< December 8	December 10 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was Delete and merge to National Rail Conditions of Carriage, the text will be posted on the talk page for a merger to take place. Keilana 17:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delay Repay[edit]

'Delay Repay' is the name given to one particular clause in the Terms and Conditions of a number of train operating companies. CrossCountry and others call it 'Delay Repay', other companies call it something different. It isn't notable, and fails WP:N - it's only one term in the multitude of terms and conditions for carriage, and the name given to the article isn't particularly widespread either. Delete. _TheIslander 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Further comment 'Delay Repay' is just the name given by some TOCs - it's a part of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, for which there's already an article, so it should be included there. _TheIslander 00:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, doesn't seem to have much, if any, potential for expansion beyond a dicdef and other unsourced info. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please can you give some examples of what the scheme is called by other TOCs, and where information on compensation schemes should otherwise be notied? -Lee Stanley (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, yes, I can. Don't know quite why I didn't think of it at the start of this AfD. This is a part of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, for which there is already an article. 'Delay Repay' is just the name given to this clause by some TOCs. There is no need for a dedicated article on it - it can be mentioned at the article I cite. _TheIslander 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Rail Conditions of Carriage per TheIslander's comment above. -FrankTobia (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per FrankTobia --Storkk (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No Consensus, disagreement over whether it is notable and if the sources found are sufficient. Suggest sources mentioned in this discussion are added to the article. Davewild (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Lights (strain)[edit]

unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Northern Lights (marijuana) or another title more consistent with related articles. Expand and cite as reliable sources are found. Winner of the Cannabis Cup and other (probably less notable) awards; one of the most notable strains of marijuana, and probably one of the more noted strains of any plant. Barno 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Barno I am not aware of what awards this has won but if you have some credible sources on the matter I will change my vote. Coccyx Bloccyx 22:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google search shows lots of user-submitted content, with plenty of samples that directly reference winning the Cup, but no reliable sources that I know. Until the inquiry up above draws reliable sources, the best I know is HIGH TIMES magazine which has (so I'm told) printed centerfold features on Northern Lights and White Widow, as well as a feature article each year on the competition and awards. Barno 01:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to lack of reliable sources published about the subject. RFerreira (talk) 21:01, 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, BLACKKITE 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burn it for lacking reliable sources to verify its existance. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, source, and cleanup. A Google News search yields plenty of high quality secondary sources for this ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). Low quality sources also indicate it's a significant variety. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with most of the cannabis articles, it has no reputable sources whatsoever. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per Gene93k The Steve 11:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gene93k. Orphic (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are verifiable assertions of notability, and sourcing is grounds for good revision, not deletion. Bacchiad (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xartcollection[edit]

Non-Notable art agency that has already been speedied once though declined the second time due to asserted, but unsourced, claims of notability. 19 gHits on the string "xartcollection -wikipedia -whois". WebHamster 23:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure of WP:RS, seems to be just shy of speediable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoreau Middle School[edit]

non-notable middle school - merge and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools Arthurrh (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable Middle School. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless serious sources demostrating notability are found. Isn't the new policy to redirect to the district first, and only resort to AfD if reverted? AnteaterZot (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't demonstrate notability and I couldn't find evidence of it either. To the editors creating the article, consider writing a short biography on your own user page and include a paragraph or two about your school. Archtransit (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and drop link in ((Fairfax County Public Schools)). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Allan Poe Middle School[edit]

non-notable middle school - merge and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools Arthurrh (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quoth the Raven this article is nevermore. =D Anyway...Non notable Middle School. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nom, and admins: Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education is a proposed guideline, and has yet to be approved. The specific cite by user:Malinaccier is part of one option in the proposal, in the other option, schools are tested based upon their notability on their own, without consideration for its grades (e.g. whether or not its elementary, middle or high). Any and all references to this proposal on AfD must recognize that it is still under considerable deliberation and change, and as such is not a valid guideline to consider in AfD. Zidel333 (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Concur with Zidel333 on the preliminary status of WP:Notability (schools). CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless serious sources demostrating notability are found. Isn't the new policy to redirect to the district first, and only resort to AfD if reverted? AnteaterZot (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and drop link in ((Fairfax County Public Schools)). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The existence of a WikiProject does not translate to keeping every article that could fall under its scope. Core desat 05:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longfellow Middle School[edit]

rm non-notable middle school - merge and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools Arthurrh (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously nominated for deletion as part of this multiple AFD. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable Middle School. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like whomever wrote the article has tried to provide sources. I don't know much about it, but I'll bet it passes some ranking, as I read last week that Langley is the 37th best HS in the nation and TJ is the #1.--Patrick Ѻ 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability asserted or expected. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless serious sources demonstrating notability are found. Isn't the new policy to merge/redirect to the district first, and only resort to AfD if reverted? AnteaterZot (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There are projects to have articles written for every school in the country. This seems a decent stub start, and there's no reason to start over later. Jkatzen (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable. If editors are trying to add articles on every school, they are misguided. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UT
Keep Agreed its not notable, but as stated above, some projects are trying to get articles written on every school. Why create more work for ourselves? KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are about 92,000 elementary schools in the US alone. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - because as also stated above, if someone is trying to write articles on every school they are misguided. Notability guidelines apply as well to schools as anything else. Anyone setting up such a project would do well to read WP:PILLARS before starting such an effort. Or join the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools Arthurrh (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we don't delete when a page isn't well sourced but when it can't be. Working through the results from this search shows plenty of excellent material that both demonstrates notability and will allow a major expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and drop link in ((Fairfax County Public Schools)). A misguided project is not a reason to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MessageLabs[edit]

Article does not indicate why or how this company is notable. Furthermore, it reads a little bit like an advertisement ("is a leading provider"). AnubisGodfather^T_© 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Asserts notability, easily passes notability standards. It's a stub I never built out. Deletion is NOT how you make an article better. Invalid CSD nom. Lawrence Cohen 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. The sources provided all seem legit; the page just needs a major overhaul. I'll trust the above user to build out the stub. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Messagelabs is definitely a notable subject, as they are one of the larger providers of this sort of service, but this is not a good start to the article and it is easy to see how it got the chop last time. I have changed "leading provider" or "major provider". --DanielRigal (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite: does not fail WP:V or WP:CORP, but does read like an ad blurb. --Storkk (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry for that. I noticed there was no article on them one day, and just filed it away as a stub for later. Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Scott Key Middle School[edit]

non-notable middle school - merge and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools Arthurrh (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable Middle School. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless serious sources demonstrating notability are found. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and drop link in ((Fairfax County Public Schools)). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, no arguments for deletions, other than nominator, no consensus for merging the article which would require more discussion elsewhere. Davewild (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL quarterbacks who have posted a passer rating of zero[edit]

Very Trivial info of fairly pointless stats, WP:NOT, Delete Secret ^account 22:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passer rating is a key statistic in American football. This is a list of NFL quarterbacks who have had the worst possible rating in a game. The list is the converse of NFL quarterbacks who have posted a perfect passer rating. Chaz ^Beckett 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I see no reason why this article should be on it's own, I don't mind Merging both articles to the passing rating article, as currently this is trivia. Secret ^account 22:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely opposed to merging this, but I would like to point out that the Passer rating article doesn't just apply to the NFL. Chaz ^Beckett 00:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Although the two other things (CFL and NCAA) it applies to are very similar to the NFL. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, I was just pointing out that merging would involve adding a good deal of NFL-specific info into an article that's not only about the NFL. Also, is it proposed that NFL quarterbacks who have posted a perfect passer rating also be merged or would that remain a separate article? Chaz ^Beckett 02:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged as well Secret ^account 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both articles, per Secret. It's an important piece of trivia, definitely, but a piece of trivia nonetheless. Speaking for myself, I'm not sold on the idea of including people who didn't play a complete game in this list, but that's a call that needs to be made in the editing process, rather than here at AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that perfect and zero passer ratings are a notable enough occurence to stand on their own; they have sufficient mentions, both in sports coverage and articles to go beyond simply a trivia extension of a notable statistic. That said, I would not oppose a merge so long as it is made into an NFL-specific page for passer rating. --Sesameball^Talk 04:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a rare enough occurance that it is notable. I have no idea how the heck you'd merge the two article, there's no title that would work properly. Just leave them separate. They're notable, sourced, and verified. Wizardman 16:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn SkierRMH (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Jackson Middle School[edit]

~~non-notable middle school - merge and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools~~ Arthurrh (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changed my decision after good sources were added showing notability. Arthurrh (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This school has a significant history -- in fact, is an important part of the history of Fairfax County -- as shown in the History section I've just added. It now has multiple, independent, reliable sources and meets WP:N(just added), meeting the objection that the school is "non-notable". Noroton (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. I don't feel that the history is significant, but perhaps there is more than is mentioned in the article? If the article is expanded before the AfD closes please ping me on my talk page. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to TerriersFan's expansion. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - this is an important school historically. For example "opened its doors in 1954 as Fairfax County's sole high school for black students" from here. Plenty of sources to meet WP:N, see also [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and so on. TerriersFan (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-written article that provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some of them are going to have sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. jj137 ♠ Talk 00:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important historic middle school, sources availible and cited. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 01:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - now that the nomination has been withdrawn and there are no remaining deleters, this can now procedurally be speedy closed. TerriersFan (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia)[edit]

non-notable middle school - merge and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools Arthurrh (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable Middle School. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless serious sources demonstrating notability are found. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 23:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and drop link in ((Fairfax County Public Schools)). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep as WP:N. Independent and reliable sources are available. Non admin closure NAHID 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Carson Middle School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

non-notable middle school - merge and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools Arthurrh (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable Middle School. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appear to be some interesting articles on google news but I don't have access. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a free High Beam 7 day trial :-) TerriersFan (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article already has multiple, reliable, independent sourcing, therefore meets WP:N. Calling it "nonnotable" is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and in an obvious way.Noroton (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The news article about food tampering isn't notable (here, though perhaps on an article about food tampering), but being one of a small number of "Schools to Watch" is presumably notable. Without more research I'm not sure, but I lean to erring on the side of keeping the article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a well written article on a significant school. I have access to High Beam and there are plenty of substantial sources to easily meet WP:N. For example [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], etc TerriersFan (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article makes weak claims of notability as it currently stands. As additional sources are added, I will reconsider my vote. Alansohn (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we gotta respect the sourcing. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; most of the article is completely OR and almost first-person. The food tampering incident is the only issue of notability and in my opinion, given the lack of any other issue, it should have its own article and not be establish this school one.Epthorn (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TerriersFan has shown several news articles with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was ~~delete~~. Core desat 05:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally redirected to List of middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia to avoid a GFDL violation. That article should be considered in another AFD. --Core desat 05:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia)[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School

non-notable middle school - merge and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools Arthurrh (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable Middle School. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 00:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new article: List of middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia which seems like a better way to handle coverage of middle schools in this district unless the articles can meet WP:N. I invite anyone with an interest to edit the new article. It seems to me that all or nearly all of these middle school articles could, with enough research, meet Wikipedia notability standards when some editor has the interest and ability to do the research. I would change to "Keep" if sourcing is provided for this article, as per WP:HEY Noroton (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and drop link in ((Fairfax County Public Schools)). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Napier (musician)[edit]

Is this person really worth a stand-alone biography? You tell me. I have my doubts. WP:BLP1E applies here. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 00:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 16:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Chapman[edit]

Is this person really worth a stand-alone biography? You tell me. I have my doubts. WP:BLP1E applies here. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — It may be debatable and borderline, but it could be argued that anyone who has been a member of what subsequently became one of the greatest Rock and Roll bands in the world (The Rolling Stones — arguably the greatest) is part of an important musical history. The information in this article should certainly be somewhere on Wikipedia rather than just being summarily deleted. In any case, Tony Chapman appeared more that once with the Rolling Stones as a member of the band, so I think that WP:BLP1E, which applies to a single event, is not applicable here. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I really like the Stones too, but I'm not going to let that POV (WP:BIAS) creep into this otherwise non-notable biography.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I detest their music, but he's notable enough for a stub (anything longer would be tedious). --Paularblaster (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jonathan Bowen and Paularblaster. jj137 ♠ Talk 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victuallers (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete consensus is that there is insufficient reliable sources to establish notability at this time, arguments for keeping have not addressed this. Davewild (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Reid Poetry Translation Prize[edit]

This is apparently an award for translated poetry, but there is no assertion that this is a notable award. I haven't been able to find any references online, and the height of the award, 750 euros, doesn't seem to be all that spectacular. A ecis^Brievenbus 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions and the list of Poetry-related deletions. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a new award & one of the few that deal with literary translation & the translation of poetry in particular. 750 Euros is perhaps one of the highest awards for poetry in translation: so it is quite spectacular-- remember, we're talking poetry -- The fact that the Foundation for the Creation and Translation of Dutch Literature (a Dutch and Belgian government institution) supports and cites the award is an indication of its merit from a Dutch literary perspective. So I would like to argue that we keep the article. That said: though I created the article, I am in no way connected with the award or its institution -- so I don't mind it being deleted if that is the general consnsus. Hattak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattak (talk • contribs) 22:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find any reliable sources to establish notabilty. the fact that this is a recently created award lends it not having achieved notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 6 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, KrakatoaKatie 22:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only source I could find is the one listed as a reference for the article. It doesn't appear to be covered enough to pass WP:N. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. jj137 ♠ Talk 00:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are so few awards for Poetry and translation, and my opinion is that €750 is not to be sneezed at in poetry circles Joandahl (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how does any of that relate to notability? There are no reliable sources that anybody has been able to produce to establish the notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch My Back[edit]

Fails to establish notability but worth merging to Geoff Thompson article if references found. Hammer1980·^talk 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Geoff Thompson. References can be found in Google News, eg [18], [19], [20]. Bláthnaid 10:07, 6 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, KrakatoaKatie 22:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep books are generally notable. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vili and Ve[edit]

There are already articles on Vili, Vé, Hœnir, and Lóðurr. This adds nothing new. LeSnail (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no need for an article on both when they each have an individual article. (probably falls under G6, housekeeping criterion) - Dumelow (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G6 per Dumelow. The aforementioned articles are already more detailled anyway. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as already covered in encyclopedia. KnightLago (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge all into List of Wing Commander characters. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished merging all the articles actually listed as being nominated. Any other articles discussed here will have to be handled by someone else. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Marshall[edit]

Also nominating:

Articles are entirely plot summary with no citations to reliable sources that provide real-world content/context. Do not pass writing-about-fiction guidelines, do not make any assertion to real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but source. I like these fictional characters bio.≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "I like it" is not a compelling reason to keep an article. Sourcing what's there is insufficient -- citing the plot summary still just leaves plot summary, and not the critical commentary or development information that WP:WAF calls for. --EEMIV (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, I didn't want my comment to be kept as a WP:ILIKEIT. Well, there are tons of articles about fictional characters and I think they are quite needed. Well, maybe lacks sources, but that solves ((references)) tag, give that a couple of moments. I don't see any reason to delete all these articles, so I am changing my mind to speedy keep. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "other stuff exists" is not a compelling reason to keep content; surely there are many other character articles that need deleting. As an aside, which reason for speedy keep do you think applies here? --EEMIV (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not WP:OTHERSTUFF at all, I didn't say this is notable, because something else is notable. I commented existence of articles like this. I disagree with the deletion. I used speedy keep just because there is not any reason for deletion. You didn't provide any. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are tons of articles about fictional characters - Great -- but what about these articles? The tons of stuff are immaterial, hence me pointing toward OTHERSTUFF. If I misunderstood your point, then sorry. there is not any reason for deletion. You didn't provide any. - It seems you missed the text a few inches up about the lack of citations to reliable sources, the absence of an assertion for real-world notability, and the all-in-universe perspective. Please read WP:SPEEDYKEEP; none of the reasons given there seem to apply even if I hadn't given a deletion rationale; speedy keep is intended for disruptive/vandal nominations, AfDs for policy, a withdrawn nomination, or nomination by a banned user -- none of which apply here. --EEMIV (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:FICT all articles into List of Wing Commander characters. I don't see evidence that the individual characters have acheived notability, though perhaps a couple have and I'm not seeing it, but it looks like the casts as a whole (at least in some of the releases) did get independent notice, giving the list article better claims to notability than most game character lists. A paragraph summary of each in the main list would fill out a nice article, especially when sourced with citations from game reviews. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (sigh) this again, this was done not so long ago, and didn't happen. I nominate to keep, but I'm really starting to wonder if there is any point or if this will just keep getting hashed through till people give up.... Douglasnicol (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - I've looked at all these articles' talk pages and don't see any links to previous AfDs -- what do you mean by this again? If there are previous deletion-related discussions, please let me know so I can link to them. --EEMIV (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was actually starting to wonder if I was wrong.Here's the link, I know the header in the link is to a different WC related article, but Tolwyn's is in the list, this was a mass deletion proposal of over 100 entries at once. I see it does say re-nominate, though. I still am in favour of at least some articles having seperate pages. Tolwyn and Blair for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#A-17_Broadsword_heavy_bomber

Here you go. Douglasnicol (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per nom. Most of them are so stubby that their merge would almost be effortless, while the List of characters does not summarize them at all. Merging seems like the only reasonable option to me (could even have been done without AfD). – sgeureka ^t•c 01:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - Should be easy, and will help deflect recreation. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely at least one or two of the more notable and well used characters like Tolwyn can keep seperate entries. Tolwyn for instance was a vital part of three Wing Commander games, was present in a fair number of the novels as well. I agree some of the characters might qualify for little more than 'redshirt' status :) but I think there are a few that could otherwise still class as seperate. Douglasnicol (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, except that any few articles that may worthy should be kept separately. I leave discriminating them to the editors doing the merge. DGG (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This should all be in one article Tirronan (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object to merge - Even merged content needs to he cited to reliable sources, which none of these tidbits has. --EEMIV (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bunch of these should likely be merged, but not all of them. Hobit (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into List of Wing Commander characters, together with Christopher Blair, who seems to have been left out of this nomination for some reason (presumably accidentally). None of these articles have references, or evidence of real-world notability, and none of them have any good reason to exist as an article in their own right. Terraxos (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': if you think these articles are bad, take a look at Category:Wing Commander spacecraft. The vast majority of those ought to be deleted/merged as well. Terraxos (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but this will take the coordinated effort of several sysops' mops. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any articles without secondary sources to assert notability. Then, in a bonus decision, merge most of this. Pagra shtak 01:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as not meeting our general notability standards as well as our subject specific; no showing of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Einar Torfi Einarsson[edit]

This is the autobiography of a young and aspiring composer, who has just graduated from the conservatory of Amsterdam. He doesn't appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia (yet?). A ecis^Brievenbus 21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:VANITY. Check the contributor's name. -Carados (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VANITY. Creators only contribs are this article and to add it to List of Icelandic composers‎, per Carados user is likely to be the subject of the article - Dumelow (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus with complexities—The present form of WP:FICT is under dispute; however, WP:VERIFY is not. The main article nominated (Gray Death Legion) and one of the secondaries (Wolf's Dragoons) tentatively pass the Verifiability test for the existence of the concepts and for a kernal of the content. Both likely have significant WP:OR content and I will tag them as needing cleanup along that line. The other two articles of this bundle do not pass the Verifiability test. I will close as no consensus the two articles with references, tagging them for cleanup to remove original research. I will re-list the other two articles separately to allow consideration of their fate anew. (Please be considerate and contact my talk page before taking a trip to WP:DRV if you believe this closure violates policy in some manner.) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Death Legion[edit]

This article covers a fictional mercenary organization with no out-of-universe information and no real-world notability. It does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Pagra shtak 21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Unless there is or can be established through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mercenaries_(BattleTech) Nezu Chiza (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable major faction, if fictional. Not different from, let's say, Romulans of Star Trek. Also, multiplie nominations are invalid; please start separate discussion for the Kell Houns and Wolf's Dragoons.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article's subject is the main focus of 7 novels. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't think they were the main subject of 76. Main of 5, and mentioned in most of the others... but still,~~ Since this is a bundled nomination, I first thought of GDL. With Kell Hounds and particularly the Wolf Dragoons, the number indeed raises significantly, although I'd cap it at subject of 30 or so. In either case, main subject of several novels is rather notable. And of course gaming books and games add to that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia:Notability states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The novels are not independent sources, and do not indicate notability. These articles need sections about critical reception, concept and creation, cultural impact, merchandising, etc. That is to say, out-of-universe information. Without out-of-universe information and reliable secondary sources, the articles do not assert notability. Pagra shtak 01:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a quick search on yahoo for gray death legion and received over 2 million results. None of them reliable secondary sources but I do believe it is some indication of notability. Showers (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important part of major series. 08:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)

The result was Delete. Category:Spoken word artists and sub-cats already exist (since November 6), editors are encouraged to make use of those categories. Pastordavid (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable spoken word performers[edit]

Potentially boundless list, poorly defined criteria. Violates WP:NOT#INFO. meshach (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC) meshach (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote from the creator; just a spinout of listcruft from Spoken word. <eleland/talkedits> 21:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. Spoken word is a notable and specific form of art. However, per the naming conventions, the word "notable" should never be used in an article title. Rename to List of spoken word performers. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:LC - use a category to contain the notable people as that is self-maintaining unlike a list. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:LC specifically states "the perception that an article is listcruft can be a contributing factor to someone voting for deletion, but it may not be the sole factor". WP:LIST and WP:CLS should also be consulted. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category-fy Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It took seven minutes for this list to go from being a part of the Spoken word article to being AfD'd as "listcruft"? It's kind of ridiculous and unrealistic for us to treat this as a completely stand-alone article instead of just a part of the Spoken word article. It should be bound more by WP:NNC instead of anything else. Besides, aren't articles generally given five days after creation before they're eligible to be AfD'd? Torc2 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly - they can be nominated at any time after creation, but are not (except in the case of WP:SNOW) acted upon until they have been here for five days. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Create and populate category(ies) then delete—Presently, this is simply a list of wikilinks without additional information, which means that it can be best handled through categorization. Red-links should be handled through the Wikipedia:Requested articles process, and a link to a subsection of the appropriate page(s) can be included in the category headers. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize per Fee Fi Foe Fum et al. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep. I know that in the past I've been yelled at for closing AfD discussions too soon. However, I think that this one is an obvious speedy keep, due in part to the fact that the nominator is a single purpose account, and the rationale seems to be a big ball of WP:WAX. The article clearly asserts its subject's notability through scads of reliable sources, so I see no problem in closing this as a keep, non-admin style. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and this page is WP:GA status too, let's not forget that... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seung-Hui Cho[edit]

As with Robert A. Hawkins, he's an otherwise non-notable person who's sole notability is summed up in the article for the shooting spree. Beenturns (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC) — Beenturns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep WP:WAX is not a criterion for deletion. I suspect a bad-faith nom and violation of WP:POINT. --Strothra (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets go ahead and delete Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, John Wilkes Booth.....hell, lets delete every killer article while we are at it. Or we can leave one of the best edited and documented articles I have read on Wikipedia. STRONG KEEP. Bluefield (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this man is not notable beyond the shooting spree. Just like many sports people are not notable beyond the sport they're playing. But if they meet WP:BIO, they are notable enough for Wikipedia. It doesn't say anywhere that there has to be more than one source of notability. This shooting spree is exactly what makes Seung-Hui Cho notable. Very notable. Obvious keep. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Covered by loads of third-party sources, he more than meets bio guidelines. Punkmorten (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as I think the nominator has an interesting point about the comparison with Robert A. Hawkins. This'll be speedily kept anyway no doubt.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge→Tennis no Ōjisama - Futari no Samurai—Such a merger could also take the form of a page List of The Prince of Tennis characters on the supposition that such a list would naturally be split from the main article if it reached logically inclusive proportions. However, I will start with a simple merger to the target article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoga Echizen[edit]

This is a non-notable character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the main article for the film, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and most of the other Prince of Tennis characters into a single character list or into the article on the movie, Tennis no Ōjisama - Futari no Samurai. --Farix (Talk) 00:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, in a much shorter form, to Tennis no Ōjisama - Futari no Samurai. Considering the movie article is barely more than a stub and this is a movie only character, there is certainly no reason to have him separate from it and alone, it completely fails WP:FICTION. Collectonian (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:FICT into Tennis no Ōjisama - Futari no Samurai. I can't find evidence that this character is independently notable, and as Collectonian notes, it's not like the movie article is large enough to require splitting up. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. krimpet ✽ 04:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Springs church shooting[edit]

