. Mbisanz (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it was because of his ties to the Republicans (the spoils system) but let me research... Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that this is an issue for you two. Of course it's a partisan appointment. It would be in any administration. That in itself doesn't discredit Motley, not for me, anyways. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the story of his appointment is at the end of this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/10/AR2006061001040_5.html Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per W.marsh, but the closing admin should be sure to move the quote/citation, which is truly unique. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was snowball delete --Maxim_(talk) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canucks.com Message Board[edit]

Non-notable internet message board, no independent secondary sources, and a constant vandal magnet (for some reason). Removed/vandalized PROD. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not seem to meet any of the WP:WEB criteria. Lankiveil (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails criteria, yup. Mbisanz (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above, non-notable. ><RichardΩ6 12 12:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N. Macy's 123 review me 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, Eh? considering there's no Canucks.com page, i fail to see how this is more notable than the actual website. Anywho it still fails WP:N Doc Strange (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smother in maple syrup and toss in the hog trough..... I mean delete. Flibirigit (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted ~ Riana ⁂ 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Rosenbaum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A previous AfD ended in delete. The article was later recreated and, despite the caution from ArbCom and basic WP:COI policies, has almost solely been developed and maintained by the subject of the article. (User:Rosencomet is reasonably believed to be Jeff Rosenbaum according to the findings of an Arbcom case.) When I recently began overhauling the article along with User:Kathryn NicDhàna, it looked like this. Looking hard at the references, Kathryn and I found them to be ridiculously padded. After revamping the article, it looked like this. Look at the talk page for some discussion between us and Rosencomet about the sources we took out. Many simply included his name in a list of "thank you"s in a book introduction, or a quote from him about the Starwood Festival (of which he is the primary producer and promoter). None of the references cited any of the article content, as they were about Starwood, not Rosenbaum. Few of the remaining sources in the article are WP:V or WP:RS. If you look at the Reference section, you'll see most of the sources are to the website of his group (rosencomet dot com). His published work consists of part of an article in a rather limited circulation zine Green Egg and a one page interview with him, again discussing Starwood, not any details about himself. The music is on tapes/CDs published by his group (self-published) and the spoken word entries listed are panel discussions that he apparently moderated (again, self-published) at these events. I looked for sources while revamping the article and the best are in it now. I've put a fair bit of work into this article, trying to improve it and its sources, but he still doesn't seem notable by Wikipedia standards. And I don't think there are enough good sources to support an article about him. Pigman☿ 06:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Delete, does not seem to be notable in the wider community, as there are very few non-trivial third-party references about him. His festival may be notable, but he is not. Lankiveil (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Starwood Festival - nearly all sources are in connection with the festival. Addhoc (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge or delete both this and the ACE article, I missed this AfD tag for some reason and was just about to place a notice suggesting a merge into ACE. An article about Association for Consciousness Exploration could discuss both Starwood and Winterstar symposium- if either of these are very notable despite the hard work of this one particular Wikipedia editor, whose username may be inappropriate really as it is too linked to the group and person concerned. Merkinsmum 13:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tom 14:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Merkinsmum and others. Article should be about Jeff Rosenbaum and not his associated enterprises, merchandising sites, etc. Unless there are enough WP:RS per WP:V references for Jeff Rosenbaum as a standalone article on the merits of his achievements rather than on the names, products etc. he has promoted , this article should be deleted as non notable. Promoters on the level of Bill Graham are notable in their own right, aside from the acts, merchandise they promote. Mattisse 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Merkinsmum. I think an article about ACE, with subsections on Starwood, Winterstar, and other projects, might pass muster. But only if it's done by people without COI. I'd say "merge and redirect", but there's very little in this article that's not already covered in the others. Maybe a couple sentences. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have sufficient non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. (In fact, as this article has been deleted previously, shouldn't it have been speedied as a re-creation of deleted material?) Terraxos (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by no means am I an expert on this subject, but I trust the judgment of Fred Bauder in the previous discussion and believe this person to be notable in Neo-Pagan circles. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is true that Fred Bauder voted to Keep this article in AfD when it was in Arbitration and Fred Bauder was one of the active arbitrators. Mattisse 23:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING - Rosencomet is now engaging in WP:CANVASSing, specifically of the Wikipedia:CANVASS#Campaigning and Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking sort, as he is only posting to people that have supported his position in past AfDs or content disputes: User:Viriditas, User:Septegram, User:Modemac, User:Dave Null. Rosencomet, I will repeat this on your talk page, but if you continue after this warning, what you are doing is a blockable offense, especially as you have done it multiple times before. This is your only warning. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jeff is a notable figure in various spiritual communities and in the world music field as a record producer and performer. I have seen him sit in with Muruga & Stephen Kent during Rhythm Fest 2 at Nelson Ledges, OH and with George Clinton at the Taste of Cleveland show. I have also been to several of his lectures at various festivals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittala (talk • contribs) 19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC) — Vittala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment notability is not inherited, no matter who he happens to be sitting with or speaking to. Merkinsmum 00:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Vittala is saying he saw him "Sit in with" these acts, as in "performed with on stage as a guest, rather than being a member of the band". Not "sit with". Just a clarification. Rosencomet (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw him dancing with the Pope, but unless his outstanding macarena has been noted at length in WP:RS, (for which unfortunately neither Vittala nor I, nor anyone discussing their memories on a wiki qualify) it's just my anecdote. Also he's involved in organising a couple of events, acts are bound to get on with him, if it may get them work. Rosencomet- you're defending arguments at an AfD on yourself- don't you feel bad and think you should step back a bit? Yes I know it was just a 'clarification' but even so. Merkinsmum 13:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pigman's research. Lack of independent sources, virtually nothing not related to the Starwood Festival (invokes WP:BLP1E IMO) and serious vanispamcruftisement issues from long-term POV-pusher. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As someone who has authored a book on fringe groups (High Weirdness By Mail, Simon & Schuster, 1987) and who regularly deals with countercultural events of various kinds, I consider Jeff Rosenbaum to be quite notable not just within the pagan scene, which isn't all that big to begin with, but within the counterculture in general. While he does not have great author credentials he has impeccable "mover and shaker" credentials, in that he (and ACE) have been bringing togeher some of the most interesting weirdoes in the world for 25 years. Speaking strictly from a personal point of view, without Jeff Rosenbaum's help, diplomacy, and hard work, as exemplified in the ACE events, I would probably not have met half the creative individuals with whom I have subsequently worked. As a behind the scenes guy he is in fact more notable than many of the front-stage acts he has brought together. RevStang (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC) — Revstang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: Per this edit summary: [34], Revstang (talk · contribs) is "involved in Starwood and Winterstar organization, a member of ACE". Therefore, Revstang has a Conflict of Interest on this article and this AfD. Per Wikipedia:COI#How to avoid COI edits: "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors." I'm sorry Stang, as I know Jeff is your friend, but this policy is important. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from talk page by Rosencomet (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

KEEP: In terms of the neopagan community, Mr. Rosenbaum is a promoter on the level of Bill Graham. My friends have been attending the events he promoted for over 20 years. His work has been notable in shaping the consciousness of at least 2 generations of neopagans. Oskar Matz. (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC) — Oskar Matz. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. Will ^(talk) 18:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reliable sources that are specifically about Jeff Rosenbaum don't look to be enough to justify an article. The best reference in the list is, in my view, the 2005 Nation article by Paul Krassner, but it has only three sentences about Rosenbaum. (Krassner is not exactly a neutral observer, since he performed at the Starwood Festival). There are also some mentions of Rosenbaum in alternative weekly papers, and there is a page or so about him in the Modern Pagans book. Though COI is not by itself a reason for deletion, it is fair to mention the issue in AfD debates. Wikipedia editors are on the alert for self-promotional editing and we see a good deal of that in the history of this article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor clarification. The Modern Pagans piece is not about Rosenbaum. It is a one-page, with photos, brief interview with Rosenbaum, ansering a few questions about Starwood. The only thing we could use it to source about Rosenbaum is that he runs Starwood. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Rosenbaum (talk • contribs) 19:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note - Per this diff User:Rosencomet and User:Jeff Rosenbaum are the same person. Both accounts have edited this AfD. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not True. User:Jeff Rosenbaum account has commented only on the TALK page, NOT edited this AfD, and neither has voted here nor will.Rosencomet (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

??????? I've heard that (if it exists) Multiple Personality Disorder is a terrible thing. Merkinsmum 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Deletion is not the answer to the problems.Bduke (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIPFG[edit]

Non-notable group founded by Falun Gong. A google search finds only 90,300 results, mostly from Falun Gong associated websites.--PCPP (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:V and WP:RS per [35], [36], [37]. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Suspected bad faith nom looking at the editor's edit history - multiple independent sources. The organization is an international one with highly influential leaders. --Strothra (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issues discussed are already covered in the various FLG articles, ie Falun Gong, Persecution of Falun Gong, Falun Gong and live organ harvesting. --PCPP (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable with reliable sources. Not that it out-and-out proves anything, but nominator has a history of anti-Falun Gong edits. Lankiveil (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
My edits or views on FLG is irrelevant. The org fails the google test. [38], and your news sources covers Falun Gong, not CIPFG. Clear Wisdom and Epoch Times are themselves Falun Gong sponsored organizations.--PCPP (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources: Taipei Times, news.com.au published by News Limited, Strategic Forecasting, and the New Zealand Herald. Further, the google test is a very weak standard for inclusion. The organization meets the standards set by WP:NN. Further, the organization itself and its work are indepdent of the Falun Gong. David Kilgour, David Matas, and its Canadian leader Rabbi Reuven Bulka are all human rights activists who are not Falun Gong practitioners. Sources associated with Falun Gong (mind you, you have not even demonstrated that they are run by the Falun Gong) in this case are thus secondary sources. --Strothra (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note it seems that the nom might be canvassing [39]. While this may be a friendly notice, I remind the nom that such behavior should not be continued per WP:CANVASS. It's one thing to give people a friendly reminder concerning an ongoing discussion, but to state your opinion on it while doing so is another thing. --Strothra (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly find there's anything wrong with someone who drops in to talk to me from time to time.... Furthermore, the only person he appears to have "canvassed" is yours truly. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me how does CIPFG meets WP:Notability. Does CIPFG contain long term notability, or is just some current and temporary event? Does the coverage contain in-depth sources, rather than copy-and-paste?

The CIPFG is an internationally based organization with highly influential and well-respected leaders from multiple countries. It clearly meets WP:NN.--Strothra (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DISPUTE - "clearly"? Please cite some non-FLG source on CIPFG's international status. Here's a Canadian foreign policy weekly that questions CIPFG. Please note CIPFG's president John Jaw is a FLG disciple, and has admitted CIPFG's FLG association. Also note it's time of establishment in 2006 coinciding with FLG publication Epoch Times NY's now discredited "Sujiatun/Auschwitz" story.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an absurd line of reasoning. If the head of Human Rights Watch is Catholic, this does not mean that the entire organization is also Catholic or biased toward Catholic countries/peoples.--Strothra (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the above article cited said:

"The CIPFG itself is barely a coalition in the real sense of the word."

