< February 22	February 24 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was speedy close, article has never existed. Mujahid centre was deleted by Adam Cuerden per an AfD. --ais523 10:57, 5 March 2007 (U T C)

Mujahid centre (1st nomination)[edit]

The article is terribly written. I have no idea about the group and what is views. It seems like more of an advertisement than anything else. ZaydHammoudeh 09:31, 23 February 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information warfare against Ukraine after Orange revolution[edit]

POV-essay. There is no references to any Information campaign of Russian government at all. Two reference about an extremist leader of a minority party Vladimir Zhirinovsky, one about withdrawing some trade privileges and one (in an internet forum!) about a demonstration on Ukraine. Alex Bakharev 00:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Horribly POV starting from the title itself. I could see a potential for the News coverage of Ukraine in Russia after the Orange Revolution article but this would have to be written from scratch and the current text would have been totally useless for it. This so called article looks to me as a plainly ax-grinding exercise by someone. --Irpen 00:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now New-ish user. Article should be tagged for the issues it has and some time given to fix them and perhaps fix the name etc. Obviously it is mostly rubbish but should at least be given some time (more than 1 day!) for the aurthor to fix it and provide sources in the media (which do apparently exist)--Dacium 04:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that an encyclopedic NPOV article can be made under this title? In general it is possible to have an article about Ukraine's coverage in Russia but that's gotta be under a neutral title (see above) and would have been written from scratch. --Irpen 04:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious bullsh*t. KNewman 09:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. On the general case, information operations are likely to be extremely difficult to hold wikipedia articles on. MLA 11:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NPOV is nowhere near in sight.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as far as I can see the worse thing about this article is the title. With the given sources (and most of them from Prawda), one could construct a conspiracy theory. The question of debate is whether it should be included in a encyclopedia. Hitting a new editor with the whole book after one day of editing is certainly not the way to make him understand why we don't see room for a certain article. Instead someone should have started by leaving a message indicating the relevant guidelines. Alf photoman 15:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too much original research and POV to make it salvageable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loads of NPOV and article fails WP:OR.Telly addict 17:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV. -- Black Falcon 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename, and renominate in a week. New article, give the POV name a renaming to something less inflammatory and clean up. if not fixed in 7 days, renominate. there are a lot of valid sources, but the article-as is isn't very good. Failing that, userfy and let him try again later. - Denny 23:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-POV --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IT- The article is relevant to the existing problem! KEEP IT - No POV or DELETE is not an argument! You just prove to be chauvinistic.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.172.91 (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and salt. Usalvageably POV. No way to make an NPOV article under this name. The fact that a new editor wrote it does not bring about a whole different set of policies... just a moral responsibility to explain more than usual what we are doing and why. Jerry lavoie 01:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ÝOU SHOULD LIVE NOW IN UKRAINE TO UNDERSTAND THIS VERY PROBLEM the same way as you should live in Poland to see how the joint forces of Nazi and Communists in 1939 ripped the country. USSR denied that for 70 years. The article has the full right for existence as there is a real problem! If you did not see it, or just don't want to pay attention to it, it does not mean there is no problem! I agree that probably the name in not that OK. As well as if you live in UK, Germany, Canada and don't know that people in Africa die from hunger because they don't have 1$ a day does not mean that there is not such a problem. Olgerd 10:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TITLE AND ARTICLE AMENDED Olgerd 13:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Attempt to turn WP into war zone. This topic needs time to be researched with hindsight and w/o emotions running full. OR if you want. Pavel Vozenilek 19:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that article is controversial from different points of view, as many articles here. However there is no argumentation - just DELETE and POV?! I have made some amendments and complitely changed the Title, while I have added a list of references and links to the mass-media sources and opinions of the government officials. I still need your balanced & argumented (!) comments in order to improve the article. Thank you. --Olgerd 17:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Knights of Ålleberg[edit]

