< December 29 December 31 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result wasKeep; interested editors may merge as they see fit.JERRY talk contribs 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spelljammer crystal spheres[edit]

List of Spelljammer crystal spheres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of objects with no real world notability written from an in uiverse perspective. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, just because the content is verifiable does not mean it should have an article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article itself is not indiscriminate - no article is (apart from List of Everything). The point is that Wikipedia is not indiscriminate in its content - there are some things that it has been decided by consensus do not belong in an encyclopaedia. Lots of things are useful (links to essay); advertisments are useful to people looking for products to buy, guides are useful to people planning trips to cities or playing though computer games, forums are useful to people wanting to discuss topics with others and news reports can be very useful to people who want to keep up with what's going on in the world. However Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and so such usefulness does not neccessarily mean that a topic is suitable for inclusion. [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
None of your examples are pertinent to the example here, since this isn't an advertisement, a travel guide, or a game guide. Nor is it operating as a forum. The problem with arguing by examples when you just pick examples of unrelated things that are bad is....it doesn't actually make your point for you. Try sticking to the actual article instead. Or at least, pick relevant examples. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean "useful" in the generic sense. Bottle openers are useful, but I don't expect Wikipedia to open my beer for me. I meant "encyclopedically useful", as in, a body of information one might plausibly turn to an encyclopedia for at some point, like List of Star Trek characters: G-M. Ford MF (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I misinterpretted you. However I think that that things like encyclopaedic usefulness are inherently subjective and hard to define, which is there are polcies and guidelines that outline standards for inclusion based on, notability, verifiability and consensus. I do not feel the topic of the article in question meets those standards. [[Guest9999 (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
You "feel" that it doesn't? Wait, did you just say your subjectivity beats my subjectivity? Ford MF (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that would be up to the community. [[Guest9999 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • That makes about as much sense as saying that it is worth noting that in the past rock bands have been deleted, so future rock bands brought to AfD should be deleted. There's little to no similarity between the two articles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The similarities that I see are that they were both lists of planets from a fictional universe without any real world information or secondary sources. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
I have interests in things that shouldn't be on Wiki; for example, I am a rock climber and I climb a LOT at certain crags in and around Phoenix. I can discuss the vagaries and textures of certain routes for hours. It has great personal interest to me. However, I'm fairly confident that that sort of information is not appropriate for Wiki. Remember, popularity and importance do not necessarily imply notability, although they could correlate positively. Also, remember that Wiki is consensus based and not always a strict interpretation of cast-in-stone rules - meaning that those of us who aren't "in the know" about this article's subject have a right to cast our deletion opinions. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't like me saying that "it's funny when"? Okay, let me rephrase it: minutia is an argument, "the sub-sub-sub level of minutia" is hyperbole and not conductive to discussion. If you don't know how many people play these games, then you don't know the scope of the audience and have no right to dismiss it on such grounds. If there were ten of thousands of people who could discuss those crags with you, then I'm sure there would be articles in Wikipedia on the subject.
As for Wiki-battles, I find it a bit odd that you would go after me, but not Guest9999. Why is not in any way personal for those who spend all their time on Wikipedia searching out articles to delete?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. User:King of Hearts who deleted this page seems not to have closed this AfD, so I'll do it. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trudy (coronation street)[edit]

Trudy (coronation street) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page is essentially a stub with no sources nor indications of notability (per WP:FICTION). It has been tagged for insufficient sources, and notability concerns, since August 2007 and October 2007, respectively. No pages link to this, so I see little cause for conflict. -- Lewellyn talk 23:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, it's utterly non-notable and whether people discuss it on forums is extreme fancruft (I haven't seen this character myself and can't find any pictures of it on the Internet). But it still falls short of being ridiculous especially given the amount of cruft we still already have that new users might judge as a sign that articles like this are OK for inclusion.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it doesn't meet a policy-written CSD outright, but it certainly does in my own eyes. As far as I am concerned (my opinion this is), if an article has no right to have any existance in the encyclopedia, where a debate will achieve nothing other than the same as common sense would, then it should be deleted speedily, regardless of whether hard-written policies state as much or not. It is purely my own opinion, so take it as you will. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Believe me, I scrutinized the CSD for this one. I suspect that we'll just have to wait it out. Since the only links to the article were spawned by the AfD, I'm sure that it'll remain just as obscure, and that it will be missed about as much as we'll remember it in a few months. ;) -- Lewellyn talk 21:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Tyra[edit]

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

In my opinion, this person does not meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, who offered some sources on the talk page, but not sources that I felt satisfied WP:RS. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did find one reference. Otherwise, I've found almost nothing on him at all (Google keeps giving me lists of names, like "____ Thomas, Tyra Banks, etc."). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep & cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Sandals[edit]

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

This article claims that a certain brand of shoes or sandals has made a significant cultural impact, but does not provide sufficient evidence (or any evidence at all). I suspect a conflict of interest by the author, Shoedog2000 (talk · contribs), who has no other edits to his name. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep the article. But the article should definitely be expanded, and wikified. Ohmpandya (Talk) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result wasKeep interested editors may merge/edit as they see fit. JERRY talk contribs 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of Pope John Paul II[edit]

Biography of Pope John Paul II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is completely unencyclopedic. Pope John Paul II should be about his biography, not a seperate article in and of itself. In fact, I have found no other "Biography of" articles here. Since Pope John Paul II's article size is getting to be a problem, we could split it into separate articles on periods of his life such as Early life of Jan Smuts. My user account (talk) 23:38, 30 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, Rudget. 12:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasKeep !Votes to the effect of "delete and then rewrite it" were ignored. JERRY talk contribs 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Central Victoria[edit]

North Central Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is completely unsourced. The topic seems not to be what the title suggests but a discussion on what actually is north central Victoria without deciding on an answer. It then goes into discussing a local Australian rules football competition. Even if the topic can be defined clearly enough to create an article (which I doubt, but I am happy to be corrected), none of this can be saved. Mattinbgn\talk 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete it as the nom said, no sources at all. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a few for WA regions - eg Wheatbelt (Western Australia), Great Southern (Western Australia) - however they are clearly and unambiguously defined, each have an LGA association, a development corporation etc, and the ABS cover them (although often not with the same names) so there's really no debate at all over boundaries and such things. Orderinchaos 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly would you keep from this article? -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article consists of a brief and confusing place description followed by local football details. The football details are both irrelevant and non-notable. The "place" as an article subject is also not notable. It exists in the sense that any piece of land has a centre, and part of that centre is north of the other parts. It doesn't seem to exist as a recognised "region", an identifiable community, an area with common geographic features or in any other official or notable way. There are two mentions listed above but in the first case it is in the context of a shorthand way of breaking down the State. The second is a reference to a catchment management authority, which while physically located in the northern part of central Victoria is not of itself sufficient to demonstrate a commonality of townships or communities that would create a definable region. Even the article itself is incapable of explaining where this "north central Victoria" begins and ends. Towns and genuine communities, regions or subdivisions are notable, but the subject of this article is none of these. Euryalus (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I came off harsh. It's late and I'm tired. :-) Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, Lankiveil has commented on what was found his search abave should you wish to read what he said. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Given that there is nothing that can be kept (not even a definition of the term, given there are two contradictory ones) wouldn't it be better to delete this and start again.? I will check out your links shortly but as a former resident of the state for over 20 years, I wouldn't know it from a hole in the ground and I lived little more than 30 min drive from Kyneton and Woodend. It has no common currency unlike other regions in Victoria such as Wimmera,. The Mallee, Gippsland or Western District but is a purely grab bag term as demonstrated earlier by Euryalus. Mattinbgn\talk 03:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly concede that the term is in use (and I'm probably one of the guilty ones referred to above by Tanthalas39!), but still have doubts as to its resonance. For example, the first of the links referenced above gov.au seems clear about North Central as a region, but look at the other regions it defines in Victoria - East Coast Victoria, Eastern Victoria, West Coast Victoria and Western Victoria. These are all terms I'm unfamiliar with, after 27 years residency in the state, whereas the likes of Wimmera, The Mallee, Gippsland or Western District are alternative terms for Victorian regions in common parlance. Ultimately I think the term in question is a regional aggregation that will serve little purpose. Murtoa (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sindh TV[edit]

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

Too many problems. Delete without prejudice for future recreation. Ra2007 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlito and Santino Marella[edit]

Carlito and Santino Marella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tag team as of yet. Per precedent, teaming together for one match is definitely not notable. Kane and The Big Show and Eugene and William Regal were both just deleted as non-notable, and they both won the tag championship. Clearly, this is also a crystal ball issue. The information is best kept is their individual articles, especially for now. Nikki311 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has anyone noticed the under construction tag can everyone please recognize the tag's guidelines including the do not delete until finshed notice, so respectfully refrain from deletion--68.199.62.0 (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is since the team has only wrestled once they are not remotly close to being notiable yet. Teams that have been together for months have been deleted. In short, no ammount of construction can save this article at this time so that argument is invalid. If they do become notibale in the future the article can be recreated then. --67.68.153.60 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. The page that Le Grand mentions is just an essay and isn't a requirement to follow when editing. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EX600[edit]

EX600 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A specification sheet for a specific model of laptop. No indication that the product is notable other than being "light and also financial attractive", no sources. Wikipedia is not a manual or brochure. Kateshortforbob 23:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ETA Prod contested by creator, which is why it's here. --Kateshortforbob 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Agree to both the people above. This is just random info. It isn't an article. Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ram ravana war[edit]

Ram ravana war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This seems like an original essay concerning a non-notable story. It ends with a very original conclusion of "All these information and instances simply tell us that this war was not a simple as we have framed it in our minds. Rather from this point of view it was a kind of world war only." Only 9 non-wiki google hits for this title. And of course, no sources and done as a single upload Mbisanz (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete. Unsourced, OR, random personal musings on the materials of Ramayana. rudra (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it The are no external links, no links to other articles. Delete it. --Ohmpandya 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Ch'ing[edit]

Liu Ch'ing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I must say, 10th century history is not my forte in my study of Chinese history, but I have not heard of this person. The current stub does not give enough information for me to be able to conduct research on this person to ascertain whether this person existed. Unless more information is added, since there is no verified information here, delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know more or less nothing about 10th century China, but I do know when an article fails WP:V and this is a prime example of it. Google Scholar and Google Books do not turn up anything that seems relevant to verifying this.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further I think it is Liu Min, aka Liu Ch'ung or Chung, d. 954. There seems to have been a Ripley's Museum exhibit using the name Liu Ch'ung that highlights the dicoria, although the only reference to this in a Chinese ruler I can verify is Xiang Yu. There's a dicoria-afflicted scholar once named Shên Yo, but I can't find out whether we have an article (it seems we should) due to transliteration changes. --Dhartung | Talk 23:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be deleted. The first sentence stated... and the only sentence, is completely random. Delete it. Ohmpandya (Talk) 00:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was kinda angling for a redirect, but now I wonder whether we should just use it for the Chinese Communist author aka Liu Qing, who seems rather important yet without an article. --Dhartung | Talk 11:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current content of the article is "Liu Ch'ing, who became the governor of China's Shansi province in 955 A.D., was born with two pupils in each eye." Nothing to be lost from deleting it now at all since its minimal, rudimentary content and context are now preserved here. As I suggested earlier it could be speedied as G10 (pages that disparage their subject, even if the subject is not a living person) and possibly A1 for lacking much context.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you're joking. This is obviously not an attack page and clearly has enough context. It's not a speedy candidate. --- RockMFR 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree that there's no way this qualifies as an attack article. I am also not disputing the current content being subpar. I'm just putting up some information I've found in the hopes that someone will make a better article (which might be me if I get around to it, but as I said I don't really know a lot about the topic). I think we should be constructive whenever possible. --Dhartung | Talk 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Spebi 10:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whopper Freakout[edit]

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

This advertising campaign is not notable. A quick Google search does not bring up anything other than Youtube and blogs, which cannot establish notability. NF24(welcome, 2008!) 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the official website is self published and cannot establish notability per WP:N. NF24(welcome, 2008!) 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathon Ware. You probably know him as the "I like turtles" boy, but his article was deleted due to lack of long term notability. Substitute USA Today with The Washington Post in the above argument and you basically have what happened over there. NF24(welcome, 2008!) 02:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

dtm (nightclub)[edit]

The result was speedy delete - A7. Neither club asserted notability. --Michael Greiner 00:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dtm (nightclub) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reason for nominating is, both of these does not indicate notability in any shape or form. Jelly the Supermodel (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Also nominated:[reply]

Mixei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Tagged. There is not a single Wikipedia-notable nightclub in the city I live in, and there are a considerable number, so I don't see why these should be kept either. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a directory.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was The Result was Nomination withdrawn. --YbborTalk 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest reigning monarchs of all time[edit]

List of longest reigning monarchs of all time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looking at the talk page, it seems there are dozens of rulers which even a cursory glance around the web will turn up that fit into this list. The number of rulers of states in the Holy Roman Empire, or Indian princely states, African monarchies, etc. are almost uncountable, and many of them likely have had rulers whose reign would put them into the list, as the talk page can easily attest to. This list is not simply incomplete, its incompleteness makes its figures downright wrong. It would be almost impossible to create an accurate article/list, and therefore I propose that rather than perpetuate inaccurate information, we shut it down entirely. --YbborTalk 22:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Costanzo[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Does not establish notability of director. No mention of major awards. Does not appear to have been subject of multiple independent articles. TheRingess (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chi-Chi (Scarface)[edit]