"CIPFG was "initiated" by Falun Dafa"

This article from an established news source contradicts your unsourced claim.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [40] for Epoch Times's links with FLG, thus failing WP:RS. This has been clarified by Li Hongzhi, FLG's master himself [41]. And the supposed third-party sources simply reprinted CIPFG's statements, and is considered one coverage for the purpose. Concentration only in English and removing the sources that fails WP:RS on google [42], the term CIPFG concludes with 13,600, mostly a bunch of blogs.--PCPP (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing links to the Epoch Times and other sources you consider to be associated with the Falun Gong. The CIPFG is an international organization whose leaders are human rights activists - not members of the Falun Gong. Even if these sources were associated with the FG they are still reliable for the purposes of this article. Your last edits to the article purposefully removed legit sources such as the New Zealand Herald in order to craft the article in such a way that fits your POV. Please cease such disruptive editing per WP:POINT. --Strothra (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nomination seems to be in bad faith. StaticElectric (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Keep, per StaticElectric. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Times are other FLG sources fails WP:RS for this matter, especially considering that the organization itself is founded by the Falun Dafa Association[43]. The president John Jaw is a FLG member, and just because some well know people are members of the group doesn't qualify the group as notable. You might as well create an article on Reuven Bulka's local book club if he's a member. The organization is only notable for one event ie anti-PRC protests based on the earlier mentioned organ harvesting allegations, and lacks long time notability. Past organizations FLG founded also include the disfunct Bring Jiang to Justice [44], Resign from the CCP [45], amongst others, so why not create a separate article for every FLG action and organizations? According to WP:NOT#NEWS " Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right...Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article."--PCPP (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? This page has always been a stub linked to Falun Gong, with the organization's activities already mentioned there. Recreation of the separate article is nothing but repetition of statements already mentioned in the series of Falun Gong articles.--PCPP (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be pertinent to determine if anything could be merged first? Perhaps that would be more appropriate. Wisdom89 (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the organization's activities are mentioned in another article does not mean the the organization does not merit its own article. Many corporations and organizations are inherently notable particularly international ones. --Strothra (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Strothra, StaticElectric. This deletion of sourced content on the CIPFG page as "unnecessary", in particular is problematic and unfortunately, representative of the editing style of this user generally.--Asdfg12345 03:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there are no non-trivial mentions of the organisation cited anywhere, and the external links in the article are to self-published sources. This source, where CIPFG is trivially mentioned, states that it is "a little-known non-profit organization registered in Washington, D.C. [which has so far] recruited five permanent academics and more than 20 professors, lawyers and priests in Australia" Ohconfucius (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a front organisation of Falun Gong and not independent of it in any way, nor does it pass WP:ORG. The namespace should be redirected there if not deleted. The organisation is not notable in its own right as all mentions of it are usually always in the same breath as Falun Gong and secondary to it. All mentions pointed to it above so far are trivial mentions. Furthermore, there seem to be a Falun Gong practitioners who active in wikipedia creating articles, or otherwise adding material blatantly of a propagandistic nature into other articles sourced from the Epoch Times (which incidentally is committed to the overthrow of the Chinese Communist Party) in order to create a Walled garden of Falun Gong related articles and make a WP:POINT about their allegations of persecution, torture, organ harvesting and other human rights abuses by the Chinese regime. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising that a support of delete comes from the individual that was WP:CANVASS. Seems interesting. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posting one friendly notice does not amount to Canvassing. You seem to add nothing but ad hominem attacks.--PCPP (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, look up Ad-hominem for proper usage. You seem to consistently engage in POV pushing via the removal of cited information in an article that is currently undergoing AfD. I suggest you stop. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, rename to Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong in China . Vegaswikian (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am sorry to say I also get the strongest impression of a bad faith nom. Greswik (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Party of Canada Campaign Chairs[edit]

This is a random collection of information floating off on its own and unsourced Cloveious (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT a directory Mbisanz (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Macy's 123 review me 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GJ (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Merge to the CPC main article per useless directory.--JForget 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete something like this might have been of use for all parties during the last election but now it's just cruft. Make sure the national co-chairs are listed either in the Conservative Party of Canada article or in the article on the Canadian federal election, 2007 but the rest is not notable enough to justify an article. If individuals listed have their own articles include their 2007 position there. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITYM Canadian federal election, 2004. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not really encyclopedic content. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Bduke (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MeatballWiki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Navel gazing. While many Wikipedians (especially the older ones) have heard of MeatballWiki, it has no notability in the outside world. Although the article has existed since 2001 (created by an editor who described it as a "shameless plug to fill in dangling link"), it has virtually no secondary sources. All the inlined citations link to wikis and other forms of content that fail WP:RS. There are only two mentions of MeatballWiki in mainstream media, both of which are listed in external links. They are as follows:

A New York Times (Associated Press) article from September 2004: "At its core, a Wiki is an empty room, devoid of furniture and decoration, said Sunir Shah, founder of an online community called Meatball. Visitors bring the personality and mission, turning the Wiki into a library, a party or a conference room." [46] Note that the mention is only in passing.
A BusinessWeek article from June 2004: "The many guides to the wiki world are good to check out. One of the most popular is Meatball Wiki, a sort of community conscience for wiki makers and travelers, with tips and philosophical discussion about the nature of online communities." [47]

That's it. Two sentences in reliable sources for a site that has existed for over half a decade. We need to hold ourselves to the same guidelines we apply to garage bands. MeatballWiki fails our web notability guidelines: specifically, "content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (No), "the website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" (No), and "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" (No).

Frankly, some of the arguments in the last AFD were nothing short of embarrassing. One user said, "This article has been on Wikipedia for over 4 years, and Meta often refers to Meatball". Another said that "it meets my "heard of this thing outside of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects a few times" gut feeling criterion". These should have been disregarded because they do not accord with Wikipedia deletion policy. If someone wants a Wikipedia: namespace or Meta article on meatball, that's fine — but this is not an encyclopedia article. *** Crotalus *** 06:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- And here on Wired. Why did you renominate this? Apart from the nom, it was a unanimous keep last time. --- tqbf 06:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was kept before" is not a valid argument. Your citation of Wired is more substantial, but it still involves a small handful of sentences — no one has ever written an actual article on MeatballWiki in any reputable publication, online or off. It flagrantly fails to meet WP:WEB, and the arguments last time almost all amount to "I like it". *** Crotalus *** 20:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  It wasn't just kept; it was kept almost unanimously, in a well-attended debate. Why have you chosen to nominate it again? --- tqbf 01:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known and mentioned on Wired...definitely notable. The article needs help, but deletion is not the answer here. SaveThePoint (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- MeatballWiki is not notable in the real world. If it were, there would have been at least one article written specifically about it. Read the requirements on WP:WEB. *** Crotalus *** 20:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes I wish it weren't the case (like fictional virtual game subcharacters or whathaveyou), but notability outside a particular community doesn't appear to be necessary for inclusion as long as the entry is sufficiently notable inside the community. Ψν^Psi_nu 14:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, articles on video game characters with no substantial real-world references are now generally merged into the parent articles. All articles must meet Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 20:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask a question? It seems that the "standard" here is WP:WEB and this article doesn't meet it. Elsewhere it is suggested that other articles in a similar state are merged up into a parent article of sorts. So what's the parent article for MeatballWiki? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There really isn't one, though I suppose it might merit a mention in the Wikipedia article. Moving it into project space (to Wikipedia:MeatballWiki) and rewriting it to look more like a project space page might also work. *** Crotalus *** 23:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there is a parent article, it is wiki, or perhaps history of wikis. Our article on the closely related UseModWiki was moved to Project space by you without discussion, although it might be practicable to merge the two if consensus necessitated (I don't think that's the direction things are going, though). --Dhartung | Talk 01:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and actually rather influential. It's not navel gazing to cover the history of wikis any more than it's navel gazing to cover the history of operating systems and LED monitors (you're using one now, aren't you?).Wikidemo (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is indeed "notable and actually rather influential," then you should be able to find non-trivial, reliable sources discussing it. If you find any, please include them in the article. *** Crotalus *** 00:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "should" and "will bother doing so as a casual participant in a snowball keep deletion discussion" are two different things. People advocating articles for deletion ought to take some time themselves to figure these things out. Wikidemo (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are actually quite a few citations in Google Scholar demonstrating its importance to the Wiki community and history. --Dhartung | Talk 01:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung, said Google Scholar citations just need to be integrated into the article. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I understand, the first notability criteria for websites boils down to asking whether the website has been the subject of published works, meaning hardcopy publications. However, these notability guidelines are "rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide" whether a website should have an article, rather than legally binding criteria set in stone. Let's try to look at the big picture. I think I have shown in my articles on the History of wikis and Sunir Shah (recently deleted without my having a chance to participate in the discussion) that Sunir Shah and MeatballWiki have both played a central role in the historical development of wikis, first because MeatballWiki was the primary SisterSite to break away from Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb, following the spectacular deletions of the WikiReductionists, and secondly because Sunir first applied to wikis a whole range of key concepts that have become a central part of wiki culture, such as WikiOnWiki reflection, wiki as community, barnraising, barn stars and more. The fact that this history is as yet only recorded on digital media does nothing to diminish its importance. Let's try to lift our range of vision and appreciate what is really important in the global scheme of things, rather than remaining tied to petty procedural questions which only hide the reality of the issue. Redeyed Treefrog (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, reliable sources are not limited to hardcopy. It does exclude sources with unclear editorial authority such as blogs and college newspapers. As wikis may be edited by anyone, they are generally not a reliable source. An article about a wiki may cautiously cite the wiki for information about it, but wouldn't be sufficient to demonstrate notability by itself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this clarification Dhartung. What you're saying then is that Wikipedia itself, as a wiki, is not a reliable source. But all of this enormous effort devoted to correcting or deleting articles would seem to be aimed precisely at making Wikipedia into a reliable source. This contradiction shows how much work still needs to be done to clarify the philosophical underpinnings of the whole Wikipedia project (to say nothing of increasing its internal democracy, which is so easily subverted by abusive use of administrative privilege). - Redeyed Treefrog (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of speculating, you should read WP:V. Wikipedia is definitely not a reliable source for WP articles. --- tqbf 14:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia, as an enycylopedia, is a tertiary source. Wikis can be reliable tertiary sources; or at least we all hope so--otherwise we all are wasting our time. Wikis are generally unsuitable as secondary sources, due to unclear editorial authority. Wikis can be acceptable as primary sources, particularly about themselves--particularly those with good versioning capabilities (i.e. most modern wikis in existence). As most of WP's sources are secondary, other wikis are generally not good references for us to use. But citing a wiki concerning itself (WP cites project and metaspace itself when it covers itself) is generally, acceptable. --EngineerScotty (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, recommend closing debate per WP:SNOW. Article does need improvement though. --EngineerScotty (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It depresses me to read the nominator make a distinction between the "real world" and the Internet. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 09:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. DS (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Von Brausen Ratio[edit]

Obvious hoax, seems like something made up at school one day. Exactly 0 (zero) google and yahoo hits. Carados (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to have it speedily deleted as ((db-copyvio)), but I withdrew. —B o L 05:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be an example of unreferenced original research - Dumelow (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Carados that this appears to be WP:MADEUP. It appears that the user was created solely to create this article, which does not help its case at all. A fairly thorough scouring of the web is not turning up any support for this supposed ratio. -- Lewellyn ^talk 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, no sources could be found to verify content. Looks like a hoax article. --Hdt83 ^Chat 02:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was a non-admin keep per consensus. SorryGuy Talk 08:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Harbor Elementary[edit]

Simple little elementary school, giving no reasons why it's notable other than apparently the rejected idea that elementary schools would be notable. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep: In light of the recent changes to this article, I'm changing my response to Keep. Notability has been proven. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)</small[reply]

Keep - a visit by President George W Bush seems pretty notable. The article now includes multiple, independent sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So what if he visits? Presidents surely visit schools all the time, and surely the state legislature has to spend money on a school if there aren't any local school boards. These are incidental mentions — not at all significant coverage. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets any reasonable expectation of WP:V and is likewise notable. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it's verifiable, but you can verify that Howard Traul is an elected official in Bellefontaine, Ohio: see this and this pages, which are both reliable sources independent of each other. However, this doesn't make him notable. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject of this article can be demonstrated to be notable. It just needs some editor work. The Howard Traul thing seems silly, by the way. I can prove an apple weighs less than a car.... but you can find a matchbox car.... lets keep arguments in AfD simple and related to the subject. There are multiple independant reliable sources which discuss the subject of this article non-trivially. That does meet WP:N. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:N, as per C.B. and Jerry. A $2.5 million school library? Two-point-five-million????? What -- are they installing an Olympic-size swimming pool in it? Deserves an article in itself. Noroton (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the keepers above. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Jerry, Noroton, Coccyx Bloccyx, and TerriersFan. It's notable now with the new references and information. --Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 22:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete per author's request. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webling Elementary[edit]

Delete: Non-notable elementary school. Google searches turn up no WP:RS coverage. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this article before I read WP:NOTABLITY, so please delete and speedy close, thanks. --Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 09:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. I'm not listing this as a keep because of the WP:ILIKEIT type keep arguments given. So the best thing to do for now is let it go and see if it can be improved, or if it fares differently next time. CitiCat^♫ 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Sings the News[edit]

Contested redirect. Article is nothing more then an original research plot summary for a non-notable episode. Ridernyc (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good page. Adreamtonight (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I suppose as a closing episode for the series, it might have some special significance attached. While WP:EPISODE appears to be in a contested state, this particular article really doesn't meet any special significance, beyond being the final episode of the series. Yng varr 11:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only is it the last episode, it is written very well, and is good enough to keep.