I can find no references to substantiate this topic, apart from a couple of wikis that possibly took their information from this article Croxley 00:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it is not native to English, but rather Swedish. Google gives several results. I don't think we should be hasty in making a decision either way. Anybody speak Svenska? —siro χ o 01:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs to be varifiable externally since it is an apparent legend. Battle doesn't even appear to be notable.--Dacium 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the time being into King in the mountain, where similar tales are collected. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I understand Swedish, and this tale seems to be more or less notable from a Swedish point of view. 96T 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its based on stories and there are no sources or anything to verify this.Telly addict 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Smerdis of Tlön. I believe it's worth saving into another article until it can be verified. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-It can't really be verified that well since it's a legend, and it's not a notale one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 00:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge with the article Ålleberg. Bronks 09:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a legend and from the size of the article, not a particularly large one either. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite the current status of this nomination, I suggest that whoever closes this debate seek out more Swedish speakers. None of those arguing for deletion speak Swedish, or at least their user pages do not declare it. In fact, the only editor who speaks Swedish in the debate has said it was notable, I think if we get confirmation on this, it would be reasonable to keep it. —siro χ o 01:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films in which an attempt is made to guess a password[edit]

Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. "Guessing a password" is not a notable enough feature of these films (or films in general) to justify an article or list devoted to the subject. Trivial listcruft. Croxley 00:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete The present article is a trivial and selective list of some well known films only. DGG 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too trivial. 23skidoo 01:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New England... clam chowder (white). JuJube 01:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and indiscriminate and lacking any context. Otto4711 02:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'Cause this article is trivial. Daniel5127 | Talk 03:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - 71.232.29.141 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, non encylopedic--Dacium 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unencyclopaedic criterion for a list. Jules1975 10:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IFF a sourced, externally verifiable, Wikipedia:Attributed article could be written on "the movie cliche fo guessing passwords", this content (with context and sources added) could be merged into said article. Failing that, delete as a list which links minor occurances in movies with no justification why the minor occurances is important and notable apart from being an obstacle in the plot, and why the minor occurances should be linked, as they have nothing in common apart from being "person sits at screen... types... curses... types... curses... types... grins and moves onto the next plot element". -- saberwyn 10:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep From WP:LIST: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." What's trivial to you is not trivial to others. Passwords are central to computer security and people's behavior and attitudes regarding their use is an important and active area of research. This list is useful in understanding how such attitudes develop and would be very difficult for a scholar to recreate. It's subject is well defined and narrowly focused. The referenced works are their own sources. Anyone can view the film to verify it contains the type of scene described. --agr 12:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a good idea and would be interesting info to have, perhaps including info on the specifics of each movie would make it better?--E tac 13:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the very definition of an indiscriminate list. "It's interesting" or "it's useful" is not a reason to keep. Plus, it's not interesting or useful.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial information, incomplete and generally seems like it was just a quick idea article, non-encyclopedic.Telly addict 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of movies whose only common thread is that at some point someone tried to guess a password? Arkyan 17:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too trivial.-- danntm ^T _C 18:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire premise for this "list" is entirely indescriminate. Invites similar lists that I won't suggest out of fear of their creation. I agree that as "interesting" and "useful" as this may be to some, those are not reasons to keep. "Trivia" (which is in many ways the antithesis of "encyclopedic") can be interesting and an ad in the phone book can be useful, but they are not encyclopedic. Agent 86 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do find it interesting (though not particularly useful) but it's pretty much a trivia list. GassyGuy 19:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly trivial. Kolindigo 19:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. An article on the cliché of password-guessing in film, wherein the password is usually guessed seconds before some tragic event occurs (nuclear explosion, the death of the protagonist and/or his/her lover and/or children), may be encyclopedic, but this list isn't. -- Black Falcon 19:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above delete reasons. - Denny 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Trivial list. Can't even really be made into a category. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - per nom. List is hardly notable. Would probably approach fancruft if the list were truly fleshed out with today's technical movies. Ronbo76 01:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination. Hoverfish Talk 07:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Password cracking in film (or Password cracking in fiction), expand info on the significance of the password cracked (or attacked) in each, and Keep. Culturally significant. bd2412 T 12:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but you declaring it to be culturally significant does not make it so. That is the entire crux of this AfD. You say it is, I say it isn't.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete who on earth created a list like this?. Isuggest we keep the lists to a minumumErnst Stavro Blofeld 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per User:BD2412's reasoning. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Restructure per bd2412 and saberwyn.—Carolfrog 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for such a list like that.--JForget 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. --Core desat 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries of money[edit]