Chi-Chi (Scarface) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This minor character does not warrant is own article, and I don't think there's much here worth merging. Delete then redirect to Scarface (1983 film). --Nlu (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Wizardman 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czechs in Omaha, Nebraska[edit]

Czechs in Omaha, Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is unsuitable for an encyclopedia, fails to meet the relevant notability guideline for Wikipedia content, and violates WP:SNOW. Besides if we have an article for Omaha, we might as well have an article for every major city (i.e. Czechs in San Francisco or Czechs in Tokyo) —Noah¢s (Talk) 21:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because I feel that none of these are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia:

Germans in Omaha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greeks in Omaha, Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jewish community in Omaha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mexicans in Omaha, Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • You are aware that 1.) this doesn't meet any speedy criteria, and 2.) it's not a WP:SNOW case either? (Snowball usually refers to AfDs where the consensus is glaringly obvious.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, yes i am, but I wasn't looking at the article right. I've changed it from Speedy to Weak as I still believe this is somewhat NN. I mean why is the Czech population in Omaha, Nebraska more notable than the Czech population in Fargo, North Dakota or Jamestown, Rhode Island? (as two examples) Doc Strange (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, with that being said, you've swayed me enough to change my vote to Keep due to the source material and citation, making it N. I jumped the gun (for one of very few times) and turns out the article is well written and sourced. Doc Strange (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is proven by reliable sources, and as the article demonstrates, the topic of Czechs in Omaha has been notable enough to warrant a number of reliable citations. If Czechs in San Francisco or Czechs in Tokyo are as notable then those could be great additions to WP, as well. None of the aforementioned articles are listcruft, and I would suggest that Doc Strange look at the articles he's supporting for deletion. • Freechild'sup? 22:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This is the second AfD for Jewish community in Omaha, and I would like to note there is also an article entitled African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska which the nominator did not add to the list. Why not? • Freechild'sup? 22:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Oversimplifying the intricate nature of American history, particularly the history of the Midwest, is an atypical response to any substantive discussion of diversity in the U.S. As separate articles on the Omaha communities of Little Italy, Little Bohemia, and the Near North Side clearly demonstrate, the city most certainly did have distinct ethnic communities that were particularly insular, isolated, and/or segregated. Typecasting Midwestern cities as stagnant beds of suburbia is not a fair response to this AfD, nor is your suggestion to merge these articles together. • Freechild'sup? 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. For all interested, last August User:Storm Rider and I had a substantial dialog related to this topic at Talk:Mexicans in Omaha, Nebraska. • Freechild'sup? 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No way merge. These articles are a testament to why the Unites States is the greatest country (IMO of course) in the history of civilazation. All cultures and ethnicities are allowed to live as they choose. This multi-culturism brings forth the best that all ethinic groups/cultrures have to offer. The fact that cultures and ethnic groups are distinctly different is a cause to celebrate, not to hide under the table. Omaha, today, might look different then then in the 1850's, but there is no denying that all of the aforementioned ethnic groups were seen as distinct communities. And each ethnic group, because of their background and culture, contributed to Omaha in their own way. But I digress. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you certainly have stirred up the pot by attempting to gore a sacred cow; I haven't a clue what those comments have to do with merging articles. I guess if there is a reference for anything, the logic is an article is acceptable. And yes, I had lengthy conversation about the Mexican article with Freechild. As a genealogist I can create these same types of articles for city in the United States where a Federal Census was taken. I just find that to be insignificant data for an encyclopedia. There has been no evidence on any of the articles that the communities were insular and absolute; none! Also, there is very little references for the present as demonstrated by the Greek article's present section. Most of what is written there is OR. Together they would form a much stronger sub-article and provide a better understanding of Omaha than separate. It is just an opinion; if it slays your personal sacred cow then that would be a personal problem. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Storm Rider, from your scan of the information in the articles surely you can see that they aren't as simple as citing Federal Census data; actually, most of them don't at this point. As for the veracity of the rest of the information in the articles, if you see something missing feel free to add it. Your identification of one section in six articles that is weak does not justify merging the articles; rather it shows that more contributions are necessary. As a genealogist I hope that you could see the potential for this type of article on WP. Rather than original research or one's own point of view, these do and other articles that are verifiable could add a new kind of notable article to WP. I would love to read such an article on Italians in New York City or Swedes in Minneapolis; I do agree with Brewcrewer's comment above. After our dialog on the Mexicans in Omaha article I think you're probably not going to change your mind, but this is my try, and now I'll stop. • Freechild'sup? 13:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been skads of books written about the ethnic make-up of cities, but the problem is that the information is simply not notable when taken individually. What is important is when they are taken in context; i.e. they all belong to the city of Omaha; as a whole they make up the city. The groups do not stand alone, but are part of the whole. Breaking them down into their individual parts destroys the basic reason they are important; together they are Omaha, Nebraska. The city does not exist without them and they do not exist without the city. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification? So the articles are too detailed? And they should be merged into one article for that reason? You apparently suggest while they are informative, they could be more coherent as one meta-sized article - is that right? Note that African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska is already 44 kilobytes long as it stands. Could you clarify the reasoning behind your merger suggestion a little more? • Freechild'sup? 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Selectively merge the content. Edit out the excessively detailed dissertations on when each ethnicity arrived at whose urging, and who from the old country visited them when, the name of the ethnic baker and butcher, the names of individual unremarkable churches of the ethnicity, and the names and street addresses of unremarkable cemetaries. The articles run on to an excessive length with trivial details, beyond what the subject requires. It is just one small city out of all the cities in the world, and this much detail may go beyond what is encyclopedic or reasonable. The world may not need or want such an exhaustive treatise- or collection of treatises- about the ethnic variety in that one town. Edison (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a good resource for the current trivia on Wikipedia. I admit that I am more of a purist. Wikipedia seems to straddle being an encyclopedia and People's trivia book. I would not support having articles on all the characters of movies, cartoons, etc. To me, they are all trivia and they cater to the tastes of our rather mentally transient society; from an academic perspective I see no value in them whatsoever.
In the context of these articles, the city is what is of most value; breaking the parts down tares the fabric of the whole, making each less than what it was. I think you think that having individual articles somehow aggrandizes each part of the community; I simply reject the premise and I think the whole is greater than the parts. There is not a right or wrong here, just a difference of what is of value and how best to help readers. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Storm Rider - its useful to know where you're coming from. I don't agree with it, but its useful to know. Encyclopedia are inherently about minutiae; that's the nature of knowledge distribution, that what one person finds particularly valuable the next finds completely inane. WP represents the best and worst of that. In the case of these particular articles, they are the beginning of what may become a grand ethnography project, and for that reason alone I think they add great value to WP as a whole - but of course I'm biased here. • Freechild'sup? 00:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete. Jon513 (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oonkie[edit]

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

Seems to be a hoax or WP:NFT, also unreferenced. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 21:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dordle[edit]

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

I added a prod tag, but the creator removed it. This does not appear to be a term recognized by any body of importance. Google does not show that this is a term used by anyone (in the context described here) other than the one person linked to from this page. Is not notable, and has no verified, reliable sources. I (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Spebi 10:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popkin[edit]

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

I originally nominated this for speedy per a1, but that was removed (and after looking at the article again I agree with the removal of the speedy tag), but it still should be deleted as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also the term fails WP:N as the only reference I could find was an urban dictionary definition. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Chester[edit]

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

This actor does not appear to meet the notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that Theo has played roles in enough high-quality BBC dramas to allow him to be recognised by wikipedia. I also believe that he is to appear in a film next year, which he is currently filming for. I will add this to the page this evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kington91 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Nomination withdrawn: speedy. Someones given the article a little tidy, it was a tip before! It needs sourcing etc, I will tag for sources. Computerjoe's talk 21:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dixons City Academy[edit]

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

No doubt notable (IMO any city academy would be due to the political importance) but article is complete mess and needs to be deleted Computerjoe's talk 20:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result wasDelete JERRY talk contribs 02:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lantern Corps[edit]

Black Lantern Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A yet to be published fictional group whose members, notariaty and standing significance have yet to be established. Delete per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. This is going to be an important storyline and while this article started out poorly it is getting progessively better. We should simply overhaul the article and get rid of anything contentious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.191.183 (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Deleting this article is not a "fool's errand". If you would like to gather more information and save it to your personal blog or hard drive, by all means do so. When/if this subject becomes current and notable, feel free to recreate the article by a simple cut/paste. I would recommend a lot of cleanup - there are too many trivial sections, a strange trivia section with one pseudo-trivia bit in it, and would obviously need more references. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I apologise if that sounded disrespecful, I merely mean that wikipedia has a lot of articles about (for example) movies that have not yet been released, and they are not deleted simply because they haven't been shown yet. True? That's why we have the warning:
The caveat on the article reads "This article or section contains information about a scheduled or expected comic book release, or a series already in progress. It is likely to contain tentative information and the content may change dramatically as the product release approaches and more information becomes available."
I and other Green Lantern fans will be constantly be updating this page to show more references, more proofs and more information as it comes out. Regards, Wordforge (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-response: No apology needed, I didn't mean to chastise. I personally think Wiki policy is pretty clear on this - see WP:NFF for a rebuttal to your film argument, and this is the applicable part of WP:NOTE:
Defining notability for fiction:
Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For articles about fictional concepts, reliable secondary sources cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is real-world content. Based on this reasoning and the above excerpts, fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources.
As you can see, this article crosses over the line of multiple Wiki guidelines. It is speculation of a future fictional work, sourced from one interview that can neither be considered substantial nor reliable. The article itself does not address real-world development, it merely offers a fictional plot summary of what might be written in the future. I was serious before; copy this article and use it as a place to start when the subject becomes a "real" creation. Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The comic is coming out in 2009. It's 2008 tommorow. So it won't be a two-year wait. Wordforge (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's summer 2009, so let's split the difference and say a year and a half. Ford MF (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: WP:NFF

"Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material."

Since this comic series has been advertised, and I have just posted a link to a Newsarama article with one of the co-creators that verifies at least some aspects of this, I would still reccomend we stay our hand on this, although I will take your advice and copy and paste this into a word doc in case it is deleted. Enjoy your new years guys. Wordforge (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the article seems to be improving, and even if there isn't much now in terms of sources, I'd imagine more would be available in the foreseeable future. Am I making any sense? Anyway, my vote is for keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note:- this article is not about a series, nor is about a specific storyline. It is about a fictional group which has yet to appear, and will not for another year and half. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
--At present, most, if not all, of the information is duplicative and copied from the article on DC Power Rings. If it's later warranted to have the article, it can simply be recreated by unmerging it.--Marhawkman (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasKeep Interested editors may merge/redirect as they see fit. Looks like it will be no small task, and not one for somebody unfamiliar with the subject matter. JERRY talk contribs 02:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caregiver (comics)[edit]

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

WP:FICT Minor component of fictional work John Nagle (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new place for this kind of material: Wikipedia Annex. The procedures are new, but there's a system in place for moving minor fictional material out of Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. But the mission statement says that it's for articles on fictional works that are "too detailed for Wikipedia". Isn't that rather the reverse of being a home for minor fictional characters? And isn't it more of a holding area than an actual home for the article?SteveG (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to think about moving this sort of thing to Wikia. On the one hand, Wikia actually collects this stuff, while it's not really "encyclopedic" under Wikipedia rules. On the other hand, there are legal conflict of interest problems in recommending on non-profit Wikipedia that content be moved to the profit-making Wikia, because many of the same people are involved with both organizations. That policy issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with your COI concern. --Jack Merridew 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nb: that the Wikia annex, not the Wikipedia annex. --Jack Merridew 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, if there's a set standard for establishing a comic book character's notability, I'd like to know what it is. If there isn't, then one is left to infer a standard set by the thousands of articles for comics characters out there. The fact is, few of them have been analyzed in The New York Times. Primary references to appearances and the occasional secondary reference to a Marvel.com page are about as good as we're likely to get. --SteveG (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, deleting stubs deprives us of material for a main article. As it is, the Elders with stubs could be mereged, and the major Elders could have links to their main articles. --SteveG (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's a suitable secondary source for a comic book character? --SteveG (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically? How about a character analysis in The New York Times? --Jack Merridew 12:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So basically there should be Wikipedia articles about Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, and that's it? Ford MF (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not hypothetically; practically. Think link to marvunapp doesn't qualify? --SteveG (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter Station[edit]

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

No reliable sources, no assertion of real-world notability, entirely in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon[edit]

The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism with no sources, with a bit of original research as a topping. — Coren (talk) 20:04, 30 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, Rudget. 12:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer Trash (movie)[edit]

Trailer Trash (movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:MOVIE since not in production; doesn't meet Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Plenty of time for this article IF the film ever comes together. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Roth has confirmed that he'll begin shooting. There's no chance that he'll drop the project since he already confirmed. Chris872 (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He even confirmed the release date. Just check the resources. Chris872 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, putting it as a paragraph within that article sounds good. Chris872 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)'[reply]

Why was it removed from the Trailer article? Chris872 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I DID MERGE IT! WTF? Chris872 (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. –Pomte 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porkchop plot[edit]

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

Created 2-1/2 years ago, this stub has received only administrative edits since that time. It also comes up at the top of a google search, which says to me that there's almost nothing else written about it of any consequence. Essentially a dictdef of a techno-jargon term with very limited scope. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spebi 10:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armless[edit]

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

Unverified, original research. No way of confirming this information. —Viriditas | Talk 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spebi 10:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The White Van[edit]

The White Van (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not aired script. Looks like self promotion to me Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Yes, consensus appeared to be merge, but is there anything really to merge? Plus, no section to put it in, no reason to mess up an article as a result. Wizardman 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana Doll[edit]

Hannah Montana Doll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. While I'm sure these dolls are good sellers, there's nothing notable to say about them beyond the mere fact of their existence -- which isn't really worth more than a brief mention in the main Hannah Montana article. Powers T 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN toy Doc Strange (talk) 18:54, 30 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, Rudget. 12:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Spebi 10:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Field Precision[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Field Precision LLC. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There aren't any notable sources. This is a clear delete. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs:

This is our second attempt to introduce a page on Field Precision in Wikipedia. Our motivation was that all our competitors have pages that are linked from lists of FEA and CEA software companies within Wikipedia. We based the form and material of our entry on the page for Ansoft, which has been on Wikipedia for several years. Our intent was to keep the page as short as possible, emphasizing free resources for education.