Limetolime (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being well-written is not a criterion for keeping or deleting. Again, while WP:EPISODE is being disputed, the notability guide-lines beyond WP:EPISODE still apply. There are no references provided. Has this episode won any major awards, or has it received any significant coverage? The article is written as a plot summary, and there is a smattering of original research in both the intro and exit paragraphs. Yng varr 21:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written, I think its an OK to keep this one --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is currently not in very good shape, but I think it has true potential. It already has a smattering of "real-world" information and I think there should be enough available for real improvement. If this turns out to be the final episode of the series, I think it will be notable and widely written about. Ursasapien (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nice to know we know only have to think something might be notable someday. Ridernyc (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Someone already merge it to List of Pokémon (201-220) --JForget 00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sneasel EX[edit]

Pokecruft. No hope for exapansion; we don't need an article about every pokemon card. Not even worthy of merging. Reads like a fan site to boot TheBilly (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stated no reason to have articles on individual cards. Ridernyc (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adreamtonight (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are thousands of Pokemon cards that have been released, nothing notabe about this one. TJ Spyke 06:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't look like a very notable set of cards in the TCG. This article will be better off in Bulbapedia.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Mbisanz (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Doc Strange (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Wizardman 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Phillips Exeter Academy alumni[edit]

Not a necessary page; duplicates the content of Category:Phillips Exeter Academy alumni. A category is a much less likely vandal target, as this article has been hit often and has several questionable names. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, getting to large to maintain, Category:Phillips Exeter Academy alumni is sufficient. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i agree, catagory is sufficient.Adreamtonight (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The risk of vandalism is not an excuse to delete an article. WP:SOFIXIT: If there are questionable entries, check them, ((Fact )) tag them, or fix them. Edit history says other editors are addressing these problems. The list contains and organizes useful information in a way a category cannot, esp. when they graduated and why they are important. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Gene93k. The list is superior to the category. Zagalejo^^^ 07:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provides organization that a category cannot. A vandalism problem is reason for watchlisting or blocking, not deletion. Note in particular that all school-related articles are vandalism magnets. --Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful list that's as valid as any list of University alumni. Not all high schools would merit such a list, but considering the relative prestige of Exeter and the number of notable alumni, I'd say the article's warranted. SaveThePoint (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As any other notable alumni list. Mbisanz (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists do not compete with categories; each has its place, and this list as constructed organizes information in a manner that a category never could. Even if this list did nor merit a standalone article, the logical choice would have been a merge back into the parent Exeter article, not a delete. As to being a vandalism target, that would be a great reason to delete the George W. Bush article, a far more frequent target of vandals, and a deletion that might find broader support. A more productive solution than deletion might be greater vigilance, at least until we find some way to undo the damage caused by our "anyone can edit" policy. Alansohn (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is not merely a duplicate of the category; the page has about twice as many entries as the category, and the chronological arrangement is useful. I agree that vandalism is a problem, but protecting the page would have prevented the issues I dealt with. —FlashSheridan (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of school alumni provide a greater navigable value than categories, and risk of occasional vandalism is not a good reason for deletion. --Canley (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The midnight flyers[edit]

Marked as a speedy, but another editor thinks it asserts notability. Their music appears available to some extent online, and at CD Baby, but I don't really think they have achieved encyclopedic notability yet, per WP:BAND. Article is unsourced, and I can't seem to find evidence of them being on a record label. No G-news hits, only 17 G-hits for '"The midnight flyers" band australia'. Just looked through history and contribs more thoroughly, and I think we're probably also looking at WP:AUTOBIO. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable, but someone should recreate this if reliable sources could be found --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No establishment of notability whatsoever.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Mbisanz (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability established, meets none of the WP:BAND criteria - Dumelow (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no notability per WP:MUSIC, for example, only 1 EP (no full-length CD), no national or international tour, etc. Sorry, mates. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, touring "Alice Springs, Japan, USA, England, Japan and Canada" would help them meet WP:MUSIC, but the problem is there is no backup for that claim. Indeed, their website says nothing about it. Lankiveil (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs of Oklahoma[edit]

Indiscriminate list of songs whose only common bond is that they mention Oklahoma or have it in the title somewhere. None of these songs have any other common bond, so this list violates WP:NOT#DIR, not to mention the utter lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Life, Liberty, Property (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#DIR. Even following some of the songs that had articles found Oklahoma connections to be unsourced. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge to Music of Oklahoma. Most of these, admittedly, aren't notable. We all know "O-klahoma" from the musical, and "Okie From Muskogee" and Fastball's "Sooner or Later", but you don't HAVE to put in everything. Mandsford (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As random list of info Mbisanz (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just barely, since List of songs about California and List of songs about Alabama both of which show that this article could be better. However the name would need to be changed to List of songs about Oklahoma, since it is not clear what we are to make of the definition of "of" here, as Clinton might have put it. Lobojo (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Smithsonian Institution classifies its collection of music Americana by state ([http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives/d5300nh1.htm here), and if it's good enough for the Smithsonian it's good enough for Wikipedia. The list is not indiscriminate at all. It's criterion for inclusion is that a song is about the state of Oklahoma, or geographical locations therein. That's a rather distinct and small amount of music. Oklahoma is a rather out of the way place that people do not think of often. Residents are keenly aware of songs that are about their state, and it helps define the culture of the state internally and to the outside world. Hence, it is an encyclopedic and notable subject. There is a similar article, Music of Oklahoma, but that is different. Both issues are important - the indigenous music, and also what musicians nationwide say about Oklahoma. Becuase there is very little in the state by way of a music industry, most songs get sung about Oklahoma by expatriates and transplants, not in Oklahoma. Wikidemo (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If wikipedia listed all the songs already, then listing by such sub-classification might be OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have to start somewhere, remember wikipedia is incomplete! Lobojo (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too much original research, too many entries are not notable (do not have their own articles). The intersection of song and state is too random. If the content was notable, then it could be merged to Oklahoma, but it's not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget. 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Music of Oklahoma, per Mansford. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Lobojo and Wikidemo. The list is discriminate -- the common bond is that all the songs are about a specific place. Including a song with "Oklahoma" or "Okie" in its title or lyrics is not original research -- it is primary information where the song is the source (similar to a plot summary taken from a film). Bláthnaid 14:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lobojo, Wikidemo and Blathnaid. Circeus (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list. Addhoc (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Addhoc. D.M.N. (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No criterion, NOT#INFO. Cool Hand Luke 00:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Lazaroff[edit]

Unnotable person who does not meet the WP:BIO requirements. Single Rabbi in a small town. Was CSDed under G7 but creator immediately recreated in its current state claiming it was "bad manners" to delete the article. Attempts to find notability about this person failed and despite creators claim that the person is notable, he hasn't provided any actual evidence. Collectonian (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Articles fails to assert notability about the individual. Mh29255 (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was never an opportunity to write this article. It is a notable and well sourced subject. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above "Keep" comment comes from the article's creator. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This article is referenced with at least two reliable sources. These include, Texas Jewish Post and the Jewish Herald-Voice, which are reliable sources. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I'm sorry to say that I don't actually see those references in the article, but perhaps they were in the original deleted version. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The creator of this article has recently created articles that are variations of one Chabad type. So far at least three others have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad of Brazos Valley; [[Wikipedia:Articles for