These articles have been nominated 3 times for deletion in 2006; the previous discussion missed an important point. Unlike flags, banknotes and coins are not used to identify countries, these large gallery of fair use media are not an acceptable fair use; all of the images seem to exist in the corresponding country currency article so these are unnecessary galleries of FU material and should be deleted. Delete --Peta 00:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All of the images do not exist in the corresponding country currency articles (so far, I've just checked Albania and Australia). -- Black Falcon 00:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Albania has the space in its article; but no one added the images. Australia has an article on each of its notes. --Peta 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies, you are right. I will make a more detailed comment upon examining the previous AfDs and WP:FUC. -- Black Falcon 01:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons mentioned in the previous three AFDs. Sorry Peta, but I fail to see anything you've introduced that has changed the discussion, the images of banknotes are to identify banknotes. The subjects are the banknotes themselves, not the issuing country. Fair use rights should be asserted. hateless 00:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain to me how use in these galleries meets any of the WP:FUC --Peta 00:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would suggest the burden of proof is on the accuser. Besides, ((money)) seems to indicate banknotes may or may not be copyrighted depending on the laws of the issuing state. It seems wasteful to debate the merits of the category when individual factors should be considered. hateless 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone provide links to the previous AfD nominations? - Peregrine Fisher 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep all The meet all the criteria: 1/ no free equiv is likely to be available. 2/Nobody could produce a counterfeit from these thumbnails 3/Only 1 image each is used 4/ he items are published, in whatever sense it may mean for currency 5/ he info. is encyclopedic 6/there arent any medium-specific requirements 7/They are used in an article 8/ they illustrate the subject 9/ they are in article namespace 10/the items are attributed and fair used claimed. DGG 01:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and partition

First the previous nominations are

Below are all 2006-10-18

Beside the 4 points (usefulness, policy, format, cost) I gave in previous AfD, I'd like to raise some new perspective.

Partition and caption

It is work in progress, examples include Gallery of Belarusian banknotes and Gallery of Kyrgyz banknotes. They meet the requirement of gallery. And there are even templates for captioning them: Template:Numismatic banknote gallery caption and Template:Numismatic coin gallery caption. What is taking me so long? I am the only one doing it. There are duplicate images, some not exactly identical. Forking off a national gallery requires looking up data from catalog for captions. I have real life responsibility too.

Fair use

In some cases, like the Belarusian banknotes and Kyrgyz banknotes examples I just gave, the images not entitled for copyright according to their laws. Even when the image is really fair use, just refer to DGG's comment. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an extension of Banknote, per the precedent of Gallery of sovereign-state flags, the fair use rationale provided by User:DGG, and the six resaons identified by User:Chochopk. -- Black Falcon 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are being used to people can identify that they are real money. Is fair use since the images not not massive resolution.--Dacium 04:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Improve, don't delete. - Peregrine Fisher 04:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending green-light for fair-use image usage in this form, as per the arguments of Black Falcon and ChoChoPK. -- saberwyn 10:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a numismatist myself, these articles would be very helpful in determining the country of origin of an unknown coin. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant !votes on an afd have no bering on the copyright status of an article. Once we have asertained the copyright status of the images action will be taken. you can't !vote yourself an exception to copyright.Geni 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Although its a little long its an important list, this could be made even better if it had a litle history and/or info about the notes for each country.Telly addict 17:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of this discussion seems to be missing the point. The question raised here seems to be - is this really fair use, or is copyright being violated? They can be useful, interesting, encyclopaedic, etc., but if copyright is being violated, they need to go. No actual opinion as I'm not well-versed enough with such things to determine the status of these images. GassyGuy 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect, I disagree. If fair use were the primary concern, then the choice of action would be to show the image, or to provide a text link from the gallery. This is an AfD, that means the choice of action is to delete the whole article, or to keep it (and possibly to edit it). If we really want to discuss fair use, then as I said before, some images are not even entitled for copyright according to their national laws. For other images, see DGG's comment. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Currently fine and good potential. Dfrg.msc 22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe something almost identical can be created by putting the images into categories. I know I've seen categories of Fair Use images where they all show up on one page somewhere. - Peregrine Fisher 23:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep There is no policy based reason to delete this. And since when are images of federal currency from different countries copyrighted? If issues exist with a given image, nuke the image, not a set of articles. - Denny 23:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Us is about the only country where the goverment releases it's work into the public domain.Geni 04:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Template:PD-RO-exempt
Template:NZ-Currency
Template:PD-AM-exempt
Template:PD-KG-exempt

And more... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chochopk (talk • contribs) 05:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep going you've got another 61 countires yet.Geni 10:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I need to enumerate that for 61 countries? I don't. Here is a series of logical deduction on why it is not necessary, and why I gave these 4 examples