We can certainly expand the page to include descriptions of the unique technical achievements of our company and the extensive applications by organizations around the world with links to publications. This would involve some effort and it would be disheartening if we were simply deleted at the end of the process. Would you please give us some guidance?

Sincerely, Stan Humphries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.12.187 (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC) — 68.35.12.187 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Wikipedia is Not for Self-promotion, Advertising or advocacy of any kind. You appeasr to have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.
  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.--Hu12 (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Uka Uka[edit]

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

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]

  • 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]
  • 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]

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]

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to ant colony optimization. I have redirected; editors are welcome to merge in any useful information from the history. BLACKKITE 00:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael LaLena[edit]

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

This article seems borderline; there's assertion of notability, but most of the article as is talks about the general field in which the subject works, rather than the subject himself. It's not clear how much of this discussion is his work and how much is background. The sources listed are not AFAICT by or about the subject. He has some academic publications and a couple of citations in other people's (see Talk page for Google Scholar links), but no more there than one would expect from any academic. Perhaps the article might be better merged with ant colony optimization or similar? Pseudomonas(talk) 18:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you personally connected with the subject of this article? I ask because of your username and the face that managedcards.com is registered to a Michael Lalena [10]. Pseudomonas(talk) 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gia Farrell (album)[edit]

Gia Farrell (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per "There isn't much known about the album" and WP:V. Blatant crystalballery and mostly unreferenced. Even the artist's own MySpace page (cited) contains very little concrete information. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 03:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of EU countries by natural gas production[edit]

List of EU countries by natural gas production (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's no intrinsic link between being a natural gas producer and an EU member, and we already have the perfectly serviceable List of countries by natural gas production. Biruitorul (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI find it slightly ironic that you wikilinked the argument you made to its entry on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluematter.[edit]

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

non notable blog. Choosing123 (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phoenix-wiki 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mive[edit]

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

nonnotable website. alexa none rank. Choosing123 (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phoenix-wiki 17:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete per G11.   jj137 ♠ 20:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picasion[edit]

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

nonnotable website Choosing123 (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phoenix-wiki 17:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)


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

The result was Speedy close, article already has not one, but two PRODs on it (but no AfD tag). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dibble Dabble[edit]

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

Game where "origins are unknown". No references, seems to qualify as WP:MADEUP — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC) — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courier (comics)[edit]

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

Fails Notability and Notability (fiction). SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 17:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucio Levi[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable professor that was tagged for CSD. I'm taking it here for further commentary. Keilanatalk(recall) 17:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 03:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indophobia[edit]

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

See debate at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pakistanphobia. These definitions have no existance outside of wikipedia. To state that national and communal chauvinism in Pakistan and Bangladesh (or Sri Lanka, Nepal) and discrimination and racism against Indian immigrants in the West is grossly OR. Rather on contrary, the discrimination directed against Indian immigrants in the US & UK is equally directed to Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants (indeed, one of the most common slurs against UK Indians is 'paki'). Soman (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the term is used in both cases by scholars. There is no connection between Islam and antisemitism and Christianity and antisemitism either, yet the term is used to denote both prejudices. No connection between the Indophobia as described by Trautmann and that touted by Amin is implied in the article. The only thing that is being noted are valid uses of the term to denote anti-Indian prejudices. So long as the term is used multiple times by scholars, it satisfies the requirements of WP:Notability and is not a WP:NEO Neologism (which is a cultural term, not an academic one).Ghanadar galpa (talk)
I'm not saying that they are crap. I am saying that they are valid articles, both of them, and a majority of wikipedians clearly agree. The same reasons that validate those articles validate this one. The reasons being the numerous academics and scholars who have applied the term(s) antisemitism and Indophobia in their respective contexts. One may delete an article on a term on the grounds that it is a neologism and deletionism applies, or that it is not notable. I have demonstrated that neither argument applies here.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with the foo and antisemitism articles is that they reduce antisemtism to just any sort of anti-jewish posture in general. Antisemitism is not merely prejudice against Jews, it emerged as a largely self-conscious political tendency, which produced its own political discourse. Antisemites in Russia, Germany, Poland, etc. shared a common discourse, which both persisted and developed over time. Now, what is the connection between Idi Amin, stereotypes of Indians in the West and Bangladeshi Islamists? --Soman (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to put up those articles for AfD as well? Money where your mouth is and all that.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(OFFTOPIC for this particular afd)Well, I chose myself when to put proposals for xfd:s myself. The Islam and antisemitism already passed an afd a year ago. I think that those examples are an issue that perhaps should be tackled at a higher level than an afd, requesting a manual of style banning 'x and y' comparison articles altogether.(/OFFTOPIC) That said, feel free to respond to my question, as opposed to responding with a macho challenge. --Soman (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Antisemitism is not merely prejudice against Jews, it emerged as a largely self-conscious political tendency, which produced its own political discourse". This is correct. if you read Trautmann's reference cited in the article ie "Aryans and British India", he clearly makes the exact same case for 19th century British Indologists, that it was a self-conscious tendency which produced it's own political discourse. Plus, the Africa refs clearly show the same biases being touted by British colonialists on Indian diaspora in Africa, cultivating such views among the indigenous people's of the region. Liek I said. Would you care to read the cited refs? Some of them are JSTOR papers and, if you cannot access them, I can give them to you.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, colonial authorities of the British Empire had an active cadres of producers of thought for promoting the self-righteousness of the British and denigrating the colonized peoples. This is definately a fact, both regarding India and other colonies. I cannot access JSTOR at the computer i'm using at the moment, but I can go through the texts tomorrow. However, from the way its presented in the article, I do not see link between the 19th century indologist section and the africa section. On the contrary, the prejudices presented appears to be rather different. Please elaborate how you see this. --Soman (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about Anti-Arabism and Sinophobia? Are those crap too?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a misunderstand on what WP:OTHERCRAP actually means here. Refering to OTHERCRAP does not imply that any article is, literally, crap. It works in both ways, and gives examples both of flawed arguments for keep votes ('There's an article on x, and that's just as famous as this') as well as delete votes ('We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this.') As per these two cases, both suffer to a large degree of the same problems as this article, but with some differences. Anti-arabism does exist in western contemporary thought, clearly interlinked with Islamophobia, and in popular culture, political discourse on war on terror, etc., one can see and study links between say racial stereotyping of Arabs in Hollywood movies and Western military support to Israel. Some of the 'cultural resistance' against Arab culture, as expressed in some Christian rightwing tendencies in Lebanon and amongst Kurdish nationalists, although that is more vague. However, i'd prune all the iran, niger, etc., passages. As per Sinophobia, I'd prefer a move rather than a delete. Anti-Chinese chauvinism is a notable phenomenon in South East and has a prolonged history there, and is in many ways analogous to European antisemitism. However, I cannot see any links between that phenomon and racial stereotyping of Chinese people in the West. --Soman (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment of Sinophobia. The thing is that while the Sinophobia article talks about both kinds of anti-Chinese prejudices, it doesn;t draw any links between the two. There is a link between British Indophobia in India and East African Indophobia. A link that Patel documents in his article. There is no such link ebtween any American Indophobia and all this (who put that dotbusters stuff there?). I am amenable to removing such passages. Indophobia in B'Desh is unrelated to all this stuff, but numerous (and I mean dozens) of academics refer to B'Deshi attitudes as Indophobic, whether you and I like it or not. As a result, it falls under the rubric of Indophobia regardless of what we think. As for the US Indophobia part, I say scrap that para. I got no objections. It's all vaulted OR. A similar case may be made for Pakistan para too.Ghanadar galpa (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is being "attacked" in this article? I'm puzzled by such a statement.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Yet New York[edit]

Not Yet New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

-I found online the two sources not linked to by the page author, for one, to prove their verifiability (the third is already linked to on the page): [20], [21] -[22] This is a Google books result that alleges that Not Yet New York had an impact on the urbanization process in Los Angeles. -[23] Another Google books result; this one that puts their activism in some context. -Other assorted mentions in substantial works can be found [24], [25], [26], -Additionally, this bibliography here says includes Not Yet New York in its annotation for an article by Dick Russell in the Amicus Journal. I don't have access to that journal at school or online, but it would be another source should anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt91486 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obi Sium[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate in an election--no other source of notability that I can see. Blueboy96 16:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything outside the fact he was an unsuccessful Congressional candidate? Can't find much outside that from the sources I've seen. Blueboy96 00:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Closed, page no longer exists as submitted to Articles for deletion. The page has had both the name and contents totally changed since the start of this afd. Without prejudice towards a new afd once there's actually consensus on what the page is supposed to say, and what the contents should be. Any new nomination within 7 days should be considered disruptive. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

as per recommendation of previous AfD, re-listing this on the basis of reluctance of involved editors to address the numerous NPOV and OR violations in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD closing:There is no consensus to delete the article at this time, but I do note that there does seem to be a consensus that this article is in need of major editing and contains a strong element of original research and POV. I also note that this AFD is rife with irregularities, including movement of editor's comments and the comments to the effect that this is somehow a "vote". I'm sure this was all done in good faith, but it wasn't particularly helpful to sorting through this mess and the parties responsible are strongly cautioned to not do this in the future. Those irregularities alone nearly made me relist this for another, cleaner AFD and I would say this close is without prejudice against another AFD at some point if the core issues here are not sufficiently addressed

Other related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms (deleted: Violation WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NOR in its attempt to equate terms from opposing religions.)

Whoever closes this AfD, please delete all associated article redirects as well... List of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms, List of Christian and Jewish terms, List of Jewish and Christian terms, Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms, Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms, Glossary of Lisa's terms and by the time this closes, 10 more. Avruchtalk 20:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep for now I think this AfD is premature. I voted to delete in the prior AfD, but the problem right now is unrestricted edit and move warring, which I'm disappointed to say has not been slowed down by the presence of an involved administrator. The issue is that a couple of the editors make contentious redirects, moves, edits blah blah and then revert endlessly without discussing it. Personally, I prefer the list version - but I think a more deliberate approach to this topic is required and this nom is clearly not moving towards that end. Avruchtalk 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Well, if none of the involved editors want to try to improve the article... Avruchtalk 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We wanted to. Unfortunately improvement here boils down to shrieking about Messianic Judaism and Judaism sitting side by side. Maybe if we title the MJ column "Fake Jew" and put a little picture of a Messianic Jew sitting in the corner with a dunce cap on, with an Orthodox Jew in black rapping his knuckles with a ruler it might satisfy Lisa and we can all go home, what do you think? -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In several cases where I've used statements from main articles like Bible you've removed them and replaced them with your own unsourced views because you didn't like what they said, thus you have been one of the main problems regarding any "end-run around" issues, then asking for deletion on claims that is taking place. Ironic and fascinating to watch. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is notable because it is a fringe, since it is the only religious group that claims to be Jewish and believe in Jesus. Another, because it has been described as one of the biggest threats to Judaism today. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the creator of the article has, himself, voted Strong Delete, can we simply do a speedy deletion and be done with this? None of the work done on this article need be wasted. Editors can simply move their material to the appropriate articles, since almost every entry in this one has a full Wikipedia article. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the genuine article that I vote to delete, but your vandalism of it. You've taken something with NPOV and blended Judaism and Christianity together in a way that only Messianics can do. I cannot support the blending of Judaism and Christianity since that violates synthesis. If you won't be banned, and the vandalism can't be stopped, then your vandalism should be deleted. That's my vote.Tim (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Which version of the article are we talking about? It now redirects to Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms which I find less objectionable than the original "compare and contrast" tabular form that had, in my opinion, massive undue weight, POV and OR problems. In the previous AfD, I had argued that the article should be combined with Messianic Jewish theology but a sister glossary article is about as good. --agr (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Tim changed the name of the article to Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms out of pique when Jossi and I changed the format of the article to a list. Of course, it isn't a glossary of Messianic terms. It's simply an undifferentiated list of terms used in either Christianity, Judaism, or both. Jossi then began adding the intro paragraphs from the articles in question into this one. Since it adds nothing to the articles from which the intros are being pulled, my view is that the whole article should be deleted. Tim and Bikinibomb are intent on changing it back to the tabular form, and if this AfD fails, they will certainly do so. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No I think I said in the last AfD keep and take out of table format, and that if it was in regular section/paragraph format it probably wouldn't have been under such scrutiny. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then Delete, sadly. We've done the experiment and I think it's clear that a Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms is going to be an endless source of policy violations. I have no objection to a Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms or to Tim or whoever creating a Christian-Jewish term sheet in their User space to suggest good practice to editors, with future use open to later evaluation.--agr (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With sad affections we announce Glossary of Christian, Jewish and Messianic Terms died today at the hands of it's parents , sisters and brothers , cousins , nieces and nephews .
It's young life had grown in torment and agony to a frail stature of 94 terms . It had no descendant children of it's own . It is survived by 138 internal forefather links , 135 external foremother cite references .
Cause of death , violent inhumane execution , preceded by slaughterous tortures and vehement sufferings .
Services for the deceaesed will be held at the mass grave site of the saints and innocents . All are welcome to attend the vigil of the 3rd night watch to reflect upon the life and death of a lost hope , prayer and lamentations .
The family request instead of flowers , that donations be made to charitable organizations to which this young article was born for ............ Pilotwingz (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasDelete JERRY talk contribs 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lexx planets[edit]