deletion/Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch]] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Aggies that are essentially WP:VANITY pages. Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org ! IZAK (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three pages of Google hits reveal nothing about this individual beyond his name and job title. This information would be much better organized under the heading of an article about the "Chabad Centre", since there is some tenuous notability attached via news items to that topic but none to the individual; this seems to be a WP:COATRACK for information about Jewish activities at the university in question. This article doesn't meet WP:BIO, there is no assertion of notability, and I can't find any information that would add notability. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real evidence for notability. Religious leaders are generally notable only if they are well-known nationwide (like Pat Robertson or Joel Osteen). Your pastor, imam, or rabbi is generally not notable enough for Wikipedia. Life, Liberty, Property (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but renominate if not improved after an additional week. It's a topic on which it is relatively difficult to gather material--much in this field is not in Google. Asserting that someone is the head of a Chabad house at one of the very largest universities is at least a claim to notability, so it was never a valid A7, though it will not amount to notability if something considerably more to the point is found than the material presently in the article. But in any case I think it totally wrong to nominate an article for deletion because of lack of notability after less than two hours after it was started when it is clearly still being actively worked on. This would be true even if the ed were a newbie, but he's an experienced contributor with a history of building sustainable articles. (some of his earlier ones were deleted at AfD, but he seems to be learning, so i assume he will get this one right. If not, there's time to delete it later. We have WP:PROD for cases like this. It is in fact impolite to force articles onto AfD to get the improved when they are clearly being worked on. perhaps the previous two people to comment did not look at the timing on the edit history.DGG (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion: Wait a minute, the article appears to be a copied article from another wikipedia article (Judging by the [1]s and [2]s), but which one? If that one's alright, this one could redirect there, but if not, delete. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's from the creator copy/pasting the deleted article back in as text.Collectonian (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Maybe I'm missing something. Is this person only notable as a Chabad house rabbi? No offense, but rabbis are not notable simply because they head a temple, synagogue, shul or Chabad house. Similarly, profs are not notable simply because they chair a department etc. Perhaps he's significant for some reasons that have been covered by mainstream press? HG | Talk 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we have yet to see, for the article is not finished. This is the Chabad house at what I think is the largest US university. The person appointed to this will is more than a local rabbi--such a position is usually given to someone of some distinction. similarly, the person appointed to chair a department, is usually notable also. The religious press outside the university is good enough in any case for notability--we do not delete everything not in the NYTimes. Incidentally, most university people are away this week. let's slow down a little.DGG (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Looking at data from reliable sources, it seems highly unlikely that he's notable. He has zero hits on Nexis. He has 32 hits on Google, much smaller than many non-notable rabbis and average Joes/Janes. HG | Talk 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if I had time I would add information from sources such as [48] but, as usual under the "underconstruction" label for articles one would be given a few days, at least two, to write an article. So here it is premature. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. You already linked to the local Jewish paper above (which mentioned him incidentally, the article isn't even writing about him). Were every rabbi (or Jew) notable for having been mentioned a few times in the local Jewish press, then we'd be closer to a phone book than an encyclopedia. Ok, you don't need the NYT, but you do not better sources and a reason for notability. Anyway, an AfD should give folks enough time to identify some significant press or scholarly coverage of this person and his significance. HG | Talk 04:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Texas Jewish Post and the Jewish Herald-Voice are enough. Culturalrevival (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that mean? Articles are always being deleted because it's agreed that they're not notable. Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BIO#Basic criteria = notability. HG | Talk 18:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I voted "keep" because Yossi Lazaroff is a notable religous leader. Among his leadership acitivites mentioned earlier, he is the head of the Student Unity Torah initiative at Chabad [49] and leads the Shabbat services at Chabad House at Texas A&M. [50]. These are two reliable sources. Bhaktivinode (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Claiming that the subject is notable because he is the rabbi of a single Chabad House at a single university would basically mean that any clergyperson who serves a particular religious community at a university would be notable. I realize that some editors would support opening up the notability criteria to allow that, but I don't think that there is a consensus for that and I think that the current notability criteria should be maintained. I also don't see anything about the subject being the head of the Student Unity Torah initiative nationally or worldwide, just that he is the local organizer. The sources cited in this AfD and in the prior version of the article do not discuss the subject himself in depth; they just mention or quote him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Chabad has thousands of such rabbis, see Shluchim or Shlichim today, and very, very few are notable in and of themselves. What is notabale is that the movement's late leader Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902 -1994) was able to educate and inspire so many of his young rabbinical students to take up posts in far off places and lands. These rabbis are basically religious functionaries and missionaries and they actively and assiduously seek their own self-promotion in the media and at political events, like blessing the opening of a local legislature, or lighting a huge menorah in public, and then getting that noted in a media outlet. Chabad has its own plentiful websites and as I have said many times, Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org, and Wikipedia should resist a stealth invasion in this manner, (see the bloated ((Chabad sidebar)) template that exhibits "an ambition that does oe'r leap itself" -- to quote Shakespeare in Macbeth.) This article is part of a trend that violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site; and just plain Wikipedia is not your web host of which, and for which, Chabad has plenty of. Perhaps it is time to create a list or policy about this, such as Wikipedia:Chabad and its rabbis. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Rabbi is a leader amongst the Jews - Many Rabbis who are written in our open and free encyclopedia have no mention at all in the general non-Jewish media, this subject does indeed have, so i do not understand why somebody can dare to claim he isn't notable enough for this wikipedia. i see here a double standard when it comes to Rabbis of Chabad we shouldn't be stricter than all other rabbis--יודל (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BIO#Additional criteria, esp section on Professionals. Whether from Chabad or any other stream of Judaism, no person is notable merely by virtue of being a Rabbi. HG | Talk 18:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cleaned up the refs section so all could easily see what refs are being used. From that I still don't see enough to establish notability. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two of the of sources are from Chabad, and are not reliable sources and do not establish outside notabliitiy. The other two references are merely mentions in local papers. All clergymen are occasionally mentioned in passing in local newspapers, and this one is particualrly non-notable. If Chabad rabbis (cultish self-promoters) get wind of the fact that could try to put themselves up on this site we will be up to our eyeballs in effluence within a week, with 3,000 proffesional nobody self promoters all trying to get their names up here. Lobojo (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above makes me wonder how many votes here are just anti-Chabad, regardless, that seems to be a theme at least in the vote above. The above voter also describes Chabad rabbis as "(cultish self-promoters)" I would appreciate it if the anti-Chabad comments and arguements could be kept out of this discussion. This is not the place to profane religious leaders of any kind!!! Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I'm not Jewish, but I do not see how this fellow is anymore notable than, say, a Catholic parish priest. You can find small references to almost any priest in local Catholic newspapers, but that doesn't make them notable, and for the same reason I don't believe the subject of this article is notable. Lankiveil (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete I was starting to compose the response in my mind, but then I saw that Lankiveil had already written pretty much exactly what I was going to say. Ψν^Psi_nu 15:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reliable sources need to be about subject, not casually mentioning subject. If a cogent bio cannot be written from these sources, then the subject's bio is not verifiable. This thing is not even a bio, anyway. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chabad of Brazos Valley, if not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge important info from Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch, Chabad of Brazos Valley, Yossi Lazaroff, and Jewish Aggies into Texas A&M University#Student life. Don't worry about that section getting to big. All these articles are stubs that basically have the same info. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is develping, and will continue to be improved. Bhaktivinode (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references do not indicate Notability. Springnuts (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chabad of Brazos Valley or Texas A&M University#Student life, see Brewcrewer above. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and Arbeit Sockenpuppe. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Merge into Texas A&M University#Student life. Although there are multiple reliable sources and hence an inclusionist argument for a keep could be made, these sources appear to cover the individual only weakly and don't meet any of the criteria for WP:BIO. They are primarily on the Chabad organization, and they describe standard activities a Jewish rabbi assigned to a university ould typically do -- a friday night dinner, a study session, etc. The most arguably notable event seems to be presenting a Hanukah menorah to the Governor of Texas. However, even this seems to be a relatively routine clerical activity which does not seem to be particularly notable. I don't have figures, but I would suspect that given the role churches and clergy have in politics in the United States, many clergy made a presentation to or participated in a public religious ceremony with a government official at least some point in their career. If the presentation was an historic event for Texas I could be persuaded otherwise. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as much as I usually tend toward inclusion, current WP:BIO standards do not support the inclusion every local rabbi. --MPerel 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was garbage. DS (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles V: Shredder's Back![edit]

Contested prod. This is likely a hoax, but even if it isn't, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Dawn bard (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! There's a section, "Just in", containing the bullet "This might not happen". You don't say! Delete per a very blurry crystal ball. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arguably speedy delete material as it is likely a hoax. Google gives absolutely 0 results. [51] Life, Liberty, Property (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shred 'er, either a hoax or crystal ball. No sources in sight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL (special props to Ten Pound Hammer) LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — obvious hoax and/or fan fiction. *** Crotalus *** 05:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cowabunga!, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Lankiveil (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete absolute stupidity. JuJube (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. and fails WP:N. Macy's 123 review me 15:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speed delete - per all of above. --EndlessDan 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - gigantic hoax (who would name a movie simply "An Alien"?) Doc Strange (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is probably marks double digits for me, meaning the number of hoaxes I've caught on Wikipedia through reading this board. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Almost certainly a hoax. --Canley (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Can I get a WP:SNOW? JPG-GR (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax and crystal-ballery. Terraxos (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D duplex[edit]

non-notable electronic music group. Aside from the group's MySpace page, a few Google searches turned up nothing relevant except for a few trivial mentions of upcoming gigs. I believe they do not meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. As an aside, the article has a promotional tone and was created by User:Kenmifs, who may very well be Kenneth Mifsud, a member of the group. Lankiveil (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable musical group per WP:MUSIC. Mh29255 (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Macy's 123 review me 15:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep as notable. AfD isn't the place to request cleanup or expansion. –Pomte 06:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 4-Hour Workweek[edit]

I was trying to help another user improve this article by offering suggestions. The article isn't very informative about the book itself, but it's a best-seller book. Many of the refs are blog, and the article seems a bit of a battle ground with little info on the book itself. Busy Stubber (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like WP:SPAM to me. Mh29255 (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I always get suspicious when someone describes their occupation as "entrepreneur". Promotional piece for non-notable book. Lankiveil (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -A Today Show/msnbc interview [52], a NY Times article about the book's influence on the technology sector [53]. I think this could be a start. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good source! Can you add this to the article? --Busy Stubber (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep --- come on, Busy. Can you strike this one and withdraw it too? And to the delete votes above --- the simplest G search sources this article. What gives? --- tqbf 06:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- how do you nominate something you know is a bestseller? --- tqbf 06:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When the article is a terrible abortion of an article, then you nominate it. The thing to judge by is the article, not the subject of the article. I'd have thought that was obvious. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst we don't delete articles for being battlegrounds, this is a horrible article that has not been helped by some crappy editing. The subject would indeed appear to be notable and perhaps even deserves an article. But this article isn't it. Tear it up and start again (ie, delete). ➔ REDVEЯS is wearing a pointy red hat 09:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need an AfD to tear it up and start over again. --- tqbf 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam. Agree subject is notable Addhoc (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but send in the medics. This book actually is getting a lot of word of mouth publicity and is attracting a decent amount of... what, followers? advocates? I don't know. Enough buzz about it that I'd pick it up myself if I thought I'd have time to read it (working on a 168 hour week). But this page doesn't represent ANYTHING. Surely someone has read the book that can summarize it and the press it's received... Ψν^Psi_nu 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up - notable subject. Addhoc (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book is obviously notable. (It's a best seller.) The article probably just needs to be cleaned up. Rray (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the article to see if it needs to be cleaned up? "Probably" covers a multitude of sins here. Please check the article before commenting. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Of course I looked at the article before commenting. Rray (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep its a best-seller for crying out loud. Yawn. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd prefer Wikipedia to have a tenaciously-edited, poor-quality, unreadable article that doesn't focus on the subject and fails to provide any meaningful information rather than having no article at all? What a strange view to have of our customers (the readers, the 99% of people who visit but don't edit): "we know you'd prefer crap over nothing, so here's some crap we voted to keep on hand for you!". And the "Yawn" comment - wow, great way of showing respect for your fellow editors in a collaborative environment. Lovely. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. AfD isn't a cure for badly written articles. Without wasting time with an AfD, we could have blanked out the content on this page and replaced it with a stub, and nobody would have argued. Don't make straw man arguments. --- tqbf 21:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing --- just because something is tendentiously edited by COI editors doesn't mean "delete" solves the problem --- it's a bestseller, the article is going to come back, and we'll be in the same situation. AfD isn't a cure for disruptive editing, either. --- tqbf 21:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other comments are correct. AfD isn't cleanup. If you feel like the article is terrible, then edit it. Deleting it isn't necessary. Rray (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If I understand correctly, this is not the appropriate venue for clean up. I too feel the need for a stretch and yawn. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Addhoc has made the article cleaner, and he and ClanCC are watching over it and reverting edits. (Thank you, Addhoc and ClanCC!). The concensus here seems to be to keep this article, despite the fact that none of the article editors or AfD commenters here seem to have read the book. I haven't read the book myself, nor do I have any interest in reading it. The article started as a lousy biography and didn't improve when changed to a book article. I moved it from a lousy bio article to a lousy book article, then tried to fix the worst stuff. The topic is notable, but the article has little info on what was written in the book itself. If this article is not deleted, I hope all of you will help improve it so that it's a credit to Wikipedia -- not just an article with a long history of vandalism reverts. --Busy Stubber (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, if an article is "hopeless", please blank it and replace it with a stub. This was a misuse of AfD. Can you strike the nom now? --- tqbf 03:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My own opinion is that the article doesn't have enough information about the content of the book to justify keeping the article. I don't think I'll change my vote now, but thanks for asking :). --Busy Stubber (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:DP before nominating things for AfD; what you just stated as a reason for deletion, isn't. --- tqbf 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
tgbf is correct. This nomination should be withdrawn, but if it's not, the AfD should be a speedy keep, since no valid deletion reason has been given by anyone. Rray (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. (with creation of redirect to LoE) CitiCat^♫ 04:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Come, Easy Go (SATC episode)[edit]

Single, unnotable episode of Sex and the City that fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICTION. Nothing but a short plot summary and cast list. Merge unneeded as plot summary is already covered in List of Sex and the City episodes. Failed Prod. Collectonian (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Keep ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete per nomination ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, episode does not seem to have had any significance in the wider world, so it cannot "(offer) detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance" (from WP:NOT). Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - per WP:EPISODE, which, while a guideline, states that episodes are not exempt from WP:N, which this does not appear to meet. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable episode. Ridernyc (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the LoE per WP:EPISODE. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the LoE with no prejudice against recreation if sources for "real-world" information are found. Ursasapien (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 18:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Killeen[edit]