A shooting, a tragic event no doubt but wikipedia is not a news service. meshach (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC) meshach (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that Wikipedia is most certainly NOT a news service, why is this article less worthy of wikipedia the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvada_missionary_shooting or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westroads_Mall_massacre ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.L.A.Z.E (talk • contribs)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the missionary shooting should go to AFD as well, Westroads is notable as being one of the worst mall massacres, as for this one, shootings happen all the time, the only reason why it's getting news attension because it's in a church, this is Wikinews material, Secret ^account 22:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that Westroads was nominated for deletion as well (kept by consensus): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westroads Mall shooting. Basically the same issues were addressed. Rigadoun (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Java7837 (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why? Secret ^account 22:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#NEWS Secret ^account 22:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Developing event, seems notable at the moment. Hello32020 (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

1) Developing event, seems notable at the moment 2) why is this article less worthy of wikipedia the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvada_missionary_shooting 3) Geeting a lot of attention in the news right now major discovery may make it more notable --Java7837 (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- 1) From WP:N: Notability is not temporary. 2) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 3) WP:CRYSTAL. --Kurykh 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Needs work though. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for God's sake. This belongs on Wikinews, read the damn thing. It's just another shooting, "On Sunday" as in today. Take it to Wikinews where it belongs, and if there is lasting cultural or historical impact then that will become apparent in time. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: see wikinews:Four people shot outside New Life Church in Colorado Springs, USA - you can edit there as well. That's the place for this story. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to something. Wikipedia is filled with people who want to be the first to create an article or the first to nominate one for deletion. While the heartfelt response is to vote to keep, it isn't going to matter one bit to the families of the victims whether the crime becomes a Wikipedia article. There will be other occasions today where four or more people die a violent death, but CNN and Fox will not find those to be newsworthy. Mandsford (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or merge to Wikinews. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Wikinews FTW![reply]
Delete not being cynical but ~~one~~ two deaths do not establish notability, unlike the 9 dead in Nebraska earlier in the week that did establish notability at afd. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Merge with [[New Life Shooting, clearly more notable than appeared yesterday. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per SqueakBox. We probably don't want to include every shooting where a single person dies. However, it wouldn't be terrible if the article's kept, since it's clearly verifiable, well-documented, and a least semi-notable. Superm401 - Talk 05:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with Arvada missionary shooting may be a good idea. Superm401 - Talk 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that on both talk pages, if in fact the events are linked. Which then makes them more notable due to the scope of the event. My vote is Keep. Chris (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note-Colorado Springs and Arvada police are working together at this hour, so they see a possible connection too. Chris (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- They are looking if there is a possible connection, they didn't see any yet. Secret ^account 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relax, dude, nobody said otherwise. You don't have to comment each time someone votes to keep. Chris (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletions. —Chris (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Chris (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.239.26 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established by the media coverage. Merge with the other incident if and after connection is found.--Vsion (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until a Later AfD to Review as it is a developing story; we cannot approach this AfD if not enough time has passed to determine its notability. Let us reconvene in 6-12 months and reconsider this AfD. On a side note, there are many articles on Wikinews, but I have noticed that Wikinews spends a great deal of time before fully publishing articles on noteworthy events days after it happened. In those days, with thousands of visitors, people have to depend on the Wikipedia article. Do not believe that having only one source of information on Meta-Wiki is necessary. Zidel333 (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that Wikinews is short on contributors; people write news on Wikipedia and there are only a small core of contributors on Wikinews. They could use some help. --David Shankbone 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, This is a very notable shooting when coupled with the Arvada Missionary Shooting. We still do not know details about the attacker, but as of the moment, this appears to have been a well planned out and coordinated attack on two religious sites in Colorado. This article will continue to be expanded, and I'll make a personal effort to update it with as much information as possible. Despite what some others have stated above, this isn't "just another shooting" as it involved two locations and the shooting of 10 different individuals by a person dressed in body armor and who used improvised explosives. The fact that this shooting was stopped midstream by an armed security guard is the only reason that it likely didn't have a much higher shooting count. A single person shooting 10 individuals is very uncommon, especially when it occurs in two different locations like this one and is targeted against religious sites. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57[reply]
Keep - I came to Wikipedia to look for information about this incident. Delete later if it turns out to be non-notable. Barrylb (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. If this turns out to be related to the Arvada missionary shooting, then this would be notable, as it would become a multilocational spree killing, which is completely different. If they are not related, then delete, as this is otherwise just another murder. This article was created too soon, but also nominated for deletion too soon as well. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep or Merge with Arvada missionary shooting --David Shankbone 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as Keep for now. Too soon to tell if this will be notable or not, especially with relationships(?) with regards to Arvada missionary shooting. If it is related, then the spree killing should be covered. Yaf ~~(talk) 18:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)~~ Yaf (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I'm going to agree with everyone else, events are still unfolding, lets see where things go. Hawk-McKain (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, there is not even a suggestion that this will develop into an article suitable for an encyclopedia. GRBerry 20:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Arvada missionary shooting per new info on shooting at [21]. Obviously this subject is notable.--Alabamaboy (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Arvada missionary shooting under another title. Matthew Murray was the same killer in both incidents which occurred within 12 hours. A disgruntled missionary shooting up the biggest youth mission headquarters in the USA and then shooting up one of the most important megachurches in the country is certainly notable, but since they are so connected it makes no sense to have two articles. Maybe it should go under Matthew Murray (shooter) or something like that. NTK (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's even more notable than you point out. Murray wasn't a disgruntled missionary, he was a person who "hated Christians" according to LE Officials. The Hate Crime aspect of the article is worth noting. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57[reply]

Strong Keep For now. It is still a developing and it is impossible to tell right now whether or not it will be Wikipedia-worthy. Just the fact that the media is addicted to it should validate it's worthiness. 70.56.245.210 (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probable merge once the authorities have identified the shooter for both incidents is the same perpetrator. Rationale for keep: mass killings/spree shootings are typically covered in the open WP encyclopedia.N2e (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionale rationale for WP notability: stories that this may have been a spree shooting that was ENDED by a civilian who was lawfully carrying a concealed weapon under their state's concealed weapons license. If this turns out to be correct, then the notability would, it seems to me, be Spree Shooting Ended by Civilian with a CWP. That is a notability of a different kind; one of a stopped spree shooting that could have been worse had the CWP civilian not been there and used force to halt the attack. We should not only count the bodies for notability. N2e (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikinews is for journalism, Wikipedia is for encyclopedia articles. It's important to understand the difference between encyclopedic coverage and journalistic coverage, and there is a huge difference. Every possible way of looking at it suggests Wikipedia is better than the alternatives when it comes to encyclopedic coverage, while Wikinews is not very competitive with other journalistic outlets. That is one reason why we need articles like this on Wikipedia. Moreover, people want encyclopedic coverage of events. They want one article that covers it from beginning to end, drawing on information from many sources, providing detailed context and illustration. Journalism is about providing a "right now" look at something, and is difficult to make much use of after the event is over. Journalism is only of interest to researchers after an event is history... someone wanting information on this event in 10 years would have to read dozens of newspaper articles from the time of the event and the weeks/months/years following it up... whereas they'd get all that information from reading one encyclopedia article. You could learn about the Watergate scandal, for example, by reading through your local newspaper's back issues for 3 years on Microfilm. I've actually read several months worth of such coverage, and it's fascinating. But it's not practical... most people should just read about it an encyclopedia. --W.marsh 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Revisit in a month or so once the dust has settled. Anchoress (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Highly notable event. Ultimate impact is yet to be seen, but for now it's an obvious keep, as far as I'm concerned.Umlautbob (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
move to close afd per WP:SNOWBALL. Chris (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, please let us close the debate. It is probably holding back development of the article. Barrylb (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree, it's extremely obvious that this was a very notable and unfortunate event. As we are learning more information as the days go on, and the article will continue to develop. This should stay in wikipedia. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57[reply]

Keep as per User:Rigadoun's comments at the top. If necessary, this article can be merged into the New Life Church article later, but as it stands now, this AFD is premature. --Eastlaw (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unquestionably notable. Everyking (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or condense and merge with New Life Church article. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge and weak keep after that. Works better as one single article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete -- essentially a just double murder, albeit one that happened to garner lots of coverage for a couple of days. I suggest all encyclopedic content -- two paragraphs at best -- be merged into New Life Church and (for the related Arvada article) Youth With A Mission. (Incidentally, both those articles mention the shootings and we should leave things at that.) We've survived without a separate article on the Don Imus firing and on the Minneapolis bridge collapse; nothing compels us to have individual articles on these shootings either. Biruitorul (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except we can't merge and delete... if you want to keep the content, it's a keep decision. --W.marsh 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do amplify. As far as I know, we can delete the shooting articles and merge (at least some of) the content into the church articles. Or merge and redirect. In any case, that's the sort of thing I'd like to see, but the main thing is to delete the shooting articles. And in any case, of course we can merge and delete...why wouldn't we be able to? Is there something that prevents it? Biruitorul (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The GFDL requires attribution of any text we copy from another GFDL document, in this case, the merged article. Traditionally we've held that to mean a merged article can't be deleted, since the history needs to be preserved (or a history merge performed). Merging and deleting gets rid of the article history being merged, and would seem to be a violation of the GFDL. --W.marsh 00:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, thank you for that explanation - I wasn't aware of that. In that case, I stand by my call to delete, and perhaps slightly expand the shooting sections in the church articles. Biruitorul (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything is notable if it has received sufficient press attention to qualify as such. Mass murder, double murder, attempted murder, accidental injury, whatever--what matters is whether it has received the necessary level of attention to qualify as notable. It is bizarre to suggest that "what we can survive without" is an ideal. Human beings can survive without a lot of things, but we prefer not to, because life's so much better when we have those things. Likewise, an encyclopedia can exist with a shabby minimum of coverage, but it would be so much better to have comprehensive coverage. Separate articles on the Imus controversy and the bridge collapse (the bridge article is 90KB! You're supposed to break out subarticles at less than half that length!) are also desirable. Everyking (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're a strong inclusionist talking to a rather strong deletionist/mergist, so I don't expect to bring you around to my side. Nevertheless: in general I'm highly sceptical of articles that deal with matters that occurred in 2007 (or, starting next month, 2008) in the United States - not because I'm totally against current events as articles, but because such articles tend to be the result of a rather shortsighted creative process whereby the latest headlines of the day are quickly converted into articles, without due consideration for whether they in fact belong in an encyclopedia, of whether they have a lasting cultural impact or wider importance outside a few news cycles. Examples of stuff I'd zap on sight if I were dictator here are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and especially 7 (although it is well-written). But I suppose you should be thankful I'm not in charge, else a lot more would go, and I that you're not, for if you were I imagine we'd retain even more material. Biruitorul (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, This wasn't just a Double Murder. This was a quadruple murder and a shooting of 6 others. Additionally, this would have resulted in dozens of other deaths if it had not been stopped by Ms. Assam. The armed citizen aspect to the story makes it unique among shooting sprees, as very few other mass shootings have been stopped by an armed citizen already on scene. This is an event that will be talked about for years to come, like it or not. Hence it should remain on Wikipedia. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57[reply]

No, it was a double murder; the other double murder is treated in a separate article. What "would have" happened is of no concern to us, whose job it is to record facts, not speculations. Crimes are stopped by armed citizens every day: see the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog. True, not all those are mass murders, but the More Guns, Less Crime thesis is already covered on Wikipedia, and there's no real evidence that a separate article on this particular incident is needed. And again, neither you nor I know how for long it will be talked about: it's equally liable to be forgotten in a few months (at which point a second AfD may be more likely to succeed, once the excitement of the moment has died down). Biruitorul (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a quadruple murder, perpetrated in two locations. Trying to separate the event into two incidents, so that both can be deleted will not work. The events were interconnected and one. This is the equivalent of saying that the Battle of Gettysburg was 3 different events, (Day 1, Day 2 and Day 3) rather than one large battle. Let me ask you, other than your stated reasons for wanting to limit articles on wikipedia, what other reasons do you have for wanting this article deleted? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57[reply]

Keep - per logic of user:Zidel333 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more than enough RS to demonstrate N. This would have been even bigger than the Virginia Tech massacre had not an armed citizen taken out the killer. (The killer had 1000 rounds of ammo and multiple weapons.) Should we keep only those shooting articles where there were dozens of murders and delete those articles where an armed citizen prevented dozens of murders? Sbowers3 (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, because for better or worse, non-events are by nature speculative and non-notable. Biruitorul (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The extensive media coverage of this event in multiple reliable sources cited in New_Life_Church_shooting#References clearly establishes a presumption of notability pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. WP:NOT#NEWS has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. Whatever the merits of ever raising WP:NOT#NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious WP:BLP issues^[1], WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here. Indeed, WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of this event cited in New_Life_Church_shooting#References would therefore suggest that it is, indeed, an "encyclopedic subject". The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence.

^ WP:NOT#NEWS was added to WP:NOT during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "[keep] in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." The extent to which WP:NOT#NEWS ever applies to any articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful. Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers.

John254 01:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive the coverage may have been, but for how long? Two days? Sustained coverage is also something we should be looking for, and this was clearly a transitory even that dominated a couple of news cycles, never (in all likelihood) to return to the fore. Biruitorul (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Information is duplicated in Television program, so I will leave a redirect there. If any editor thinks anime is a better redirect, by all means change it providing the information's there also. Neıl ☎ 10:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cours (TV production)[edit]

I've never seen this word used and it's not even in my Japanese dictionary. However, the main reason it's unneeded is because we don't even have a Season (TV production) article (which is clearly a more notable term), instead having it fill up a section over at Television program (where cours is also mentioned). SeizureDog 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep and move~~: The Japanese Wiki article says it may come from either the French word "cours" or the German "kur", although no references are given supporting this. It sounds like TV production jargon not widely used or even understood by the general public. I'm not sure this Japanese usage really qualifies for an English-language article of its own, but if it is kept, surely it should be moved to Kūru (TV production). --DAJF 09:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Delete after seeing the mention in Television program, which should be sufficient. --DAJF 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with anime. I am the original writer of this article, and thought it would be useful, but I see now it is sort of pointless to have it in this little stub by itself. I still feel the info should be mentioned in the main anime article, though. Incidentally, I have heard the word used in promotional broadcasts for anime in Japan, so it must be understood by at least some viewers. --Iritscen (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 11:29, 4 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) 21:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is nothing more then a dicdef and there isn't any evidence that this is even a notable topic. --Farix (Talk) 00:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term has become popular enough in Japan that some Western anime fans are beginning to use it. I recently used the article to clarify a discussion on how TV works in Japan, and then linked to the article when writing the lead for Allison and Lillia. The article is clearly useful; is in the right place? Merging it into the anime article or an article on Japanese television might work, but this definition could also be added to the Wiktionary entry on 'cours', which currently does not cover the meaning in question. Doceirias (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you still need to reference a reliable source in order to place a definition in Wiktionary? --Farix (Talk) 03:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was that even an issue here? The word's existence and meaning were never in question, only the frequency of usage and notability thereof. Doceirias (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the word "cours" in English (or Japanese) is very much in question without reliable sources to back up this usage. --DAJF (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing notability with accuracy. The definition is not in doubt - it's in the dictionary (the Personal Katakana Gojiten.) If we want to justify having an article on the topic, we need to prove that it is in common English usage, which we seem to agree it is not. It's a French word that has been loaned to Japanese. Doceirias (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Anime, Television program, or both (with the redirect pointing to Anime). -- Ned Scott 05:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find any references that would seem to be verifiable by WP:V on this term. While some discussion on message boards and other fan sites exist, nothing that establishes notability can be found. If any exist references, then I would promote the merge, but in the absence of them I support deletion. SorryGuy Talk 19:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merged and redirected to List of American supercentenarians. Per that article, Mr. Nelson wasn't even the oldest American black person in the US, let alone the world. Bettie Wilson was 116 when she died. The only claim of notability is a three way intersection of age, gender and race. There is not enough here, or available, for a stand-alone article. His brief bio has been incorporated into the list. Reso lute 20:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Nelson (supercentenarian)[edit]

Short stub on a man who was very old, which says little else other than that he owned a candy store. Only reference is a 400-word obituary in his local newspaper, which falls well short of WP:BIO. Suggest merger to List of American supercentenarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve Yes, I think being the oldest black man in the world is noteworthy. Seems like this article was nominated due to not enough references/citations. Neal (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~... yes, being the oldest black man in the US is notable, however this article may be consigned to the perpetually unverifiable. --Storkk (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC) changing opinion to Merge per nom. Many of these will be perpetually stubs or unverifiable. Although the list needs to be re-formatted (maybe as a table?), if there are only a few verifiable sentences about a person's life, merge seems the best option. --Storkk (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete or merge with list of super centenarians. Article does not even say he is black. Surely that is a poor claim to notability in growing old. There are almost as many words here as in the article. Victuallers (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

true, I should have said "weak keep if it can actually be at least somewhat established that he was the oldest black man in the world" otherwise merge. Cheers, --Storkk (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable, and sourcing is a grounds for editing, not deletion. Bacchiad (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Sourcing is the crucial issue in notability: see WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→List of American supercentenarians as suggested by nominator. I have tightened up the two references. It would appear (until established otherwise) that Mr. Nelson's notability is based solely on his longevity, which makes merging into an article that addresses longevity the best course of action. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep; another article saved by timely referencing.--Kubigula (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan College, Oxford[edit]

There are no sources to assert notability, and this is just one location out of the trilogy, which isn't as important as other locations in the book. It is also vey fan-crufty. I'd like to add that the "List of locations" article was also deleted. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 21:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless multiple reliable sourcing can be found to establish notability per WP:FICTION. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:FICT. Not independently notable. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — there are multiple independent references to Jordan College (e.g., The Observer newspaper, BBC Radio 4, etc.). I have added a selection to the article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sigh. This is about the fictional version of it it His Dark Materials. Please read the article.~~ Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 21:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Scratch that. The sources are related. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 15:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jonathan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 08:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the central places in the triology [in my opinion]. Lyra returns there in the Amber Spyglass as well. IceUnshattered (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasia (Stratovarius)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums_and_songs (and is incorrectly named to boot). lone_twin (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication it was released as a single, which tends to argue against its notability. The three characteristics listed are pretty much standard in power metal songs anyway, so they don't amount to anything extra and demonstrate that there's nothing worth merging. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Storkk (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep sources added to article after most contributions have taken place in this debate provide notability. This addresses the concerns raised by those who argued for deletion previously due to the previous lack of independent reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Ingram McMorran[edit]

Another non-notable very old person. I have found only remotely substantial ref to him, which I have added to the article, but two google searches [22] [23] appear to yield noting else of substance. I suggest a merger to List of American supercentenarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And here's another criticism for the GRG. They talk about how they got a sample of his blood to study (or some other company doing the research). They could publish this results in a scientific journal. But I haven't seen any updates on their site. He died several years ago... I even asked Robert Young for an update/answer, but still no response. Neal (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Neal, I understand your criticism of GRG, but please can you explain what exactly is your argument for keeping this article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - None. :P Neal (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Okay, I just checked my tables. He was the oldest man in the United States. But that's subjective to passing WP:BIO. Neal (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Since I got a complaint from Robert Young about my complaint, I'll continue as follows. The GRG obit. says: Laboratory Data: A blood sample was drawn last year and sent for analysis to the New England Centenarian Study. Hopefully, DNA SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) of important longevity genes will be studied systematically in the Centenarian population. Okay, his argument was it might be private. If it was private, then the above line probably isn't worth mentioning. Neal (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge: as per BrownHairedGirl. Fromseatoshiningsea (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→List of American supercentenarians as suggested by nominator. I have tightened up the three references. It would appear (until established otherwise) that Mr. McMorran's notability is based solely on his longevity, which makes merging into an article that addresses longevity the best course of action. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ^[1] ^[2] and please somebody spend time with BHG and teach her how to perform a decent Google search. I don't know. Maybe I have superhuman Google skills. Here is what I find: [24] . True he is only known for his long life, but he was interviewed before he died when he became the oldest, and was given extensive coverage on his death. The same argument can be used for any musician that gets a top 10 single. They are known only for their music, or winning a race, or starring in a film, or winning a prize, or discovering a cure, or refusing to sit in the back of the bus. Notability and even greatness can come from doing simple things, at the right time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard, I performed a series of google searches in good faith, and in the nomination I clearly linked to the searches which I had done. If you look at the AfD debates, you will see that this is something something which very few nominators at AfD do, and I added the links precisely to enable an audit of my research. Well done finding more sources, but there is absolutely no call for you indulge in this repeated sniping and allegations of bad faith. Per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence
  The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.
  Kindly reserve your sarcasm for the editors who created the article without references rather than for the editor who makes a good faith AfD nomination after trying unsuccessfully to fix problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. As per users "NealIRC" and "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )". Extremely sexy (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "J. McMorran, 113; Oldest Man in U.S., 5th-Oldest Ever". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-12-18. McMorran was history's fifth-oldest man, said Dr. L. Stephen Coles of the UCLA-based Gerontology Research Group, a nonprofit international research organization that verifies birth dates and tracks the 35 to 45 people around the globe who are 110 and older. Coles said that 41 people remain alive in that category, and that the oldest living American is Mary Christian -- one week McMorran's senior -- of San Pablo, Calif. The verifiably oldest living man in the United States, he said, is now Fred Hale of New York state, who is 112. ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ "America's Oldest Man Parties On". Associated Press in Miami Herald. Retrieved 2007-12-18. So what does a man believed to be the oldest American do on his birthday? He has a party, of course. After 113 birthdays, they've become routine for John Ingram McMorran. For his relatives, the event was more emotional. Tears rolled down great-grandson's Scott McMorran's cheeks at Wednesday's party. 'It's not the long life [that's so important]. It's the person, not the age,' ... ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

The result was Delete and redirect to unseen character, info is already listed there. Pastordavid (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Sinclair[edit]

A "character" of the show who is NEVER actually seen, only mentioned in passing as a recurring joke! Completely unnotable and plot regurgitation. More WP:Trivia than anything else. Collectonian 09:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 10:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't there an article about the many sitcom characters who are never seen but only referred to - Norm's wife? Captain Mainwaring's wife? There's plenty of them. Maybe it could be merged into there? Nick mallory 11:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be unseen character. She's already mentioned there. Punkmorten (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I now see that the two characters you mentioned are not only mentioned there, but they both have own articles. Punkmorten (talk) 21:04, 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) 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Avruch ^Talk 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not oppose a merger to unseen character. Either way, the list of specific mentions is cruft and has to be trimmed out. Punkmorten (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge into unseen character; after looking through the list on this unseen characters article, there seems many listed there that upon a brief glance appear less notable than the character article in this debate (i.e: this article proposed for deletion seems to be a character who appears to be more notable than several on the unseen characters arcticle). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge delete irrelevent info (such as list of mentions) and merge to unseen character - Dumelow (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge and redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. I have followed the suggestion of only merging those characters with more than 3 appearances. However, the history is intact so it is a post-AfD editorial matter whether more or less should be merged. TerriersFan (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Degrassi: The Next Generation characters[edit]

List of minor characters that are mostly unnotable in their own show, much less in Wikipedia. Unsourced and unnotable with excessive plot regurgitation and tons of fair use violations. If any of the characters here are actually notable, merge them into List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Most of the characters here only appear in one or two episodes, if at all. Collectonian 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 10:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge those few characters with more than 3 episodes into List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters, and then redirect this list, I think is the best option. No need to mention characters of such minor appearances. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with the exact directions of Sgeureka above. Looking at the article, I do not think that all of those characters really need to have information listed on them. Those with multiple appearances, though, seem more notable. I also support the redirect. SorryGuy Talk 20:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete - All these "lists of minor characters" should be renamed, because who gets to decide what constitutes a "minor" character? Also lacks notability on its own, so merge in. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, with the provision that the sources CP mentions are added. If they are not, then this article can be resent to AFD. Neıl ☎ 10:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Matthews[edit]

Yet another unreferenced stub on a very old person. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this case, while the current amount of referencing is unacceptable, a Google search does turn up what I believe to be sufficient sources that could be used to improve this article. Will try and incorporate them into the article and see what it looks like soon. Cheers, CP 20:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per being the oldest in the United States army. Neal (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was merge with List of American supercentenarians. The succession box issue can be solved by redirecting to the list, as is the case for Anna Eliza Williams, the next name in the box.--Kubigula (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary McKinney[edit]