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

A tricky one this as it's not actually an article, but it's a list of (mainly) fictional planets from the LEXX TV series. Almost all of the links are incorrect, which isn't an issue in itself as they could be corrected, but my main reason for proposing for deletion is that the planets listed are, to a large extent, included in the Lexx article itself and/or included in Category:Lexx, rendering this page basically useless. Whether this comprises a suitable set of reasons for deletion.... I don't think a redirect would be appropriate as someone is (IMHO) far more likely to use the Lexx article as a basis for finding details of any planets in the series. CultureDrone (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result wasKeep JERRY talk contribs 04:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ground provisions[edit]

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

Contested CSD, tagged as deletable for lack of context. Keilanatalk(recall) 15:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is the edit war about? Are they allowed to take the AfD off once it has started without formally closing it? --DanielRigal (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People would come and edit the article, unaware that it is listed for deletion. Imagine their disappointment, a couple of days later, when they see that it is gone without their input. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to: Weak keep. The consensus seems to be that it is now a valid stub article and I am happy to go along with that. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW. Pigman☿ 22:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Sanderson[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a news source. This has no claim of notability. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 14:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Closed as "keep, non admin closure." by IslaamMaged126. Tevildo (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 197[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 197 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

None of the internal links have articles.Many of articles like this were created and deleted.I see no notability or use of this article and I say delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IslaamMaged126 (talk • contribs) 2007-12-30 14:32:18

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

The result wasDeleteJERRY talk contribs 04:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of major slaughterhouses[edit]

List of major slaughterhouses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list without any qualifiers for "major slaughterhouses". Does this refer to number of slaughtered animals, weight of roducts, areal of the enterprise, number of workers? --jergen (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – No it is not. We define “small" and “LARGE” business, “tall” and “short”, “Skinny” and “fat’ and so on and so on. What business you may consider as not major in a large city could be extremely major in a small village and be just as notable. By the way Happy New Year all Shoessss |  Chat  14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, so, how "major" does a slaughterhouse have to be to be included? Is a business with ten employees in a village of twenty (50% of the workforce!) "major"? The criteria are way too slippery to be anything other than purely subjective. Lankiveil (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, I dont think a list of slaughterhouses is important enough for either an article or a category - 11:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep JERRY talk contribs 04:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenkojuku[edit]

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

This article does not assert notability. It is a small number of local karate dojos, which do not have any sort of notable influence. RogueNinjatalk 17:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having studied Shotokan Karate for over 40 years and being quite familiar with various styles of Karate my feeling is that the article should be kept. Kenkojuku dojos, and students of Kenkojuku dojos can be found worldwide. Sensei Okano was a genuine Karate Master. He and his students never abandoned traditional karate training and values. Sensei Okano's students are among the very best Karate practitioners in the world, some recognized through tournaments, magazine covers, etc. most taking a traditional path (practicing, teaching but not exploiting the art through sport karate or tournaments). Because of their focus on “traditional karate” many of his students are less visible than the household karate names such as Chuck Norris. However, if one were to actually observe Sensei Okano’s students level of skill compared to some of the Karate household names one would be stunned at the degree of excellence of Sensei Okano’s students who seldom seek recognition. I believe the references to Sensei Okano's students should be limited to his direct students. If we go a generation after his direct students the students would number in the tens if not hundreds of thousands.

The reference, “Some of his most famous students outside of Japan are Masters Takeshi Akuzawa, Toyotaro Miyazaki, Kazuo Kuriyama, Masakazu Takahashi, Koji Sugimoto and Minoru Horie.”, should be kept. Masakazu Takahashi is now Head of Kenkojuku in the US and Worldwide and should be clearly mentioned. The others in the above reference were or are important students of Sensei Okano and deserve recognition as well.

The last reference Sensei Andrew Faupel at the end of the article with pictures comes across as an advertisement. Sensei Faupel with all due respect is not one of Sensei Okano’s direct students. His lineage would fall underneath Sensei Takahashi. It is important to represent Kenkojuku which has a significant place in the history of Karate in the US and Japan and now Worldwide. However we don’t want the article to be an advertisement for a specific dojo.

J.Pilgramson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.13.6 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If what you write is true, you will find no trouble with confirming these claims by referring to reliable third-party resources (martial arts magazines, books, journals etc.). Without such even the sentences that may be perceived as most obvious can be challenged and removed. The article does not cite any sources and a such is not fulfilling Wikipedia standards. Pundit|utter 18:56, 28 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, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – and change name to Kenkojuku Karate Association. Enough coverage to claim noatability as shown here [28] Shoessss |  Chat  13:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if we are to keep it, Kenkojuku is a much more intuitive name, and there are no other kenkojuku associations/federations, so there is no need for distinguishing this way. Pundit|utter 15:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete (was also csd-tagged). Article told details about a fictional character's life, but did not mention in what book this was written, nor assert why the book or story were encyclopedic. JERRY talk contribs 13:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Petite[edit]

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

No context is given, but it looks like this is an article about a non-notable webcomic: [29]. Google search reveals a grand total of 4 hits: [30]. Article creator removed prod-tag without comment. I think this is non-notable and non-verifiable as evidenced by the total lack of secondary sources. Lankiveil (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – sorry too say. Only found one hit regarding this subject. However, if I need a diaper bag, found multiple sources for “Petite Planet” Shoessss |  Chat  13:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note by closer: he above comment is not valid. barely-notable means notable enough, and article maintenanxce issues are not valid arguments for deletion. JERRY talk contribs 13:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar & Spice (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sugar & Spice (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources for album (the Wal-Mart link is to a single from this hypothetical album). Kww (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 03:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Hundred Nights (film)[edit]

Nine Hundred Nights (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability. No sources or references, no press coverage - IMDB does not count (according to WP:NF). CultureDrone (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 03:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domaine du Castel[edit]

Domaine du Castel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure about this one, the company does have some google hits but not many, and this company is 'located in an old chicken coop' it seems rather NN to me. Harland1 (t/c) 10:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK but there doesn't seem to be much coverage in reliable secondary sources that I can find, if maybe you could add some to the article then it would be fine. Harland1 (t/c) 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine I think that we can close this as keep now then? Harland1 (t/c) 09:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have changed your mind then it can be closed now. Jon513 (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time[edit]

Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability. No awards won, no sources cited, no press coverage. Author doesn't seem to be especially notable. Book therefore seems to fail WP:NB CultureDrone (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied the article and added some information. Bláthnaid 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Logic puzzle. For Psinu's suggestion, there doesn't seem to be a sufficient reason to split off Category:Logic puzzles, and at any rate that's a decision outside the scope of this discussion. –Pomte 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Determination puzzle[edit]

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

No reliable sources. Maybe redirect to Logic puzzle, but AFAICT the term was taken from Nurikabes lead and given a broader meaning here, but is not used widely. -- /home/dalric/talk 10:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 05:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Giuliano[edit]

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

Non-notable author and UN official. The article neither meets WP:BIO nor WP:PROF: he has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Nothing suggests that he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his peers or successors.

(Full disclosure: although this should not have any impact on this Afd, one may be interested in looking at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Myth1727 for more background about some of the contributors of the article.)

Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: sockpuppets: I've read 400 lines of the detailed book reviews by Maurizio Giuliano, while not in "American" English, there was not a single grammar or idiom error in the uber-sophisticated reviews (British-Italian birth), which are far above the writing level of the wiki-spamming, so I suspect that any sockpuppets might be politically motived (Cuba?), not self-promotion. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, the news article does not seem to be reliable. It contradicts other sources. The following sources say that he was born in 1975: [45][46] and more. The article, entitled "I’ve been everywhere, man - at 23" but the article was published in 2004, which means that he would be born in 2004-23 = 1981!
Finally, the news articles [47] merely mention his position as UN spokesman. The article does not relate to him! We need reliable sources about him, not just mentioning him as spokesman. --Edcolins (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The NYTime article does not relate to him and only mentions him as a spokesman for the UN, nothing more, like many other articles. This does not meet WP:BIO, as mentioned above. Please reconsider. --Edcolins (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for posting on my talk page regarding this discussion, I appreciate it. Anyway, I do agree that this is a tough decision. While making my choice I did refer to WP:BIO and my decision hinged between these two criteria:
1.) A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published....(WP:BIO, emphasis mine). This agrees with your interpreation (i.e. Giuliano was not the subject of the article, but merely referenced). However, I found it difficult to balance that clause with this one:
2.) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field . Thus, I was not able to justify recommending a delete while considering Giuliano's published contributions to his field.
Basically, I believe this discussion boils down to different interpretations of the Bio notability policy and although I respect and agree to an extent with your position, I am still forced to argue for Guilano's inclusion in the encyclopedia. However, in the interest of forming consensus, and out of recognition of your argument, I have changed my position to Weak Keep. Thanks again for notifying me of your reply. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed: Circa October 2007, he is youngest traveller to all nations, for Guinness World Records, see: Enttwist. -Wikid77 10:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contribution to the debate, but... sorry, claims not confirmed! The source you have provided, i.e. Enttwist, is actually a mere copy of an old version of the Wikipedia article on Guinness World Records. The sentence: "Many records also relate to the youngest person who achieved something, such as the youngest person to visit all nations of the world (Maurizio Giuliano)" was added [48] by User:Validmore, a suspected sock puppet of Myth227, and, as mentioned here, IMHO, these edits may come from Maurizio Giuliano himself.
By the way, the site "Enttwist" violates our GFDL license, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.
In other words, the claim (the record) is not confirmed, and we still need reliable sources. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. --Edcolins (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed: Youngest on 24Feb2004 (age 28 yrs 361 days). -Wikid77 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? Please cite your sources... (By the way, this contradicts the ABC news report: "Giuliano, 23... "). --Edcolins (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DeleteJERRY talk contribs 05:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter stanzeleit[edit]

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

Er, this man claims to be the son of Nerissa Bowes-Lyon (a mentally disabled cousin of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom) and of Michael I of Romania... Certainly a hoax. Delete page and lock to prevent recreation, as with the properly spelt form of Dieter Stanzeleit. Charles 09:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't read Romanian, but the only source is the man's website, which is a hoax, given his claimed parentage of a Bowes Lyon family and royal Romanian married couple... Incidentally, Michael I of Romania today issued a new family statute which states, without a doubt, that only the people listed are members of the family (his father fathered an illegitimate son, but Michael has not). Charles 09:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 03:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucifer Principle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    The Lucifer Principle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep JERRY talk contribs 05:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas Wellock[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
      Thomas Wellock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Delete No notability proved. The only sign of notability given in the article is an award, even there is no evidence that the award itself is notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment. Doesn't the fact that he made it to full professor with so few publications make him notable for that fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs) 20:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Reply to comment: barely meeting the typical academic standards is definitely unusual, but I don't think it is that distinctive. However, with two books published and an award, I don't see much harm in keeping him - I believe Wikipedia is a bit more stricter on scholars than on musicians, in general (scholars e.g. rarely are in the spotlight of popular press, which makes it much more difficult to find third party coverage). Changing sides then. Still, adding independent sources mentioning wouldn't do any harm, and would satisfy the requirements. Pundit|utter 23:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      By the way, Pundit's comment about my being a full professor might be correct in Europe where attaining that rank is a much bigger deal than in the U.S. In the U.S., two books is more than enough for a full prof. at a teaching institution like mine (my teaching load is more than twice that of a prof at a research institution). In fact, I know plenty of profs at research institutions like Berkeley who have only one book. Sorry if this entry is too long, but I am a newbie. 71.94.183.70 (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Tom Wellock wellock@charter.net[reply]
      I concede, I was measuring by the research university's standards, and from these in the US I am familiar only with the pretty demanding ones, which definitely may affect my judgment. Also, I believe that standards for scholars in Wikipedia are a bit too strict. Being cited is definitely a good indicator and I believe that Wikipedia may be lacking a specific policy on academic references (these would probably fall under general third party sources, but I believe that references are more worthy, after all e.g. 10 interviews/stories on a will-be singer in local newspapers should perhaps be worth significantly less than one quality international reference in an article in a top-tier journal).Pundit|utter 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was speedy deleted by me, as spam. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Pakistan Student Satellite Program[edit]

      Pakistan Student Satellite Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Delete Non notable - Reads like an WP:ADVERT. Fails WP:ORG. Strothra (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was No Consensus. BLACKKITE 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Bill Majors[edit]

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

      Non-notable missionary. A good bio, but he hasn't done anything unusual or notable that 10,000 other missionaries haven't also done. Also, while he founded International Worship in English, that also doesn't appear a notable org, but that's for another time and place.Mbisanz (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Change to Neutral Right now, the only reason I have to support this AfD I created is that I am not certain Honorary Citizenship is notable (since AfD, other facts were added). However, as I don't have the knowledge to ascertain whether or not it is a notable honor, it would be inappropriate to use a hunch as the sole reason to delete.
      However, as others in the community that I respect have expressed their opinions, its also probably rude to say that I as nominator trump their will and try and close this AfD myself.
      So instead I'm changing my !vote to neutral and have no opinion on the worthiness of this article for inclusion in the encyclopedia. MBisanz talk 13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      "Some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable"

      . (emphasis mine) WP:IKNOWIT. Keeper | 76 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Being "associated" with something notable, doesn't confer notability. And I've been working with the Korea Wikiproject to find out how notable "Honorary Citizenship of Seoul" is. My first thought would be that its akin to the "keys of a city" for an American city, but I could be wrong and am looking into it. MBisanz Talk 14:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      December 29, 2007 - David Milanaik posted the articles for the International Worship in English and also another article describing Bill Majors.