As I said before, fair use is not the primary issue here. This is an AfD, it discusses the article as a whole, not individual images.
When Denny raised the issue of copyright, and you, Geni, said the U.S. is about the only country doing so and so, the focus has already diverged from the main focus of the AfD.
Nevertheless, your statement is false regardless what the focus is. I must correct that so that other readers are well informed. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use is the main issue. See if the images are free this kind of thing goes to commons. 4 is a very small number of countries and in any case the NZ one at least is a no derivatives lisence (I assume it in some way comes from uk style crown copyright) which these days is an automtic delete. See the astrisked section here.Geni 04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If fair use were the primary issue, then we should discuss the images case by case, or at least, country by country. The result would be to keep, remove the inclusion of the images, or convert to text links, like Image:Example.png. This is an AfD. Therefore, we are discussing whether to keep, or delete the entire article. Those two are different. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into banknote. Just H^{editor review} 23:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for reasons which have already been discussed previously, I'm not sure why this needs to be challenged. (jarbarf) 00:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Gallery meets the fair use rational. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all seems encyclopedic enough; if there's a copyvio suspected send it to the copyvio folks, but I assume that because WP's servers are in the US, that US fair use rules will apply and the biggest gist is whether the use if commercial or displaces the market for the original; now if all these countries started trading images of their coins and bills instead of the real ones perhaps that's an issue, but hasn't made the news that I've heard of. Carlossuarez46 06:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikimedia Commons which allows these types of galleries. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 13:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty to deal with the fair use photos and removed them from the galleries. Honestly, as what Messedrocker said, we can link to the Commons galleries to Wikipedia using ((Commons)). That is all these pages are, galleries. Fair use cannot be used at galleries at all and fair use cannot be sent to the Commons, so expect to have some of the images to be deleted within due course. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons that have been given so far. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above Jo e I 05:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think any questions of legal concerns should be referred to an attorney employed by the Wikipedia Foundation. There doesn't seem to be much question that information on the banknotes is encyclopedic, portray in galleries is just a style issue, but legal concerns are another matter, which require professional information. FrozenPurpleCube 05:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S.O.N.O.G.R.A.M.[edit]

13,000 copies solf - only another 487,000 copies and it'll be gold! Honestly, that is a terribly low sales figure. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What more can I say? This is not notable. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (conditional) Please also nominate One_Be_Lo, as per WP:MUSIC "the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia". So unless you nominate also One_Be_Lo I don't see how the nomination can be supported as if One Be Lo is notable to have an article his albums are allowed.--Dacium 04:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is explicitly not synonymous with popularity, especially in underground rap where importance is not measured in gold records: Underground Rap is an explicit criticism of the commercialism of rap music. No underground album could possibly "go gold", yet underground rap is an important cultural and musical influence. By the proposed standard, all underground rap albums could be AfD. As the only argument for deletion is non-notability via low sales, this nomination lacks sufficient justification. --Richard Daly 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. WP:NOT a directory, we need multiple non-trivial independent sources about this record. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Richard Daly and Dacium. "...if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia."-K@ngi e ^meep! 06:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst notability is explicitly not synonymous with popularity, a notable artist would still be capable of producing duds, although in this case, if the album had been hammerred by reviewers, it would be notable for being the dud which it is. In the absence, I would say that it is indeed not notable. Ohconfucius 07:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no evidence that it is in fact non-notable. Lots of reasonably good reviews, a known artist, okay it didn't sell well but that doesn't indicate lack of notability. Also I wouldn't have said 13K was a terribly low sales figure, by the top flight groups yes, but to many notable groups and artists out there that isn't a bad figure. Ben W Bell talk 08:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ben W Bell. Also note the very positive reviews on AMG and PopMatters.96T 16:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence that it is non-notable. Has resonable reviews and is a known artist. --Djsasso 16:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets WP:NN and the deletion of this article would not be the best of moves with respect and it does meet notability.Telly addict 17:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge iff One Be Lo is in fact notable to One Be Lo; honestly, there's hardly anything to say in this guy's article, may as well toss his discography in with it since there's not much to say about the album either. GassyGuy 19:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to One Be Lo per GassyGuy. Notability "is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'." (from WP:N) -- Black Falcon 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple reviews assert notability just fine. -Seinfreak37 20:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm not sure if my argument should go here as I'm the creator, but why do sales figure matter that much? The album was only released in 2005 so it will need time to get to a respectable figure. It's received rave reviews from most sources (including AMG). If sales figures are all you're basing this one, then shouldn't you delete Radiohead's seventh studio album aswell? :) Powelldinho 22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Richard. Dfrg.msc 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability thresholds easily. - Denny 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Just H^{editor review} 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with all the above, a very notable figure in underground hip hop. Also for an independent lable 13,000 is a very good number especially with the lack of promotions. It has also received very good reviews form various sources. www.rapreviews.com, http://www.avclub.com/content/node/16006, this one is from the Onion. If artists aren't notable because of low record sales we would have a lot less articles, take a look at the Pixies, Meat Puppets, Ratatat all have smaller record sales (around the time they began) they are all obviously notable. --HiphopisNOTdead 27:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appear to be scads of independent reviews for this artist and his albums. The nominator should do his homework. -MrFizyx 06:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This artist was also apart of Binary Star, who, aside from having album listings on iTunes, have received recognition for their work. S.O.N.O.G.R.A.M. is also able to be purchased via iTunes (that is where I bought it from). The deletion of this article would be promoting and justifying the deletion of several other articles on Wikipedia, as is written in the above comments. Also, keep in mind that this article is relatively well put-together. There is an accurate listing of all of the producers, artists, singles etc. Keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delaguerra09 (talk • contribs)