Yet another unreferenced stub article on a very old person. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. I'm not the best Google searcher though... as with all these of these SC articles, I would at least reconsider my position if significant coverage could be found. Cheers, CP 20:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as the fact that her succession boxes will be less organized. Neal (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Keeping an unreferenced article to allow the use of succession boxes seems to me to be a thoroughly bad idea. Boxes are fine for linking between notable people, but they don't establish notability --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of American supercentenarians. List should probably be reformatted (maybe as a table?), but if the only notable fact about a person's life is the length of it, verifiable non-stubworthy information will be impossible to find. Better as a few sentences in the list, IMHO. --Storkk (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete The only assertion of notability is that failed campaign, which as pointed out does not meet WP:BIO. Sourced information could certainly be added to articles on the relevent eletions, were someone so inclined. Pastordavid (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Kissling[edit]

Contested speedy. Failed political candidates are not inherently notable; no other assertion of notability is present. Powers ^T 20:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was for dog catcher, I'd agree, but not for Congress. Does it help that he is currently running again for the same seat in 2008? -Kika chuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kika chuck (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Failed candidates are also not inherently non-notable. 30 seconds spent with Google News' archive search turns up at least two dozen press mentions. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed candidates might get press coverage during the campaign, but I don't think (imho) this establishes individual notability. Could be merged into an article about the campaign possibly. Avruch ^Talk 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this particular person also has coverage now due to his 2008 run [http://news.google.com/news?q=Al+Kissling&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn - Kika chuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kika chuck (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes: "Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability." Powers ^T 21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that page also says that it may be allowable if he/she is a current candidate for office —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kika chuck (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text of that comment is: "Note, however, that some dissent may be expressed if the election campaign in question is currently underway — however, dissent has also been engineered on occasion by the candidate's own campaign office, so monitor this for potential sockpuppetry." So, it is not automatic that a current candidate is sufficiently notable. — ERcheck (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kika. Orphic (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or include in an article about the current election: Kissling (D) garnered 40 percent of the vote in the last election against the incumbent Steve Pearce (R) . Pearce is now running for the Senate. If this particular election does not have enough interest for an article, then delete. (Note that the current Senate election in NM does have an article.) — ERcheck (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being a failed candidate provides no notability and there is no other assertion of notability. This time round he is not yet on the ballot. Totally lacks any secondary sources so fails WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep - notability now established in article, concerns of referencing are now void, and there is the general idea that the article should be kept. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mamie Eva Keith[edit]

Very old person, but article is unreferenced and therefore fails WP:BIO. A google search yields 120 hits, but no sign of any reliable sources as required by WP:BIO. An alternative search throws up only one teaser for an article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve If it fails WP:BIO because it is unreferenced, then I suppose it can be referenced. Neal (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply As above, I have searched for references. Why keep it without reasonable expectation that it will be sufficiently sourced to pass WP:BIO? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neal, please found your opinion in the article itself, not irrelevant nitpickery. Punkmorten (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, Punkmorten, if my opinion was about the article itself, then I would vote keep because I think being the oldest person in the world is notable. But since my topic was about lacking references, I could vote for deletion. And it seems it will be that way if references can't be found (as I haven't Googled her). Neal (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. An article shouldn't be deleted just because it's unreferenced. If there are no references to be found, however, then it's a prime candidate for deletion. Cheers, CP 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would say that being the oldest person in the world at a certain point is a good case for notability. But who knows. Punkmorten (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of American supercentenarians. She was indeed notable, however virtually no verifiable information is ever likely to be available to un-stubify a bio article. Belongs as a redirect to a paragraph or two as part of a reformatted list. --Storkk (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortuantely, there appears to be nothing verifiable to merge to List of American supercentenarians apart from her nationality and dates of birth and death, which is why I didn't propose merger. She is already listed in oldest people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. As per user "NealIRC". Extremely sexy (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for being oldest for period of time Mbisanz (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BIO, notability requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, which is not available in this case. The fact of her being oldest for a period of time is already listed in the article Oldest people, but a standalone article requires the substantial coverage which is lacking in this case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now referenced and expanded. Plainly notable. TerriersFan (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge→List of American supercentenarians --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmina Kott[edit]

Another stub article on a very old person who fails WP:BIO. The article includes only single a general reference (Kott is not even mentioned on the page linked to) and a google search shows no refs in reliable sources, let alone substantial refs. Kott is already listed in U.S. state longevity recordholders and List of the oldest people, which is quite enough when so little verifiable info is available about her. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of American supercentenarians. Not likely ever to have enough verifiable information to justify more than a few sentences in a list. --Storkk (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of American supercentenarians. Agree with Storkk. If no one wants to merge then delete Victuallers (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big L 1395[edit]

Delete Unreferenced puff-piece that has been sat around getting no better for 6 months Mayalld (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 09:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not much worse that most radio station articles, is it? -76.22.99.215 (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a full-power radio station, licensed by Ofcom in the UK, but broadcasting from the Netherlands. Reliable sources exist: "Big L 1395 finds new home on medium wave" from Music Week, "Trying to turn the clock back: New radio station faces a challenge" and "‘Big L goes Dutch’ on 1395 kHz" from Radio Netherlands Worldwide. DHowell (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Radio Stations. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability issues. Having been mentioned in passing or summary as a new or moved business doesn't establish notability, or almost all radio stations in the country would qualify - and they don't. Press has a coverage bias towards other press. Avruch ^Talk 20:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently major-market station with international distribution. Likely more published articles could be found about it, particularly with regards to it being in the Netherlands but serving an audience in England. Keep article and add some improvement tags. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a government-licensed major-market radio station with at least some references in reliable secondary sources. If anything, other media is less likely to write about a radio or television station which is one of the rationales behind Wikipedia:Notability (media). - Dravecky (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very notable. The fact that the article could be improved is not a good reason to delete it.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep with nomination withdrawn. Davewild (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumbo Schreiner[edit]

German actor who does not seem notable even in German-speaking countries. This article is a translation of the equivalent German article, which is itself listed for deletion on German Wikipedia. ~~Delete.~~ Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 10:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe it would be better to withhold judgment until the German Wikipedia AfD has run its course. I'm not saying that we should blindly follow the decision there, but there is more chance of editors there finding good sources which could also be used in English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger 15:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. Let the Germans decide this one. If the verdict is gelöscht, then we say delete. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on the German article appears to be headed for a No consensus. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep while watching German article. Their AfD finalized as keep, noting that during their AfD process the article was improved. --Storkk (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then. The Germans stated that this actor is notable enough, and I am in no position to evaluate the notability of German actors. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge→List of American supercentenarians --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Nelsen Jones[edit]

Another permastub article on a very old person. The references supplied are one geocities memorial page and one undated dead link to a local newspaper article, which I can't currently retrieve from the wayback machine. Even if the newspaper article was substantial, it's only a single-source, and a google search throws up nothing in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list & add ((fact)) tag. Notability might be suspect for own article, but if even one WP:V-meeting source is found about her age, would fit into list nicely. --Storkk (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge going along with CP. --Lockley (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. krimpet ✽ 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch supercentenarians (2nd nom)[edit]

I have listed the following articles, which were tagged to point to this AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl has been merging perfectly good standalone supercentenarian articles such as this one, List of American supercentenarians, List of British supercentenarians, and List of French supercentenarians, all of which I am nominating too. They hardly resemble a list rather than a collection of once-supercentenarian articles. It is just organized nonsense, and without it becoming an actual list, I suggest splitting at least the ones with the most information into seperate article. I have tried to do that myself, but, instead of violating the WP:3RR, which I personally hate, she nominated them for deletion. So, even though this was nominated before and failed, I am nominating it again. In case I have not explained this well enough, I will be monitering this very closely and will surely answer your questions. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

You cannot give every person who lives past 110 years an article because, at the end of the day, they are just people. Skepticism may be raised by creating an article about the world's oldest person, but the 25th oldest woman in Kansas? This is not a census beaureu (or obituary). Unless they have notable achievments, then you are just creating articles about residents who have died at an old age. The list is fine (eventually, that'll get too long aswell). ^Dlae│_here 19:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make comments about my age. I agree that Wikipedia should not have articles on every super-c, but this list isn't even what it says it is. And It can't, because there is so many. Only a handful of American super-cs have articles, and they are the more older and notable ones. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, WP:POINTy nomination only two weeks after the previous nomination was closed as "keep".
As discussed at the previous AfD, I had been merging the articles which do not meet WP:BIO into these lists, but since all such mergers have been reverted by Kitia, I have been taking the articles instead to AfD to decide whether they should be kept, merged or deleted. Kitia's complaint here appears to be that that because there is no presumption of notability for supercentenarians, it is somehow unfair to subject to them to the same WP:BIO tests as all the other articles without a presumption of notability. Interesting argument, but no reason to disrupt AfD with rapid-repeat nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we put an end to this edit war? There is bad faith on both sides. Both side are guilty of retaliation and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Both User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Kitia are guilty of disruptive behavior, and disrupting Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I strongly object to the allegation that trying to merge or nominate at AfD unreferenced or under-referenced article on non-notable people is disruptive. (It would indeed be disruptive if we abolished WP:V, but if that happens I'll stop contributing). There is no edit war that I see. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. I'll bust your beak! (time for some beak bustin'!) 00:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um. "Amen" to what? the nomination, the comment that you replied under, or what else? Do you endorse keeping, deleting, or the comment above? Please clarify. Thanks! --Storkk (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Unclear that there is any evidence to overturn the clear consensus of keep set two weeks ago, in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. It seems hard to understand why AfD is being used to try to settle an edit war over the choice of how to keep the articles as standalone or grouped. Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main problem with the article is that it promotes to be a list, but functions as a collaboration om merged articles. Besides, it cannot ever be alist, because then it would get too big. So, we can split off the notable articles and delete the verry small amount of others.''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but I assume that the "List of foo... supercentenarians" articles should be a list, pointing to main articles of individuals with sufficient independent notability. Even if every individual had their own article, there'd still be a place for the "list of" articles. Alansohn (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Kitia, I have absolutely no objection to splitting out the individuals to separate articles when notability is established. However, the reason for creating the article was that notability has not been established for the people listed here.

In reply to Alanasohn, the idea of creating a combined article to list of individuals without sufficient independent notability was precisely what was discussed only 2 weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dutch supercentenarians. Unless something has changed substantially since that discussion, this AfD is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were too little people in the discussion to draw a consensus. And I agree wholeheartedly with Alansohn. And yes, being old does establish notability. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If you disagree with the outcome of an XfD, take it to WP:DRV. The closing admin decide that a consensus had been reached, and it is disruptive to bring an article straight back to AfD just because you dislike the outcome, but have nothing new to add to the debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 23:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and keep. This is not the way to establish a new concensus. This is getting close to disruption. DGG (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as this hasn't been closed yet, let me take the opportunity to express my support for BrownHairedGirl's program of merging too-small and undercited articles into lists like this, where their content is more appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But its not a list, at least in my sense of the term.''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as list when no notability other than age is apparent. Where notability other than age is apparent, point from the list to an Individuals Article. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the members are not notable for anything other than their age, WP should therefore include their existence (their age is notable), but should not have a perpetual stub-class article (since the vast majority have no hope of ever having Reliable Sources for anything other than their age) on all members. Sourced lists for each nationality are much preferable to perpetually unsourced (and unsourceable) stubs on all individuals. --Storkk (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. The main article is a better place to describe the specifics of the series in more detail, but not in form of a complete list as that wouldn't address the problems pointed out here.Tikiwont (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Royal Copenhagen 2010 plaquettes[edit]

I fail to see any encyclopedic value in this article which is simply a list of places shown on a list of Royal Copenhagen collectibles. No reason indicated why this particular series of collectibles should be more notable than other products from the same company. If this article is kept, it needs a lot of cleanup. The Danish names are full of misspellings. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of 2010 plaquettes, depicting a variety of things, including foreign cars and American presidents. However, the majority of plaquettes depict Danish landmarks. These pieces of art have been manufactured over a long period of time, and new pieces are still in production. Their size is unique amongst collectibles. Their color and the faience process are Danish unique. For these reasons, I support retaining the article. If a piece is misspelled, it should be corrected. If other authors can improve the article, they should do so. Regarding other products from the same company, I've done no research on them, so unclear if they are wiki noteworthy, i.e. depiction + size + color + artist + decades of production, etc. Rosiestephenson 16:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the content from this list was previously a part of the Royal Copenhagen 2010 plaquettes article. I thought, because the list grew so long over time, that it belonged on its own page. It may be appropriate to return the list, spellings corrected, to the parent article. Rosiestephenson (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT#DIR --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a product catalogue. Nuttah (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Wiggins[edit]

36-word sub-stub article on a very old person; a google search appears to throw up no coverage in reliable sources (leta lone non-trivila coverage), so he fails WP:BIO. This factoid is adequately covered by the entry at Oldest people#Oldest_living_men_.28since_1961.29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information Apparently, this man will pretty much forever remain a stub, as he was post-humously the oldest man in the world. Neal (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all other supercentenarian articles. Living a long time doesn't make someone notable! Avruch ^Talk 20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, relevant info merged. Pastordavid (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nebrascore[edit]

NN neologisms. Basically, a duplicate of Music_of_Omaha#The_.22Omaha_Sound.22 Carados (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any extra content and delete the rest. Borders between duplicate and non-notable (only 7 Ghits for the term "nebrascore"). --Nehwyn (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article also needs to be rewritten, with removal of first person in the conclusion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cherry Pit[edit]

Fails WP:N for lack of long-term coverage. Recent news story about a sex club in a Texas neighborhood. I can't believe this wasn't speedily deleted, but the admin wants a discussion so here it is. Also, if the club only has 80-100 members does that make it notable for an encyclopedia? If so, every Rotary club in the world should have their own Wikipedia page. All sources I have found for this story, and yes there are alot because it is "tittlating", are all carbon copies of the same AP story. Plus this is a local club with notability to Duncanville, TX, not necessarily the english-speaking world. Sc straker (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is nothing beyond a local news story that got picked up in limited national coverage as a juicy tabloidesque story. From what I see, it fails WP:N and even fails WP:V because the sources, beyind the local, appear trivial in nature. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some evidence of long-term notability can be found. Controversy over a sex club in a residential neighborhood is barely even newsworthy, at least on a national scale. Powers ^T 19:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I hate saying it, I really do, but WP:IDONTKNOWIT outright murders any issues in size or location. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this was somehow kept off technicalities because of its' most probable regional notability. My one glimmer of hope in the deletion of this article is WP:N#TEMP. If nothing else happens, get rid of it. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People get mad about these types of things all the time. Do we need an article every time the public gets upset about a sex club, porn shop, strip joint, etc.? I don't think so. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a news wire service. The subject has no long term notability unless this leads to an eventual Supreme Court case on the constitutionality of private sex clubs. Montco (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:Notability -- or merge with Duncanville, TX--MonkeyTimeBoy (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - will be forgotten in a couple of months. Jauerback (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK. If you want to delete it that much, go ahead. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge with a soft redirect as I did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Booyson. — Scientizzle 16:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Hagel[edit]

Single-source article on a very old person. The 800-word article in her local newspaper does cover her life quite well, but is one write-up in the local paper really enough to establish notability per WP:BIO? I suggest a merger to List of American supercentenarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect. Under most circumstances, I'd agree this article should be deleted, however I wonder if WP:IDONTKNOWIT can come into effect here, as WP:LOCALFAME clearly does not. Usually, a supercentarian is deleted as a sole holder of non-notability, however, in this case there are actually 2 holders of notability, in Catherine Hagel and her sister Delvina Dahlheimer. Her deceased sister was the oldest in Minnesota. Catherine now the 8th in the world, 5th in the United States, and 1st in Minnesota after beating her sisters' record. I would actually be okay with a double-Redirect to a secondary article such as The Dahlheimer Sisters where their notability as supercentarians is put together and perhaps expanded from there. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that idea is that there are no references for either Hagel or Dahlheimer which even establish that they are sisters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.127.188 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Living to the age of 113 is remarkable enough alone, but to having a sister-in-law who did the same in the same area must be so rare that the article with no doupt should be allowed to stand. (The article does not say that they are sisters - read it again!)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.127.188 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, the claim is that they are sisters-in-law rather than sisters. But my point stands: where is the evidence that they were in any way related? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the sister-in-law article Delvina Dahlheimer article also passed AfD ^{[citation needed]}. Neal (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I have no idea how the closing admin reached the conclusion he did, and have asked for an explanation. I would strongly object to taking the Dahlheimer AfD as a precedent, particularly when no-one has produced any evidence that the two were actually sisters-in-law. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Follow-up: the closing admin changed his mind and agreed that merger to List of American supercentenarians was preferable. See discussion on my talk and closing admin's note on the AfD talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm okay, I could take a look into that. On whether the 2 were sisters-in-law. Neal (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Or merge with relative Mbisanz (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Discussion shows that at this time, there is no consensus for deleting oer merging the info on this student union. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Bradford Union[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Since the last AfD (the result of which was redirect to University of Bradford), the page has been recreated. However, in my opinion, it still fails WP:N. Take a look at this diff, showing the difference between the start of the last AfD discussion and now. In terms of external sources: a few have been added to the campaigns section, but I don't think they're specific to this union, and as such don't aid the notability of this article. Other than that, one BBC reference has been added. All other references added point to www.brad.ac.uk, the University's own website, i.e. not exactly an independant source. For this reason, I feel that this article still lacks notability (and, as a side, reads like an advertisement), and as such should be deleted. _TheIslander 15:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The union is independent of the university (that's rather the point) the union cannot directly influence what the university puts out. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, that's true of any students' union. However, in terms of notability and being verifiable, I really don't think that the University associated with a particular students' union is remotely independant enough - just one example springs to mind: the university will be using the union in all sorts of promotional material to attract students, thus it is in the university's interest to place the union in a good light, thus it has a biased slant. _TheIslander 15:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not as a source of notability, that wasn't my point, it was that they are to separate institutions with a close relationship but not affiliated to each other. Using it as a primary, but reliable source of facts is reasonable, for example stating that RamAir broadcast on FM. As you say material may be promotional in tone, but the facts are still correct (it would fall under advertising standards if they lied) --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added some sourcing.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been revised with the wider union's activities included, it is a unique union in the UK with its varying activities and left wing politics. It is also only one of the few that have no president. The article does still lack some sources but they are being added and the article improved. A lot of good information is included in this article and it should be tagged for improvement not deletion as the article in itself it worthy of an entry. If the article was merged back in to the University article it would take up too higher proportion of the article as an independent institution. --Lloyd rm (talk) 12:13, 5 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) 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for the Student Affairs Task Force of WikiProject Universities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been an AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. Andy Hartley (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. _TheIslander 23:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This is why (as last time I pointed out that it is one of very few (not sure if its unique) that do not have a union president, hence making it unusual, and to a lesser extent they way sports are run. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep until we actually have a policy. My view is that they are are notable if from a major university. The details of how they are run are not significant. lets get consensus in a proper way with broad participation. DGG (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Maxim_(talk) 14:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Guild of Students[edit]

Article fails WP:N - fails to assert any notability whatsoever, through means of external links to independant sources etc. _TheIslander 15:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Local student groups are generally not notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for the Student Affairs Task Force of WikiProject Universities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notable information presented. Merge anything important to the main university article. Powers ^T 19:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Powers and WP:ORG and WP:N. The article will never be able to gain notability. —Noetic Sage 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been an AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. Andy Hartley (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. _TheIslander 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Stop the rampant deletionism!. Practically every other university SU has a page, often split from the main article to prevent it from overwhelming the main article. Francium12 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep in mind that just because there are countless other SU articles does not mean they all should be kept. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for a clarification on this.—Noetic Sage 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:ORG. Note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Storkk (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until we have a policy otherwise. Nominating them all in the hope of geting a few deleted each time is not a constructive way of establishing a consensus. DGG (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Maxim_(talk) 14:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Students' Union[edit]

Article fails WP:N - fails to assert any notability whatsoever, through means of external links to independant sources etc. _TheIslander 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Local student groups are generally not notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for the Student Affairs Task Force of WikiProject Universities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:N, and WP:ORG —Noetic Sage 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been an AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. Andy Hartley (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. _TheIslander 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until we have a policy otherwise. Nominating them all in the hope of geting a few deleted each time is not a constructive way of establishing a consensus. DGG (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Maxim_(talk) 14:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Plymouth Students' Union[edit]

Article fails WP:N - has been tagged as such since May - seven months, pleanty of time. _TheIslander 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, looks like it's had its chance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for the Student Affairs Task Force of WikiProject Universities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:N, and WP:ORG. —Noetic Sage 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been an AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. Andy Hartley (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. _TheIslander 23:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until we have a policy otherwise. Nominating them all in the hope of geting a few deleted each time is not a constructive way of establishing a consensus. I apologized for saying just the same as the previous two articles, but it is exactly the same issue, and the same inappropriate use of process. DGG (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete all; will userify if someone wants to try their hand at a merged article. — Coren ^(talk)

Saucer separation[edit]

Also nominating these articles:

No reliable sources or assertion of notability for this plot device (and related topics). These entries are entirely plot summary with droppings of original research. --EEMIV (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three - per nom. As a fan of the series, these articles do nothing but cover relatively minor plot points, and have absolutely zero connection outside of the universe. All of this is already mentioned in the appropriate articles on the various incarnations of hte starship Enterprise. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to new article on Star Trek ship design trends and influence. Powers ^T 19:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Unless reliable sourcing can be found to establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to an article on the Galaxy-class Enterprise. Certainly recall this being covered in the initial press releases for TNG. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Agree this was a "big deal" when the show came out. Hobit (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all — Non-notable trek-cruft that knows no-bounds. --Jack Merridew 10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and OR. The subjects are already covered in articles on the various space ships. Nuttah (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, then redirect to List of middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia ; redirects are cheap. Maxim_(talk) 14:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Middle School[edit]

Non notable Middle School. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would have recommended merge, but there is no appropriate place to merge it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools. Arthurrh (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new article: List of middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia which seems like a better way to handle coverage of middle schools in this district unless the articles can meet WP:N. I invite anyone with an interest to edit the new article. It seems to me that all or nearly all of these middle school articles could, with enough research, meet Wikipedia notability standards when some editor has the interest and ability to do the research. I would change to "Keep" if sourcing is provided for this article, as per WP:HEY Noroton (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and drop link in ((Fairfax County Public Schools)). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and redirect. Maxim_(talk) 14:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Frost Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia)[edit]

Non notable Middle School. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education Malinaccier (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Merge does not appear to be an option. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools Arthurrh (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ooh, it's accredited, that's surprising. Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless serious sources demonstrating notability are found. Isn't the new policy to merge/redirect to the district first, and only resort to AfD if reverted? AnteaterZot (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new article: List of middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia which seems like a better way to handle coverage of middle schools in this district unless the articles can meet WP:N. I invite anyone with an interest to edit the new article. It seems to me that all or nearly all of these middle school articles could, with enough research, meet Wikipedia notability standards when some editor has the interest and ability to do the research. I would change to "Keep" if sourcing is provided for this article, as per WP:HEY Noroton (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and drop link in ((Fairfax County Public Schools)). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy_Harbor_Comics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Happy Harbor Comics

Article about a company that does not indicate the importance of the subject GreenGourd 15:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Completely non-notable. Jmlk 1 7 04:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take it the above two missed the claims of importance contained within the article. Because if they disagreed with them, they would have said. For the record, the article states the chain is 2007 Eisner Nominee For Retailer Of The Year, 2007 Harry Kremer Award Winner For Outstanding Canadian Comic Book Retailer, 2007 Reader's Choice Award For Edmonton's Best Comic Store, 2006 Eisner Nominee For Retailer Of The Year, 2006 Harry Kremer Award For Canadian Retailer Of The Year Runner-Up and 2006 Reader's Choice Award For Edmonton's Best Comic Store Runner-Up. Now I'm well aware that Wikipedia can't be a directory of every shop in the world, but rather than bandy about shortcuts, let's judge each article individually. Where do people stand on the article in question and the facts it asserts, could we stretch to include articles on chains of shops which have achievements such as this, or is this a bridge too far at present? Hiding T 11:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My original nomination of the case for speedy deletion and subsequent listing here speak for themselves. But I don't think this is a particularly close case. The one-sentence article does not itself make any claims of notability. One might read the list of awards and recognitions as an assertion of notability, but that would be an unusually generous reading. In any event, we are presented with an article about a group of local comic stores that are, at most, apparently well-liked. It is difficult for me to see why an encyclopedia article about those stores is warranted. GreenGourd (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't realised it was generous to read a list of awards as an assertion of having achieved something. I also hadn't realised our speedy deletion criteria had been amended to allow not-notable articles to be deleted. All I'm trying to do here is make sure we keep the debate focussed on the article itself and stay intellectually honest. It's much better to debate whether an encyclopedia article about these stores is warranted than about acronyms, abbreviations and procedures. Hiding T 13:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the 'notable' part of why I included Happy Harbor, being one of their recent fund raisers for the community. I am still trying to find corroborating evidence for their same efforts for 2007. Sketchpcis (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When will I know that this issue has been settled? Just curious if I've given enough information or not to warrant keeping the entry up. Sketchpcis (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 11:05, 4 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) 18:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as this store may actually hold some regional notability, and thus I'm gonna have to go with WP:IDONTKNOWIT as there does seem to be some legitimacy behind these awards. That being said, this worried me. And I do wonder why the awards either don't have a wiki article, or make no mention of this store in the wiki article (the Eisner Award article makes no reference to it). Combined with no real notability outside a regional area (in which it may be impossible to determine the notoability of) and the lack of defined notability in the article other than awards with questionable notability themselves, I give this a weak delete. I could be swayed, however, if I saw something that would suggest notability within the area, or if the awards given affected such notability. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So a company's importance is based on if its awards and recognitions are listed on Wikipedia, and its importance reginally means nothing if it's not in a global scale? Just want to clarify, as that's pretty much what you just said here =\...Also, there was a link to the company's regional work for charity within the province of Alberta, not just Edmonton. And why on earth would the forums worry you? We're not judging the company based on a forum (not particularly associated with the company, I might ad) that is hosted and maintained by the owner of the company, we're judging if the legitimacy of the awards, and the regional work down for Alberta/Canadian charities is note-worthy enough to include the company on wikipedia. (also, Want to know why it's not listed on the wiki for the Eisner award winners? Because It was only a Nominee) Please, try to keep this on topic, and not try to draw in things and issues that have little to no bearing on the legitimacy of this article being posted on wikipedia. I would still like to know when a decision is going to be made in full, one way or the other. Sketchpcis (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, hold up, the thing that made me only put it as weak delete IS regional importance, that's why I pointed to WP:IDONTKNOWIT. That being said however, it is hard for us to establish the awards as notable if they have not already been deemed notable.