      Thanks David for putting IWE on the map.


      >Have you ever tried to find IWE on wikipedia? > >I tried to write an article and wikipedia did not allow me as the founder to write about myself. (I guess that is why) > >I need somebody who can write a short article about IWE and let people know that there is an International Worship in English in Seoul at Youngnak Church. > >It would be great to be found be people through the free encyclopedia on the internet. > >Anybody willing to give it a try? > >Cool.... > >PB > >ideas: > >Article for IWE > >The International Worship in English (IWE is pronounced "I" "WE") is a community of faith in Seoul, South Korea. Bill Majors (now the head pastor) worked in Youngnak Presbyterian Church (2-69 Jeodong, Chungku Seoul 100-032, South Korea) as a simultaneous translator in the 9:30 AM and 11:30 AM Korean worship services from 1988 until 1993. The international people who visited did not join the church, but just enjoyed attending the church to experience a "big worship" in Korea. The Senior Pastor of Youngnak 1987-1997 (Rev Lim, Young Soo) encouraged Bill Majors to return to America to attend seminary. After seminary Pastor Bill returned to Korea with a vision to start an International Worship in English (www.myiwe.com). Youngnak's session approved the first International Worship in English on Easter of 1998. Today the International Worship in English has become a growing ministry (English worship services 10 AM & 3 PM on Sunday and also 8 PM on Wednesday) in the international community of Seoul. Through the website (www.myiwe.com) you can find worship videos, pictures and location map (downtown near Myoung-dong). >

      http://myiwe.com/bbs/view.php?id=board&no=1120
      This article, and the speedily deleted article International Worship in English falls under WP:COI, even before we begin to consider its merits. Wikijgraft (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC) note: this is the only contribution so far from user "Wikijgraft" as long as we're throwing out COI concerns. When I was new, I didn't know what COI was, or db-bio for that matter. Hmm. Keeper | 76 15:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
      Eh, we do say you can edit your own biography, just to be careful when doing it. if he's notable he gets an article, if he's not, he doesn't, the COI issues probably are better handled at WP:COIN as an editing or mass-add issue. MBisanz talk 15:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. The COI issue, although obvious here, does not 'non-notable' make. (see Gerald P. Pulley - a COI article, nominated by Mbisanz, then correctly withdrawn after sources were appropriately added (and I "voted" delete there :-)) . At issue here is the article's subject. This particular subject, Bill Majors, has an article with references from Seoul Times, JoongAngDaily and the Wall Street Journal. The JoongAngDaily article has a picture of Mr. Majors in the lead section. I've never heard of Bill Majors. I've never heard of IWE, as I'm guessing the vast majority of Wikipedians would also admit to. But I have never heard of 99% of the articles that are rightfully here. The key is verifiability through reliable resources. This article fits the bill (and I usually lean towards deletionism, check my contribs if you don't believe me.) I recommend a nominator withdrawal and a review of the speedy deletion of the parent organization IWE. Keeper | 76 15:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I don't think I'm the one who speedy'd it, so that probably WP:DRV, There is still another day or two with this AfD and I'd like to get the notability of the honorary citizenship worked out, as that is the deciding factor for me. MBisanz talk 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Closing Admin please note this is a duplicate vote see above. This guy is not helping his case even though I agree with a lot of his points.--BozMo talk 19:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I corrected the duplicated signs of Davidabram because of the confusion. --Appletrees (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If the words are so generally understood, there's no reason for them to be in Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia is about exploration that leads to knowledge expansion. A fool says, 'Duh! I know what daughter means.' A scholar reads the article and follows all the links therein, internal and external, and reads and reads until he gets tired and it's time for lunch. I'm not a scholar. I'm a fool. But I'm trying to use Wikipedia to change, and that means following all links as a reader, and including all links as an editor. At daughter you may find a link to Juan de Flandes. And article has seventeen references and three external links. Even something as seemingly obvious and petty as the color orange (which is just an example and not in Bill Majors) has a chapter on the color in culture with eighteen examples in it--and another chapter just on different shades of orange that's prefaced by a link to variations of orange. As for the first entry in the bibliography, I didn't hyperlink the original article because it's a dead link. So I included a link to the only copy of the article that I could find on the Internet. Of course, one might argue that it may be a fake article. But a scholar might want to access to it, so I put it there. I guess you could stick it in 'external links' but it's a newspaper article that supports the content so it belongs in the bibliography with a Caveat lector that it's archived. If you want to edit it further to read 'Archived at site external to original' that's fine by me. Davidabram (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment. Your view seems to differ from existing policy. See WP:OVERLINK, which provides:

      A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following. (Example: Lucy went to the store.) Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is analogous to a cross-reference in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see:)". The links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read.

      This will be a more effective article (and will be more helpful to the reader) if it only uses links relevant to the context, such as Templeton Prize or Yonsei University. Regarding my comment about a 'forum posting,' I think you are correct, in that the forum is only a 'convenience link' in this situation. The real reference is the newspaper article, which is not required to be online. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again, you are disagreeing with the current Wikipedia guideline. If you think this is important, you should be endeavoring to get the relevant policy changed, and not using an AfD discussion as a soapbox. You should also try to comment more briefly. It's partly my fault for bringing up this point. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Point me to a better box and I'll lather it up. Is this brief enough? (Though next time I think I'll go for a novella). Davidabram (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Keep (splitting is up to editors, and is not part of this AFD closure). JERRY talk contribs 05:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Indian general elections 1977-1999[edit]

      Indian general elections 1977-1999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)This article seems to be made of content copied and pasted from some website. The article doesnt mention the references nor does it abide by WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#PAPER -
      Rustam
      07:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep. John254 03:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Those Dancing Days[edit]

      Those Dancing Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Questionably notable band; sources do not appear to meet WP:BAND standards SkierRMH (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment. A Google search found plenty of significant coverage that should be adequate to meet notability criteria. I've expanded the article to include this.--Michig (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      EBabe[edit]

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

      Subject not important - author already incorporated the gist of this article in eBay. Any further description of eBay policy on this practice unnecessary and not important as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Also, contains original research & neologism without any references. Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Did you read those results? None of them are for the term "eBabe" as used in this article, except of course the search result for the Wikipedia article... Gwernol 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was Keep JERRY talk contribs 05:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Sen no Shōan[edit]

      Sen no Shōan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Nominating since there is no reasoning why this person is notable, it is a single sentence article that has remained a stub with only 3 edits since it's creation over a year ago with no expansion or new information given. Cat-five - talk 07:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Hmm. Can't say it helps me, since those names mean nothing to me either. It feels like something significant about these people is supposed to be evident, but isn't being stated. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Actually I do think that being remembered from hundreds of years ago is an assertion of notability. It's certainly better than the standard which applies to many of the articles about TV episode or computer game related subjects, which seems to be that they are remembered from hundreds of minutes ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd argue that being named a master of any art or craft counts as an assertion of notability, especially for something as culturally significant as the tea ceremony. Whether it's enough notability for Wikipedia, and whether it has been demonstrated, is another matter, but I don't think it qualifies under A7. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like I !voted too soon: Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's references do seen to demonstrate that Sen no Shōan was a major master in the development and transmission of the tea ceremony. Notable figure, so keep for expansion. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 05:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Battle Cry (2008 film)[edit]

      Battle Cry (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      This article is about a non-notable film project that is not at all in production. It lacks any listing at IMDb, it lacks verifiable coverage from reliable sources, and its official website is on Myspace. The one "potential" star, Robert Gordon Spencer (IMDb), has no reliable hits with the film title on Google. I proposed the article for deletion, but it was contested, so here it is. No opposition to recreation down the road provided that it can meet general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for films. Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Yep, IMDb includes even announced projects. When I see films announced in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, even with no talk of actual production, an "in-development" listing will usually pop up at IMDb. Some projects, like the Logan's Run remake, have had an entry at the website for years at end. Logan's Run used to be marked for 2007 per IMDb's estimate (see Logan's Run (2007 film)) but now it shows to be 2010, even with no sign of production. Just wanted to state that for passing editors who look at AFDs for unproduced films -- I have a few contested prods of such articles that I'm eventually putting up as not to glut the listings (see WP:FUTFILM#Clean-up). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds good; appreciate that. If you want to find headlines that pop up about the project, you could set up a Google Alert (if you have Gmail) to get an e-mail of a new headline. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I don't think it's fake information at all. It's just a pretty small-scale film, from the looks of it. There's just little significant coverage from secondary sources at this point, just information from the primary source, which doesn't establish notability. If production begins and there is independent coverage, it's likely that the film article can be recreated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found sources in a search, but all were from second-tier fan-oriented sites, with nothing usable in an article to establish details. There is material there, but I'm not sure this article is ready for prime time. Alansohn (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I came across similar sites, but I think it's akin to WP:BAND in which there's presently a small group congregated around the filmmakers of this project like a local band would have its fan base. It's not quite there yet. :) Hopefully Obi-Wan can track its progress to see if it reaches production and gets some independent coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Crossvision[edit]

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

      non-notable software product. Has had multiple tags on it for almost a full year, but has seen minimal improvement. Not quite blatant spam, so not a speedy, but still has a vaguely promotional tone to it. Lankiveil (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was Keep JERRY talk contribs 05:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Age of Chivalry (Mod)[edit]

      Age of Chivalry (Mod) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      non-notable Half-Life 2 mod. Probably good fun, but no indication that it's a particularly notable mod, Google provides a whole bunch of places to download it, but no actual indication from a reliable source that it's particularly noteworthy. Lankiveil (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment If you or someone can plug that in appropriately that would be good. I wasn't sure on what a good way to do that would be other than just the mention. If theres something more suitable please feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.245.128.25 (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Milan Dobrojevic[edit]

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

      non-notable fractal artist. I am unable to locate any references asserting that he's particularly notable in his field, all that Google turns up is Flickr, Lulu.com (a big warning siren for me) and his personal websites. I would have speedied, but there is an assertion of notability in there, so here we are. Lankiveil (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


      Hi, I think that this Artist need to be here. He is breaking ground in Fractal Art field. Search "fractals" google images and look at his work(011art.com), you will see the differences. Citation (Milan Dobrojevic): Fractals have been usually classified as psychedelic art, although there are plenty of them which don’t give us that kind of impression. In most of fractals you will find spirals, psychedelic colors and shapes, which are easy to make in this field - if you start to create them you will notice that most of people who create fractals are still at previously mentioned level. Actually there are only 10% of people who deeply get in this field and make new way, which presents much more than only psychedelic art. From 2005. to 2007. I have created over 6000 fractals with intention to technically improve and support new view on fractals.

      Milica Milovanovic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboutabout (talk • contribs) 07:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      You Can't See Your Own Eyes difference and quality? Good night! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboutabout (talk • contribs) 04:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was Delete. Too early for this article, if indeed notable. Some information in the band article would be unexceptionable. BLACKKITE 00:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Conversations (From A Second Story Window Album)[edit]