Fringe candidate with a peak performance of 393 votes in a Presidential Election. There are a few references, but they are all mainly trivial. Lankiveil (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While she may not get many votes, her presidential candidacy appears notable. Mh29255 (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(article creator vote). Killeen is a perrenial presidential candidate, and has had multiple articles published about her. If anyone has Lexis-Nexus, do a 1996 search for her name. These articles are not easily linkable. I disagree that all the references are trivial, while some are, they are included for what they reference. Other sources have her as the feature of the article.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 02:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, explore Category:United States presidential candidates, 2008--CastAStone /^/(talk) 04:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only argument against this that I can determine is trivial coverage, but since this candidate has received unique coverage (ie not just one article copied around) from such a variety of reliable sources over a period of time, I think that that collective coverage cannot be described as trivial. Joshdboz (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, respectfully, where is this coverage? All of the references supplied in the article are either "list of minor candidates" style directories, or they make a single mention of Killeen amongst some other fringe candidates. There are, as far as I can tell, no articles about Killeen or her candidature that are indepedent of the subject. But please point out if I am incorrect on this point =). Lankiveil (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Verifiable --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though the references are barely acceptable there are numerous others on Google News Archive. Because of her fringe pro-pot views ("Hemp Lady") and profession (nun) she has received odd bits of coverage that other candidates with the same level of support may not. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rationale for deletion here is completely absurd. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Killeen's candidacy is an example of equal opportunity in our electoral process. A candidate may enter the New Hampshire primary after making a $1000 fee. (CSpan network 1-1-08) If Killeen's press coverage is 'trivial', it probably reflects campaign funds available to her.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.190.52 (talk • contribs)

The result was Speedy delete A7 (biographical article with no notability asserted) by User:Jerry , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gustafson[edit]

no assertion of notability per WP:N and no references per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Thin boy 00 @161, i.e. 02:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - G hits are nothing for this Eric Gustafson. Fails WP:N and WP:V. This reads like a resumé. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - With no assertion of notability, it doesn't need to go through the AfD process. I've tagged it with ((db-bio)). Matchups (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasons above. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. No evidence that the subject meets WP:N guidelines, i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WinterStar Symposium[edit]

Appears to be an event of 100 people or under. Article largely written and maintained by the producer/promoter of the event (User:Rosencomet) who has also added links to his autobio, Jeff Rosenbaum and the pages of people whose tapes/CDs he sells. Checked sources and almost all available ones were grossly padded. The two remaining third-party sources were unavailable to check as I could find no evidence of their existence. There are zero G-news hits. There are nn and COI issues all over the place with this one. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

There are a lot of G hits, but from the looks of things, the hits are all either to Wikipedia, or to media that are within a small community; almost exclusively advertising the event. This article also seems to suffer from WP:COI, as noted in the nom. My inclination is Delete. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, long-running annual event which has featured many notable individuals from many disciplines. From my examination of the proposing editor's activity, she has a personal bias against the organizer of this event--not good WP practice, as we must be reasonable in everything we do. Improve, don't delete in this case. Badagnani (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Instead of just saying it's notable and accusing the nominator of bias, why don't you present a source that verifies notability? I couldn't find one. I agree with LonelyBeacon about the G search results. "Being attended by notable people" does not confer notability --- subjects are notable by dint of people writing about them. Who did in this case? --- tqbf 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This debate is on the merits of the article and its subject. Please refrain from making accusations about the nominating editor, as it is irrelevant to the analysis that needs to be done. If the subject is in fact notable, the article is likely to be able to stand on its own. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a reason why we have the guideline WP:POINT, and it is not incorrect to point this out when it is seen--as in this case. This is a personality conflict, which should not be allowed to color one's edits (or nominations). I'm not certain you've looked through the archives, as I have, before commenting here; you should. Badagnani (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable source has ever covered this topic, Badagnani? --- tqbf 08:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani, it's not a personality issue, it's a policy issue. I don't know Jeff/Rosencomet off-Wiki. His work came to my attention when there were RfCs and concerned posts on the Spam and COI boards about his activities. During his time on WP, he has tended to lash out at anyone who enforces policy, and accuse them of having "issues" with him. But it's not about him. There's nothing I can do about his problems in this area except to stick to policy. If you look at the archives of his talk page, you will see that many people, myself included, have tried to explain policy to him from day one. He either doesn't get it or refuses to. And anyway, as others have noted, his opinions about motivations have nothing to do with whether the article is encyclopedic. Best wishes, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Association for Consciousness Exploration - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect to either ACE or Starwood- if either of them are notable. It doesn't matter what the nom's personal views, she can still create a valid AfD about this non-notable event. Anyway Badagnani, you might like to have a read of WP:AGF. Merkinsmum 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a merge/redirect/consolidation of these articles. We might wind up with one good article that way. Starwood Festival comes closest to notability. In the small pond of US Neopaganism Starwood is notable, though I really am not sure whether it's notable in more mainstream (WP, encyclopedic) terms. While Starwood is better-known and has more coverage than ACE (whose notability, like Jeff Rosenbaums is only in terms of organizing Starwood), a merge to ACE seems to make the most sense structurally/editorially, as the article could open with a brief description of ACE, then have sub-sections on the events they organize. I'm not attached either way, but as a writer that seems to make the most sense. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per LonelyBeacon. Mattisse 14:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Association for Consciousness Exploration per Addhoc. This makes the most sense to me since ACE is the organizer of the event and WinterStar is mentioned in that article. Pigman☿ 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Association for Consciousness Exploration. I don't see much evidence for independent notability here. Terraxos (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is an event of around 200 people, twice as many as Kathryn claims. It is both the longest-running winter event in the American Neo-Pagan movement (unbroken record since 1984), and one of the most successful. It and Starwood are unique in the wide range of presenters and subjects it features; it does not draw just from the Neo-Pagan movement, but has featured widely-known figures such as Paul Krassner, Robert Anton Wilson, Stephen Gaskin, Ralph Metzner, Wavy Gravy, Jeff McBride, and musicians like Muruga Booker and Jim Scott of Paul Winter Consort - people of international note outside of the "small pond of Neo-Paganism" - and some of the best-known names within the Neo-Pagan community as well. I feel that Kathryn and Pigman, by deleting links from the articles of such presenters as these, and the section in this article mentioning many of them, helped prevent the article from showing it's notability. This merge idea was proposed before, and the decision was to keep then. Please also note that most of the talk above comes from three people: Kathryn, Pigman and Mattisse, who have been systematically deleting material concerning Starwood and WinterStar from articles for the last two weeks, and have deleted material from the two articles themselves. Their argument for non-notability is a self-fulfilling prophecy; they delete any mention in others' articles as "undue weight", even when the subject wrote two articles about his participation, commented in a major national magazine, left a story on the event's organization's website, and appeared at the event 6 out of ten times. They delete newspaper articles because of missing page numbers, then don't return them when the data is supplied. Then they nominate the articles for deletion. Rosencomet (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please view the article from before this deletion began[54]. I feel that if kept it can be improved and expanded both as more material becomes available and as the event progresses. (The 25th WinterStar will take place in two months.) I would like an editor to help me add such data in a way that will not be accused of COI (that is, if any of my work survives what's going on at all). I also ask that a link be placed here to the previous merge discussion so people can have the benefit of the editors' input there. Rosencomet (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI note - As the executive director of ACE, the main producer and promoter of Winterstar, as well as the user who started and wrote most of this article, Rosencomet has COI on both this article and this AfD. Per Wikipedia:COI#How to avoid COI edits: "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors." - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as noted in the nom, Rosencomet engaged in massive source-padding on this article (and others), adding trivial mentions and event listings that did not source any content to the "references" section. See the talk page of the article for a discussion of why these "sources" were removed, per WP:V and WP:RS. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn may call it padding, and maybe some of them belong under a different heading, like "Further reading". However, she deleted an entire interview in Roc Magazine of Robert Anton Wilson done at the WinterStar Symposium, a description by noted occult author and liturgist Nema of a ritual performed at WinterStar, mentions of WinterStar in books like Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today by Margot Adler, Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community by Sarah Pike, Dancing The Fire: The Ins and Outs of Neo-Pagan Festivals and Gatherings by Marian Singer, and an article from Muruga Booker's website about his participation in this and other ACE events. These are perfectly good references to support the notability of the event, showing that it is described and listed in well-respected reference books about such events, and verifying that it is both participated in and discussed on official websites and in interviews by notable individuals in different fields; philosophy, ceremonial magic, and world music. There was a list of about thirty notable presenters and entertainers in the article which was also deleted. This is what is going on: first they delete the material on any excuse (rather than, say, just putting it under a more appropriate heading), then try to delete the article as "not notable". This article was linked to over thirty others, it's about an event that has run for twenty-five years, the only event of it's kind in the winter months (and 125-250 people is a pretty good size for a winter conference, especially in a field like Neo-Paganism or comparative spirituality), and it should be kept. Rosencomet (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I substantial discussion of WinterStar in a book like Drawing Down The Moon would qualify as evidence of notability. Can you give page citations and, since I don't have the book handy, an excerpt if possible? The occurance of the word "WinterStar" once in a book does not equate to "significant coverage". --- tqbf 19:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find most of them through google book search. The interview said, "this interview took place at Winterstar" (paraphrasing here). The Nema stuff said "this ritual was performed by seventy people at Winterstar". Drawing Down the Moon and the other books were event listings, in a section listing a bunch of Neopagan festivals. "Winterstar, [details on where and when] and, "this is the 'cushiest' of the gatherings". That's it. See the article talk page for more details. See the RS and COI noticeboards for discussion on the Muruga booker page. It again only mentioned appearing at ACE events, is linked to no other webpage, and appeared after Rosencomet was told there weren't enough third-party sources. They are not usable per WP:V and WP:RS. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked down the cites. Thanks! Agree with you wholeheartedly; these book references may make a case for keeping ACE, but not a case for a standalone WinterStar page. --- tqbf 20:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING - Rosencomet is now engaging in WP:CANVASSing, specifically of the Wikipedia:CANVASS#Campaigning and Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking sort, as he is only posting to people that have supported his position in past AfDs or content disputes: User:Viriditas, User:Septagram, User:Modemac, User:Dave Null. Rosencomet, I will repeat this on your talk page, but if you continue after this warning, what you are doing is a blockable offense, especially as you have done it multiple times before. This is your only warning. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any event that lasted 25 years serving the spiritual community is notable and this one has featured some very famous people including a rare talk by Robert Anton Wilson just a frew years before his parting and been mentioned in several reference books. In fact those citations should be put back in the article and the list of past participants too. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittala (talk • contribs) — Vittala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete not notable. A google news search for "WinterStar Symposium" yields no hits. [55] AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Newsworthiness is one, but not the only, factor in notability. Had someone died there, there would have been many Google news hits, but would that have made the event any more worthy of an article? Rosencomet (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Whether it's 100 or 200 people makes no difference, nor does longevity. --Calton | Talk 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment judging an event on which speakers speak at it is not relevant as "notability is not inherited," plus speakers will go where they are paid to go, or will get some opportunities to sell themselves/their wares from going. Merkinsmum 00:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. Speakers turn down events all the time based on the type of event and whether they wish to be associated with the organization hosting it or its purpose. Repeated participation shows support for them. Also, many of the speakers and entertainers appear at WinterStar without pay. Though they are not the only factors, I think the caliber of those appearing at an event does lend notability to the event, as does both attendance and longevity. Why not?Rosencomet (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never known speakers turn down any money to give a talk, or even an oppoortunity to sell their books etc. If they did, that event must have a really bad rep! And I don't think you should really be participating to this extent/arguing in an AfD about your own event, to be honest. But that's just my opinion and interpretation of what is and isn't bad form and WP:COI.:) Merkinsmum 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For 18 years now, recordings made of guest lectures and classes at WinterStar have been an annual staple of my syndicated radio show, The Hour of Slack (weekly Church of the SubGenius production). I sell 2 DVDs and 3 CDs of recordings made at WinterStar of my own performances. I know from the catalogs of many of the other guest speakers that for them also, WinterStar is an invaluable platform perfect for delivering and recording lectures or performances in a non-chaotic and very supportive environment. I can think offhand of many excellent recordings by notable performers and authors that would never have made it into public circulation had WinterStar not been the venue where they could be well recorded and well recieved. Some of these are in the ACE catalog and even more are in the catalogs of the specific artists. From the point of view of an author who has benefitted from the event for almost two decades, Winterstar is very definitely noteworthy and deserving of its own modest page. It is very different from Starwood -- smaller, indeed, but BECAUSE of its smaller size it is in some ways a better venue for more serious discussions, classes, lectures, etc. It is a different animal altogether and should not be lumped in with Starwood. Note: When I google "Winterstar" I find a dozen mentions of this specific festival, NOT from ACE-related sites, in the first three pages of listings. It is not just a "pagan" festival but more of an all-purpose "Utne Reader" of a fringe-fest, with programs for SubGeniuses, conspiracy buffs, and those interested in alternate energy, alternate health, environmentalism, history, etc. I have been involved in a dozen short-lived such festivals but WinterStar has remained a stable annual event for 25 years! RevStang (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC) — Revstang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