1. I'm not saying that they aren't notable since they aren't on Wikipedia. I was saying rather that the awards not having articles on Wikipedia makes us question their notability.

2. If we had an article for everything that donated a significant sum to charity, we would have many articles.

3. I have no idea how notable it IS in the area, and you're pointing to awards. I have no idea how notable the awards are in the area either.

4. And really, I realize it was a nominee, but the category you say it was nominated for is not on the Eisner awards wiki, whether it was a nominee or not.

5. Generally, wiki articles being watched on forums were done either for fun, to impress somebody, or by somebody affiliated with the article in an unacceptable way. The forum thing can't be quoted as policy, and I don't use it as such, but it does still worry me.

Anything else? Have I cleared things up a little? Basically, I don't need you to establish a huge amount of notability. Just show me that it is notable in a regional area and I can be persuaded to declare that I don't know it, but it sounds good. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 00:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you've cleared things up quite a bit more. Unfortunately, I really don't know -how- to make this seem more notable than I already have =\. I've told the actual owner (Jay) about the article, and to come and add more to it as he sees fit to make it more notable, but he hasn't really done as such (from what I can tell). And I can assure you that I did not make the Article with any ulterior motives, besides putting an article about what I feel (yes, this is bias :P) is a very good comic book store that does a great deal of good for the community it's a part of. At any rate, if this is removed, I at least understand -why- it is. I just hope it meets whatever standards to stay up. EDIT: I will say to #2 of your points is a rather weak argument ;)...I believe that if organizations or companies that donate large sums to ANY charity should be deemed noteworthy, but that is again a biased opinion, and I'm trying to keep this article as unbiased as possible.Sketchpcis (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Reader's choice awards wouldn't really count as significant but the Harry Kremer Awards and some press coverage makes it a bare squeak past the notability bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'm not sure I believe the awards, but assume good faith, right? Some documentation of the awards/nominations being real and not just something you get by signing up would be nice. Hobit (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stronge delete - With all due respect to Sketchpcis (talk), these are just some local, if well-respected, shops. They're not notable enough to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. GreenGourd (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Eisner award is the notable one, and the shop is only a nominee there, not a winner. The Kremer award might qualify for notability, but in my judgement is too new and perhaps too limited. Pastordavid (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Eisner nomination is not notable, as anyone in business over two years can be nominated by anyone, but the Kremer is of national scope, and seems reasonably notable, though new. Readers' Choice award adds to this.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Glasgow Middle School[edit]

Non notable Middle School. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education Malinaccier (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Merge does not appear to be an option. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools Arthurrh (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless serious sources demonstrating notability are found. Isn't the new policy to merge/redirect to the district first, and only resort to AfD if reverted? AnteaterZot (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some refs re their association with George Mason University. I'm not sure if it passes notability now or not, but I found it unique and interesting. There are lots more regs in that area. Arthurrh (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the George Mason sources are independent of the school as Wikpedia defines independence, although I'm not sure. Noroton (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a new article: List of middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia which seems like a better way to handle coverage of middle schools in this district unless the articles can meet WP:N. I invite anyone with an interest to edit the new article. It seems to me that all or nearly all of these middle school articles could, with enough research, meet Wikipedia notability standards when some editor has the interest and ability to do the research. I would change to "Keep" if sourcing is provided for this article, as per WP:HEY Noroton (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and drop link in ((Fairfax County Public Schools)). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia, which has been created since most of the delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herndon Middle School[edit]

Non notable Middle School. See also Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education Malinaccier (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Merge does not appear to be an option. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools Arthurrh (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless serious sources demonstrating notability are found. Isn't the new policy to merge/redirect to the district first, and only resort to AfD if reverted? AnteaterZot (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new article: List of middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia which seems like a better way to handle coverage of middle schools in this district unless the articles can meet WP:N. I invite anyone with an interest to edit the new article. It seems to me that all or nearly all of these middle school articles could, with enough research, meet Wikipedia notability standards when some editor has the interest and ability to do the research. I would change to "Keep" if sourcing is provided for this article, as per WP:HEY Noroton (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and drop link in ((Fairfax County Public Schools)). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia, which has been created since most of the delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination was withdrawn, resulting with a keep. --Michael Greiner 01:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Knauss[edit]

Another article on very old person, most of which is unsupported by the refs supplied. A Google search threw up lots of hits on webforums etc, but the closest I found to a reliable source was this largely speculative article in the Journal of Financial Planning, which mostly refers to the times she lived in and says very little about Knauss. Unless some substantive coverage in reliable sources can be found, I suggest either deletion or merger to List of American supercentenarians. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Nomination withdrawn to allow for article improvement now that refs have been found which, if verified, might establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Hmm, thank you! Neal (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. One of the women to have the oldest person in the world title, why doesn't this make her notable?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest reading WP:BIO. There appears to be little to say about her which can be reliably sourced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Seems like the 2nd oldest verified woman in the history of the human race is going for deletion over need of more citations and references. Neal (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- Reply She is included in the relevant lists, and her position there is not in dispute. However per WP:BIO, references to substantial coverage are required for a stanbdalone article. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel like this should be kept, but I'm not entirely certain that the coverage merits it yet. Will wait to see if anyone can produce some good reliable sources before I have an opinion. So I guess, maybe this is a "provisional keep." Cheers, CP 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Now changing to a keep, per strength of references. Cheers, CP 04:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - utmost respect for really old people, who must have been very careful, but this does not qualify someone as notable.~~ Avruch ^Talk 21:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to keep per enormous number of references just provided... Avruch ^Talk 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference better I don't want to seem rude but, but these look like BrownHairedGirl Bad Faith Nominations. A simple Google search found many references, why didn't the nominator find them? It appears that she was angry and is retaliating by nominating all the articles for deletion without preforming the minimal due diligence. Do you honestly not how to do a Google search, or are you presenting selective research to bolster your point? ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Richard Arthur, if you don't want to appear rude, then stop alleging bad faith and using boldface type to make unfounded accusations of selective research. This one of several similar allegations which you have in the last few hours, and it's getting rather tedious. As I have stated umpteen times, my preference with most of the many articles on non-notable oldies would have been to merge them, and it was only when the mergers were reverted while notability was still not established that I brought them to AfD to allow for a consensus decision on their fate in those cases where I did not find references (I did find refs for ecample for Virginia Muise, and added them to the article). As you will see if you look at the many other nominations, most of them have not so far been improve to meet notability thresholds.
  I provided in my nomination a direct link to the google search which I used in good faith, and on which I checked the first few pages. Well done finding more references, which is precisely what I asked to be done, but there is no need to be rude just because you found refs which I missed.
  However, I note that the references are less impressive than the list of 7 might suggest: Morning Call and BBC story are alleged copies of news articles (possibly copyvios), the CNN story is an alleged copy of a news article in a mailing list archive, the Guardian ref is a 46-word snippet, the Washington Post story is almost identical to the BBC, suggesting that both are based on the same AP stories (which also the source of the CNN story, though the Philadelphia Inquirer article does appear substantive (1681 words according to Highbeam). If someone can actually dig out the full text of the articles, I think that notability may be established by PA+Inquirer, but I note that your list so far doesn't include the full text of any substantive article on its original website. At this point, I will withdraw the nomination to give interested editors a chance to improve the article, but I hope that any further discussion can take place without further personal attacks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Washington Post plagiarizes from AP releases, if it did, it would be bigger news than this story. All the references are similar, as I hope they should be, because they are all interviewing the same person, her granddaughter. I am never rude, no more than a teacher giving someone a bad grade, but I won't praise, or keep silent when someone nominates without performing, minimally, a thorough Google search. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold that front page: here is nothing new in a newspaper using a wire service; not all of them name the wire at the top of the article (it's sometimes at the bottom), and it may not survive in reproductions. Your reply confirms that you still haven't read my nomination, and the fact that you think you are like a teacher scolding an errant child makes my point about your lack of manners better than I could. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how you transmogrified "teacher giving someone a bad grade" into "teacher scolding an errant child", but they are not synonyms.
Plagiarism What evidence do you have the the Washington Post used the Associated Press article without attribution? It is a strong statement to make. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. Richard, calm down and read what I actually wrote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey, thank you, Richard Norton! Neal (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep and reference better - improve the references. --Maniwar (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Second oldest person proven EVER is certainly notable, as well as those refs that back it up. Probably BHG bad-faith again. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jaknouse (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep now that nom is withdrawn. --Storkk (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "Mrs. Sarah Knauss, the World's Oldest Person, Turns 119". The Morning Call. September 25, 1999. Retrieved 2007-12-09. Mrs. Sarah Knauss began her final year as a teenager Friday, unless she lives for another 100 years. The world's oldest person turned 119, marking her birthday at Phoebe Home in Allentown, Pennsylvania with a trip to the hair stylist, a taste of crab patty, and more than a few bites of butterscotch sundae and chocolate turtles. Asked if she made a wish when she blew out the candles on an iced chocolate, vanilla and strawberry cake, Knauss delayed for a moment before replying, "No." After 119 birthdays, how many wishes can possibly be left? And how many other people can say they were born in '80 -- as in, 1880? ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ "World's oldest person misses millennium". CNN. Retrieved 2007-12-09. The oldest person in the world has died two days short of seeing her third century. Sarah Knauss, whose claim is recognised by the Guinness Book of Records, died on Thursday at the age of 119, just missing the new millennium. Mrs Knauss died of natural causes in a nursing home in Allentown, Pennsylvania. "She died quietly in her room. She was not ill," the head of the home said. "They had stopped in to see her just less than an hour before, and when the nurse went back, she had passed away." ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ "Sarah Knauss, world's oldest person, 119". Associated Press. December 30, 1999. Retrieved 2007-12-09. Sarah Knauss, listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the world's oldest person, died Thursday at the age of 119, according to a spokeswoman at the Allentown nursing home where she lived. ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ "World's Oldest Person, Sarah Knauss, Dies at 119". Washington Post. December 31, 1999. Retrieved 2007-12-09. Sarah Knauss, listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the world's oldest person, died Dec. 30 at the age of 119, apparently of natural causes, according to an official at the Allentown, Pennsylvania, nursing home where she lived. "She died quietly in her room. She was not ill," said Marcella Moyer Schick, executive director of the Pheobe-Devitt Homes Foundation. "They had stopped in to see her just less than an hour before, and when the nurse went back, she had passed away." ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ "A look through the eyes of Sarah Knauss". Philadelphia Enquirer. Retrieved 2007-12-09. Sarah Knauss is 118 years old. She is the world's oldest person and lives in an Allentown nursing home. Her daughter, Kitty Sullivan, turned 95 Tuesday. She just gave away her Oldsmobile and moved into a retirement community across the street from her mother. The daughter says she's having a hard time adjusting to living around so many old people. "I feel like an inmate," she said. Sarah's grandson, Robert Butz, 73, lives ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ "Nothing Fazes Oldest Woman". Associated Press. April 19, 1998. Retrieved 2007-12-09. Sarah Knauss had a simple response when she learned she was the oldest woman alive. "So what?" the 117-year-old said Friday in Allentown, Pa. Marie-Louise Febronie Meilleur, a Canadian who died Thursday, was Knauss' senior by 26 days. The Guinness Book of Records has officially passed the mantle to Knauss. Born Sept. 24, 1880, in a small mining town, she married Abraham Lincoln Knauss in 1901. Abe, a well-known Lehigh County Republican leader and ... ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ "World's oldest person dies". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-12-09. The world's oldest person, Sarah Knauss, died yesterday at the age of 119 at a retirement home in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Mrs Knauss, who was born in September 1880, died of natural causes just 33 hours before the beginning of the new century. Michael Ellison, New York. ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

The result was no consensus - there is clearly no consensus whether the article should be kept or deleted, so the article is defaulted to being kept. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thames Valley University Students' Union[edit]

Another thouroughly average students' union, with an article on Wikipedia which asserts no notability whatsoever through any means, such as external links to independant sources. _TheIslander 15:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations. Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Auroranorth (!) 12:57, 6 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) 18:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for the Student Affairs Task Force of WikiProject Universities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Thames Valley University. The students' union article fails to assert notability backed up with independant third party sources. AngelOfSadness talk 21:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Auroranorth and WP:ORG —Noetic Sage 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been an AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. Andy Hartley (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. _TheIslander 23:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until we have a policy otherwise. Nominating them all in the hope of geting a few deleted each time is not a constructive way of establishing a consensus. I apologized for saying just the same as the previous three or four articles, but it is exactly the same issue, and the same inappropriate use of process. DGG (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - student unions, as with all pages, have to meet WP:N and this doesn't. Without WP:RSs it has to be deleted on policy grounds. TerriersFan (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local org. Mbisanz (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, then recreate as Redirect→List of middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Langston Hughes Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia)[edit]

Non notable Middle School. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Merge does not appear to be an option. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to be anything unique worth merging into Fairfax County Public Schools Arthurrh (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arthurrh. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless serious sources demonstrating notability are found. Isn't the new policy to merge/redirect to the district first, and only resort to AfD if reverted? AnteaterZot (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new article: List of middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia which seems like a better way to handle coverage of middle schools in this district unless the articles can meet WP:N. I invite anyone with an interest to edit the new article. It seems to me that all or nearly all of these middle school articles could, with enough research, meet Wikipedia notability standards when some editor has the interest and ability to do the research. I would change to "Keep" if sourcing is provided for this article, as per WP:HEY Noroton (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and drop link in ((Fairfax County Public Schools)). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia, obviously. TerriersFan (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Irving Middle School[edit]

Non notable Middle school, see Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm about to list a bunch of other schools in the county. If you think it would be O.K. to list these together, let me know on my talk page because I am unsure whether to or not. Thanks! Malinaccier (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, because they all have the same merge issue. However, you might want to just double check to make sure that there is no surprise sitting notability in one of them. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly discourage this. Schools have each a different range of available sources and deserve individual consideration. If you multiple list then you risk a train smash. I would also suggest you should carry out a Google News check (including archives) before listing any school. TerriersFan (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Merge does not appear to be an option. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools Arthurrh (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new article: List of middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia which seems like a better way to handle coverage of middle schools in this district unless the articles can meet WP:N. I invite anyone with an interest to edit the new article. It seems to me that all or nearly all of these middle school articles could, with enough research, meet Wikipedia notability standards when some editor has the interest and ability to do the research. I would change to "Keep" if sourcing is provided for this article, as per WP:HEY Noroton (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and drop link in ((Fairfax County Public Schools)). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia, obviously. TerriersFan (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jevon Sims[edit]

Prod, Hoax and Fact repeatedly removed. Subject is a very minor film actor and is claimed to be a notable recording artist. Google does not bear this out. Earlier versions of the article made so many puffed up claims that the article was tagged with Hoax. More recent edits are reducing the demonstrably excessive claims however the article remains unreferenced and excessively promotional. The bottom line is that, stripped of excessive claims, there is little notability here as an actor and none as a recording artist. The sole valid demonstration of notability is the IMDB entry. Is this enough? DanielRigal (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it incredible that people would use their time to shoot down the accomplishments of others. I personally know this artist and can account for what is written here. In as much as there are over 20 different genres of music in America, and giving consideration to the fact that the person who questions this artist's validity is not even in the COUNTRY, I find it to be incredulous to be so critical just because you could not find everything listed here on the internet. Since when did the Internet REPLACE adequate and proper research. At last check it was supposed to be utilized as a persuasive suplement. Your continued self-serving blast of people is nothing short of narcissistic. As I read the article initially, it did indeed have unreferenced and some unverifiable sources. However, upon several edit (some of which were actually done by me), I find that those questions have been thoroughly addressed and those that were anot verifiable-deleted. I would ask that this person's information remains in the wikipedia library. Unless, of course, the person DanielRigal who continues this datribe against the artist would like to take a trip to Atlanta, Georgia and verify or disprove the article references for themselves. (Unsigned comment by user:Antavius)

Please calm down. I have nothing against the subject of the article, just like I have nothing against the billions of other people who do not have Wikipedia articles (including myself). If you can demonstrate notability then please do so. If you succeed then the article will not be deleted and it will be a better article at the end of the process. Please remember that you are editing an Encyclopedia and the onus is on all contributors to be able to prove the truth of what they add. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antavius, roughing the punter is a poor start to saving an article. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete:
- Google News search shows there have been zero mentions of Jevon Sims in the press in the last 30 days
  - Same thing when I checked for "Vawn" in the last 30 days: nothing about this guy
- Google News archive search shows just the one mention of JeVon Sims in his local newspaper 17 years ago.
  - Google News archive search for "vawn + rap" since 1995 turns up no press mentions
  - Google News archive search for "vawn + def jam" since 1995 turns up no press mentions
- When I go to the Def Jam Recordings web site (that's his supposed record producer), he's not on their list of artists. In fact, when I enter either Vawn or JeVon in the Def Jam search box, I still get nothing.

Who is this guy?--A. B. ^(talk) 18:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete or Speedy delete as appropriate: Article itself is self-damning. His "big break" was in "Mama Flora's Family"; check out the IMDB entry for the movie, and he isn't even listed; for comparison, an uncredited policeman and various assistant accounts are. Try and buy the blockbuster hit record "Hollyhood" from any large (or even modest) on-line retail outlet. No availability. "2Crucial" or "Shades of Color" + any of the items listed? Nada. But best of all is this combo: After graduating from C.L.Harper High School Mr. Sims - born August 12, 1979 - formed "Shades of Color", peaking with the song "Freaky Lover"(DaVille Records) in 1992. Sooooo... he graduated from high school before the age of 13? Uh huh. (Wanna bet the birthdate changes soon?) Sounds to me like this whole thing lies between hyperbole and fiction. But I'm just an American... Psinu^{always forgets}_{to sign} 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per A. B.. While I agree with user:Antavius on certain aspects of research, the checks being made should have turned up significant support. The fact that they are finding nothing is a red flag that the notability of this article needs to be brought into serious doubt. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy delete 'cause I say so. Well, actually because this looks like a hoax. Sorry I was misleading, but so is this guy. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 19:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ought to have been a CSD. Delete per non-notability. Avruch ^Talk 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I never put speedy delete on it is that the article made quite impressive claims that would have indicated valid notability if they had been substantiated. It only dawned on me gradually that things were not as they seemed and even then I was not sure it was right to put speedy delete on somebody with an IMDB entry. I was trying to be fair to the author and give him a chance to sort things out although he clearly doesn't see it that way (see above). --DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DanielRigal, you did the right thing. When in doubt at all, don't speedy delete. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per A.B -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
/A.B. stuff/ Then the subject is obviously not notable. Wrap this up now. Besides, the article itself is poorly made. ^Dlae│_here 21:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- May I put the final nail in the coffin by reiterating my speedy delete because of clear WP:COI? Check this out: 1) Go to the IMDB link and look at the photo. 2) Look at the name of the photographer for both of the photos (including the one used here) - "Antavius Weems". 3) Look at the user profile name of the person who submitted the original article and reacted so violently to DanielRigal ("Antavius"). 4) Remember that (quote from IMDB) "IMDb Photos are provided to IMDb.com by industry professionals, their agents and legal representatives." 5) Convince yourself that it's a total coincidence. Ummm, Antavius, it's one thing to be dishonest, but a completely 'nother thing to be just not that bright about putting the dishonesty into action in a way that's not totally transparent. Buh-bye, Jevon. Psinu^{always forgets}_{to sign} 21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball - adding my voice that DanielRigal also acted properly. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote: Just want to note that deleting the prod tag is the acceptable way to contest a proposed deletion, although it should be accompanied by an explanation. But unless a prod tag was deleted in an act of vandalism, it should not be replaced. Instead it should be referred to AfD, as it has been. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Hardy[edit]

Single-sourced article on the oldest living combat veteran and last African American veteran of World War I. The lone reference is to an AP wire story, and a google search threw up plenty of hits, but so far as I could see the only coverage in reliable sources all relies on the same AP wire story (see e.g. [25], [26], and [27]). His assertion of notability is stronger than for other very old people, but the single source makes him marginal wrt WP:BIO. Unless more substabtive coverage can be found in reliable sources, I suggest merger to List of American supercentenarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? This bad faith nom is due to the fact that BHG has been targeting substancial supercentenarian articles because there is no stated policy on super-cs in WP:BIO, which she always uses against me. She also has something against one source. This page has one major source, the associated press article, and because the associated press did such a good job, many other newspapers copied off them for his obit. This guy was the last African-American combat vetaran, ono of the last period, and second oldest man in the wordld when he died. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, then to Keely Dorsey, an unimportant college football player, than a famous old guy whosserved overseas. In fact, I'm nominating List of American supercentenarians for deletion. You know who I am, but anyway ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitia, please do re-read the relevant policies and guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, and try to understand why a single-source is undesirable for verification or for notability. For several weeks, I have been going through a few categories which contain lots of stub articles which often rely on original research, and/or which do not meet the notability criteria at WP:BIO; if they meet the tests in WP:BIO, they will be kept, but I have been assessing them all because so many of them fall so far short of the standards required.