The result was Keep. Rlevse 03:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WaterWorld Too[edit]

4000 copies sold, only 496,000 short of a gold disc. Not a notable recording. Not close. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is your source for sales figures? -MrFizyx 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per S.O.N.O.G.R.A.M. should really AfD all these with One Be Lo beacuse if he has notibility his albums are allowed pages no matter there current sales as per MP:MUSIC.--Dacium 04:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artist is notable therefore his album pages should stay. --Djsasso 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MUSIC and WP:N, it meets these both.Telly addict 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to One Be Lo as with S.O.N.O.G.R.A.M. GassyGuy 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to One Be Lo per GassyGuy. Notability "is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'." (from WP:N) -- Black Falcon 19:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read my comments for the nomination above as to why this should be kept. Powelldinho 23:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: This debate appears to be out of order. No notice of an AfD has ever been added to the WaterWorld Too page. In fact the page hasn't been edited in weeks. This is sloppy work and should be closed as keep ASAP. -MrFizyx 06:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you didn't exactly add the AfD notice to the page, and the discussion doesn't exactly appear to be weighted toward keep, so I'm not sure this is a great way to lodge your complaint. GassyGuy 08:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless One Be Lo is also deleted. -MrFizyx 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshika Kimura[edit]

Does not appear to satify criteria for inclusion of humans. While there is one Google news hit, the actuale article doesn't match it? A normal google search returns 58 unique results, none of which I am able to determine set her apart from her contemporaries in the industry. Full admission of mono-linguality here, and caution against re-enforcing cultural bias aside, delete unless reliable sources found.
brenneman 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a link to the news article, Aaron: http://www.varietyasiaonline.com/content/view/738/1/ It seems she's going to be in the new Takeshi Kitano film. Dekkappai 01:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahhh... thanks mate. I had tried to search for "Hooray for Kitano" to find that. I would still like to see something a bit more substantial than a single line about an unreleased film. - brenneman 01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete If more sources are not forthcoming. Need something to show her position in the movie and the current DVD's are notible.--Dacium 04:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With only 5 DVDs, not really notable in her field. External link provided does not directly relate to her bio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysepsion (talk • contribs) 06:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:BIO and the lack of google search results and it fails WP:Notability (people).Telly addict 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete I guess I've appointed myself mother hen of these little, unsourced, Japanese pornograpic actress stubs, and made it a large part of my editing activity to regularly go through the list improving and sourcing them as best I can. When I came across Ms. Kimura last week, I held my breath, hoping to find adequate sourcing and evidence of notability before she got put up for deletion. My own policy is not to start an article on a subject until it is already fairly interesting and adequately-sourced. But, since I usually favor improving over deleting, I do what I can when I find these unsourced stubs started on Japanese erotic actresses.