      Conversations (From A Second Story Window Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Article as is fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL Sting_au Talk 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm not voting. AfD is not a vote or haven't you figured that out yet? If I wish to add comments under my nomination I'm quite able to do so. I'm not sure where the precedent for that is though? lol ;-) Sting_au Talk 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      still no need to write Delete tho. it's sort of obvious how you feel about since you nominated if for, um, deletion. tomasz. 11:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I Disagree... as a closing admin I find it very helpful when the nom is clear as to what they are suggesting should be done. Sometimes the nom wants a merge/redirect, etc. JERRY talk contribs 05:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment, Don't sweat it; you can remove the ((prod)) if you think the subject is notable. The next step if the original tagger thinks it's non-notable is to bring it to this place for a closer look by the community. Nobody is angry or pissed off at you for it =) Lankiveil (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      Response to Lankiveil, ok thanks.. i'm glad that thats all it is.. music is my favorite thing, and i just created the article like an hour ago and wanted to expand upon it in the next couple weeks. its really hard to come by info on underground metal bands though, so i'm like, hoping this doesnt get deleted. lol. thanks dude =)Guitar freak91 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment, No worries. Rather than clutter this page, I've made a few suggestions on your talk page for future reference. Lankiveil (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      Still fails the criteria listed for albums at WP:MUSIC per "unreleased albums may not yet be notable without substantial coverage from reliable sources." The article in this AfD says and I quote, "The band has been writing the music expected to be on the album for well over a year" Expected! Not even a tracklist in the article itself! Lets hear some more about this established precedent of yours please. Does it say anything about the albums needing to exist first?. Can you supply a link to this precedent? Your comment of "seems" to be a notable band I find unconvincing. But fair enough the band may be notable, but it's not the band I'm concerned about in this AfD. That may very well become a future AfD. But for now it is the unreleased album I'm saying is not notable (yet). You still haven't addressed your decision to vote keep as far as the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC read. Or at least my interpretation of the guidelines. Still fails WP:CRYSTAL too. Sting_au Talk 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment, I'm fairly sure that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here, as the release of the album is almost certain to happen, and the band have been talking about the direction the album is taking across multiple sources. It's borderline as far as WP:MUSIC goes, but in my opinion it falls over the line. Lankiveil (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      you should check the links i left on the nominated article. and their myspace FASSW's Myspace. because they're finished writing. they're heading to the studio, and there WILL BE an album. its really notable. and theres no reason for the actual band's article to become a "future AfD" because thats a very notable article and is kind of BS for you to throw that out there.Guitar freak91 (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Actually I'm checking the bands page now and it also looks like a candidate for AfD as far as reliable sources goes it fails miserably. Don't panic I'm not going to AfD it. If you're working on that article too I suggest checking the All Music Guide and see if they have a reference to the band? You're obviously very fond and protective of the band. Study up on WP:MUSIC so you know what to look for when sourcing information. Check the "Resources" section there. Sting_au Talk 07:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      yeah well i hate to say it but most of Wikipedia's underground music stuff is a candidate for AfD then because they all have just as much or less of the resources apparently 'needed' on Wiki. if the bands exist and you can tell they do from minor internet sources then that should be it, period. this stuff shouldnt have to go through all this criticism just to exist on the internet. half the stuff on Wikipedia is unreliable anyways, schools dont let kids use it in research projects or anything. but i can tell you all bands that i've edited or albums i've edited exist and the info is 'notable'. and so what if you cant find it on the internet, thats what i dont get. maybe its jut not popular? and if it isnt, that means theres NOT A LOT OF SOURCES. if theres not a lot of internet sources, we should be able to list it as from the actual CD that we've bought. maybe you all should go to your local cd store and see if you cant find any of this stuff, but hey, some of this isnt even sold in Australia or wherever else you may be from. its mostly america. at least this band is, because they're underground music. they dont get Fame and Glory like pop bands or people like celebrities or someone fresh out of American Idol. this stuff that i've added is real and i dont get why Wiki has to be so picky when it comes to that. if at all possible i'd like to speak to the guy who came up with all this process and mumbo jumbo and see what he has to say to all this. its ridiculous.Guitar freak91 (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Well it wasn't just a "guy" who came up with the mumbo jumbo. Wikipedia policy and guidelines are arrived at through consensus. This is an encyclopedia and as such needs articles to have notability and that notability needs to be referenced correctly. Don't worry about your band. That suggested link I gave you. Did you check it? All Music Guide does reference From A Second Story Window so if I was you I'd go add a reference to the bands article. Sting_au Talk 08:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Response to W guice What dont you people get that this IS NOT UNDER CRYSTAL BALL?! my links are very verifiable! just go to the bands main webpage, LISTED on the freakin page! if its not there, i'll add it, and you can see how NOTABLE this is! this is BS that this is put under the "crystal ball" rule. Guitar freak91 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      *Delete: It isn't that we don't understand you; we just don't agree with you. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mean "there's no indication the subject will exist." It means that, to quote "If preparation ... is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." It doesn't look like there's a single source listed that isn't a blogpost cribbed from the same press release. Now yes, you're right in inferring that the unreleased album of a far more famous group than an obscure, underground metal band would have a much easier time passing the verifiability and reliable sources bars, but if you think Wikipedia's rules are too harsh, try taking this to Britannica or Encarta and see if their notability rules are any more generous. Finally, as far as whether an article needs to pass through many hoops in order to "exist on the Internet" ... haven't you sourced that it does already?  Ravenswing  09:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was speedy delete. JERRY talk contribs 13:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Horrible[edit]

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

      This is essentially a dictionary definition followed by original research. I can't see the potential in creating an encyclopedic article about such a broad and subjective topic. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was keep. Only been four days but the outcome is obvious. Wizardman 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Rubidoux high school[edit]

      Rubidoux high school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Unreferenced, no other information online Sydney Know It Alltalk 05:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was keep and move. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Albums released in 2007[edit]

      Albums released in 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      This article is redundant to Category:2007 albums. There seems to be no precedent for this sort of article. If kept, it should be entitled "List of albums released in 2007." Freekee (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      I tagged the Albums released section to be split into a new article entitled Albums released in 2007. This is because the page is over 92 kilobytes long, and at 64 kilobytes, that section takes up 2/3 of it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      -Freekee (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment someone also deleted the "List of hits around the world" on the Music in 2007 page, this is on every single other page and should be put back along with the albums released in 2007. I've had problems with the Music in 2007 page as people vandalized it to remove songs by rock acts and replace them with album tracks or upcoming singles by rap groups. Doc Strange (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Redirected to the relevant section in Andorian, where any further relevant information may be merged. BLACKKITE 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Andorian Empire[edit]

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

      This article on the Andorian empire asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and is just plot repetition from the appearances of the Andorians. Further, there is already an article on the Andorians, and so a seperate article on their government, which asserts no notability, is duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      No such thing is happening, or has occurred through my actions previous to now. Judgesurreal777 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Vulcan High Command[edit]

      Vulcan High Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      This article appears to be bereft of notability or referencing, and as such repeats various plot points about Vulcans from the Star Trek franchise. As there is already an article on Vulcans and all of their aspects, there is no need for this part of Vulcan society that asserts no notability of its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment, yes, but does the article "detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance", as per the "indiscriminate collection of information" part of WP:NOT? Is it even possible to do this? Lankiveil (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep. John254 03:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Katsushi Ōta[edit]

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

      non-notable Many32132 (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was delete. Secret account 21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Destrachan[edit]

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

      Non-notable D&D entity. Origin of the term is, like the editor who removed the prod tag, a distraction. Unsourced, in-universe. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was redirected. Non-admin closure. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Escargo[edit]

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

      Reference links are faked (harvarduniversity.edu). There has been no ship named USS Esial. Creator's contributions consist entirely of puerile vandalism. Delete as hoax. Maralia (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      I think you are simultaneously reading too much into it and missing the article's point. The article isn't about a ship named Escargo, and doesn't attempt to draw any parallel to the meaning of the French word escargot—rather, it's about a play on words with the ship Esial and her cargo. However, there has been no ship USS Esial, so it's fairly likely that the entire thing is a hoax. Maralia (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, that adds to the likelihood that the article is a hoax. Which was my point. :-) --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 05:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was merge and redirect. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Last on Earth[edit]

      Last on Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable book trilogy. Only 750 hits on Google, all of which are either either various Amazon sites offering it for sale, or book directories. I cannot locate any sources which attest to the wider impact or notability of this series. Marilyn Kaye, the author, is a redirect to an unrelated music article. Lankiveil (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • The notability guidelines for books lists all the ways that books qualify for being covered by Wikipedia. "Somewhat well-known" doesn't quite cover it -- and it if the books really were, there would be mentions and reviews and coverage because of it -- and to qualify solely because of the author's notability requires that the author be of major importance (as in, a name known by everyone). —Quasirandom (speak) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was speedy delete (A7) by Alabamaboy. Non-admin closure. Blueboy96 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Mike Jones (Coach/All-American)[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Mike Jones (Coach/All-American) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable sporting coach. This article in UoU's alumni publication references him as a "minor coach". Thought about speedying, but taking it here just to be sure. Lankiveil (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was merge and redirect, which was already done. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Osyluth[edit]

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

      I prod tagged this with "Directory-like listing of non-notable fictional demon. Sources on page are drawn from within the D&D books, are as such are primary. Primary sources are good for meeting WP:V, but not for WP:N. This article would need more than one third-party source to meet notability requirements." An IP user removed the prod without comment. My rational in the tag still applies. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: The article under discussion was redirected by Webwarlock to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) on 2008-01-04. This is the version of the article brought to AFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Further note: if this is closed as 'delete' the history should be deleted and the redirect recreated. There appears to have been no merge. See also: diff to redirect. --Jack Merridew 09:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      By out-of-universe I mean from a source that isn't part of the D&D mythos. Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Please avoid calling people 'n00bs', as that can constitute a personal attack. Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, bugger off.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I have blocked the above ip for 48 hours for disruption and personal attacks, here & at multiple other pages.. DGG (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I am not sure this is advisable, and although you mean well, this action is perhaps presumptuous. Effectively you are hiding the article from further comments; whether they are keep or delete, you are preventing people from reading the article and making their own minds up. I would recomend restating the artilce until the debate is closed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, that's why I didn't do the redirecting on Verbeeg; on that one, WebWarlock merged the text into the other article, so the closing admin presumably saw that and just redirected it. I imagine the same will happen here, unless the closer goes with a hard delete instead. BOZ (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep. John254 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Nintendocore[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Nintendocore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Possible neologism, not a great deal of sources to be found to assert any sort of notability, some are contradictory which suggest a lack of a definitive genre. Doesnt seem to be improved or anymore notable since the last time it was deleted. Still lacks sources. neonwhite user page talk 03:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Does that make it a notable genre? The Herald calls it a 'tag' which suggests neologism to me. I'm not sure how reliable a student newspaper can be considered in determining a genre's notability. They tend to have narrow perspective and not always represent the broader world. The articel stills requires extensive work and removal of potential OR. --neonwhite user page talk 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      That doesnt make it notable. --neonwhite user page talk 14:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The article doesn't really describe a music genre. It uses the term in quotation marks. Alot of the bands claimed to belong to this genre have very little sources linking them to it. Remember the article needs enough sources to assert it's notability, not just the odd trivial mentioned here and there. --neonwhite user page talk 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Dang, are you just trying to shoot down everyone assertions for notability to make a point? How in the deuce do you claim that the NESkimos don't have sources linking to the genre? or HORSE the Band? or Colon Open Bracket (who on a major label)? Doc Strange (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep. John254 04:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Darva Conger[edit]

      Non notable, otherwise now has sunk into total obscurity, even from a reality show that has only lasted 1 series. Jelly the Supermodel (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was delete. The consensus was that there are insufficient sources to establish notability. Chick Bowen 05:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Fatimah Adams[edit]

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

      Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with 2 appearances on television shows.

      This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      User:BlueAzure has been WP:Stalk me and the article I started along with MetaphorEnt and the clients they manage for weeks now. This is part of that WP:Stalk. See Mimi Fuenzalida Adf for more details.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:16, 26 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      These findings suggest the possibility that the nine accounts mentioned in the COI report are actually HollywoodFan1 plus eight sockpuppets. I don't see any multiple voting in this AfD but it does reduce the credibility of any assurances that could have been made by HollywoodFan1. It should make us wonder whether unsourced statements in the article are actually correct. EdJohnston (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Nomination withdrawn per the links provided by Clarityfiend. None of this information is even mentioned in the article, and I am about to fix that. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Darren O'Neill[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Darren O'Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      I initially thought this article should be kept since this boxer was considered for the Olympics, but with only three bouts so far, he is a far cry from any title. Delete without prejudice against a future recreation. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:40, 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 02:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. However, since a redirect to Desktop Tower Defense seemed reasonable, I made one, and since there seemed to be no pressing reason to delete the underlying history beneath the redirect, I didn't. If anyone knows a reason to do so (such as a WP:BLP problem) let me know, and I will. Chick Bowen 05:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Paul Preece[edit]

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

      Subject does not satisfy notability guidelines, he is known only as the developer of a single popular Flash game. radimvice (talk) 04:44, 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 02:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Snowball keep While the original article that was brought to afd would have probably been deleted, the rewritten version contains many sources, proves notability, and is 100% different than the original; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Paramount hotel[edit]

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

      Fails to satisfy WP:N Noetic Sage 02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment Oh and the fact that the last edit was over an year ago makes me think that this page is unlikely to ever get expanded to anything more than its current form. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep the changes made to the article since the time of its nomination make it fall within the standards for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Changed to Keep per rewrite. Master of Puppets Care to share? 19:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was withdrawn — the article now has valid sources and meets the WP:PORNBIO requirements.