The absence of any presumption of notability for supercentenarians is not some fiendish plot aimed at you, it is just means that supercentenarians are assessed by the same rule as for other articles. As to Keeley Dorsey, nominate it for deletion if you want to; but List of American supercentenarians was discussed at AfD only 2 weeks ago, with a result of "keep". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I like that article. It's just, with all the notable super-cs you are nominating for deletion, I think that Dorsey should be the next to go, before them. Sure, I saw one super-c that was merely a factoid and I voted delete, but Moses Hardy and many others are special cases, and should be kept. As for the American list, it is already nominated for deletion again. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick google serach turned up a few non-obit sources on Mr. Hardy. I would suggest that his status as one of the last two veterans of the First World War gives him notability. The press sure thought so.[28], [29] So did the State of Mississippi [30] —Preceding unsigned comment added by LonelyBeacon (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For being the last surving African-American World War I soldier, plus miscellaneous other minor records. Neal (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep In this case, while the current amount of referencing is unacceptable, a Google search does turn up what I believe to be sufficient sources that could be used to improve this article. Will try and incorporate them into the article and see what it looks like soon. Cheers, CP 20:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several significant claims to notability -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are claims to notability, but the coverage remains too trivial to pass WP:BIO, and still possibly falls foul of WP:NOT#NEWS. A merger to List of American supercentenarians could be reversed if more substantial coverage is found. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep there is a difference between article like this and some of the others, with claims of only state-wide longevity. Perhaps it miht be wiser to be more slective in nomination. DGG (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KFFL.com[edit]

Website with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. NN, fails WP:WEB. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, unless this site can establish notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A google search for "KFFL.com -wikipedia" retrieves 280,000 hits. Is that notable? Kingturtle (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Google_test says not necessarily.--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, borderline advert. - Dravecky (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand. Site is 11 years old and provides content to major US newspapers. Seems to be notable.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you can point us towards some sources that show notability? I couldn't find any. Thanks.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I like this website, no evidence of meeting WP:WEB, Delete Secret ^account 06:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blend Corp.[edit]

Non-notable record label—just two releases by one minor artist. Part of a self-promotion campaign by Bevin Cambpell (or someone editing using his name and creating articles about his radio show and record label). Precious Roy 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a record label, they do not appear to attracted independent coverage which would establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 7 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) 17:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been added to the list of companies nominated for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to List of TUGS episodes. For the moment, I'll just create a construction site for the target and redirect there. Tikiwont (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jinxed (TUGS episode)[edit]

Non-notable episode of childrens's TV show, prod tag removed. AnteaterZot 17:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim & Merge into List of TUGS episodes with all the other episodes. This article shouldn't have been started, but a list of episodes is common practise. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:32, 4 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) 17:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject TUGS. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and wait for meta discussion on TV episodes to finish before deleting. Hobit (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about, "redirect to TUGS for now", and recreate if the meta discussion is ever resolved in its favor? AnteaterZot (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the should be created List of TUGS episodes. This one has no indication of notabilty Secret ^account 00:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No notability on its own. Mbisanz (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman Gary Bell[edit]

Non-notable local radio host. No reliable sources cited. Article has been tagged with notability concerns since March. Caknuck 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While a local host, I wouldn't call him non-notable. Those who have listened to Gary Bell know that he's absolutely insane, and is the living embodiment of the con spiracy theorist. He's worth an entry because he could be the formal definition of "kook" or "whack-job". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.195.66 (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Spaceman does present himself as completely insane, and yet is wildly entertaining and has managed to establish a fan base. His integration of NLP and other social engineering tactics within the show (a first?) should most definitely be considered as well. Furthermore, national news radio stations don't count as reliable sources?GloomyRobot (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— GloomyRobot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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) 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, majority of Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ten Pound Hammer. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 18:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have a strong feeling that the missing sourcing for this article could be dug up with some effort. Unless we are to disbelieve the statement that he has been taken off the air on numerous occasions, he must surely have generated some media buzz. So my educated guess is that notability is not the issue and that finding the requisite sources not justify an AfD but rather a maintenance tag. __meco (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Here are the notability policies by which the article may survive this AfD:
- Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
- Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

If any of these two can be documented from independent sources, then the article is a keeper. I doubt that Bell has a large fan base, but if he is as insane a conspiracy theorist as stated above, then he would have the cult following to show for it. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Normally, blogs are not enough to establish a person's notability, but this case is special. We are looking for a cult following, which means one shouldn't expect much coverage in mainstream media, but extensive coverage in alternate sources such as blogs. It's not a matter of whether each individual blog is reliable, it's a matter of how many blogs speak about Bell. Google returns this[31]. Additionally, at least one conspiracy theory site features him prominently. See this[32]. I have to say this site is Toronto-based, but it does not seem to be otherwise related to Bell. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 13:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than Wikipedia mirrors, there doesn't seem to be much said about this subject. Fan popularity aside, some independent sources indicating importance should be required to keep this article. --Stormbay (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some sources establishing the world has noticed him are provided. Nuttah (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urrealism[edit]

This fits the textbook definition of something "made up in school one day." Specifically, made up by one F. C. Reynolds, a high school teacher in or near Cleveland. The tone of the article is not encyclopaedic, it reads more as an advocacy piece for the group and its philosophy. There is no evidence offered of the notability of this ersatz "movement," indeed, most of the content of the article has to do with Surrealism, of which Urrealism considers itself a "deepening." It was prodded twice ([[33]] and [[34]]) not long after its creation, and both times, the prod notice was removed with little improvement being made to the article. It still reads as an essay. Delete as unreferenced, nonnotable, and nonencyclopaedic. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay for a subject that isn't notable anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the nomination: It appears, from the citations, that the content that isn't about surrealism is based upon a "private e-mail message", and is thus unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable, and probably made up. Malinaccier (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. G search shows a lot of hits for "unrealism", but they have nothing to do with the topic of this article. Though one wonders if this article is itself unreal, and perhaps proof of its own exist ... nevermind. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's "ur-", not "un-", notice. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete philosophycruft. JuJube (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yassen[edit]

100% unsourced - no proof even that there will be further books in the series, never mind titles. Simply contains two sentences of speculation and OR. The PROD was removed by an IP with no explanation. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, the article is nothing more than speculation about a future book. The author has only "suggested" the title so this could all change anyway - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any evidence that the author has even done that. The only place that I can find anything at all discussing this subject actually cites this very Wikipedia article as its source. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Dumelow. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete unsourced speculation -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all. Kurykh 04:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Booster 1[edit]

Another mass nomination. Please see this AfD for the previous batch. The reasoning for deletion is the same; these are all unencyclopedic lists of trading cards with no sourcing, context, content or assertion of notability. BLACKKITE 15:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Delete all or Merge all into some kind of sourced List of Yu-Gi-Oh! booster packs with relevant information as to why they would possibly be notable. If an extended intro combined with informational sections for each booster with information (such as release dates, sale records, differences between American/Japanese versions, critical reception, SOMETHING) were added, that would make this more than a straight list and thus make it worthwhile. As a standalone list, it appears to be advertising. At any rate, all of these need to be deleted. The author can choose to heed my advice about a single article or not. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 19:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per policy WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The previous AfD batch mentioned WP:NOT#GUIDE, but I agree that with LonelyBeacon that the main issue is WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (and general WP:NOTABILITY). – sgeureka ^t•c 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. per nom's reasoning. Also, I notified the author of these articles though xe hasn't editing in over 6 months. Procedural. Keeper | 76 22:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all. Kurykh 04:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Students in PS238[edit]

list of non-notable characters from a minor comic (PS238). will381796 (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - a lot of this is plot summary, and Wikipedia doesn't need all this detail about non-notable individual characters. JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye-Aye (Simptimes)[edit]

non-notable cartoon character from a fan site will381796 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:MADEUP also see previous related AfD for more context - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simptimes nancy ^(talk) 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, wikipedia is not a repository for things that people have just made up - Dumelow (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author did not bother to create an article on Simptimes, and one cannot verify how notable Aye-Aye is even within the Simptimes universe. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yeah... Multiple speedy deletion that led to salting. WP:COATRACK (uh, not quite). --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above arguments and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simptimes. Hiding T 10:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per "Would you please not put things you've made up yourself on Wiki?" AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning above, and now per its chances. Keeper | 76 22:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, I agree, this one looks like a made-up article, and I find that kinda...childish. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; the first 100 results of a Google search show no mention of this cartoon character. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and total trash. JuJube (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge and redirect to List of American supercentenarians. Reso lute 21:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Lazenby[edit]

Yet another unreferenced stub on a very old person, fails WP:BIO. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Epbr123 (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless I'm successful with Google-searching this woman, seems like this article is just another factoid. Neal (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or Merge My search was unsuccessful (I did all my searching for all these SCs before I started commenting, for those who are wondering why I'm voting in such rapid succession). No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 16:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Merge with list or delete... but go Victuallers (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Between the NYT obit, and that she was once listed in the Guiness Book of Records^{[citation needed]}, there is enough notability to prevent me from merging into List of American supercentenarians as I have a couple others. If others feel a merge is better, that does not require AfD. Reso lute 20:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ettie Mae Greene[edit]

Under-referenced stub on a very old person. She did have a 93-word obituary in the New York Times, which sounds like promising suggestion of more detailed coverage in local papers, but a google search throws up only 46 hits, with no substantial coverage in relaible sources. The article refers to "an interview in 1991", but no references are provided, and I speculate that this may be original research (some supercentenarian-trackers interview their subjects). Without substantive coverage in reliable sources, this fails WP:BIO, so I suggest merger to List of American supercentenarians. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 16:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New York times obit, the interview in 1991 was referenced there. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The 1991 interview was mentioned, but not referenced. There is no evidence that any contributor to the article even knows where the interview was published. The only actual citation is the 93-word NYT obituary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Put simply, we have always without acception accepted a true obit in the NYT, even a short one, as evidence of notability, because of their very selective standards. better them than us--they're more professional and objective.DGG (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 93 words is hardly a "true obit"; it's a short death notice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. As per users "Kitia" and "DGG". Extremely sexy (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Neıl ☎ 11:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Graham (supercentenarian)[edit]

Another inadequately referenced short stub on a very old person. She may merit an entry on a list of very old people, but there is no sign of the substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources required to meet WP:BIO. Some of the commentary in the article appears to be original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dev/null for another centenarian wearing a blue suit with underpants on the outside with an S on their chest. A centenarian is still a centenarian right up to 199, so why the "super"? --WebHamster 16:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I agree, why not call them undecacentenarian or whatever. 'Super' just doesn't sound so fit, since it's a subjective word. Neal (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - It's Latin for "above". Wiktionary is your friend. wikt:super#Latin. Uncle G (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Especially troublesome is that much of this seems to be original research without citations to back it up. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 16:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and CP. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guiness World Records and GRG are not reliable sources? ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I don't believe that GRG is reliable, though others may differ; but both Guinness World Records and GRG offer only trivial coverage. Once again, Kitia, please do read what WP:BIO says about non-trivial coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, neither offer more than trivial coverage, but it is not a factoid. There was still info on her (such as the fact that she was born a slave and that she was the oldest person ever for a period) that constitute notabilty, right? ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it doesn't constitute notabilty; it is an assertion of notability, but not evidence of it. Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please do read what WP:BIO says about non-trivial coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kitia, I think you meant Guinness considers her the oldest, right? Since her case (of 114) is extremely weak. Neal (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Guinness never really designated her the oldest person in the world, until a Robert Young at age ~12 sent them an e-mail to. Neal (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Since this article is used in several succession boxes, merging it into a list will not allow the succession boxes to work well. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fans of something creating succession boxes is in no way a valid argument for keeping articles about the things "boxed." Edison (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
  - Reply The problem is, in many cases the closing admins counts up votes regardless if the person used a valid reason or not. Anyways, you can probably cite that source. Drat, I myself used Richard Norton's reason in another AfD somewhere, I may have to retract that reason. Neal (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as per Kitia. I'll bust your beak! (time for some beak bustin'!) 00:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC) — I'll bust your beak! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Given that Kitia's rationale is is based on an erroneous understanding of WP:BIO you may want to reconsider that standpoint. --WebHamster 12:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand. There is no specified policy of supercentenarians on WP:BIO, so if it even asserts a minor claim of notability (like this one) it should not be subject to AfD. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't seem to understand that if there's no specific mention in WP:BIO you don't arbitrarily make one up. Start a consensus on the Notability pages, not on an AfD. As it stands this article does not meet WP:BIO, and until there is a specific category then it comes under the general auspices of biographical notability. The way you think it should go is immaterial and should be ignored by the closing admin. WP:BIO states non-trivial and substantial. It does not say unless the article's subject is getting on a bit. --WebHamster 03:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having been the oldest living person ever for a time obviously constitutes notability. WP:BIO has a common sense clause and it should be invoked here. BovineBeast (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the oldest person is an assertion of notability, biut does not remove the need for substantial coverage per WP:BIO. Common sense says that there is no point in keeping a standalone article on someone who clearly fails the core notability test, when all the information in the very short article is already covered in no less than three lists: Oldest people, List of the oldest people, and Oldest validated person by year of birth. The article can of course be recreated if further research eveals substantial coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. Needs more references.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly is notability demonstrated per WP:BIO? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 'List of...' She deserves a sentence or two, but until there is enough for a Whole Article (as in WP:RS compliant), a mention in a List will do. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment - does anyone have a Guinness Book of World Records? If she is indeed in the book, she would be notable, in which case keep. BTW, it's hard to have multiple media mentions when you die in 1959, and in the conditions she died (race may have played a factor; it often did back then). The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The Guinness Book of World Records would help verify the claim and justify her inclusion in the 3 lists where she is already included, but the notability test for a standalone article article requires substantial coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to reply - I do believes this satisfies the spirit, if not the letter of WP:BIO, if it pertains to someone who was a one point the longest person ever to have lived (apologies to Methuselah). I do believe that The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field may apply as well. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but I don't think it comes anywhere near the spirit of WP:BIO. The footnote to The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field is relevant here: "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians". So far as we can determine, his person gas not been written about by any reliable sources, except to include her name and dates in a list.
      What is the point of having a standalone article when all that can be verifiably written about her is one short sentence? She is already in three lists: Oldest people, List of the oldest people, and Oldest validated person by year of birth. What does it add to the encylopedia to duplicate a list's contents across stub articles which say nothing more than is in the lists? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - As someone pointed out to me on a similar AFD, I worry we would be ridiculously guilty of recentism if we ignored this person. S/he would have received notable covereage if s'he were alive today, and if s/he weren't an ex-slave growing up in the South (hard to get media coverage). What works now should work then. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Spartan, we are not ignoring this person: as above, she is in three lists. But WP:V is one of wikipedia's fundamental policies: everything has to be sourced. I'm a strong opponent of recentism, but we can't counter it by creating articles for which there are no sources which allow us to say anything. There are countless people from the past who might have received more substantive coverage if they were alive today, but we can't just invent something to create an article about someone who we reckon should have been paid more attention: that's original research. It might be nice if there was somrthing more to say about her, but the fact is that there isn't.
        Please could address the question asked above: what does it add to the encyclopedia to duplicate a list's contents across stub articles which say nothing more than is in the lists? What exactly is such an article for, if it has nothing to say? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Because it does? If you look at the article it clearly states, besides what is mentioned in liststs, that she was born into slavery and died in Fayetteville, North Carolina, clearly sourced from the external links. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, Kitia, but that's not true. http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html says "Martha Graham 114 c. 180 December 1844 June 25,1959" (no mention of place or date). The other link is to http://www.grg.org/ , which is a website front page with no relevant info. If you can find a reliable source for the extra info that "Martha Graham was born into slavery and died in Fayetteville, North Carolina", that snippet can be easily added as a footnote to each of the three lists. It's not enough info to make an article more than one sentence long. One sentence is not an article, it's a snippet, a factoid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There was something on GRG that said that, I know. I am looking for it. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Its at http://www.grg.org/Adams/EmergSupCentPop1.htm. Will add to article. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That reference is so trivial that it is worth quoting in full what it has to say about Martah Graham: "The Moroccan Grand Vizier El Hadj Mohammed El Mokri and the American former slave Martha Graham both turned 112 in 1956 according to The Guinness Book of World Records, but in both cases the evidence presented is far from satisfactory." So well still have only two trivial references, one of which casts doubt on the whole claim. This looks more and more like someone who merits footnoted entry in a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow, that's a pretty bold thing to say. The oldest person ever for a period belongs in a list. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It appears bold only if you haven't read WP:BIO. A wikipedia article is not a badge of honour or a form of recognition or memorial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The core fact of this article (her birthdate) has never been unsourced despite a request that's been outstanding since April 2007. No other sources have yet been found to demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria or that this page could ever be expanded past this one-sentence sub-stub. Being old does not automatically make you notable. Rossami (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact of QI[edit]

As much as I love the show QI, I see no real point to this article, which I believe was spun off from the main QI article some time ago for no apparent reason other than issues of length. It seems to be mostly a collection of random infomation about the show which could easily be dealt with (and in many cases, is dealt with) in the main article. I believe anything which is encyclopaedic should be merged into QI, and the non-notable elements of this crufty article, such as the "QI elves" section, be deleted. Tx17777 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The small amount of useful information on this page could easily be added to the main QI page. The show is also just not significant enough to merit a page like this. It's fairly popular, but no more so than many, many other current UK TV programmes. Le the 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into QI. It's very good, and Stephen Fry is almost godlike, but still... yeah. mattbuck 14:47, 4 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) 14:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been added to the list of television game shows being considered for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is clearly a "Merge" into QI. Shoessss | Chat 14:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete merge any relevant info. It's main stumbling point is the lack of a source for it having a cultural impact very much OR. --Neon white (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into QI. As suggested above, the article fails to establish that the programme has had any significant cultural impact at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge[ This is not what is meant by articles on cultural impact of .... As Malleus says, there is no evidence of any impact yet, and no real difference between this content & the main article. DGG (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. At the time, this is a rehashing of Territorial evolution of the United States with a couple of very brief references to Colorado, nothing of which establishes this fork as unique content. With that said, I believe there could be an article of this sort created. If someone would like this userfied to their space so they can develop it, let me know. As it stands, though, there's hardly anything here other than copied content. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial evolution of Colorado[edit]

Redundant. The images duplicate maps from the article about Territorial evolution of the United States and don't deal specifically with Colorado. The information about who controlled Colorado and how Colorado was established is best covered at History of Colorado BOARshevik (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually, this could have been a decent article, since Colorado is part of what used to be the territories of Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico and Utah, and it came from the Louisiana Purchase, the Texas Annexation and the Mexican War cessions of territory. The town of Breckenridge, Colorado falls right in the middle of the old borders. Even a simple 387 by 276 rectangle on the generic maps would have been helpful in making the point. But as Borshie notes, this is just a variation on an article about territorial evolution. Mandsford (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge : Merge into History of Colorado Shoessss | Chat 14:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a heck a lot of illustrations to merge, isn't it? Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I set up this article up to illustrate the peculiar territorial evolution of the Rocky Mountain region. This article is really too large to merge into another article. I still need to create four more maps to properly illustrate the changes in the region in the years 1859 through 1861. Buaidh (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a lot of work in this page, and although it does duplicate information in other articles, it does so in a way that is much more focused. I think merging this into the Colorado History article would be a disservice to that article, while a delete would just be a shame. We'd just be back here a few weeks later trying to split this out of the Colorado History page to make it more approachable. --Mdwyer (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this is merged, I will eventually recreate the article, but with full information on the county borders. Personally, right now, it isn't much of an article; I could perhaps help by making more "zoomed in" maps. But most of the maps used have no specific change for the Colorado region. --Golbez (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a very interesting potential article, especially with Golbez's mention of eventually putting in detail to the county level. I think this has distinct interest sepeate from an article on the history of the state. Moheroy (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. --Oxymoron⁸³ 10:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myrtle Jones[edit]

Another article on a very old person. She is quite properly included in the relevant lists such as List of living supercentenarians, but she fails WP:BIO: the two references are a) to a yahoogroups mailing list, b) to a short mention in a meals-on-wheels newsletter. No sign of any substantial coverage or anything in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable as per WP:BIO. - Galloglass 14:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I have to say living to 110 is pretty notable in my book. Shoessss | Chat 15:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's grounds for including her in a list, but per WP:BIO, a standalone article is needed only if there is substantial coverage in reliable sources. There is no evidence hat this article can be expanded beyond a trivial snippet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say a birth certificate and government records are a pretty reliable source, in most cases. Second, there are No definitive guideline for what constitutes “Substantial”. That becomes extremely subjective. Finally, how large does an article have to be? Again, I have seen no definitive guidelines. Mark it as a “Stub” at this point!. Thanks, Shoessss | Chat 15:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The records which you cite are primary sources, which may verify facts but do not establish notability per WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. A meals-on-wheels newsletter is not a reliable source (see WP:RS), and WP:BIO does indeed provide guidance on the interpretation of "substantial". Please do read WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Delete: Impressive, but not notable. I just did a web search and found no hits for her beyond WP. Matchups (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Age alone does not make a person notable. --WebHamster 16:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No? See Jeane Calment. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's right, no. Age on its own is not notable from a WP standpoint. --WebHamster 12:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Kitia, you're still confusing worthiness with notability: please do read WP:BIO. Calment passes WP:BIO because the article cites substantial coverage in non-trivial soiurces. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO and per Matchups (didn't find any myself either). Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 16:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe when she's a little older.. Neal (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
That was my first reaction as well, but it's not about her age but the coverage of her longevity in reliable sources. Matchups (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okey dokey, I'm changing my vote to keep. Neal (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - So where is this coverage that persuades you to say "keep"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there is any I'd like to know about it. Neal (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as per above. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per above what? Matchups (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources .... and if you are writing an article like this then there is template to calculate the age based on birth and today's date. Saying she is 110 means I have to check the history log to see when that was written. Victuallers (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those counters are removed as violations of WP:BLP. Per WP:BLP, all unsourced material on biographies of living people can and must be removed on sight. Having an automated counter on her page presents her age to the day as a verifiable fact, which is of course impossible unless there happens to be a reliable, third-party source documenting that she is alive every time the clock hits 00:00 UTC. As has been seen, sometimes it takes a few days for the notices of death to come out, which means the counter presents a false fact as verifiable and true in these cases. It's a simple issue of verifiability. Every last detail and fact on this page should (ideally) be verifiable. Thus we can say that person X is alive until shown dead, because we can verify through many sources that they are alive until we can verify that they are dead. With exact ages, however, that is not the case. Unless, of course, you just mean a year counter, in which case it's ((birth date and age|year|month|day)). Cheers, CP 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We're getting a bit off-topic here, but BLP prescribes immediate removal only of unsourced contentious material. Assuming that a person's date of birth is reliably sourced, their age, or the fact that they remain alive is not normally contentious (though it may be in cases such as Jimmy Hoffa, Elvis, or JFK). Matchups (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It also violates WP:V, unless someone happens to be able to verify that they are they are alive at 00:00 UTC every day. Cheers, CP 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merged and redirected to List of American supercentenarians. Keep votes centre around WP:WAX and the idea that merging into a list cuts back on lengthy articles. This one was six sentences long, and is easily merged without losing a word. Lacking sources to meet WP:BIO at present. Reso lute 20:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Francis (supercentenarian)[edit]