COI Note: Per this edit summary: [56], Revstang (talk · contribs) is "involved in Starwood and Winterstar organization, a member of ACE". Also, Stang produces the publicity mailings for Winterstar (I have one here). Therefore, Revstang has a Conflict of Interest on this article and this AfD. Per Wikipedia:COI#How to avoid COI edits: "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors." Pigman☿ 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or smerge, not independently notable as established by lack of credible independent sources. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, or merge into something that is notable, per Guy. Mattisse 00:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry, but you've !voted twice. If you want to alter your previous statement, I'd suggest amending that one. Thanks.Sorry, I did not see my previous vote. Mattisse 13:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Lack of independent sourcing.Kww (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lack of sourcing means sourcing needs to be done, not that the article needs to be wiped out. ;) Besides which, it's a notable enough article for an encyclopedia. Alloranleon (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC) - Alloranleon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s first edit was on December 28, 2007[reply]

If WP:RS that cover it in depth don't exist, no sourcing can be done, we can't magick sources into existence. Merkinsmum 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article in the Cleveland Scene, an alternative weekly paper, is the strongest source. Based on the amount of sourcing, and the quantity of material in the current article that does not appear notable, I agree with those above who believe that we are best off keeping a single article, about the Association for Consciousness Exploration, and we can do without this one. Some participants in the AfD discussion have a COI, which I hope the closer will think about. The history of the article itself shows heavy participation by Jeff Rosenbaum, one of the promoters of this symposium, which appears to violate the rules about COI editing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Badagnani's reasoning above (near the top). Lama Ding Dong (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin - Agree with the above, but I am pretty sure all SPAs and known COIs are flagged with SPA template or COI note. I just made sure the ones I flagged for COI have "COI" at the very beginning of the note. However, Rosencomet, for instance, commented multiple times, and not all of his comments are flagged. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetheart Market[edit]

Non-notable local supermarket. Covered by local papers after it sold its property to a larger chain. Mikeblas (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~NeonFire372~ (talk • contribs) 03:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - G search showed up some local nostalgia sites, almost all referencing the one-time closing event. WP:LOCAL and WP:NOT#NEWS seem to fit this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article indicates multiple instances of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, thus meeting WP:N. The above comments about this being "unverifiable" and there being no reliable sources are questionable... is The Post-Standard not a reliable source? --W.marsh 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Problem is, the only sources available are local. Local notability isn't adequate. Also, WP:N#TEMP. WP:N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeblas (talk • contribs) 07:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:N does not say anywhere that sources must be non-local... so you seem to be injecting an arbitrary and unnecessary requirement. --W.marsh 15:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's... uh... a supermarket. A local landmark perhaps, but no notability in the wider world. Lankiveil (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral with question There's mention of the original sign being kept in place. Is it going to be a state or city-recognized Registered Historic Site (or equivalent)? If so, definitely keep. (I wouldn't even pretend to know how to research that.) If not, it's dirt under an Eckerd's now, so delete. Ψν^Psi_nu 15:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J. Lynch[edit]

article fails to assert notability per WP:N, fails to provide outside sources per WP:V and reads like WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author of influential, important published material [57] [58] --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A mere Amazon search establishes that he is the author of several rather well-known books. Joshdboz (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to satisfy the notability guideline for authors based on his published works. Wikidemo (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - Certainly asserts notability, and appears to be in fact notable. Yes, it reads like spam, but that's not a reason to delete. Matchups (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article definitely needs work, but notability does not appear to be an issue. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WBardwin (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Secret ^account 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Aggies[edit]

There is absolutely nothing notable about "Jewish Aggies," which is simply a label for a religious group of TAMU labels (same as Christian Aggies, Muslim Aggies, etc etc etc). The article claims they are associated with the Chabad of Brazos Valley, however all Aggies who are Jewish are "Jewish Aggies," it is not a trademarked term. Article is tagged as being under construction, but I see no good place this article could go. It is, at best, a dictionary term and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Collectonian (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - what do you mean by saying notability is not a deletion criterion? You have made that comment several times recently. Perhaps lack of notability is not a speedy deletion criterion but my understanding is that through the longer and more thorough WP:AFD process we do assess articles for notability and agree to delete those that are not. (note: my comment has no bearing on whether this article should be deleted)

Question - I thought notability was pretty important as per Wikipedia:CSD#A7. Does that not apply here since there is no clear statement of notability? I understand that the article may be under construction but that is a seperate issue. Ubardak (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemo (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I though notablity was the prmiay criterion. I don't know what this means. Is this a joke? Lobojo (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and sourced. Also in the process of being written and attempted deleting while in the process of construction. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is notable and referenced from at least one mainstream media source and two major Texas Jewish newspapers . Article was created on 27th and tagged with under construction. Nominated for deletion on 28th. No chance has been given to develop article.Nsaum75 (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then, should we have articles for Christian Aggies, Muslim Aggies, Mormon Aggies, etc etc and then again for every last university in the country? The students actions might have been noted in some newspapers, but that doesn't make the term for a group notable in and of itself. At best, it should be covered in the Texas A&M article, or maybe the article about the Chabad itself, since this article seems to claiming that only those associated with the Chabad are truly Jewish Aggies (guess the other Aggies who happen to be Jews but go elsewhere are somehow not allowed to use the phrase?). Collectonian (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is only a day old, and was tagged Under Construction from the begining. Lets at least give the author a chance to see if it can be developed into something that would stand alone on its own. Who knows, in the end information added might be enough for it to stand on its own.Nsaum75 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to develop. It isn't a student group or organization, its just a generic term. Collectonian (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons stated above. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & Query - With the understanding that the article is under construction, I would assume that the first thing put into the article would be information to establish notability. From what I am seeing so far, this group os not notable, even with a few articles written about a one time event. Could someone quickly add something to this article which establishes notability according to WP:N? LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Dictionary term? a stub now, that provides ample sources demonstrating notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Move/Merge, it's sourced all right, but I don't wonder whether it would be better to create an article along the lines of Aggie, and merge everything into that. It would help those of us who don't have a clue what an "Aggie" is. Lankiveil (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Aggie, in this case, is a student at Texas A&M University in College Station. Jewish Aggies are A&M students who are Jewish. Collectonian (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, is the "Jewish Aggies" an organized student group like the "German Club", "Campus Crusade for Christ", "Chess Club", etc or is it just a generic term to refer to anyone who attends the school and is Jewish kinda like we might say "Lutheran Wikipedians"? I thought/assumed this was at least a real student group ... if this isn't even an organized group ... why is this discussion even here? --B (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a generic term. The one site "jewishaggies.com is just the website for the Chabad Jewish Center because its catchy, not because it is an actual student group.Collectonian (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the organization that this article is about, then it should be renamed to that title ... there's no way in heck that an article about people of any religion in general at TAMU is encyclopedic. --B (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He already made one for the center at Chabad of Brazos Valley (other name for it). Collectonian (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable student group that will never be more than a stub --B (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a G search seems to indicate that the term "Jewish Aggies" is parallel in meaning to (as noted above) "Christian Aggies", Methodist Aggies", etc; that is, this is not a student organization, and rather is an article about Jews at Texas A & M, or possibly a subset of that group, or a claimant to being the sole representative of that group. In this sense, it is a neologism (even if it is not necessarily a new one). The coverage found in the G search dealt mostly with coverage of holiday observance, and some problem with the campus administration which is not notable beyond the locality. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least based on current content, per Collectonian and B. The article seems to be based on a self-explanatory dictionary definition, namely "Jewish" + "Aggie". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Collectonian and B have a point. If we allow this article then we should allow any student organization specific to a single university to have their own article. Ubardak (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this trivia and violation of WP:NONSENSE. It's a nothing "organization." Why would anyone think that this was encyclopedic? The creator of this article has recently created articles that are variations of one Chabad type. So far at least three others have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yossi Lazaroff; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad of Brazos Valley that are essentially WP:VANITY pages. Chabad has its own plentiful websites and as I have said many times, Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org, and Wikipedia should resist a stealth invasion in this manner, (see the bloated ((Chabad sidebar)) template that exhibits "an ambition that does oe'r leap itself" -- to quote Shakespeare in Macbeth.) This article is part of a trend that violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site; and just plain Wikipedia is not your web host of which, and for which, Chabad has plenty of. IZAK (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as it is professionally sourced, it is an important interesting Jewish Org lets not delete it because it has some affiliation with Chabad.--יודל (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is one of 3000 organisation that Chabad alone claims to run. It has no established premises, no permanant staff, and little regular activity beyond social gatherings for frat boys. The mentions in the press are merely passing referenes, nothing substantial is shown. There is already an artcile on Chabad on Campus, do we really want 1000 sub articles on Chabad on each and every Campus, just because the local biweekly Jewish paper plugs them twice? Lobojo (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above voter also describes Chabad rabbis as "(cultish self-promoters)" [59]. I would appreciate it if the anti-Chabad comments and arguements could be kept out of this discussion. This is not the place to profane religious leaders of any kind!!! Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - this is a7, pure and simple Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Izak. In addition, the article states that a Jewish Aggie is a Jew at TAMU who associates with Chabad. What about Jews who don't associate with Chabad, are they not Jewish Aggies? Yossiea ^(talk) 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge important info from Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch, Chabad of Brazos Valley, Yossi Lazaroff, and Jewish Aggies into Texas A&M University#Student life. Don't worry about that section getting to big. All these articles are stubs that basically have the same info. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one liner trivia. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been rewritten and uses references from reliable sources such as ABC News and Texas Jewish Post. Bhaktivinode (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite requests, I have seen nothing more here to note the notability of this group, at least in terms of WP:N. True, there exists a few references, but they are all local, and at least one of them is not so much about the group, as it is about the celebration of a holiday that this group celebrates (WP:V is pretty clear: the resource has to be about the subject of the article, without connecting dots to get to the subject); and this is likely the highest profile of the three sources. Unless this group has actually done something notable, I think its inclusion here sets an obvious precedent for an article on any college/university group that has not done anything notable, but simply wishes an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website for organizations. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-notable local student organization.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Shawn in Montreal above Springnuts (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chabad of Brazos Valley or Texas A&M University#Student life, see Brewcrewer above. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a WP:CSD A7, and should have been deleted already; I'm tempted to do so myself. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Texas A&M University#Student life per Brewcrewer above. --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Delete for lack of verification, WP:V violation. The cited sources show no evidence of the existence of an organization or group of this name. Instead, they appear to be refering to "Jewish Aggies" only in a descriptive sense. A mention of "beer-drinking Aggies" in an article on Texas A&M pub life would not be adequate verification of a Beer drinking Aggies article claiming the existence of a student group of this name. There's no evidence the adjective "Jewish" is being used any differently in the sources than the adjective "beer-drinking" in the example. The adjective is capitalized because it's a religion, not because it's part of a proper name. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep - early closure as it's clear where this will end - Peripitus (Talk) 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cooerwull railway station, New South Wales[edit]