      Cindy Crawford (porn star)[edit]

      Cindy Crawford (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Fails WP:PORNBIO. No reliable sources. No evidence that she "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award" or "made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre." She reportedly appeared once on a fringe TV show, but PORNBIO requires multiple appearances in mainstream media. *** Crotalus *** 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      CaliRock[edit]

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

      Non-notable neologism with no easily-found Google hits (finds Spanish sites and Yahoo! Answers profiles). Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 02:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was delete: the ham in question is covered in snow; I think we've given this one enough time. BencherliteTalk 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Ham Day[edit]

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

      I believe that this holiday is a non-notable subject that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Should it become notable in the future, this article can be recreated. Marlith 01:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      User contested prod and hoax, non-notable ham day in britain, no refs or sources. —BoL 01:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was delete all. Sources indicating notability or verifiability were not provided. Participants in this debate are reminded that civility and brevity make for more effective rhetoric. Chick Bowen 05:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      University of the Philippines Astronomical Society[edit]

      University of the Philippines Astronomical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable school organization, which I'm quite sure has very little reliable sources to make it into a full-fledged article (I studied in UP and UP AstroSoc is only one of the mid-popular organizations in the university). seav (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm adding the other non-notable UP organizations that I can find:

      There are over 400 student organizations in the Diliman campus of the university alone. Practically every one of them is non-notable and would have very little reliable third-party sources to extract information from. Possibly the only notable organization in the university is the Upsilon Sigma Phi fraternity, whose alumni are notable in politics, particularly Ferdinand Marcos and Benigno Aquino, Jr., that numerous articles have been written about this fraternity. --seav (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      By the way, I think this is the list that Polaron wants the articles be merged to.--Lenticel (talk) 11:45, 28 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the contents get deleted eventually, any member of the UP AstoSoc can later contact an admin to have the contents retrieved for their perusal. As for this AfD debate, what is being discussed here is whether or not these student organizations deserve their own Wikipedia articles under the notability guidelines, not whether the members of these organizations will be able to access the contents of the articles subject under this AfD debate. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment My concern is efficiency and fairness. Redirection of the articles could have been done by the nominator, avoiding this entire discussion unless someone was watching the articles and objected. That's efficient. What we are doing here is debating what may be an entirely moot point. If they are redirected and nobody objects, we are home free, unless someone removes the redirection, in which case the one who did the redirection would routinely have the article watchlisted and could then deal with it one-on-one, requesting reliable source to establish notability, or with wider discussion (RFC), or with AfD (or beyond, if there is a serious dispute). This process here has wasted serious time. I've seen some admins start to suggest redirection in AfDs, which avoids the whole deletionist/inclusionist/notability debate. Disk space is not an issue. Admin time and editor time is an issue. Think an article isn't notable? Redirect it. You just might be done. It takes less time than filing an AfD, and you don't have to notify anyone. Notification to the author is (normally) automatic, through watchlist. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      AFDs exist for reason. If you don't want AFDs and just allow people to redirect like hell, place an MFD tag on AFD (oh, the irony! LOL). --Howard the Duck 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm willing to use my userspace as a temporary home (like for a month) if this article is deleted for UPAS members to retrieve info relevant to them. --Howard the Duck 14:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment There is not just one article here, and that so many seem to be focused on the one article is a piece of evidence for my point that combining articles for AfD muddies the waters. Someone might respond, "But we are establishing a precedent, i.e., if the Astronomy club isn't notable, neither are the others. No. AfDs establish no precedent or effective guideline whatever, the guidelines are clear about that. There is too much participation bias. Want to establish precedent, work on the policies and guidelines, or take something to arbitration, if ArbComm will accept it. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Then place it one page, it's not that hard, if no one from the org wants to retrieve it after a month, it can be speedily deleted. If they do appear after a month, they can ask the help of an admin. It's really not that hard, especially if they really came from that org since they have a valid reason. --Howard the Duck 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment I would have simply blanked and redirected the pages myself, but the AfD notice asks that pages not be blanked pending the AfD outcome. What I would have done is to explain what I was doing in the Talk on the original pages, replace the content with a redirect, and then also place an explanation (one for the entire lot of articles) on Talk for the target page, showing a permanent reference to History of the last rev for each page before redirect. Same thing here, I'd put the ref. This would effectively delete the article, but leave it accessible for someone who is actively looking for it, and making it easy to either recover content or challenge the notability decision. And none of this requires administrator intervention, any user can do this, and any user can undo it; if users were sufficiently motivated to restore the article, presumably they would also be prepared to defend the article with some knowledge in a real Afd, i.e., one contested by knowledgeable parties, including, say, having ability to find notability proof in Tagalog, if it exists. Some of those voting here are UP Dilman students, but this does not necessarily qualify them to make ad hoc notability decisions, "I never heard of it," or "It wasn't important to me," are arguments to be avoided in notability decisions. Anyway, if admin closing this permits, I'd do the work, it's actually less work than dealing with an AfD.--Abd (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You see, if you think an article doesn't satisfy the notability criteria, it's perfectly legal, and encouraged, to use the AFD system. We have the system already, so why not use it?
      "I never heard of it" is a perfectly valid reason for AFD since it'll give you an idea of it's notability, especially if the person saying it actually lives in the place of the subject -- in case, the Philippines.
      Now, if these 5 orgs get mainstream media sources (try Google News), then they can be saved. But if they won't, then it's off the AFD. Blanking and redirecting may not be helpful either, especially if the article you're redirecting to is remotely related to the blanked article. I'd rather have a red-link than make me think "Why does this redirect here?" --Howard the Duck 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's legal to use AfD and often a huge waste of time and no real benefit to the project. It should remain legal, but admins are perfectly free to close premature AfDs. Why debate something with no real opposition? (I'm opposed to precipitate deletion of articles that *might* be able to be reliably sourced, and nothing here, so far, rules that out. It would be ruled out if those with access to the reasonable sources were participating and failed. I have no specific opinion on whether or not clubs like this should have their own articles; it's at the edge of notability from my point of view).
      )As to "I never heard of it," see WP:IDONTKNOWIT. This particular argument is so bad that I'm astonished it was advanced. UP Dilman is a huge campus, and a club could, in fact, be quite notable (on or off-campus) with a majority of students not knowing about it, not to mention one or two. "Living in the Philippines?" Let's see, I live in the U.S., is my personal lack of knowledge of a topic's notability evidence of anything? U.S. population, 304 million, Philippines, 87 million. Is this difference significant?
      As to Google News, I found reference to the organization from a Philippines English source. Not currently googleable because the news archive was gone. I found it in the Wayback Machine and corrected the link in the article. That alone would not establish notability, but my point is that there may be quite a bit about this organization that would satisfy WP:RS, but not so easy to find if one does not know what to look for, even in English (the Wayback Machine is not yet searchable for text), but I'm even more concerned that there may be newspaper accounts in Tagalog that someone in Dilman could find, accounts that, if in a U.S. newspaper, would satisfy us as to notability. I am *not* claiming that these clubs are notable, only that we need better and more leisurely process to determine it. What's the rush? Why should we waste time on an AfD when the basic work could have been done with no fuss at all, and fuss later *only* if someone actually disagreed. The blank and redirect (or just redirect, why blank?) option in this case, for all these articles, is easy, it would be a redirect to a list of UP Dilman campus organizations (and I'd have a note on the Talk page briefly noting that this specific series of articles were redirected to that list based on apparent lack of notability, with an explanation of what to do if one disagreed). I'm thinking ahead to the encyclopedia truly being an encyclopedia for the world, in English, which is increasingly an international language, and current process will not come even close to cutting that particular mustard. It's far too inefficient and requires too much admin time (or, on the other hand, encourages snap judgments by overworked administrators).--Abd (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment'. There are over a hundred student organizations in UP Diliman, and not every organization is well known outside the University, even on the level of Metro Manila (i.e. the National Capital Region). AFAIK, some of these have existed even before Wikipedia came to being (I remember being asked to join the Tomo-Kai in the late 90s), so I don't know how many years do you intend to wait for one such newspaper report in Tagalog to come up (unless it's a press release from a racy tabloid that is more liberal in accepting paid press releases). Keep, no. Merge, yes or no. Delete, yes, unless each org gets a more substantial footing. --- Tito Pao (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      comment Our country has both Filipino and English as offical languages. If there are reliable sources for these articles, they would be printed in leading broadsheets which are in English. These papers also have online archives. I'm in Diliman and the only papers that in Tagalog here are tabloids and one of our University papers. Tabloids do not entertain info about clubs unless you pay them in the classified ads or as Titopao said, press releases and Univ. papers are not independent sources. I'm also slightly offended on your comment that the majority of UP students don't know their own organizations. We might be a developing country but our communication facilities are not primitive. If there are any events inside UP, at least two Univ. papers (not counting the college based ones)are there to report it. The students also have online access both free and non-free inside the campus. Every semester there is a day that are dedicated to these clubs where they held events and seminars. Last time I checked students are required to attend these events. As I said earlier if you bothered reading my first comment, there's WikiPilipinas which deals in everything Filipino. How many UP students do you want to tell you that these clubs are not notable? The articles could be saved there but they have no place in Wikipedia. As for the redirects, it is a fuss. chances are these redirects would be orphaned and would bloat RfD and create stress for the overworked admins. It will also set a bad precedence in redirects for Univeristy related clubs. Should all clubs redirect to their school article? If not what makes UP special? Should we create dab page for these redirects when they pertain to multiple Universities?

      Actually you're the only one who bloated this discussion and most of the people here are simply countering your comments--Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Exactly, very well said. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment. Hmph! Be that way. Look, if you think my comments out of place, why bother countering them? Surely the closing admin will see through it. However, I do think I've raised substantial issues. It's a bit frustrating that commenters who seem to be "countering" my comments -- aren't we trying to cooperate in building the project? -- don't seem to be dealing with the facts of this situation. The article authors are absent; those who actually care about the topic are quite possibly away from internet access at this point. With a little effort, I found one newspaper mention of the Astronomy club, just because it happened to have been Wayback archived, and I fixed the link in the article. If the authors or other interested persons can't establish notability, it's fine to delete the articles, but it looks to me like these articles were created in good faith (at least the Astronomy club one, I haven't looked in detail at the others). What's the hurry? Running out of disk space? AfDs do *not* set precedent, participation is far too spotty for that. In this case the redirect would be to a list of clubs on that campus, and, yes, it seems reasonable to me to have a subpage of an article on a University to have a list of campus organizations with links. The details don't generally need to be on Wikipedia *unless* a club becomes notable, and, right now, we have no way to determine that. If in a reasonable time -- which is not merely a week or two -- and after notability is challenged, no notability appears, then it becomes reasonable to delete the articles.
      However, I'm suggesting that it is far more efficient to simply redirect all these articles. It could have been done by anyone, the nominator could have spared all of us this conversation by just doing it, and, if nobody appeared to defend the articles, it would have been done. If there were no appropriate place to redirect the articles, a page could be created in WP space that says "The topic of the article from which this was redirected was considered not sufficiently notable by an editor for Wikipedia to remain. The original article may be accessed (process description) and recovered; however, an editor recovering the article should be prepared to defend notability, see (Policies and Guidelines). I'm finding that merge is increasingly being done with AfDs. It's far less drastic than deletion, which wastes, and continues to waste, admin time. And anyone can do it.
      You know what wastes time? A person who insists on saving an article he doesn't even have a clue what it is, plus not to mention what I did a few minutes ago undoing unnecessary addition of a copyrighted logo for decorative purposes. Admins are selected for several reasons, and one of those is the handle deletion discussions. If they don't want to do janitorial work, 1) don't be an admin, or 2) everyone should be able to delete articles. If you hate AFD, don't comment on AFDs. If you question the wisdom of AFD, why bother participating? You don't speak for everybody, and not everyone wants to redirect and create a bigger mess. Imagine the mess if the redirect article turns out not to be related to the article it is redirecting. What should we do? Of course a deletion discussion, which would've been done earlier. Now that's wasting time. --Howard the Duck 13:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment There is no substantial controversy over the notability of these clubs; someone who thinks there is hasn't been watching closely. What is in controversy is process; that is, those who *might* have the information needed to establish notability are not participating and probably don't even know this is happening. Yes, it is up to the original editors -- or anyone who steps up to the plate -- to establish notability; however, it's common to allow some substantial time for that to take place. What's the rush? If these articles were about blatantly non-notable subjects, fine, though it would then not be necessary to AfD. Blatantly non-notable material can be deleted on sight. If the articles in question were redirected, the *effect* of deletion would be accomplished, but these edits would show up on the watchlists of any prior editor who happened to look, and an explanation of what happened to the pages could be placed in Talk for the redirected pages, it would likewise show up on watchlists. Why are we spending energy debating the deletion of marginal topics? I can say why I'm here, I'm concerned with process and I dislike trashing someone's work without giving them a fair chance to establish its value to the project, to the "sum of all human knowledge." I have a *small* evidence of notability for the Astronomy Club, I found with a little search, but that was only in English. (I fixed the link in the article.) I certainly can't search in Tagalog or Chinese. The club itself might have a collection of newspaper clippings. Or not. But, enough. --Abd (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually I think the text in the articles came from the orgs themselves, ergo, they'll have a copy of it. It looks like a generic "About us" section in a website. Again, if they'll need inquiry, they can ask an admin or actually anyone for access on deleted history. It's not that hard. --Howard the Duck 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Not everyone follows through on that process, and perhaps they are unaware of how to do it in the first place. We can't presume everyone is a trained Wikipedian right off the bat. --Sky Harbor 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      They can re-create the article then someone will speedily-delete it, then there'll be communication between the parties, then it can be explained about the deletion discussions. --Howard the Duck 03:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep. John254 03:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Lets be nice[edit]

      Lets be nice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Bringing this here for a procedural discussion. It was initially speedied under slightly dubious circumstances — a user tagged the band with a ((prod)), re-added the prod after it was removed, and then tagged the album A7 (which doesn't apply to albums blah blah blah); an admin then deleted it in good faith on the grounds that the band was about to be deleted via prod. Bringing it here as a procedural nom to unravel the can of worms before it escalates; generally, albums by notable artists are automatically notable, but should it apply in a case like this where the artist is very borderline? (IMO they do pass WP:N, but on the grounds of one song which was on the "Scream" soundtrack.) Procedural nom, so I abstain. — iridescent 01:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      See, it never looked like that before the last time I saw it. Review the band which had a prod tag but, as was the case with this subject, saw me back and forth due to the removal of the templates. Dlae│here 22:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it not better that it has been improved? I have also worked on the band's article a little, and intend to a little further. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, the article looks much better than when I originally nominated it for deletion. Nice work. Dlae│here 11:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep since sourcing has been done. Wizardman 16:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Harriet Eddy Middle School[edit]

      Harriet Eddy Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      No assertion of notability per WP:N and no verifiability per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 18:48, 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was delete. Comments by first-time contributors or single-purpose accounts have been given low weighting. A subsequent redirect to squeegee or mop might be appropriate, but as for which, I leave to editor discretion. A note that original research is not permitted on wiktionary, either. Neıl ☎ 15:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Spunga[edit]

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

      Disputed PROD. Non-notable and unverified neologism. Only reference is a blog & suspect it is WP:MADEUP nancy (talk) 22:23, 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 00:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Keep I think the article says that spunga is a method of cleaning and includes design of buildings etc. and the rag just seems to be used to dry the wet floor after the squeegee-like thing is used. This seems to be unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myteemouse (talk • contribs)

      • Please stop making multiple !votes. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Keep Myteemouse is correct -- architectural schools in Israel have course that teaches one how to design a building or dwelling to accomodate the spunga hole so that the water pouring through the hole does not interfere with other residences. Additionally dwelling are designed to slope gently towards the spunga hole (know in hebrew as khor spunga). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.97.254 (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment There have been a lot of keep votes with claims similar to this one, mostly from anonymous users. If anyone has some sources to support these claims, then please provide them in a timely manner. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Keep Note the rabbinic discourse related to spunga - especially this year of "shmita" Shut She'eilat Shlomo - Questions of Jewish Law

      A talk given after lunch at the yeshiva -

      "Sponga" during Shemitta

      Q: Is it permissible to do "sponga" (cleaning the floor by pouring a bucket of water on the floor, swishing it around with a cloth on a squeegee and pushing the water into holes in the floor or outside. It is a popular way to clean one's home in Israel because most houses have stone floors) and push the water onto the ground outside during the Shemitta year?