A very old person whose claim to notability is based on age, but the coverage appears to extend to only one article in a local newspaper. Probably best merged to List of American supercentenarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a few problems with putting it on a list. The main is they are poorly formated, don't follow requirements, and end up cutting back the few lengthy articles there are. It doesn't really make much difference whether it's in one big list, or a couple of dozen individual articles. The articles are tied together on a common listing of super-centenarians anyway. I also have trouble understanding why you have taken such an interest in this field of topics when it's outside of your knowledge, and outside your interests and main projects. I see your name everywhere. About two dozen articles, more probably, that you tried to delete were kept afterwards, and I would like to know, when the community voted you down, why you went ahead without anyones consent and against everyone in the fields opinion and made these unwieldy, badly formated, badly edited lists that serve no purpose really but to cram everything into one little box and shove it a dark corner of an attic. I know you've already gotten two of the main gerontologists, and main contributors on this site banned/blocked, (Robert Young and Bart Versiek, I believe his last name was). Mr. Young is in fact one of the most prominent Gerontologists in the world, having verfied and researched and discovered almost every validated Supercentenarian through his work as a chief consultant to Guiness. Oh well. I'm not interested in this field for the statiscal aspect, but then again few Gerontologists are, it's the historical aspect of it and the simple length of life. If one lives to 110, then one has done an incredible number of things in life. It also represents a possibility for expanding human life, the realm of our existence. It's important to me in many ways and fashions and I don't think you truly understand or care what it truly is, because I mostly see you demeaning, calling it frivolous, a pyseudo-science, and you have tagged, God, it must have been a list of 50 gerontology articles or more, for deletion. You got overriden in 9 out of ten of them, so now we get into a debate about lists that will be far to long and as I said earlier, unwieldy? Not that his article isn't crap, the small group here apparently has no ability to write meaningful, interesting articles on the lives of these people. The few times I have gotten information, which they have but I don't, I have written a good 1 and 1/2 page article and have asked them to try to follow suit, but no improve is ever made. For this little poorly written stub that contains no useful or interesting information, it fits in a list to be put off into some godforsaken corner until it's eventually, hopefully, improved, *Merge.--Robert Waalk (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small Comment You mistakenly called Robert Young a gerontologist, and Bart Versieck is not indefinitely blocked. Neal (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Non notable as per WP:BIO. - Galloglass 14:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge : Agree with --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs merge into List of American supercentenarians.. Shoessss | Chat 15:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment – as a comment to Myrtle Jones article above, I would say merge if there was an article for List of Australian supercenterians. Shoessss | Chat 15:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If age was an indicator of notability then all newborns would get articles as they were the youngest person on the planet when they were born --WebHamster 16:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I kind of find that arrogant. Being born is nothing rare, it happens three times every second, but only one out of every 20-50 million people will live to be that old. It shows a very narrow minded view and a lack of understanding on the issue.--Robert Waalk (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find it however you like. It does not show a lack of understanding of the issue, it shows that sometimes exaggerations are required to make a point. Until WP notability guidelines are altered to cover this subject the fact remains that age in itself is not a criterion for notability. In the meantime I suggest you shove your accusations of arrogance and ignorance somewhere the sun don't shine. --WebHamster 14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Right, I said being the oldest person in the world is as notable as being the tallest person in the world. Which means being the 2nd tallest person in the world is as notable as being the 2nd shortest person in the world. But this does not cover being the youngest person in the world. Or in other words - age isn't an indicator of notability, but extreme age is, nd frankly, that does not include young people. Neal (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And where, exactly, does WP:BIO or WP:N state that? Sounds to me like you are making up the rules as you go along. So where does it say young people aren't included? For that matter where does it say extreme old age is included? --WebHamster 14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Sole source seems to be one article in a local newspaper, which I do not believe is sufficient coverage. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But I, and most contributors on this issue strongly disagree with shoving all the articles onto a big list, were the few long ones are turned into stubs, and all are made meaningless and uninformative, and then on top of everything else, we end up with a big gigantic list that the few people who read this want to bother sorting through or scrolling through, and not serving our intention to inform and record our information in these areas. Not to mention I see this as just a way to back at the field after losing almost all of the delete debates, (think return of BHG III). If you can't delete them, put em in a big list where they're a pain to read and all individuality is lost. What's the difference. Though I'm not against merging poorly written stubs, why not just let most be?--Robert Waalk (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, just read WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Robert I don't think you can make a statement like "I, and most contributors on this issue strongly disagree" when most of these debates have been contentious at the minimum. Cheers, CP 05:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Robert Actually, list of supercentenarians is a method to help save stubs. For example, when an oldest person in the world has her own article, while she is mention on a list, it adds "see also: main article." Followed by a summary paragraph. This means that the rest of supercentenarians that are just oldest man/woman in country, that are just factoids, with a name, date of birth, date of death, lived, etc. Can happily live in a list. Because all they have is a paragraph written on them. What would you rather have: a paragraph article on every supercentenarian, which could mean adding hundreds of pages to watch, or having them listed in a more rational fashion? Now then you go, well suppose they get more trivial information, then I go, well if it gets trivial to the point they can earn their own article. But otherwise stubs and factoids forever remain stubs and factoids. Neal (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep For there's a 107th birthday video of him on YouTube, as well as other 'official' videos found in other sites in his 110th birthday interview. Title holder for being the oldest man in U.S.A. and oldest black man in the world. Neal (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- Reply Youtube is not a reliable source, and the fact of being the oldest is something which can be recorded in a list, but does not establish notability; WP:BIO requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, and in this case no such coverage has been found. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I said YouTube was a reliable source that would be something else. Neal (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The top 10 oldest men and women in the world consistently had articles for themselves so if the others are notable this one is too. Canjth (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BIO, subjects have articles for themselves if they have enough substantive coverage in reliable source to allow a decent article to be written and to conform that they were genuinely regarded as notable by those who create reliable sources. Some of the other very old people do fall into that category, and some of them have rather good articles, but George Francis doesn't fall into that category. If more substantive sources are found in the future and notability is this established per WP:BIO, then he could of course be unmerged from List of American supercentenarians ... but right now, there is no evidence that those sources exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. As per users "Robert Waalk", "NealIRC" and "Canjth". Extremely sexy (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gunhild Foerster[edit]

Unreferenced 25-word sub-stub on a very old person. Less of an article than a factoid, this sort of data belongs in a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable as per WP:BIO. - Galloglass 14:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • I would say I see a project for you here looking at the three above articles :-) Shoessss | Chat 15:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If age was a factor/criterion of WP:BIO then it would be a yes, it isn't so off to dev/null --WebHamster 16:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 16:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most supercentenarian factoids don't have articles. Neal (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Reluctant Delete She was too young. It was just a factoid. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge with list Victuallers (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Habets[edit]

No indication of notability. Agape Europe is not a very notable organization in the Netherlands and its former director is by itself not notable. Andries 21:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not estblished notability Shoessss | Chat 13:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Habets is very important inside of the Dutch Media scene. Feel free to delete as you like, but I will note your editing in future references to him that might prove to be something you would rather not have associated with you. Not a threat - just a statement about how sure I am that you are mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlnnet (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Adenuga[edit]

Non-notable rapper. Only 335 Yahoo hits, not a reliable source among them. Only sources in article are the usual collection of Myspace and fan sites. Just barely escapes being an A7, but fails WP:MUSIC miserably. Blueboy 96 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete after allowing a certain time period to cite the claims in the article. Having absolutely no in-line citation is a very serious handicap for this article. Even with my non-existent knowledge of "grime music", I cannot bring myself to say keep as the article stands now. --Kushal^t 21:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) By default, additional accounts are ineligible for voting in this AfD. If you suspect sockpuppetry, please report it to an administrator.[reply]

He is more widely known than 3 other grime artists that Wikipedia has articles on: Tinchy Stryder, Ghetto and Jammer. Those 3 artists have not entered the mainstream as much as JME has. I agree he is not on a par with Dizzee Rascal, Kano or Lethal Bizzle. But JME has collaborated with Lily Allen on the track "LDN Remix" and with Lady Sovereign. These two are two of the biggest selling female artists in the last couple of years in England. Furthermore, JME is by popular conception the most talented and unique grime artist, and regularly appears on national radio station Radio 1 (most popular radio station in the UK), on Tim Westwood's rap show, the biggest rap show on air, which draws hundreds of thousands of listeners each week. If this article is deleted, logic would also extend to the neccesity of deleting the articles of Tinchy Stryder, Ghetto and Jammer, as JME is popular, the opinion that he is more talented held by most, involved in the mainstream, and one of the biggest up and coming British rap artists, as well as being a pioneer of the grime scene and UK rap in general. Yeris222 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per Yeris222. Something X (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP : Though I do not follow rap, or even like rap, this artist does establish notoriety as shown here, [35]. Being featured on MTV and mentioned and or featured in articles by several other reliable and verifiable sources makes this a definite keep. Shoessss | Chat 13:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has had enough coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. There was not one good argument to keep; "what's the rush", "I found it useful" and "it was nominated quite recently so this doesn't count" are not compelling reasons. The latter is particularly unhelpful as the previous AFD was closed as "no consensus", not "keep". Nobody has wanted or been able to prove notability, provide any references for notability, show how the article passes WP:FICTION, or illustrate how the article is not an in-universe repetition of the various Star Trek game articles. Neıl ☎ 15:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydran Kingdom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Fleet game articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It is less than a month since this article was last nominated and nothing new is being said. Per Repeat nominations such hasty relisting is considered disruptive. Colonel Warden 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails Wikipedia policies such as verification and notability, and also WP:FICTION, and has shown no improvement before, during, or since nomination. Judgesurreal777 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no deadline and WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason to delete. The Star Fleet Universe is quite notable and the current article structure predates current WP:FICTION guidelines. What's the rush? Colonel Warden 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....I see no rush, but a request for notability to be established for this article. If you can say there is a very good chance you can uncover something to prove its notability, we can wait, but otherwise, what are we waiting for? Judgesurreal777 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:38, 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) 12:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No third-party sources that illuminate the real-world significance of this topic. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge : Merge into Star Fleet Universe after a complete rewrite Shoessss | Chat 13:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable to the star trek universe, there isn't one article you could really merge it successfully into. --Neon white (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But to be notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, it has to assert a greater notability than that, see WP:FICTION. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just think the articles is good enough quality and valuable info to remain. --Neon white (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then that's just your opinion, and isn't based on policy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "in universe" only means talking about it as if it were real, the way fan fiction does, the way typical of fan sites. Discussing it as an artifact is discussing it as existing in the real world. DGG (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but what of its lack of notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no new arguments from last call. (Plus I like it, Hydrans were my favorite race in SFB, yes I know _that_ isn't a good reason, but I didn't *know* the stuff in the article. It's why these articles should exist here!) Hobit (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just like last time, those who would keep the article are ignoring the nominating text which asks for ran assertion of notability that has not occurred. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable game-cruft. WP:GAMEGUIDE --Jack Merridew 10:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To quote: "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Less then a month, during the holidays, is not a lot of time. I understand if you say it doesn't fit guidelines, but it was kept after the last debate, so you need to give us time to repair the issue. Otherwise you can just keep relisting this articles over and over and we will never have time to work on them. Please note that almost all of the articles in this catagory were nominated last round, and there are only a few of us that can work on a solution. Iarann (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...If there is no notability, there is nothing to "Work on", its just going to remain as it is, as it has done for quite a while with no improvement. If you assure me that there is proof somewhere of notability and you or others need time to get it, that's one thing, but this article has had lots of time to improve and hasn't at all, and though that is not a reason for deletion, it can be indicative of a lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to prove notability we need sources. I need time to obtain sources to improve the article. That lots of time to improve you are talking about took place before it was tagged and then put up for deletion the first time. We have not had a lot of time to do anything for the article since then. If you check policy, it is standard to allow articles that survive AFD some time to get worked on. Especially since the last time this article was nominated, it was nominated with 4 or 5 other articles of equal size, and they all need work. Nominating multiple articles for deletion every month slows down any effort to repair the issue. If you look on the talk page of the main universe page, you will note I have pushed for a merge of this and the other articles, but I will need help. If you would like to help you are welcome to join me, but if you are just nominating various articles for deletion, please give us at least a couple of months. There is no urgency to delete, and it is hard to expect a large amount of work to get done during the holidays. Iarann (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Astonishingly, not a single argument to keep this has in any way dealt with the fact that this is a blatant violation of our policies and guidelines governing fictional material. Keeping this because one editor likes and others think it is too early to renominate is absurd. Eusebeus (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Farqui[edit]

Absolutely non-notable Emeraude (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Has not established notability Shoessss | Chat 13:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Evidently this page was already deleted by User:Kingboyk, see message: "18:54, 7 December 2007 Kingboyk (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms".) This is a violation WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NOR in its attempt to equate terms from opposing religions. This is stealth "interfaith ecumenism" that just does not fly. Perhaps some of the key notions on this page can be elaborated upon in the Interfaith article or in the Christianity and Judaism and Judaism and Islam articles, but the way the columns are constructed here conveys the false perception that each religion gives equal weight or significance to these ideas. For example, "anti-Christ" does not exist in Judaism, since they do not accept Jesus as Christ in the first place, and indeed some Christian groups view Judaism as the religion of "satan" and "the anti-Christ" so that this entire exercise is doomed as an exercise of the absurd. The columns cannot disguise the violations of WP:NOR. (A similar situation has arisen at Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms created by the same editors.) IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per WP:POV & WP:NOR Shoessss | Chat 13:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - User:IZAK has made a clear and compelling argument for deletion. —Travis ^talk 14:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:My previous vote to delete was deleted! I said this: The format is not appropriate for the topic. Wikitables are hard to edit. It is religious opinion written in stone.--12.72.150.104 (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per OR and other cited policies Mbisanz (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT, which I think covers this precise situation. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Java7837 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsubtle use of a "glossary" (which we don't need in any case) to further a biased agenda. Sweeping generalisations, WP:NOR etc etc. Not salvageable. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Possible neutral term column is a POV assertion that will probably satisfy no one but its author, even if properly sourced. And it will be so just by being different than any of the three "non-neutral" views. As for all other columns, they are all properly exposed already in articles relating to each individual religion and/or articles relating to the terms themselves. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At the very least, ditch the Possible neutral term column completely and without compensation. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete neutral column. Initial reasons for deletion are a bit POVish, possibly inaccurate, and an imposing of extraordinary requirements.
- There is at least one parallel idea of Antichrist among Hasidic Jews who say he would be Jesus (False Prophet).
- Statements like "Islam and Judaism both consider the Christian doctrine of the trinity and the belief of Jesus being God as explicitly against the tenets of Monotheism." in Judaism and Islam imply both religions give equal weight and significance to objecting Trinity. If such comparisons are forbidden on Wikipedia then it is probably necessary to delete most Interfaith articles unless for every concept discussed we also state exactly how much a weight each religion gives to it, if that is even possible (45% vs. 90%, most of the time vs. some of the time, etc.). Is that really what is being requested here? Per IZAK's earlier admonishment about turning it into a forum discussion that's all I want to say. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:POV. WP:NOT#DICT does not apply here. Glossaries are a part of wikipedia. See Portal:Contents/List of glossaries 03:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)--EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) -
delete as unsalvageable pov/or. where there are real similarities (or differences) in usage these can be better dealt with in the interfaith articles mentioned by izak or in the articles on the terms themselves. ⇒ bsnowball 06:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most of these terms aren't used in Islam at all, and the "neutral" column is POV. However, a comparison of Christian and Jewish interpretation of terms might be useful. --MPerel 06:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, review again in a couple of months. The article is only 3 days old. It has clear potential for improvement. It could be, at least potentially, a very encyclopedic and useful overview for comparing/contrasting key usages and acting as a portal to more detailed presentations on specific words. WP:NOT#DICT does not apply here -- this is not a dictionary. The editors should be given a chance to remedy WP:NOR and WP:POV concerns by more comprehensive citation to WP:RSs. The "Neutral" column, in particular, is not sustainable without detailed references. But I see no reason why the other columns should not be sourceable. AFDs are supposed to consider the potential of articles for improvement. This article has potential. Jheald (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very useful list explaining allot more in-debt that just a mere dictionary the terminology and basic meaning in the 3 abrahamic dominating religions that shaped and formed so much of our existence. very encyclopedic indeed. although i would add more sources it should not read like OR--יודל (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a glossary is good for a small amount of terms in a particular field. A glossary to doesn't give definitions but instead compares and contrasts the terms in different religions (many have no relevance in one or more of those religions) confuses the issue much more than it explains it. Jon513 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve The neutral column should of course be removed as inherently OR. Butt he rest is fairly straightforward. It would probably be better to do this in paragraphs, not as a table, so the entries could be a little fuller.DGG (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Mary Somali Society[edit]

Article about a non-notable student' union society, that asserts no notability through external links to independant sources. The article is also orphaned, and has only been edited by four or five different people (assuming, of course, that the IP adresses belong to different people, and aren't in fact the registered users). _TheIslander 15:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Has not established notability Shoessss | Chat 14:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Zero (TUGS)[edit]

Non-notable boat character on children's TV show, unsourced, prod tag removed. AnteaterZot 17:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete main article already documents characters, there is no real reason why these need seperate articles. --Neon white (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Main article says that he wasn't in many episodes so he can be deleted I guess. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, will leave a redirect to TUGS#Izzy Gomez. Neıl ☎ 15:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy Gomez (TUGS)[edit]

Non-notable boat character on children's TV show, unsourced, prod tag removed. AnteaterZot 17:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete main article already documents characters, there is no real reason why these need seperate articles. --Neon white (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some sources showing real world coverage are provided. Nuttah (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect→TUGS#Izzy Gomez—Fails WP:V as written; content in suggested target article is sufficient. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 14:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Declaration[edit]

Article seems to be about a local tabloid newspaper constructed by students at the University of Virginia. Hardly seems notable. Admc2006 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may be confusing Tabloid with Supermarket tabloid. The former is a very common size of newspaper, and has no comment on its notability. From what I can see, The Declaration is one of the University of Virginia's two student newspapers, the other being The Cavalier Daily. This particular paper has been in print for a nontrivial amount of time, since 1973. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an article on a student newspaper that offers no claim to notability and no sources. Merely existing, even for a startling 34 years, is not notable. Nuttah (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I would support keeping it if I could find even one reference not their website, but I was unable to do so and as such do not feel as though it satisfies WP:N. I also notice while looking at their website that the article is mostly a copy-vio anyway. SorryGuy Talk 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing black woman syndrome[edit]

6 Google hits, 2 of which direct to the article and 4 of which direct to blogs. The author apparently created it for "racial equality", in reference to Missing white woman syndrome. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see... content forking of an article that has been tagged as POV and on which nothing has been done yet to improve the situation... ~~Merge~~ sounds like the sensible solution here. Delete. Per the discussion below, already merged anyway. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 11:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's content creation, not content forking. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still, merging this article with Missing white woman syndrome would solve the latter's POV issues. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merging a piece of original research into missing white woman syndrome would solve nothing. NPOV is representing all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is an insignificant view that is not supported by reliable sources. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - But that's material for the talk page of missing white woman syndrome. That is, if the creator of missing black woman syndrome reads this AfD discussion. As it stands now, the editors of missing white woman syndrome, and whoever tagged it POV, may not even be aware of the existence of the missing black woman syndrome article, much less this AfD discussion. A merger discussion would at the very least be a start. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A merger discussion is utterly pointless when the material in question is original research. I repeat: this term yields no significant Google results. Original research violates Wikipedia policy and should be obliterated wherever it occurs. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        However, what is not original research is the fact there exists a counter-example of the POV expressed in missing white woman syndrome. It is blatant for all to see. Whether such a pattern is generalized (which is what the POV dispute here is all about) is a completely different story, but I'm sure that for the sake of making the POV tag disappear from missing white woman syndrome, its editors would agree on a simple mention of the one case discussed in missing black woman syndrome. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The POV tag was added over a year ago by User:Auno3, a user who has been blocked indefinitely for racist editing. Moreover, the lone example missing black woman syndrome cites, Tamika Huston, is actually an example in support of missing white woman syndrome, and is used in that article as such. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And no one thought about removing tags that were inserted in bad faith? WP:BOLD --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 14:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Blanchardb Something X (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, this article's entire raison d'être is a very misguided attempt to address an entirely unexplained neutrality dispute at missing white woman syndrome. In contrast to the latter article, which cites books (and charitable organizations) that observe and discuss a disparity in media coverage, no-one has documented any such disparity, as this article claims to exist, outside of Wikipedia. I can find no sources at all to support this idea. It has been concocted from whole cloth by a Wikipedia editor, and written about first in Wikipedia, in contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. We don't merge original research, and we don't make up stuff simply because editors don't happen to like what the world has documented. Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor is it a tool for correcting disparities in the world that Wikipedia editors don't like. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's very little to merge. Anyone, right now, can add a sentence or two to the other article, without your permission or mine, and accomplish the same purpose. I agree with Punc that this comes straight from the "white men are persecuted" school of thought, which views any perceived preferential treatment to someone else as "reverse" racism, sexism, or whatever. Notability cannot be derived from being the opposite of something that is notable. Mandsford (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Uncle G. It could have been speedy deleted for just being incorrect and having no basis in fact. I think the tag should be removed from Missing white woman syndrome, it's well sourced and seems neutral to me. --Neon white (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Un-sourced and un-cited which make article WP:POV. Shoessss | Chat 15:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to demonstrate either notability or verifiability. Original research should not get merged into another. Edison (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. There are no reliable sources documenting the subject so it should be deleted. Merging original research still results in original research. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is still being developed. Why not give it a chance? MWWS has been pure and simple racism from the very start, and its sources are crap. This article promotes racial equality. Why? Are y'all still living in the 1940's? EgraS (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - First, Wikipedia was not created to develop any type of equality. It was envisioned to provide information that was verifiable, encyclopedic and easily updated by the masses as information became available from verifiable sources. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a “Bulletin Board” to float “Original Research” or ideas that are not verifiable or encyclopedic. If the author of this article can show and cite sources that show this is a “Notable” subject, I say KEEP , if not DELETE and at this point, sorry to say DELETE . Shoessss | Chat 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles without sources. This article is in the process of development. You can't delete something that hasn't a chance yet. EgraS (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And they should and will be DELETED as they become apparent. Shoessss | Chat 00:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Clawson[edit]

Unreferenced stub article on a very old person. Notability asserted, but not demonstrated by substantive coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:BIO. Most of the article's content relates not to the subject herself, but to unsourced speculation about her position on lists of very old people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see [36] ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply That 393-word article devotes 20 words to Clawson, which is trivial coverage. Please Kitia, do read WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable as per WP:BIO. - Galloglass 14:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to meeting WP:BIO. --WebHamster 17:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Closed after speedy deletion by Doc glasgow per WP:BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis G. Lennox II[edit]

A university student, making/made headlines for an assault, but seems to just be a 15 minutes of fame issue now. Jmlk 1 7 11:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As written, this was a serious WP:BLP violation and is still pretty iffy: "when he was assaulted by Central Michigan University Dean ..." -- no sources, no qualifiers, just a statement of fact. I added an "allegedly" for now. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEWS, WP:BLP, Libel violations. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 16:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penrith Co-operative Society[edit]

Per the lack of an assertion or establishment of notability. Additionally, no references! It appears to have 10 or so branches in a couple of counties in the UK, but I'm not sure that this really qualifies it for an encyclopedia article. Defer to the consensus view on that, but if not deleted, stubbed. Avruch ^Talk 20:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the articles on here about even smaller UK co-operative societies and former societies are they to be nomininated for deletion as well Penrithguy 22:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Historic co-operative movement organisation, remarkable for remaining a local independent group after nearly 120 years. Emeraude (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep independent status for 120 years argues to notability. Have also added a reference to coverage of the co-op on a national business TV programme. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub it, as per nom. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bu n' Ku Episode 1: The Destiny Of The Hunters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bu n' Ku Episode 1: The Destiny Of The Hunters

Non-notable game, fancruft. There is a large chance this is a hoax. Also, removal of the information from the Ape Escape (series) page and the related Template. Created by developer of the game. -Carados 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per obviousness, if that's a word. User:Krator (t c) 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fan-made game that hasn't even been made yet. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There are no sources cited indicating that this fan designed game is of any significance. A cursory search has failed to uncover any reliable sources to base an article on this game on. If A7 speedy delete applied to games, I would support that. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Independent coverage seems unlikely. Marasmusine (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. --- RockMFR 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero-Point Energy Field Manipulator[edit]

In-universe, crufty and unsourced article on a non-notable fictional weapon. MER-C 10:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced gameguide. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am pulling shitloads of good sources from google by searching for "gravity gun", take a look at these: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. That's just some of the potential sources, and those releated to Half Life 2. Apparently a gravity gun is given to the player early in a Doom 3 expansion pack (news to me, I've never played it). There's also going to be discussion about how the gravity gun interacts with modern FPS physic engines etc. Do we have these details elsewhere? It sure as heck looks like a suitable topic to me. Someone another (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment this review is one of probably umpteen which ties the Doom 3 expansion pack's version in with the half life 2 version. Not only do we have the weapon used in more than one game, but they've also been tied together in a reliable source, we can link them without resorting to original research. But then again this GameSpy article has Doom 3's developers talking about how they had the gravity gun kicking around during development. There's no maybe about it, this is a full-blown topic which can be cited, if there's any development info about Half-Life 2's gravity gun out there this could make GA easily. Someone another (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps the only really notable fictional video game weapon out there. See above for a fraction of the sources. User:Krator (t c) 22:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this was a good-faith creation by a new contributor which hasn't been wikified. To a passing visitor it looks extremely crufty and one of any number of inappropriate, overly-detailed articles which get deleted all the time, so it's fair enough that it's at AFD. However, since this lump of coal has turned out to be a diamond, can I request the AFD to be withdrawn or closed? Unless that is there's another article about it lying around somewhere. Someone another (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article is bad, but there is plenty of real-world context for this one. It might make sense for this to be moved to gravity gun and generalized to include the Doom 3 weapon as well. — brighterorange (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Good idea, support moving to Gravity gun.~~Someone another (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Gravity gun has been redirected to this article instead. Someone another (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Game weapons are not normally notable, but the Gravity Gun did cause a stir with reviewers. I have added some references from Edge magazine in accordance with WP:WAF. Marasmusine (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Move to Gravity gun, draw in material from Doom 3 (and any other titles with similar weapons) and generally clean it up. While I agree with Krator about this being the only notable fictional videogame weapon, the article is way too crufty at present. --Plumbago (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I was thinking a move to Gravity gun would be good, so that it could be an article about "gravity guns" in multiple game series. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roar of the Dragon Tour[edit]