Only contains templates. Endarrt (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now contains prose... took all of 30 seconds. --W.marsh 01:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improve, not remove. Bad content is not justification for deleting an article that meets inclusion criteria. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has been expanded and includes its purpose, its contribution to the local economy and recognition of subsequent heritage status. Not all disused railway stations have significance but this one is a notable historical feature. I appreciate that wasn't apparent from the article when this was AfD'ed but feel it has now been improved sufficiently to be retained. Euryalus (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, decent station article with references provided for verifiability. Lankiveil (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep - page needed a request for expansion, not an AfD and has sufficient content to warrant keeping. Additionally, this is a bad faith nomination by user with a history of wanting pages deleted without sufficient reason. JRG (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Editors, lets keep the discussion germane to the debate at hand. If there are issues about an editor making repeated poor judgement on AfD, then start a dialog on that users Talk Page. Healthy New Year to you all! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I thought this was a relevant comment to make in light of this AfD, that this isn't the first AfD the user has started for a spurious reason. JRG (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as it stands now provides adequate support to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. As there seems to be only one Cooerwull railway station, I would suggest removing NSW from the title once the AfD closes. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the "X, State" or "X, City" designations are Australian conventions for railway stations, railway lines and suburbs. JRG (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems to make it unlikely that anyone would ever type the article name directly, but convention is convention. Alansohn (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rebecca (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This is a consensus, not a vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 17:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it has been improved a bit I guess and I can't think of a reason why it needs to go (nor has anyone else presented one). Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks great now, understandable nomination if there was no real content before. --Canley (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janvier Kanyamashure[edit]

Ambassadors are not considered notable by default, and this ambassador receives only two Google hits. I would consider the subject non-notable. SaveThePoint (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep ambassadors are notable by default. The fact that some user decided to change the policy against consensus doesnt change consensus. This has already been dealt with on other pages. Jose João (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion, and even if it were, this guy is notable by any meaningful definition of the word --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Article is a stub, too early to assess other issues, and is notable per all. Thin boy 00 @164, i.e. 02:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - I cannot find a policy that exempts ambassadors from WP:N. Indeed, the google hits are only two, and I could only access one of them concerning a meeting with the Vice-President of Burundi. That is not enough to meet notability. In the absence of sources, this article also fails WP:V.LonelyBeacon talk) 03:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The new spelling turns up a lot more sources, which given the propensity for French, may need more time to glean sources. I am still not sure this subject meets WP:N, but I think it needs to be given a chance. I would recommend that, as soon as this AfD is closed, rename the article properly, or at least rename it, and make sure there is a redirect from the current title. This is per suggestions from User:Alice et. al. below. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the printed sources are likely to be African and in the French language, I think that this discussion should be adjourned sine die to allow sources to be found. It does not surprise me that internet sources are not to be found, but they are likely to exist in official paperwork and diplomatic circulars. It does Wikipedia no harm to be slow to judgement and there should be a presumption of innocent of the Wikipedian article crime of non-notability. However, I would caution editors against presuming that the gentleman's name has been correctly spelled. Can someone get hold of a relevant copy of Igazeti ya Leta ya Republika y'u Rwanda (the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda)? Alice^✉ 08:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- "In the absence of sources"? This article is 100% sourced. AllAfrica is a pretty mainstream source... Jose João (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LonelyBeacon; I, too, can't find anything that says that ambassadors are automatically notable. The lone Google hits are trivial in nature, and the overall lack of sources has me believing that this person is indeed not notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remark On Wikipedia:Notability (people) there is actually a guideline noting that ambassadors are not necessarily notable by virtue of their being ambassadors. I probably should have mentioned this in my listing above. SaveThePoint (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That particular guideline should be read as meaning that very few ambassadors (as opposed to diplomats in general) indeed will fail the notability test. Please note that the test is whether they appear in an authoritative, independent source (ie that their existence has been noted) - not that they are important or significant. I have two questions: Is the gentleman a plenipotentiary with power to represent and bind his head of state in negotiations and can two authoritative, independent sources be found for some minimalist biographical details? I also think we need to be aware of "western systemic bias". Alice^✉ 08:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That was not the intention of the guideline the way it was written prior to your modifications today. The former version was based on consensus in discussion, and changes that make the guideline more complicated and proscriptive should be proposed in a new discussion. Avruchtalk 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per wikipedia's systematic bias. Kanyamasure is key ambassador in Rwanda's foreign relations, as demonstrated by his assignment to neighbor Burundi. Google is not an indicator of nobility. On the issue of diplomats and notability noted above, the guideline was written today and should not be taken as the gospel. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles John Hodgson for a similar discussion that has already taken place.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.macmillan. I agree with your point about the systemic bias, and it did cross my mind. However, there still must be some way to verify notability. If this person is truly important in international relations, then there must be a record of it somewhere? I agree that google is hardly the end all and be all .... it is a quick check. But then there must be some print record of this somewhere? Otherwise, I am seeing endless stubs of <<insert name here>> is the ambassador from <<insert nation>> to <<insert other nation>>. Can we even be sure that this person is still the ambassador? I would understand that establishing notability may be at issue, but then I would still say delete based on WP:V in the absence of anything but a single source (possibly out of date). LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC),[reply]

As of December 26, he is still the ambassador: [60]. Zagalejo^^^ 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been modified today, but it was not written today. Avruchtalk 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More information should be found on this individual to determine notability, as it stands it does not meet the notability guideline for inclusion. I understand the issue of systemic bias, but I think in international relations-related articles there is something else at play - i.e. diplomats of diplomatically powerful nations (e.g. Western nations, China, Japan, etc.) are more notable and important than diplomats between small relatively less internationally influential nations. Avruchtalk 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAvruch, I could not disagree with you more. Wikipedia is not just for representatives of "diplomatically powerful" states, but for people of all states (or of no state, for that matter). Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Great Lakes region of Africa can understand that Rwanda-Burundi relations (and thus their ambassadors) are incredibly notable and important. Please keep your bias against "influential nations" out of this discussion. The article is sourced and represents a person in a notable position. --Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there, like, a grand list of ambassadors where we could include this information? I don't see how it helps Wikipedia to delete this information entirely. Zagalejo^^^ 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avruch, this is not an encyclopedia of "diplomatically powerful nations". This is a general encyclopedia. If we instituted your rather outlandish view on notability, then systematic bias would grow worse than ever - and it's already pretty bad. Jose João makes a good point - the name is likely misspelled. I'm going to go look for Rwandan or Burundian Wikipedians who might be able to help. Picaroon (t) 23:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry if what I wrote is being misunderstood. I'm relating notability in the case of an international representative to the scale of that individuals actual influence/power, i.e. the French ambassador to the UN sits on the Security Council (which adds to notability) while the ambassador from Djibouti typically does not. The Djibouti ambassador may well be notable, but if we're talking about the fact of being an ambassador making someone notable de facto then I think the issue of the varying notability of ambassadors from different nations is relevant. Avruchtalk 00:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While do not for one moment doubt that relations between Burundi and Rwanda are important, I just visited Foreign relations of Burundi and Foreign relations of Rwanda, and there is no mention of relations between the nations being important. There is no mention of this ambassador. I would think if there were objective notability, then there would be at least a mention? LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found reference[61] to a "Javier K. Litse", also spelled "Javier",[62] who was at one point the "Lead Economist" of the African Development Bank. He seems to be from a Francophone country, though I don't know which one. Any chance this is the same person? Picaroon (t) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[63] This seems to show that Janvier K Litse is from Cameroon. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. The man's name is actually Janvier Kanyamashuli [64] (search that name and see how many hits you get). Everyking (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes. I'm glad you followed the hint I left earlier here. (P gets very excited and accusatory if I dare to correct him directly, but he is getting a history for this kind of thing.) Alice^✉ 02:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  - I didn't follow any hints; I've just done enough research for Wikipedia to know that if you get so few hits for a person like that, you're probably doing something wrong in your search (in this case, since Rwanda would be expected to take its relations with Burundi especially seriously, I would expect the person not to be a nobody—and as it turns out, he previously held another notable position). Since I knew the first name was spelled correctly, I just based a search around the first name and other key words relating to his position. Everyking (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's just trying to pick a fight with me. I find it's best to ignore her petty insults. Jose João (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Though work was done on the article, the sources added were not sufficiently independent (e.g., a gallery that has displayed his work), and the copyright violation issue was never addressed, with a number of sentences remaining in the article still taken from Pearce's website. No prejudice against a brand new version, but it would have to be based on genuinely independent and reliable sources not to be considered a recreation. Chick Bowen 06:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Pearce (potter)[edit]

No assertion of notability per WP:N, no third-party references per WP:V, apparent WP:SPAM and WP:COI with no attempts made to correct problems. Mh29255 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like spam, someone should recreate this if the claims can be verified with external sources --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Vanispamcruftisement and only apparently 3rd party link is broken Thin boy 00 @166, i.e. 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: unfortunately even though I know who this guy is and he is a notable Irish potter, there are no substantive sources, so I have to agree with you if deletion is the decision. ww2censor (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with additional documentation. Ww2censor (see above) -- if you think/know he is "notable" in his region, most prominent clay artists have produced a gallery/artist show or two, with gallery listings, newspaper reviews, etc. Some are teachers, with info available about university settings, workshops and presentations. Do you have an Irish newspaper reference on this artist? Some museum or entity that has displayed his work? Awards or public recognition? Google comes up with many commercial hits -- many beyond self promotion. For example [65] Also found a March 2007 gallery show for paintings and sculpture at [66] which I quickly included in the article. With so few clay artists on Wikipedia, it would be a shame to delete this article if a little work could document the claims. WBardwin (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for references beyond his own website at the time it was first added but could find nothing. ww2censor (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Tyrenius (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now that WBardwin has done some work on it. ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real sources, no establishment of notability. If its improved significant before the close of the AfD, though, I could change my mind here. Avruchtalk 03:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, as passing WP:N and WP:RS, but still needs more work. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. If it comes back, salt it, as well. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda and Radical Islamist's attack experts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Al Qaeda and Radical Islamist's attack experts

Contested prod.

Well, just read it for yourself. Orginal essay, nonsense. Carados (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:OR, could be a valid A7.--Sandahl 01:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like paranoia too. No references or anything anyway. -- Menti fisto 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing worth keeping, no refs. delldot talk 01:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research/essay. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would need a total rewrite if a valid article is even possible here, no point in keeping what we have now. I say it looks like a copyvio too but can't tell from where. --W.marsh 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all; this isn't speediable? Thin boy 00 @167, i.e. 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Uncle G (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasons stated above. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1-800-SNOWPLOW LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essays aren't suitable. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Worst Wikipedia article I've ever seen. Life, Liberty, Property (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're lucky. Uncle G (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR essay. Unfortunately, such things are not speedyable, although this article is obviously not going to be around much longer. Lankiveil (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was keep. The current consensus is that the oldest resident ever of each US state is notable. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Backman Shull[edit]

Non-notable supercentenarian who has little information on her aside from her age, lifespan, and the fact she was a homemaker that was fond of gardening. RandomOrca2 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As rare as I suppose it is to live to that age, the other supercentenarians I looked at all seem to have something more notable - though, for example, Marcella Humphrey is an exception I came across. -- alex.muller (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may be new, but per reasons for deletion, failing to meet a relevant notability guideline is definitely a reason for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She will be the new entry on the state age record-holders for South Carolina. If you delete it, then you have a link on that table that goes nowhere. If the fact that she appears on the table as a record-holder is not enough to keep her as an article...then the table is not important enough for keeping either.24.144.29.117 (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why don't you explain this for me? --RandomOrca2 (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:WAX is not valid reasoning. Thin boy 00 @169, i.e. 03:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the consensus reached re List of American supercentenarians and other national articles, articles should exist for individuals where there is sufficient independent evidence to support the >109 claim, as is the case here. While notability is established in this case, if there were any issues regarding individual notability, the article should be merge/redirected to the parent article List of American supercentenarians. Alansohn (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. As per the anonymous user, and she has more than enough inline references plus reaching age 113 is notable in itself too though. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - about the only thing said about her is that she lived a long time. ~~Only references refer to her death~~ - if she were notable enough for an article, you would have thought there would be multiple references while she was alive. And being the record-holder for an individual American state - means very little. If she was the National record holder, yes fair enough, but just South Carolina - no. - fchd (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just simply not true, and proof is here. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough - relevant bit of my statement above struck. Still can't see her being close to passing the bar of notability though*. - fchd (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt. 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She's a record holder within a US state for her age, which should be notable. I don't know if this will or can ever be expanded to a decent size, though, given the lack of sources that are likely to exist.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete/redirect. Note: an anon IP removed the AfD notice on 30 December 2007, but the consensus here is clear enough that no relist appears necessary. — Scientizzle 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas expansion[edit]