      A: It is permissible for various reasons:

      1. The prohibition of watering the ground during the Shemitta year is a rabbinic prohibition. This is unlike watering the ground on Shabbat and Yom Tov which is a Torah prohibition (a sub-labor [toladah] of "Zore'a – seeding"). It is therefore forbidden on Shabbat and Yom Tov to wash one's hands over the ground. One must be especially careful on Sukkot. During the Shemittah year, however, watering is only a rabbinic prohibition.

      2. According to the majority of Rishonim (early authorities), observing Shemittah nowadays is a rabbinic mitzvah.

      3. Watering the ground by pushing the water from "sponga" is an "unintended act which is not beneficial to him," since one does not want to water the ground or violate Shemittah, but needs some place to put the water.

      4. Some people have pipes on their porch which brings the water to the ground. If the water travels through the pipe onto the ground it is called a "grama" – an indirect act.

      Since the act is far from a Torah prohibition and there are extenuating circumstances, it is permissible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.97.254 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Please stop making multiple !votes. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment This is a link to the article the above excerpt came from: http://www.ou.org/shabbat_shalom/article/aviner_parashat_shemot_5768/#shutshlomo --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, nobody denies the term is _genuine_. The question is whether or not it's _notable_. See WP:DICT. Tevildo (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Seems notable to a lot of people, and I'd hate to see the state of the country without it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.223.97 (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — 99.226.223.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • It is so non-notable that, after 10 days of discussion, there is still not a single reliable source supporting this article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is so notable that the discussion here is significant. Unfortunately Evb must live in a gated community with little knowledge of the outside world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.97.254 (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      First of all, Sponja (nut Spunga) is a very well known term in Hebrew. Google ספונג'ה and see how many hits you get. The term is used for the specific method of using a rag at the end of the squeegee. It also has a cultural connotation, as a "lowly" form of cleaning. Yet, the term does not even have an article on the Hebrew wikipedia, so I believe it should be moved to Wiktionary or deleted. 88.134.146.103 (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)— 88.134.146.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • The anglicised spelling is indeed SPUNGA (not sponja). It may also belong in the Hebrew wiki, but given the the majority of people living in Israel speak English and many do not speak Hebrew, it should cetainly remain here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poodwahr (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Why do you say that? Google "sponja" together with "cleaning" and you'll find many results, for example this [64]; Google "spunga" with "cleaning" and you'll find only wikipedia. I'm an Israeli by birth, and for a while even I wasn't sure what you're talking about. 88.134.146.103 (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)— 88.134.146.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      Now I see that 'sponga' is also a spelling that is used in english (though it's incorrect as far as pronunciation goes). Here's a few more refs: [65], [66].88.134.146.103 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)— 88.134.146.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

      How many sources are needed - the article provides one external link and one reference, and looking here in the discussions there are countless sources.Gustoad (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) — Gustoad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

      It is more a case of quality than quantity. The issue with the cited sources is that they do not meet Wikipedia's criteria of verifiability as they are blogs or other similar web-content. nancy (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, please stop making multiple !votes. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Nomination withdrawn. See below. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Scottish national identity[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Scottish national identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Seems to be a load of original research. We don't have articles on English national identity, Irish national identity, French national identity, Italian national identity, German national identity or Polish national identity - so why should we have this? h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is part of an essay and is not a policy or guideline. Some content here could perhaps be merged but I don't think it deserves a stand-alone article.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was nomination withdrawn. –Pomte 08:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Tha Carter III: The Leak[edit]

      Tha Carter III: The Leak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Album by Lil Wayne. Was prevoiusly prodded, but prod was contested. It was previously thought to be an album created from leaked material for his upcoming album, Tha Carter III, but now it has turned out to be a complete hoax [67]. Also, neither Lil Wayne, Cash Money, nor Universal have stated anything about the album or the release date of December 18. The album has not been available for pre-order at any online store.Admc2006 (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC) I would like to withdraw my nomination for deletion as the album has been released, just as an EP and under a different title. Admc2006 (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The album wasn't a hoax, Lil Wayne confirmed it, but, most likely it will not be coming out. —Bruce Wayne of the Rap Game (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Keep the page but update the information. Remove from Lil Wayne album templates. - Stoph (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 00:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


      THE LEAK HAS BEEN RELEASED! Original Release Date: December 25, 2007 The album is real, so this article should not be deleted Only the name of the album should be changed. The carter III part should be removed Rain89nl (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Yea, it was released as an EP on some online music stores with 5 tracks under Cash Money. Maybe just change the name and change the info saying what it was originally planned to be. Don't care either way. Here's some more info--Rebel Without a Pause (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was delete It's been three weeks and the article hasn't been improved. Wizardman 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Franco Arabic[edit]

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

      Previously suggested deletion as part of the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldo Franco Arabic, closing admin suggested listing separately to gain consensus on the status of this article. Most of the references are junk that don't mention Franco Arabic, the one that did [68] doesn't give any of the information in the article, and isn't clear if it's referring to a separate genre or just musicians from the former French North Africa. I couldn't find other reliable references in a web search. Rigadoun (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:57, 17 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) 04:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 00:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was no consensus. Badly needs independent sources; it should be considered again if it does not get them. Chick Bowen 05:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Birdwatchers' Field Club of Bangalore[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Birdwatchers' Field Club of Bangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable bird watching group. Ridernyc (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 19:45, 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Can this user vote? No contributions to WP other than a few deletion demands. Suspect sock-puppet.212.71.37.74 (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. So which unreal world does Bangalore belong to? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Bangalore has a population of about 6.5 million, which is larger than the population of many countries. The Bangalore area extends beyond the city so must have an even larger population. I don't think you can call this an organisation whose activities are "local in scope". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete all. east.718 at 15:44, January 6, 2008

      Courtenay Semel[edit]

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

      Has appeared in one reality TV show. Her other claim to fame are the rumors in blogs and gossip columns about her supposed lesbian relationship with Linsday Lohan. Although she churns up a nice amount of Ghits due to this rumor, I don't think that it has passed the notability standard for Wikipedia. None of the sources are Reliable Sources. Additionally, according to WP:BLP1E, people notable for one event do not pass the WP:NOTABLE standard. And of course, as this is a living person, the strict standard of WP:BLP should apply. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      George Foreman III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Shanna Ferrigno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Noah Blake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Alex A. Quinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Haley Giraldo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Alexander Clifford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

      --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 27 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 12:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Radwimps[edit]

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

      Notability of the group is questionable; the article doesn't answer it. I cannot find satisfactory answers on the net either (in English). The article isn't even well written, and is not suitable for English Wikipedia in its current form. huji—TALK 20:15, 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      James Al Hendrix[edit]

      James Al Hendrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      NN, other than as the father of someone famous. Ckessler (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment Of course there's enough context so that anybody reading it can tell what it's about. It just isn't notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Brittany O'Neil[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Brittany O'Neil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment. Here's a secondary source that mentions her along with other notable big-bust porn actresses of the '90s such as Danni Ashe and Chloe Vevrier (the latter is still really hot despite approaching 40 and doesn't have tacky fake tits unlike this actress here, and she's also more of a "glamour model" than a "porn star" in the same vein as Nadine Jansen and Milena Velba). Still not convinced about notability though.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was no consensus, with the debate leaning toward keep. The chief argument of the delete proponents is that the coverage of Dorsey qualifies as a "short burst" a la WP:N#TEMP. As the keep proponents point out, however, his activity for a top-level amateur sports team makes it more of a slow trickle of minor coverage followed by a short burst of major coverage, and thus it is not actually his death alone that provides notability. BrownHairedGirl's suggestion of a merge is reasonable but has gotten no further comment; it can of course be considered through the usual editorial processes. Chick Bowen 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Keeley Dorsey[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Keeley Dorsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Let's take a look at WP:BIO and how this article fails:

      Basic criteria: Multiple reliable sources. "Technically" there are reliable sources about his death, rather than the person. I'm iffy, but willing to give this bio the benefit, so let's look at the additional criteria. "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." No. "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." No. "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." No. see below

      Also, WP:BIO1E is technically right, he was only in the news when we was due to his death, nothing else came out of it. Also, from WP:N#TEMP, "A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." This was at best a short burst, we heard nothing before or since.

      Honestly, despite it passing the basic criteria of having reliable sources, I still just can't see how this individual is notable at all, 11 months after the first AfD. Wizardman 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, I'm sure. One link is broken, and the other two aren't necessarily trivial but they aren't comprehensive or supportive of his notability either (one says "So no, his loss won't be felt on the football field"). And yes, I've looked at the guidelines as well. Avruchtalk 04:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      To elaborate even more, when people die in public it tends to be treated as a temporarily bigger deal than it would otherwise be - especially if the person is young and an athlete, for whatever reason. I don't personally believe that dying young makes someone notable, even if its covered in some newspaper articles. Stringer (whose name I can't remember) is the giant NFL player who collapsed - I think he might be considered notable, particularly because many of the articles about him placed his death in the larger context of football player health care and the dangers of heat exhaustion in the NFL. Plus, he was a pro player. This guy was a back bencher, and while his death is tragic it doesn't make his life notable. Avruchtalk 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You said this fails WP:RS and WP:N though, but there's nothing saying it has to be only online sources, and you don't seem to think any of the sources so far are unreliable. WP:BIO says that, as long as the sources exist, a player just needed to have competed at the top amateur level... you may not agree with why he got so much coverage, but he meets any guideline people can trump up. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete) which has a similar claim of importance but vastly fewer sources is being roundly kept. --W.marsh 14:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I'm invoking WP:IAR then. Wizardman 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:BIO is a guideline, and he was hardly notable. Perhaps he was on the team, but did he actually play? Avruchtalk 04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      There still has to be a good reason for ignoring it even if it is a guideline... usually that reason would be about sources, but sourcing isn't an issue here. The main reason for ignoring it here seems to be "he died" which is pretty bizarre and no one can really elaborate on why that's a good reason to delete an article. If you read the article he did play, by the way. --W.marsh 04:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Did he actually play? Sorry Avruch, but did you actually read the article? Aboutmovies (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The Three Bishes[edit]

      The result was speedy delete - A7. --Michael Greiner 02:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      The Three Bishes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Yet another new religion with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Footnote fraud[edit]

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

      Unsourced neologism, no assertion of notability. Claim of a Wikipedia policy using that term.Actually, it is simply the etymology of the term according to various Wikipedia articles. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was speedy redirect by myself. Valid alternate version of name. Discussion superfluous. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 01:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      H. M. McConnell[edit]

      H. M. McConnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      This appears to be a duplicate article on Harden_M._McConnell, a better written article with the subject's full name, not just initials. Rabbi Jesus Muhammed (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result wasMerge/Redirect Redirect has been made, and content has been moved to Pittsburgh Today Live/Temp. Interested editors can carry out the merge as they see fit; there was no guidance as to what was to be merged, and the article is too long to directly put into the target without giving it undue emphasis.

      Pittsburgh Today Live[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Pittsburgh Today Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Program is a non-notable, local morning program. Most other local morning shows, such as Good Day Tampa Bay, have been deleted or redirected on notability grounds. Prior deletion nom was removed by creator without reason. azumanga (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment - Sorry about that....I will switch it to "Merge and Redirect". - NeutralHomer T:C 01:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. east.718 at 15:40, January 6, 2008

      Techmospheric[edit]

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

      No references, and can't find any reliable sources. The drum and bass article references this as "arguably not a recognised sub-genre" which suggests it shouldn't really have an article. The term was coined by an apparently non-notable artist and the list of artists has only one notable enough for an article which doesn't mention "techmospheric" at all. Unless WP:RSs can be added I propose this be deleted. - Zeibura (Talk) 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Techmospheric is a new form of drum and bass that evolved from the roots of intelligent drum and bass but expands upon its formula, often adding a more dancefloor oriented approach with the types of beats and bass that are used. The sound came to fruition in 2005, after ASC coined the phrase for the type of music his Covert Operations label was releasing.

      should simply be added to the other article (with a cite added), which would also serve to update that article with where the lighter / atmospheric side of d&b has gone since GLO declined as a viable force. Stevekeiretsu (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was delete, though I have no problem with future recreation. Wizardman 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Witch House: The Legend of Petronel Haxley[edit]

      Witch House: The Legend of Petronel Haxley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Consted Prod.Non-notable movie. All references I can find through search engines seem to be self-published. Carados (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Delete There are little sources available. I have also just tagged the article "orphaned." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohmpandya (talk • contribs) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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