Aerosmith played seven gigs in Japan. I did a Google search by "roar of the dragon" aerosmith -wikipedia, and got 80 hits. I looked at each one, all were fansites or auction sites. Non-notable tour by notable band, but notability is not inherited. Unsourced on page. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by article - East Asian culture theme of presentation, used in millennium broadcasts. Length is not the determining factor. The Aerosmith tour articles are in general fairly well done, not just lists of tour dates. If this one lacks proper citiation, mark it for that not deletion. Note that citation does not necessarily only reside on Google. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked; 80 g-hits strongly suggests non-notable. If sources appear on the page, then the tour is notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm saying is that there may be a book about Aerosmith that describes the tour. When I wrote the articles for the earlier Rolling Stones tours, most of the info came from books, not the web. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I bow to sourcing. However, the book must show that the tour is independently notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The tour is notable because it is by a notable music group. Just like there's an article for every Van Halen, Madonna, and Michael Jackson tour, there will be an article for every Aerosmith tour. I created this article and am a primary contributor to the Aerosmith WikiProject. I know the tour was brief, but it was its own tour. It was completely distinctive from the Nine Lives Tour, and it was in the media (made ABC-TV's Millenium coverage), had its own theme, own setlist, and whatnot. This link is the listing of all Aerosmith tours, as established by the band's official fan club, which has strong ties to people close to the band. That's about as official as it gets. And when I, or someone else, get around to it, there will be an article created for all of those tours listed. And it clearly lists this tour as its own separate tour. Certainly the band wouldn't list this tour as its own separate tour if they didn't feel that it was notable or its own individual tour. We're trying to build an accurate and comprehensive series of articles on Aerosmith tours here, and it would be inaccurate to lump this tour with another tour, and it would be incomprehensive to completely omit it. Yes, sources have to be found. I realize that. That is a goal of our project. But we have a limited number of people working on a large amount of articles, so please bear with us. Thanks. Abog (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep, and I shudder when I think of more tour articles without sources. It's not Wikipedia's job to duplicate a band's web presence. If it had sources indicating notability I would not have nominated it. If you really need more time to find sources, ask the Admins to "userfy" the page before it is deleted. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When did I ever say that "I like it"? And also, when you're trying to build a comprehensive collection of knowledge on a notable artist, it doesn't help when critical information is deleted, simply beacause "that single wasn't as big of a hit as the other ones" or "that tour wasn't as long as the other ones". It's ludicrous. And then someone comes along to Wikipedia, and they're like "hey, I wanted to read about that tour or that single. Why is it not here, but the other ones are?" Also, do you realize that there are thousands of articles on Wikipedia without sources? You can't expect a few people to write 2 million well-sourced articles in just a couple years. Not having sources yet is no reason to delete. It's just a reason to try and get more sources. And I'm sorry, but this is a tour by a notable band. Every other major artist has articles on all their tours, and Aerosmith should be no exception. We're trying to build a comprehensive, accurate collection of knowledge on Wikipedia. And it doesn't help researchers when they see critical gaps in the information. Abog (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, I got 1,550 hits for "Roar of the Dragon Tour". I don't why you're including Aerosmith and Wikipedia in the query. Probably just to intentionally get lower hits. Abog (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - He/she was including Aerosmith but excluding wikipedia, which you have to do to avoid all the false echoes from Wikipedia mirrors. But I remain convinced that Anteater is otherwise licking at the wrong dirt mound on this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The tour is part of the Aerosmith history and also of WP:AERO. This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale. As you seen, the article was created on November 20 and has been rated as start-Class. We can handle it. Sources are coming. Thank you. Janadore (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about five days now. This article is within the scope of a Project, and two of the project's goals are to "Create articles for each concert tour" and "Source all facts in need of citation". With that in mind, I propose that this article remain, however we need to cite sources as well. Given that there seems to be a greater desire in this discussion to keep and source, than there does to delete, I say we keep this article and close this discussion. Abog (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tickle Chair[edit]

Not notable Johnw188 (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, interesting to fetishists only. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unverifiable, even though I like it (and, um... I actually kinda sorta wouldn't mind being put in that chair... Please tell me I didn't just say that!) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an extreme violation of neutrality, you have been put up for deletion. XD Someone another (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and unsourced. --Dawn bard (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, deserves absolute no place in an encyclopedia. Really, think about it. -RiverHockey (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if we really must Redirect to The Howard Stern Show, but this doesn't have its own notablity. A1octopus (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Aficionado[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, reads like an ad, the external links link only to the forum and competing sites (which don't have their own articles), all sources are DVDAF itself. R.E. Freak (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was able to find one press mention in the New York Times (linky). It is however, not the focus of the article. And I was unable to find any other reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Rewritten to a proper company stub.— Scientizzle 22:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telezygology[edit]

Corporate neologism that is not widely used (128 unique ghits). Orphaned since November last year. MER-C 09:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article whose purpose is to insert spam. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Out of complete boredom, I did some research and rewrote the article. I'm no business expert, but I tried my best. Wounder (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - listing on the stock exchange denotes notability. Publicly traded company.CelticGreen (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a real company. I work at it. www.tz.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.235.170 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footlocker (luggage)[edit]

Falls under WP:DICDEF. I don't think there is much room for expansion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, I came to Wikipedia to look up information on World War II Footlockers and find the article is pending deletion. Not just information about WWII footlockers can be added but information about footlockers in general such as the different types and uses. Footlockers were used by the military in wars like WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, ect. ect. and they were also used by civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.15.249 (talk)
It was I who created the initial extremely short article. I did so thinking there could be room for such an article, along with articles about other kinds of luggage I saw, such as suitcases, briefcases, trunks, and the like, which have expanded in varying degrees. I do not have the knowledge or access to sources to expand it myself, but I thought someone else might.
The article has now been considerably expanded with exactly the kind of detailed information that would interest those looking for this topic, and I think surely this should remove the argument for deletion now. So what happens, anyway, when someone marks an article for deletion, but someone else then disagrees?
It seems to me that almost any article, however brief and rudimentary, has the potential for expansion by someone with the right knowledge or access to sources. And that is exactly what makes such articles valuable. If an extremely short stub seems worthy of deletion because it's nothing more than a brief dictionary-type definition, then it may still in most cases be worth keeping as the seed for possible future expansion by an expert on the subject.
That's the way I see it, anyway. M.J.E. (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major plot device in mysteries and especially in A Few Good Men. Come on, folks, at least look at the Ghits. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced, but if there's significant interest in expanding, I don't want to impede the article's growth. Withdrawing for now; thanks for the helpful input. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 14:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madaraka Party of Kenya[edit]

This page was previously prodded, but it was declined citing it is a registered political party. First of all, I really don't think being a registered party in Kenya is a proof of notability. Registering a party is a very simple procedure in Kenya and there are well over 100 registered parties.

Secondly, the latest list (November, 2007) of registered parties in Kenya does not recognise this party, while an older version of the list, dated September 17, 2007 still includes the party. The party does not field any parliamentary or civic candidates at the upcoming December general elections. This implies that the party does not exist anymore, was registered only for a year or so, and never fielded candidates at any elections. (Note external links are mostly from Electoral Commission of Kenya website, which may be sometimes very slow) Julius Sahara (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, google search gives quite a lot of results, not just wiki mirrors, at least to assert notability to keep the article. --Soman (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can follow Julius' reasoning, but not fielding candidates doesn't necessarily make a party defunct. As mentioned above, the Ghits I found also were diverse and, while not demonstrating a party of major importance, seemed to indicate a small presence in Kenyan politics. I don't see a convincing reason to cut this one out. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Capone[edit]

Unnotable character of the Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers series. Originally proposed merge to the main article, but character is not notable enough for mention as he only appears in two episodes out of 65. Fails WP:FICT. This is a failed WP:PROD (contested even though he was never mentioned on the main article anyway and this page was only really linked to from the template which is up for CfD). Collectonian (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nominator claims to have debated this on the main Chip 'n Dale talk page, but is really just throwing down fiat. As the article creator, I stated that I de-prodded the article because I felt it would be OK to just merge it. Fact that it was never mentioned on the main article does not justify this AfD, as a completed merger would have remedied that. If Collectonian really cared about making articles better, there are other less drastic ways of calling attention to this short of AfD. Wl219 (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I did not claim to have debated this on the main talk page so please don't put words in my mouth. I said it was a failed PROD, as in it was PRODed, and the PROD removed (by you). As I said on the talk page, I originally suggested a merge, but after further consideration, realized Rat Capone just isn't notable enough for mention except in the episode summaries. Collectonian (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It does not contain real world information, and it certainly doesn't assert the possibility for it. TTN (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable plot exposition wholly devoid of any reliable sourcing. As for merging, it would only seem appropriate for any given episodic articles, should they themselves meet the muster of WP:EPISODE. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chepstow Dragon[edit]

I'm pretty sure this article is total nonsense. Not linked to anywhere, websearch brings up absolutely nothing to verify any of it. The only edit to this that appears to be true is this one. Hard to believe it has stayed around so long. shoeofdeath (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my websearch turned up no relevent hits and the article cites no alternative references. I am pretty sure there must be a story behind there somewhere but in the present state the article is almost useless - Dumelow (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't appear in any of the UK dragon books I own. I originally marked the article as lacking references some months ago, and nothing has been done about it. It looks likely it was made up by the person who created the article. Polenth (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources to establish notability, or even actual existence of the legend -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was wrong forum. AfD is not the place to discuss whether a page should be redirected rather than being a disambig page. As there are only two entries, and only one of them currently uses the characters, I have redirected the page and added a disambig link at the top of the Northeastern University (Shenyang, China) page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

東北大學[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article was previously nominated for deletion with the proposal to move to Northeastern University (disambiguation). The AfD discussion was framed around whether or not this article title, being of non-Latin characters, should exist. That AfD discussion resulted in no concensus. But I believe the AfD should have been discussed in the context of the page being a disambig page with only two entries, one of them being the main article. "東北大學" is Traditional Chinese and it actually only refers to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China). The other item that the page disambiguates is Tohoku University, which is actually written in Japanese kanji as "東北大学" (the difference is in the last character). Similar but different. The two other ways of writing "東北大學" actually are both redirects. Both 东北大学 (Simplified Chinese) and 東北大学 (Japanese kanji) actually already correctly redirect to their respective main articles. 東北大學 should be a redirect as well. So please move this article to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, especially considering that this is a disambiguation page. The discussion should focus on the fact people typing those characters in the search box (and having the ability to type them directly) would probably go to Chinese or Japanese Wikipedia instead of the English one. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment and what about people who copy/paste words to the search box from zh.wiki or jp.wiki to see what they can find about them in English, because English is their native language? If wikipedia is going to give adequate coverage to East Asian things it has to take into account people using the East Asian names for the entries. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Regardless of my personal opinion on this, the result of the previous discussion, which was closed a little more than a week ago, was 没有公众舆论. Which translates as No consensus. I doubt that we will have much more of a consensus this early. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 13:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but I'm trying to start the AfD discussion off on a different direction than the last AfD discussion took. This is not about the usefulness of a disambig page with a name with non-Latin characters. This is about the fact that it's a disambig page with only two entries, one of them being the main subject matter. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The DAB has a use as much as a Chinese/Japanese-English dictioonary that people not so fluent in these languages also use sometimes to look up a word or two. WP:ENGLISH also writes: "a non-Latin-alphabet redirect could be created to link to the actual Latin-alphabet-titled article." See Talk:東北大學 for further reasoning of mine on this issue. --Saintjust (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to point out that, as I wrote above, this is really not a matter of the usefulness of disambig pages with non-Latin names. That itself is debatable, and I actually think that certain situations require them. The real issue here is, this is a disambig page with only two entries, one of them being the main entry. So just like 东北大学 and 東北大学, this page should be a redirect as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Ridiculous debate. The very article presupposes that someone will be typing on the "東" and the "北" keys and end up at Northeastern University (Shenyang, China), instead of Tohoku University, in Sendai, Japan and be unable to resolve their confusion. In the last debate, the arguments for keeping were based on fears that we would offend Japanese and Chinese users if we didn't keep this title. I'd be more worried about offending English-speaking Japanese and Chinese users by this condescending "help them, they get so confused" approach to research. Mandsford (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly you've misunderstood the first debate; no one's worrying about "offending" people, but rather the very real problem that the vast majority of people who read Chinese characters are not quadrilingual in Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese and hence have no idea how a given Chinese-character title is supposed to be transcribed in one of the other languages (let alone all the dialects of Chinese). There's nothing condescending about recognising that fact and helping such people to navigate Wikipedia, and telling them to go to the Chinese/etc. Wikipedia is a ridiculous solution for the millions among them whose preferred reading language is English (anyone learning the above as second languages, many Singaporeans, etc.) cab (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: none of the arguments for keeping had anything to do with offending anyone, and certainly mine didn't; things like this are most useful to native English-speakers such as myself who are interested in East Asian things but don't have much grasp of the languages. Condescend away. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I wanted to read Chinese titles I'd go to a Chinese wiki, this is English Wikipedia, non-English titles are a no-no. --WebHamster 17:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-English titles are hardly an unqualified "no-no" (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#CJKV disambiguation pages) and not everyone who wants to navigate using Chinese titles wants to read zh/jp/ko/viwiki. Read the last debate where this argument was addressed. cab (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: we don't all have your facility with Oriental languages, WebHamster. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the English Wikipedia...Right? Malinaccier (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WebHamster et al. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China) as a dab-hatnote, as User:HongQiGong suggested in the last debate, due to the specific orthographic issues here. (If you don't understand what those issues are and have nothing to say besides WP:BASH-ing everyone over the head with WP:UE, can I suggest you stay on the sidelines for this debate?) And my vote should in absolutely no way be taken as a "precedent" for applying the same treatment to other Chinese-character dab pages. cab (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it is a name that has at one time or another been used for both universities. This might make it of limited interest and usefulness to non-historians, but an encyclopedia should have some sense of the past. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That still does not take away from the fact that the name mainly refers to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China) right now, and it is a dab page with only two entries. And again, I absolutely think some dab pages with Chinese character names are necessary or useful. But 東北大學 does not happen to be one of these useful dab pages. Making this a redirect will actually help a user reach Northeastern University (Shenyang, China) in one less mouse click if he was searching for "東北大學", and the same number of mouse clicks to Tohoku University. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WebHamster.--Jerry 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see why redirects or dabs to articles where the thing in question clearly has a non-english name should not also have that actual name exist as a redirect or dab. This does not help if I cut and paste something to look it up. It doesn't matter whether I can read Chinese or Japanese if I cut and paste it. The arguements for looking in ZH or JA wikipedia clearly do not understand that if I can't read Chinese or Japanese, it won't help, and IF I can't even identify it as Chinese or Japanese, it REALLY DOESN'T HELP. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read what I wrote at the top of this AfD, you'd see that I'm requesting that this dab page be made into a redirect... Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just a note to everybody that did not fully understand the point of this AfD - I'm not trying to get this page deleted, and I'm not saying page names with non-Latin characters should be deleted. This is a dab page with only two entries, one of them being the main entry. I'm requesting that this page does what 东北大学 and 東北大学 already does. They are both redirects, and both the articles that they redirect to have an italicised disambig message at the top that leads readers to the other article that the term may be disambiguated to. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I understand, the raison d'être of a disambiguations page is when an ambiguous word is linked, the disambig page directs the readers to the correct pages. Since we don't link chinese characters, this article has no purpose. (It's still possible, though, that non-latin words may be contained in the article title like raison d'être) -- Taku (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Happy Fun Day[edit]

The sources cited make no mention at all of the purported subject. Searching, I can find zero sources that connect something with this name with the people named in the article, or about an event as the article purports to describe. The article claims celebrity endorsement, but I can find no sources to support connecting the named celebrities with any of this. The whole article has the appearance of a joke, and the link farm of empty social networking web pages at the bottom of the article (as well as the fact that the creator's 3rd edit was to copy the article to xyr user page) just screams people abusing Wikipedia as a self-publicity vehicle. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I am generally something of an inclusionist, I think this is a perfect example of something which does not belong on Wikipedia. There are no references whatsoever, other than a few social networking sites. The two New York Times articles referenced have nothing to do with the alleged event referred to in the article. I think this is either a hoax or an inside joke...either way, it should be deleted. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had this tagged as db-bio but User:SuperHappyFunDay removed the tag. Zedla (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a Festivus for the rest of us. JuJube (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obvious hoax. Click on the links to the New York Times articles. I think it's based on the classic "Happy Fun Ball" commercial parody that was on SNL. Mandsford (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probable hoax. Malinaccier (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violating WP:NEO and/or WP:MADEUP. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP This is an obvious joke. The images and content on the Facebook and Myspace pages prove that even more 17:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfs3 (talk • contribs)

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 11:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stay at Home Servers[edit]

non-notable. google search reveals only youtube and similar sites showing video. reads like an advert will381796 (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant Advertising (only external link is to their homepage), no encyclopedic content and a stub. --Madmikeuk needs more cowbell. 11:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I don't see this article as an ad, I see no useful content worth saving either. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article since it is (as far as I can tell) the only real marketing that Microsoft has done for Windows Home Server. However, if no one else thinks that this article should be in Wikipedia, I will not interfer with consensus even though I disagree with this article's deletion. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide some sources stating that is true, that may be a case for notability and may be grounds for a keep. will381796 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google shows a lot more than just youtube and similar sources, see this from engadget, this from TechRepublic, and this for good measure. The TR article self classifies as a blog, and the engadget article may classify as such by the nature of the website itself, and I don't know what to make of the last one. But this might actually be minorly notable, and stubbishness by itself is not a reason to delete. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda riley[edit]

No sources other than the subject cited, google search shows no related pages (one unrelated). will381796 (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete proof of notability is not A saying A is notable. Victuallers (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any sources to establish verifiability and notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but encourage the author/editor to search for sources/notability article doesn't establish the figure's notability nor could I find any. It is conceivable that the author could write something much more complete (with references) to help us decide, should he/she disagree. It is intriguing that this person was the first Marine surveyor, whatever that is. Archtransit (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prosperator[edit]

The only source cited makes no mention at all of this concept. So I went looking for sources. There are no books or scholarly articles about prosperators. In fact, the only people anywhere who think that such things exist at all are Allon Raiz and xyr company, Raizcorp. This is classic original research — an idea propounded by its inventor, and included in xyr company's advertising blurb, that has yet to be acknowledged by the rest of the world. Uncle G (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR. Ravenna1961 (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence to indicate this is notable -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atayalangal[edit]

Not yet released film. WP is not a crystal ball. No sources will381796 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of genuine notability, crystal ball. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted as patent nonsense. Reso lute 07:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmermullet[edit]

No assertion of notability and unverifiable. Hoax. will381796 (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, total nonsense. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elle castaneda[edit]

Violates WP:N and WP:COI. Some 17-year-old girl decided to make herself a Wikipedia biography. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Zedla (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely survives being a speedy candidate, but does not pass WP:BIO. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this fantasy. Emeraude (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass the criteria for WP:BIO. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO, probably a hoax/vanity. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 01:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also see George's Law (#22). — Satori Son 15:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted WP:CSD#A7 by Oxymoron83 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close cab (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mechscape[edit]

No assertion of notability. No sources cited. Google search yields few hits. will381796 (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ugly, ugly article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Article has been deleted before, see the deletion history of MechScape and the previous AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MechScape. It's original research (self-admitted) and is completely needless - there is no deadline. Jagex has swelled to 400 staff due to the success of RuneScape, they're now large enough financially for business sites like Gameindustry.biz to take notice when things happen, let alone game review sources. As soon as there's secondary sources (heck, some primary sources would be nice), which there will be if this game is released, we can have an article. In the meantime nobody has to play journalist, if the article's recreated again I'd suggest salting until sources are presented. Someone another (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete recreation of deleted material. User:Krator (t c) 14:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Per recreation of deleted material as stated above. Malinaccier (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. --- RockMFR 07:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Whiteley[edit]

Non-notable individual with no assertion of notability. Vanity page. will381796 (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7, tagged as such. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete A7 by Xoloz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flip-ping[edit]

Non-notable drinking game with no assertion of notability and no sources. will381796 (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete OR, and made up game. Jmlk 1 7 07:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 07:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per WP:MADEUP - Dumelow (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was MERGE and REDIRECT to Distributed Proofreaders#DP Canada. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Proofreaders Canada[edit]

No assertion of notability made. Company just opened this month. Google search only results in finding their website. Advertising. will381796 (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Distributed Proofreaders#DP Canada. Distributed Proofreaders is very notable even if this branch isn't yet. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternately, merge and redirect into Project Gutenberg Canada. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not advertising. While the website only launched this month, it is notable because it will preserve works based on different coypright terms than the primary DP site. I have added some language to that effect. Also, it is a separate site and legal entity from the main DP site; simply redirecting to the Distributed Proofreaders record implies that they are the same. Please do not delete. Thanks. Dylan38 (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 13:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 13:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Distributed Proofreaders#DP Canada. I cannot find any third-party reliable sources for this yet. If they get enough outside attention to provide enough for a verifiable and WP:NPOV article, then it can be split in the future. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Distributed Proofreaders#DP Canada without prejudice to later recreation. I'm sure it will be notable in the future, but I don't think it meets Wikipedia standards for notability today.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and Redirect to Distributed Proofreaders#DP Canada per User:A. B. — Satori Son 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as a hoax. Sean William @ 16:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep in the Biggest Capital City[edit]

Speedy delete as there is no assertion of notability. Zero google hits. IMDB link is for another TV series. I don't believe this even exists. will381796 (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also: List of Sheep in the Biggest Capital City episodes

Delete. This seems to be a hoax. In fact, I'm going to add List of Sheep in the Biggest Capital City episodes to this AfD.eaolson (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as patent nonsense. It's a hoax as well, but the content makes no sense - it's the Codename:KND infobox. The episodes are clearly made-up nonsense as well. MSJapan (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX - Dumelow (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax and add the following, all created by the same contributor:
- The Vomit Family
- I'm Sick now, I can go to Doctors
- Around the World & Presents for Walt Disney starring Walt Disney
- Archibald the Koala The Movie
- Spider (1953 film) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchardb (talk • contribs) 12:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as hoaxes, user has been warned (not by me). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 11:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowyze[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article was AfDed before, and was tagged for cleanup. However, I do not believe that there is any way to clean up the article and yet have it meet WP:N, WP:BIO, or WP:MUSIC adequately; the majority of the locatable sources are trivial mentions in larger articles (including in the Encyclopedia of Native Music, where there are 1800+ entries in 450 pages). He has won NAMAs in hip-hop because he is the only entrant in the category (as stated by ref #3 in the article). The majority of Shadowyze's notoriety for activism seems to focus on one or two events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, and his official homepage no longer exists. Therefore, I find the claims to notability based on spurious application of criteria (awards w/o consideration of size of competition, entries in published books w/o consideration of size of mention, and repetitive articles or trivial coverage in multiple sources), and unverifiable statements (such as his having recorded a nationally-known song in 1989, despite his indie debut album not being released until 10 years later, which would make him about 8 at the time; no mention of the song could be found). If it were cleaned up to the extent of verifiable sources, there would be almost nothing let that would not be a direct lift of the artist's MySpace page. In short, the subject of the article is neither notable nor encyclopedic. MSJapan (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good sleuth work by the nom here. Clearly this singer fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, etc. No real claims to notability here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly Collectibles[edit]

Contested prod. Prod text was "Article is basically Gaia Online#Donation Items/Monthly Collectibles, plus an unencyclopedic list, so therefore the suggested merge is not necessary. The list alone does not merit a full article, and the items themselves probably are not notable enough to deserve more than the already-existing section in Gaia Online". Article was originally tagged for a merge here, but as the page is basically just a section of Gaia Online, plus a list, it doesn't really need merging. I feel that "Monthly Collectibles" are not notable enough for an entire article about them, and the current mention at Gaia Online#Donation items/monthly collectibles is enough. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICT and WP:GAMECRUFT. User:Krator (t c) 14:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the merge message in the article itself, Gaia Online already has the pertinent details (and it's got a couple of cites), the only thing missing is the list of the collectibles themselves which is obviously inappropriate. Someone another (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalamo[edit]

I can find no reason to believe that this independent film is notable. Note that an article on the film's director and writer has been speedily deleted multiple times for failing to establish notability. Maxa megalon 2000 04:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can find no claim to notability. Even the "official website", the sole source, doesn't seem to cover it. It doesn't seem the author, actors, or any part of the production team is notable. I could be wrong, but this is an outright delete for me right now. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 04:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. No coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 15:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no claim or indication of notability ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to North Thurston Public Schools. Note that that page is only a list of schools, with no per-school content. Mango juice^talk 14:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinook Middle School (Lacey, Washington)[edit]

Non notable Middle School. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete middle school. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lacey, Washington. I read the notability guideline proposal quoted by the nominator. Regarding schools that don't meet notability criteria it says: "Such schools should normally be merged into the school district or locality as an editorial action without need for an AfD". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sjakkalle, but merge into North Thurston Public Schools. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Class-B.Net[edit]