Appears to be an essay of some sort. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 01:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World economy. This seems to be a valid topic, but the current prose is almost totally useless in terms of being an encyclopedia article. A redirect keeps the text in the history if anyone wants it, and is a useful redirect anyway. --W.marsh 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per W.marsh, and because the only other path I see is to userfy and MfD, then redirect. Thin boy 00 @172, i.e. 03:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This appears to be advertising. Note the author and sole editor has the same name as the website that it is steering people to at the end of the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I acknowledge W.marsh's point, I don't think a redirect is indicated here. Unless there is some indication that it is a phrase with some circulation and definition, I see no need for a redirect. And I see little call for keeping the current text available since it is essentially an essay with no WP:V or WP:RS in it. Pigman☿ 07:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 9000 news mentions of the term, and in headlines as a noun phrase... I just see people typing this in or linking to it for more information. So it's a useful redirect. I don't mind if the current text is deleted first. --W.marsh 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strong POV and dict def issues. Mbisanz (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as explained by wmarsh --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect suggested above would emphasize way too much the current social and political ideology. Two random examples [67], [68] where the term is used differently. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete; fails WP:BAND (though Jamie Ballayntyne may marginally meet it). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Station X (UK music producer)[edit]

WP:COI issues and questionable notability, not to mention bound to fail WP:BAND. Anna Loggue (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it at CSD, since it fails several parts of that criteria and its creator appears to be a single purpose account. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor is brand-new and is apparently a fan of the band. Let's give him time to put some references in. Keilana 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor is also a single purpose account. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←Comment the contributor was indefblocked via WP:UAA. --Thin boy 00 @267, i.e. 05:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, some notability asserted by multiple sources. Don't flame the newbies. 96T (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability asserted. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability comes from producer Jamie Ballantyne's song "My Heart" which he released under his own name and not the alias "Station X." I cannot find any sources for this article and its only contributor has now been blocked so I have great doubts for it ever leaving stub class. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BAND and/or WP:MUSIC (both redirect to the same place). Re-mixing and covers are not notable; lots of DJ's do that every day. No full-length CDs, no national tour, no listed hits, means not notable. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only real claim of notability is "had a UK hit in 2005 with the single 'My Heart'", but searching through www.chartstats.com I can find no reference whatsoever to Station X, Jamie Ballantyne or "My Heart". --Stormie (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Piaser[edit]

Helped to found a local martial arts school (no evidence that it's notable), won a handful of competitions (none of which are presented as notable), plays in a non-notable band... No evidence that this individual is in any way notable. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy Delete, possible WP:COI issues, not to mention vanity article. Anna Loggue (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity article. Could be speedied as nonnotable vanity article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the vanity page of a non-notable individual. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOT#BLOG and per all Thin boy 00 @174, i.e. 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's not much here. I'm a little doubtful about the one possibly good source which doesn't provide material for most of the article text now. Pigman☿ 06:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: And I just noticed he wasn't even first in his division but second/silver and there was no bronze for the division. Pigman☿ 06:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article as WP:VANITY, but keep Pigman's addendum, which cracked me up. By the way, I hope JP doesn't get mad if the article gets deleted, as it says he has a "ferocious temperament". Ψν^Psi_nu 15:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable MMA player per Google. First link here is a major mag. widely available at bookstores: [69], [70], [71], [72]. JJL (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Three are links to his placing in tournaments; the other is (as near as I can tell) a video of one of those matches. Virtually anyone who competes in anything can build the same curriculum vitae. Still extremely not notable. Ψν^Psi_nu 12:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for what it's worth, also fails to meet any of the criteria for notability of a martial artist suggested by the Martial arts Project's notability guidelines. Bradford44 (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Hope and Charity (UK band)[edit]

Despite some notable members, fails WP:BAND simple as that. Anna Loggue (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, band is not notable per WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Mh29255 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: according to [73], their single "Battle Of The Sexes" reached #53 in the UK Singles chart. Does that count as "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart" for WP:BAND or not? --Stormie (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charted means above top 40, thats in the UK. Anna Loggue (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "charted" has to be necessarily Top 40; I would count #53 as a valid enough chart entry. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take you do not live in the United Kingdom, on radio, the British chart always starts at 40, anything else is ignored, therefore the band has not charted at all. Willirennen (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the notability of its members, and the fact that the band charted two singles in the UK. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notability is not inherited in either direction ("up" or "down"). Thin boy 00 @176, i.e. 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that notability is inherited; really, I think that the two chart singles make a (marginally) stronger argument that this group might be notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as per nom. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and, despite the article being over 20 months old, no WP:V or WP:RS. Pigman☿ 06:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, however the 2 members and their manager are notable, but a failed band does not constitute a article here. Willirennen (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Macy's 123 review me 15:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jessie[edit]

Subject is non-notable. Step-son of Mack Brown, interfered with a play in the 2007 Holiday Bowl. That's it. Was prod'ed but template was removed.↔NMajdan•talk 15:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As you said in the talk page, if he becomes an assistant coach later in life, or does this again, he'll be notable. Right now, it's just a bit too much recentism. JKBrooks85 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should only be a note in the article, and perhaps not use his name, as it has WP:BLP concerns over retaliation. Steve Bartman we do not need to support. MECU≈talk 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2007 Holiday Bowl. All of the informaion can be incorporated into the Holiday Bowl article. He is not notable outside of the incident. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...assume you meant 2007 Holiday Bowl, BlueAg. J.A.McCoy (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I apologize - I meant the Holiday Bowl. My mind is somewhere else..BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having lived in Texas for 10 years, I contend that this falls under the category of The-world-(and-therefore-Wikipedia)-revolves-around-Texas mentality that can infect local sports fans in the state. I would suggest to anyone considering voting Keep to simply incorporate the person/incident into the legitimate article 2007 Holiday Bowl. J.A.McCoy (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I didn't make this article and haven't contributed to it, but I don't think that it should be excluded just yet... it's like he's Leon Lett only without the actual illustrious career. Consider also Vinko Bogataj, an otherwise non-notable short-career ski jumper and later coach whose only real claim to fame is that he was viewed every Saturday morning on Wide World of Sports. You know him as "the agony of defeat" -- a true indicator that a single event, even though a blunder, can certainly create notability and warrant an article. Remember: "notable" does not necessarily mean "super-hero" ... I vote keep it, but improve it with a photo or two and clean up the article, provide references, etc. Also, some background on the person would be very helpful.

Why specifically? I see this as a major story about a major college football bowl game this year. Or perhaps the uniqueness of the event itself. Or the application of the rule in football, one of the few times that an inadvertant toching of a live football has ever resulted in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on an assistant coach. Or the buzz created not only on the net but in broadcast media in general. Or that it is such a unique play. Because of these points, I believe that this will be an event talked about for many years to come--it is not a a temporary topic.

Or, to put it according to Wikipedia:Notability guidelines: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

There has been a wide amount of coverage in the media and on the web
The sources are reliable (ESPN, CNN, etc)
The sources are independent of the subject

I think that people will be talking about this event for many years to come.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, if you or someone else is willing to expand the article and turn it into a real biographical article rather than a brief summary of a single event in his life, I'll change my vote. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm not going to do it, though (as the lone "keep voter" I think we'd need more than just me, and I'm busy on other pages). So if it does NOT get improved, I'd change my vote to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been significantly improved. Force10 (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2007 Holiday Bowl. WP:BLP1E is clear. --Dhartung | Talk 01:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The comparisons to Steve Bartman are laughable. Texas won the game (by a lot). It's no more notable than streakers during the game. --Smashville^BONK! 01:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this guy deserves to mocked and ridiculed in wikiworld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.137.44 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you read the site's policy on articles about living people. This site is not for articles whose express purpose is to slander and demean people. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Having an article on Wikipedia for someone to be "mocked and ridiculed" is a great reason to not have the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 Holiday Bowl per BlueAg09's reasoning. Right now, there's too much weight put on this guy's single screw up at a college bowl game. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, non sports people shouldnt be reviewing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.139.248 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Several of the voters here, including myself, are frequent contributors to college football-related articles.↔NMajdan•talk 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 2007 Holiday Bowl. He isn't notable enough to have his own article but this incident should be mentioned in the bowl article.Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Wikipedia:Notability guidelines state "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article currently has 15 independent, reputable sources and it is still being improved. In addition, ever TV-crew announcing each bowl game has been mentioning this person and this play. People will be looking for reliable information on him. We should be providing that information. The article exceeds our notability guidelines and there is no reason to delete the article. Force10 (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage of this person has been almost entirely about his single blunder at the Holiday Bowl, and not much more than that. There's not enough information about this person aside from that and him being Mack Brown's stepson to really write a biography about him that would be neutral, much less stay in line with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. All the coverage of this person has been in the scope of the 2007 Holiday Bowl and thus should be merged or redirected to that article, as we have no evidence he is notable outside of that incident. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are mistaken. WP:NPOV does not mandate that we have to cover 10 different things about a person. It only mandates that we be neutral in what we do choose to cover. Likewise, WP:BLP does not forbid articles on people famous for only one thing. Sara Jane Moore is famous for only one thing. Ditto for John Wilkes Booth, Barry Glassman, Alfred B. Hilton, who all happen to hail from the same county. Fanny Mendelssohn is known only for her music. Wikipedia thrives on having good articles on people that are known for something in particular. Force10 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The actions those people made actually made a lasting impact in history. By contrast, all Jessee did was commit a mistake that didn't even affect the result of the game he did it in - just because he happened to get a little extra press for it does not, in fact, make his existence encyclopedic. Again, from Wikipedia:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event:
      Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.
      The entirety of all the coverage of Mr. Jessee has been the subject of is limited to his actions in the 2007 Holiday Bowl and thus his actions should be covered there. A separate article about him would, considering all the sources that have covered him so far, put far too much undue weight on his mistake in the Holiday Bowl and would be unfair the remainder of whatever else he's done in his life. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - People contribute to history in different ways in to varying degrees. Not all articles on Wikipedia will be on subjects that have equally impacted history. Chris Jessie had a notable impact on a major college football game. His actions have been mentioned not only in all the sources cited in the article (15, last I checked) but by many more besides. His actions have been cited as the most bizzare occurance of an already-bizzare season. People will be talking about him for years at a minimum. When they come to Wikipedia to look up reliable information on him, they should not have to sort through an article on the Holiday Bowl in order to find him. We are here to create an informative encyclopedia and to serve our readers. Our readers are best served by keeping the article. Force10 (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, NeoXhaosX, you misread "undue weight". To quote, NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Therefore, by your own argument, if he is famous mainly for his action in the Holiday Bowl then his article should be mainly about the Holiday Bowl. Tangental facts such as what his birthday was and how many kids he has are completely irrelevant. We don't need to cover those sorts of things to cover the subject. Our article on him is sufficiently complete and useful as it stands now. Force10 (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a football fan by any means, so I won't debate the noability of this entry, but I did find the entry interesting and would probably have not happened across it is it had been merged into a larger entry.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bit unusual, but I think he's had enough media coverage that he meets some of our notability requirements. I wouldn't be opposed to a Redirect either, though; I just think an outright deletion is a poor call. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JKBrooks85's comments --IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No notability outside the bowl game blunder, and coverage on the bowl game page should be sufficient. VegaDark (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Should be included in the article about the game but nothing more. Dincher (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]