Contested prod. Appears to be a promotional page for a personal website that is trying to boost traffic. No indication that the topic meets WP:WEB. --El on ka 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This site hasn't achieved enough notability yet to be included in Wikipedia. And an early Wikipedia article is not the way to build such a notability. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trenton Middle School[edit]

No claims to notability, see Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education Malinaccier (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete middle school. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 03:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article on middle school that may not be open for much longer. Already referred to in Trenton, Nova Scotia article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to district per guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make sure that the inline template dies. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. delldot talk 10:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leesville Road Middle School[edit]

Non-notable Middle School. Been tagged as a stub since April with no expansion. Malinaccier (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete middle school. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per criteria put forth at WP:SCHOOL. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find any citations Victuallers (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wake County Public School System. I've already added to the school district article the directory-type of information from the article. Noroton (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. delldot talk 10:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington Middle School (Texas)[edit]

Non notable middle school. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this school is not notable.--Freedom Bounty Hunter (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per policy. There are also other middle schools in the area that could be nominated as well although hopefully we have an article on the school district. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we have an article about United Independent School District WhisperToMe (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to United Independent School District per draft guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (schools). TerriersFan (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIR. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and fix the ((UISD)) template. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WENJ RADIO[edit]

This is a non-notable pirate radio station whose callsign is now in Atlantic City as WENJ ESPN Radio 1450. I saw no notable or useful facts here, so this should be deleted. WENJ RADIO (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're deleting your own article and your userpage redirects to the station's page. What's up with that? Jonathan ^{Happy Holidays!} 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This radio station is not well known, and hasn't done anything worth noting.--Freedom Bounty Hunter (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to pirate radio. I don't think that nominator created this page, or the page about the Atlantic City station. Successful attempts at pirate radio stations are worth remembering, but generally not worthy of their own articles. By definition, a pirate station avoids achieving notability, since the FCC is even worse than we are about nominating such things for deletion. Mandsford (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Mango juice^talk 14:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sphinx Head[edit]

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

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

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

As per WikiProject Universities Article Guidelines, university student unions and student organizations are not notable. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A deletion of this article would lead to an uprising of this organization's members creating it again, I'm not saying we should let that intimidate us into keeping it, but we should take that into consideration.--Freedom Bounty Hunter (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Such a recreation can be speedied under the CSD G4 criterion, and, ultimately, salted. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should not intimidate us at all. There are several student union/organization articles that have been AfDed(and deleted) and a few that are being AfDed as we speak. This article shows no special notability that separates itself from any standard/normal student organization, therefore it still shall be deleted. If the author wants to later merge the condensed content of this article into the university's main article, that should be fine, but not by itself. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 14:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article may be eligible for a G4 speedy deletion of recreated material, but it has been substantially edited since recreation, so we have to have consensus before deleting it again. Nevertheless, I think it should be salted once deleted. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article and the Society about which it speaks are very much legitimate (and the sources are legitimate as well). Many other organizations of this kind have remained on Wikipedia (See List of collegiate secret societies) and I feel as if this group should be given the same respect and consideration. As a great deal of effort has obviously gone into this article's creation, I ask you to please reconsider your wanting to delete it. Thank you.- GoBigRed1865 (talk) 11:55, 09 December 2007 (UTC) — GoBigRed1865 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - While most student groups are certainly not notable, that doesn't mean that none can ever be notable. This one certainly seems to be notable, as do others in its category. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't understand why this user feels the need to create a new username every time this page is deleted (three deletes so far). User names include GoBigRed1865, BigRedLove, Cornellian1865 (and edits also made as 128.253.253.90)... I also have been unable to find ~~the NY Times article in the third reference in the Times archives, or~~ any reliable source that connects Andrew Dickson White to the society. Cornell2010 (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is actually from May 10, 1891, not May 1, but it still has no mention of White. I have corrected the date and White reference. Cornell2010 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I question the accuracy of information in this article. There is no evidence to suggest a connection to Andrew Dickson White as a founder or member (information since removed). Joe Holland is also listed as a member when it is easily verifiable that he was not (in fact, he was president of an organization that is mutually exclusive to this one).[44] In the past, the article creator has marked Drew Nieporent as a member, when he also most certainly was not (also a member of mutually exclusive organization).[45] The bulk of this article's information does not have sources, and it is rapidly turning into a page of speculation. There is no reliable source that traces the pumpkin prank to this organization, and the fact that a member founded Dragon Day does not connect it with the organization either (information since removed from article). I do not believe notability criteria are met either since the organization has no evidence of notable activities, projects, or history, only notable members. Cornell2010 (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIn reference to the multiple user names: why does it matter? In reference to the AD White question, it is speculated...therefore, there is no reliable source (this is an organization surrounded with secrecy...). But the NY Times article implies White's involvement as it claims the Society to be "of the nature of Skull and Bones" (of which White was a member). GoBigRed1865 talk 19:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for SPECULATION. If there are no reliable sources, then the statement must be removed from the article. will381796 (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending verification: I agree with UtherSRG. Almost all student organizations are not notable, but this one seems to satisfy WP:N and WP:ORG because of its multiple verifiable independent sources. It has historical significance that seems to be outside of the usual student organization cruft. If, as Cornell2010 suggests, the sources do not in fact reference the society then I agree with deleting the article. —Noetic Sage 21:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Page has been brought up for deletion for notability on three previous occasions, resulting in delete every time. Limited non-wiki-clone google hits. 2afterblue (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment - The page was brought up for deletion before because it did not have citations and/or it was not long enough. The page currently has credible citations from several independent sources and is of reasonable length. Also, Google searches on a group of this nature should not be used as evidence to erase this article. The purpose of this article is to create a credible source of information about the group. I request that the deletion tag be lifted off of this page. Thank you for your concerns, as they have helped to improve this page drastically. User:GoBigRed1865 (talk) 19:21, 09 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [This page is the result of a great deal of work from a number of people and only uses credible sources (New York Times, Cornell Archives, Cornell Alumni Newsletter). There has yet to be any justifiable reason, from anyone advocating a deletion, of how this could constitute something that does not further the Wiki community. I acknowledge that there have been attempts in the past by others to make a page, but this is a legitimate attempt to make a real page. I believe that it should only be met with encouragement and support. I would also like to motion that the deletion tag be removed from the page. Thank you. Cornell1890 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) — Cornell1890 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak Keep considering the presence of independent sources (NYT) describing its notability. The fact that an article results from a "great deal of work" is not a reason to keep it. But this does appear to be the exception with regards to notable campus organizations. will381796 (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual societies like this aren't notable--but student unions are. They shouldnt be lumped together this way in the justification. .Only the single NYT article is a third-party source. DGG (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (This is my official vote. Nomination didn't count as a vote apparently...lol) Reason: as per nominated. Those who have mentioned their reasons to justify notability have all failed (miserably). - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you really want to keep the content, I suggest you shrink the article's main points and place it into the university's Student Life section. To keep things simple, I'd just go for the major points that can be verified with sources and skip the rest. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hopefully the last one... Once again, ladies and gentlemen, please be objective on the issue at hand, the argument that this article should be deleted is based off of lack of individual notability as well as a direct conflict with WP:UNI's article guidelines. I suggest editors who want to keep this article not battle out on policy viewpoints, as it really doesn't help this article's AfD progress. Instead, if you really want to see this article survive, add more substantial references that would in fact substantiate this article's individual notability instead. Constructive debate is always encouraged, but this type of stalemate "well...too bad" arguments are really getting sad. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nomination is apparently based on the notability guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities (guidelines which I do not see spelled out anywhere on the project page, by the way)... however, those guidlines seem to conflict with those of several other Wikiprojects. For example, the article would certainly fall under the scope of both Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities and Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies (which includes collegiate fraternities and societies in its scope). Since there is conflict between project level notability guidelines, we can not delete based on any single one of them... we have to revert back to the basic Wikipedia-wide notion of notability, as if the seperate project guidelines did not exist. This article clearly establishes the notability of its subject. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per UtherSRG & Noeticsage. There is a lot of cleanup work to be done, but sources demonstrate this article should exist. As for the content in it.... cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Article needs some fleshing out in some places, and maybe some cutting of some less-well-verified content, but I think it is substantially notable. I'm sure logicians will pull their hair out at my reasoning, but there are plenty of pages out there about very similar groups. --Cjs56 (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a fan of university secret society articles, which can be cruft but this is a particularly poor choice. The WikiProject Universities Article Guidelines state "Exceptions include organizations which ... Have been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". The New York times is cited in the article a couple of times and a search through the New York Times archives shows multiple references to stories about either the society, particularly announcing its membership elections. These have been mentioned in the article. JASpencer (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While most societies are non-notable, this is an exception. There are many sources to verify the text. The high number of notable members convinces me that the society is notable. Royalbroil 13:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 01:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casa del hombre doliente[edit]

A good institution, but it does not appear from the article to assert notability (of the institution) and there are no references or citations to back up any conclusion of notability. There are 963 google hits [46] but I don't read Spanish so I can't really tell if any of them are RS. Avruch ^Talk 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm fairly fluent in Spanish, so I can read some of these sources. There seems to be at least marginal notability:

The support from the local governor may be just enough to meet WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:15, 3 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) 02:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have just removed some information that made the article sound promotional, and what's left is just enough for notability assertion. I am not fluent enough in Spanish to evaluate individual ghits, so I'll have to rely on Hammer. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 04:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Neighbor Hotels[edit]

Just a list DimaG (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to comply with WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Something X (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is only a list, and doesn't provide any in-depth information. --Freedom Bounty Hunter (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. As stated, Wikipedia is not a directory, and the article is also just a list. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this could be expanded to a prose article of any length. I think the concept of the hotels can be adequately covered at Disneyland's article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to The Best Damn Thing. Mango juice^talk 14:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Damn Tour[edit]

This tour, by Avril Lavigne in support of her The Best Damn Thing album, is scheduled to begin in March 2008. No sources indicating notability appear on the page, which also fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY since it is mostly a list of venues and dates. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has the link to the tour dates on Avril Lavigne's official website; they are confirmed events (not unverifiable speculation), therefore passing WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Also, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY is being misused in your argument; the list of venues and dates is integral to the article as it is the tour. Something X (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the notability issue? Remember that "notability is not inherited". AnteaterZot (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anteater, you're trolling right now, as far as I'm concerned. You copied the deletion reason from your Girls Aloud Tangled Up AfD and replaced Girls Aloud with Avril Lavigne. Look at Avril's other tour pages - or any tour pages for that matter. Please, just stop being a troll. Something X (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith and not make personal attacks. Comment on content not the contributor. --Neon white (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I think Wikipedia is not the place for future tours to be listed. I feel it violates Wikipedia policies, and borders on spam. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not violate Wikipedia policies. Please use common sense. Something X (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Avril Lavigne or The Best Damn Thing as per my rationale on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Girl Gone Bad Tour JForget 01:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete. I agree fully with JForget. Malinaccier (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JForget Jonathan ^{Happy Holidays!} 02:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Supporting JForget.--Freedom Bounty Hunter (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per JForget. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pre WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, it's just not encyclopedic content. --Neon white (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While tours can be notable events, this one has not established notability. There is no third party verification. Quoting from WP:V: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Go JForget! Darth NormaN (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Will mark for cleanup and do some myself. Mango juice^talk 14:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Isle (game)[edit]

It is mainly an advertisement for the game if nothing else. Something X (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article stands, it ought to be deleted as being an advert. But I am prepared to believe that the game itself is notable, so if the advertising was to be removed I might be persuaded to change my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It just needs to be rewritten so it is less like an ad. Definitely notable however. Malinaccier (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite per Malinaccier Jonathan ^{Happy Holidays!} 02:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite Notable yes, Advertising yes. --Freedom Bounty Hunter (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, which is essentially WP:PROBLEM. User:Krator (t c) 14:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROBLEM. Epbr123 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep this article can be fixed pretty easily. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removing advertising tone is as difficult as running a knife through the spam, so long as there are sources to establish notability and provide material to actually write something else with, it's not necessary to delete. Someone another (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From some brief scrounging I don't think there's enough unique, secondary, credible sources to make the game "notable"--the expired news article doesn't inspire notability from the brief snippet provided, and a mediocre review from an obscure editor on a small review site is questionably credible (same with the linked GameOgre review of one paragraph from an anonymous reviewer). The article appears to be an advertising vehicle and composed almost entirely of original research and opinion (reviews--understandable for a game, but as a source of research...?). A brief "search engine test" to see what sort of information is out there on this game seems to be mostly people looking for help in the game, with the occasional blog post review. Is there enough credible sources out there to make it notable by Wikipedia's guidelines, especially WP:WEB (as it is a web-based game)? The whole article needs a rewrite if kept. AbstractEpiphany (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morning on Mars[edit]

Delete as unverified. No citations to verify that this book is upcoming. (See "Morning on Mars" Osborne.) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod removed without comment. ... discospinster _talk 00:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article about a book that might or might appear in 2011 ought to be written when the uncertainty is verifiably resolved. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a speculative listing. Did anybody try speedy tagging it? AnteaterZot (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL Jonathan ^{Happy Holidays!} 02:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculatory stub. --Freedom Bounty Hunter (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, upcoming event, scheduled on 2011. Come back when launched but for now delete. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless stub or advanced advertising. Should be removed until there is an actual book. DarylNickerson —Preceding comment was added at 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete both. Kurykh 03:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Children United[edit]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a direct copy of the first article listed:

Article of a charity that seems to have closed down. Both websites linked in the article are dead. The charity in question does not seem to notable in itself. A google search shows up nothing related besides this article. Article was deleted from the Colombian Wikipedia after an AFD there in November 2006. Delete as nom. Michael Greiner 00:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, as this article does not appear to have ever had an assertion of notability. However, because notability is not temporary, the fact that the organization is defunct is irrelevant. I would change my !vote if someone were to provide evidence in response to this AfD that the organization was notable at any time in the past. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Just because your organization exists doesn't make it wiki-worthy. Freedom Bounty Hunter (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed. Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. MatthewYeager 23:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa syndrome[edit]

No support or references given, and I couldn't find anything in Google. Likely OR. Notice that creating editor User:Deep Alexander appears to be a Lisa Nordlund and this "syndrome" was supposedly discovered by an Alexander Nordlund, making this a likely WP:COI problem as well. Prod contested by author. eaolson (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is nonsense. The observation of a psychological effect such as described when one person changed his online name, even if the effect were to be to substantiated by proper research, does not equate to a "syndrome". This doesn't even qualify as OR, as no research has been done at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's OR and a neologism. Definitely not notable. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (edit conflict) Absolutely WP:OR. Though this does happen in online RPGS alot, it is not a phenomenon, and isn't called Lisa Syndrome. When googled, all it returned was Mona Lisa Syndrome. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't have any sources and nobody has heard of it, sounds like a joke or an ego boost to me. --Freedom Bounty Hunter (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of self-named original research codswallop! "first discovered by Researcher Alexander Nordlund in the late 90s"? Brail (Stephanie Brail (1996). "The price of admission: harassment and free speech in the wild, wild west". In Lynn Cherny and Elizabeth Reba Weise (ed.). Wired Women: Gender and New Realities in Cyberspace. Seattle: Seal Press. pp. 141–157. ISBN 1878067737.) documented how men react to female display names in 1996, and Bruckman (Amy Bruckman (August 1993). "Gender Swapping on the Internet". INET `93, San Francisco. The Internet Society.) documented it in 1993, and it wasn't new even then. (I knew someone who suffered from men stupidly thinking that he was female in the 1980s.) The phenomenon certainly isn't named this. There is zero useful, or true, content in this article. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed. MatthewYeager 23:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NN, WP:NOR. Little value. Should've been speedied per WP:CSD#A7 Paiev (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Deleted as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Musicals performed by QHS (Quincy, IL)[edit]

List of non-notable musicals performed by a high school WebHamster 00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly trivial information. eaolson (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Eaolson. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely uneeded information, even in the article about Quincy Senior High School itself. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't want it in the QHS article anyway. (Tigerghost (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonathan ^{Happy Holidays!} 02:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#DIRECTORY --Freedom Bounty Hunter (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. If the theatre program could be shown as more notable than any other school (including colleges), and thus the shows were worthwhile, only then could I be persuaded to change my vote. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 04:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malinaccier. Can we make sure after it is deleted that it doesn't get relocated somewhere? LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guildlines. Suggest merge with main article if any sourced material is found. MatthewYeager 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete consensus is delete, even while establishing a guideline the basic premise of reliable sources would still be applicable within that. Gnan garra 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Christian High School, Barrie[edit]

No independent sources for this school to establish its notability that I could find. There is no notability guidelines for schools yet, thus the fact that it is a high school does not make it inherently notable. Therefore, the guideline to follow is WP:N, which I see no evidence of this school meeting. Cheers, CP 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I fully support merging and turning this into a redirect, if that's what the consensus would prefer, as well. Cheers, CP 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, unsourced. JJL (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails to establish any notability for what appears to be a very small school indeed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't come within a mile of meeting WP:N. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No signs of notability. TJ Spyke 02:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Policy Debate. I see a rather difficult problem here. Wikipedia:Notability (schools) is currently under debate, but still has 2 options, one of which will likely pass. This article passes Option 1 ("High schools/secondary schools (all jurisdictions) are considered inherently notable."), but Option 2 still does not allow for deletion ("A school article that fails to establish notability will not be deleted, if the school can be confirmed to exist. It would be simply redirected to the appropriate article for the relevant school district, and could be later expanded back out into it's own article again when sources should become available."). Given that neither option has been passed, I suggest going with the latter, as this school is certainly not yet inherently notable. Given that one of the two options appears to be getting passed, deleting does not seem to be on the menu. Redirect where best. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 04:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had had similar thoughts and indeed changing it to a redirect to keep the history in case of such a policy passing may be the most prudent course of action. As things stand now, delete seems most in keeping with policy. JJL (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless serious sources demonstrating notability are found. Isn't the new policy to merge/redirect to the district/town first, and only resort to AfD if reverted? AnteaterZot (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wasn't certain if that was the policy or not, but from now on I have no problem trying that. Cheers, CP 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of any policy on notability, finding reliable sources is almost entirely impossible and hence the article is incapable of meeting policy norms. Orderinchaos 10:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable school, like most of the other hundreds of thousands around the world. WWGB (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The delete arguments were clearly persuasive. However, I'm perverse enough to note that an article on the previous tour by this group was started at almost the same point in the planning cycle for the May 2007 tour (i.e., Nov. 2006). Pigman☿ 04:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tangled Up Tour[edit]

This tour, by Girls Aloud in support of their Tangled Up album, is scheduled to begin in May 2008. No sources indicating notability appear on the page, which also fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY since it is mostly a list of venues and dates. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jonathan ^{Happy Holidays!} 02:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with both reasons. --Freedom Bounty Hunter (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not meeting WP:V and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a young article, and third party WP:RSs will become available in time. Rather unfair to target this when there are dozens of similar articles, although using very pop culture as a precedent seems to be the norm. Take a look at Category:Led Zeppelin concert tours, for example. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, did you hear that a ticket to tonight's Led Zeppelin reunion concert auctioned for $168,000? In 20 years, will anybody remember this prefab pop group? AnteaterZot (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOT#CRYSTAL! ;) The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the tour HAS been officially announced, clearly more references need to be added. Girls Aloud have clearly outdone other manufactured groups, as they've just released their fourth studio album. So the fact that they are a "prefab pop group" should not stop them from having a wikipage for their latest tour. BambooBanga (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed POV to suggest that some popular groups are worthy of such articles whilst others aren't. I mentioned the LZ category as examples of similar 'directory' articles. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I make no judgments based on the group, but the article has no sources that indicate the notability of the tour. Remember that notability is not inherited. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you would have no problem deleting most of the articles in the Led Zepplin cat? The JPS^{talk to me} 08:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If an article has no sources indicating notability, and no sources can be found, Wikipedia policy is that it be deleted. I have been considering what to do with all the tour articles, but so far have nominated only those for which the deletion case is very strong. I also think that the huge lists of gigs with the little flags violate policy. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sympathetic with some of your arguments, but not when it is based upon anti-pop culture bias ("very strong") and your POV assumption that a Girls Aloud tour is less notable or worthy than certain other bands. It is like how articles about popular television and video game characters are being targeted, whilst things like Nurse (Romeo and Juliet character) are left untouched. I'd like to see consistency, and would give more credence to your argument once I see some AFDs about bands with higher cultural capital. The JPS ^{talk to me} 08:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As you can see, people will argue to keep anything. I draw a lot of lightning as it is, research my activity over the past few days. Heck, I tried to ask for sources on quite a few tour articles. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Is this the first tour article that you've nominated at AFD? The JPS ^{talk to me} 08:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know. I nominated an Aerosmith tour a few hours later. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Also, I seem to have nominated a Van Halen tour. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given that a Google News search already shows coverage of the tour with no doubt more to come between now and next year. [47]. If not, merge with the album.Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources say, "a tour is happening," which is not enough to justify a whole page. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know anything about Girls Aloud, but their page says they are "one of the most successful British pop groups". Taken at face value, and given that Capitalistroadster points out the tour is already receiving mainstream press attention, I would have thought this alone would be more than enough to satisfy any requirement for notability. Edelmand (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. By that reasoning, if the one of the girls owned a red hotrod car that her brother souped up, and she was ticketed for speeding, and the mainstream press reported on it, we could have on article on the car, replete with a discussion of all the places she drove it. Notability is not inherited, and the tour might get cancelled. The page is also in violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Unsure. Is the real issue here then that the tour has yet to take place? Upon the tour's completion, would it be deemed acceptably notable as a historical event, provided it was sourced with references? (I would have thought so) Edelmand (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luckystars (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Weather Lady[edit]

Looks like a hoax. No article for the series or the episodes on either side, production number looks suspicious. Lilyhammer (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC) ¥[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep ~~no claim of notability, possible~~ hoax--cartoon episode version of page is acceptable and widely employed format, though so stubby that it is hardly worthwhile to have multiple pages. JJL (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Likely a hoax, as the series itself does not seem to exist. Article is borderline patent nonsense as well.~~ Not a hoax, but the episode itself doesn't assert notability either. Cheers, CP 04:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible hoax. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article was heavily vandalized and the vandalism wasn't fixed. I reverted the article back to original state, which was an article for an ~~episode~~ story arc of The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show which is notable. --Michael Greiner 01:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not inherited. Jonathan ^{Happy Holidays!} 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonathan ^{Happy Holidays!} 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Jonathan said. --Freedom Bounty Hunter (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands I can't see much value in the article, a list of all the episodes in a season as part of a season article may be a better way forwards. Hiding T 10:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kafziel ^Talk 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna (Balto)[edit]

Article on a cartoon dog from the Balto movies. Merely retells the plot of each film as it affects this character; no establishment of encyclopedic notability. FuriousFreddy (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability outside the Balto series, content is already duplicated in other articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable fictional character. Also see WP:NOT#PLOT. — Satori Son 15:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fold back whatever is of use to Balto. Not sure whether a redirect is worth it here, maybe amend the dab link at Jenna to point to Balto instead. Hiding T 10:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Pigman☿ 04:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IceRocket[edit]

I originally called tihs site otable,, but it's dropped down on Alexa massively. Articles pretty much a super stub, too. Computerjoe 's talk 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's had independent articles written about it (these, two are mentioned on the article talk page, and there's more where that came from), which means it satisfies the criteria of WP:WEB. It also seems that these articles are fairly substantial works rather than flash-in-the-pan news coverage, which means that it passes the temporary notability test. I doubt it's ever going to be a great article, but I don't think it needs to be deleted, either. --jonny-m t 04:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Mark Cuban connection gives a tenative claim to notability per WP:WEB criteria #3. Sources found: CNet story from 2005 & Forbes. Google News has additional non-trivial coverage. Caknuck (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telework and Telecommuting (how to make changes for)[edit]

The result was delete. Kafziel ^Talk 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

obvious essay article Will ^(talk) 20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a essay -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. — Satori Son 14:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted WP:CSD#G1 by Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Gamer[edit]

unsourced BLP Will ^(talk) 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, perhaps speediable as nonsense or vandalism. This quote says it all: "By the way, this article is not true, Ilya has won no such prize and still continues to be broke, with his wife Beatrice and dog named Tony." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete by Secret. RMHED (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Independence Alliance[edit]

non-notable group, no sources Will ^(talk) 21:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]