I like that you've made the criteria human, rather than Porn, Aaron. One thing that rubs me the wrong way about so many of these Japanese AV idol AfDs is that they are often strictly held to standards built to conform to the Western (i.e. American) porn culture, which is very different from that in Japan. The clear barrier between "Adult" entertainment and entertainment in general, which exists over here is much less present over there. Simply as Adult Video stars, these AV idols are multi-media celebrities in Japan because of the much higher visibility these videos have in Japan compared to their American counterparts. Additionally, an AV model will sometimes already have mainstream media name recognition before she appears in AVs. And often a model who made her name in AVs will cross into mainstream media.

Ms. Kimura appears to be just such a subject. She was originally a ballerina. She is a very new AV star, and 5 DVDs listed on Amazon in such a short time is indicative of the beginnings of a notable AV career in Japan. Of these 5 DVDs released, 1 appears not to be "adult," ~~and I suspect (but this is just a guess) that the 4 "Adult" ones only contain nude modeling.~~ The fact that Takeshi Kitano-- a very major Japanese celebrity, and a celebrity in world cinema-- has chosen her to be in his next film suggests that evidence notability will come. The fact that she has an article started at Japanese Wikipedia is another indication that she has some notability in the country. On the other hand, that article is an unsourced stub.

(Also, concerning the Google test-- This has been ruled out as a proof of notability, but since it has been brought up, I will point out that the Google search on her name in Japanese (木村佳香) gives "Results 1 - 10 of about 192,000 for 木村佳香")

But, all the above taken into consideration, Wikipedia's primary criterion for establishing the notability of humans is, "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works the source of which is independent of the person." I tried, but could find not find this for Ms. Kimura. (The Japanese search did lead me to her homepage, which I've added to the article, as well as several fan/porn sites, but nothing useful as a source.) I strongly suspect that if I were in Japan, I could find evidence of mainstream notability, and I also strongly suspect that such notability standards will be met by Ms. Kimura eventually. Because of this, I will probably save the article in my user space and work on it till it is worth putting on Wikipedia. But, for now, I'll have to reluctantly join in the recommendation for Delete. Dekkappai 18:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pr0ncruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ...too bad the original nomination wasn't so carefully thought out. I'd have had no problem with opposing it then... Dekkappai 01:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the List of porn star articles for deletion. -- Dekkappai 23:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. Rlevse 02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dip snap[edit]

Non-notable neologism. The article does not cite reliable sources and, not suprisingly, there don't appear to be any. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Um, yeah. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. FreplySpang 01:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made this article when I still didn't know most of the rules of Wikipedia, so I understand if you delete it, but it is a commonly used term/act of some cultural significance (notice the edits other than my own.) I'm not sure where those of you that say "Delete" are from, or how old you are, but Dip Snap is a generally understood term amongst DC area teens (obviously not the best argument, but it's true.) One thing I can't seem to understand is why this isn't culturally significant enough and individual high schools, subway stations, etc. are... Perhaps I'd change my vote if I could understand this paradox. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an encyclopedia (the thing which we are all trying to create here) as "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge." How can we claim to be making an encyclopedia if we leave out certain branches of knowledge? Let it be Science, History or Greater Washington, DC area vernacular, they all have a place in this collection of all the world's knowledge. I apologize for not citing this, but I can't see how I could... To my knowledge, there aren't a whole lot of Doctoral Dissertations written about chewing tobacco culture. Perhaps I could have some help finding citations, rather than just deleting my work without first attempting to help me work on it? Vint 02:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to my last comment, I have found mention of this action here [[1]]. Obviously this is just other people, not a citation, but it proves the cultural significance. I also found a passing mention on the description of a portable spittoon here [[2]], will this work as a citation? Vint 03:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. You say I apologize for not citing this, but I can't see how I could... That's the whole problem. Maybe you could try writing about this at Urban Dictionary. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be a jerk about it, this is supposed to be a civil discussion, and being snooty about it isn't helping anyone. Did you even look at the links I put in the last comment? The article is not about the term Dip Snap, which I admit is a neologism, it is about the act of packing the snuff, the motion and act of which is widely called the dip snap. While the term for it may not be the apt term, I intended to write an article about packing the dip, not the actual term Dip Snap. Urban Dictionary is intended for neologisms, like "STFU" or something like that, not for a description of an act. While I'm not going to change my vote just yet, could we at least agree on an alternative, perhaps moving it to Packing (snuff) or something along those lines? PS There is already a perfectly good entry on Urban Dictionary. Vint 04:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you took offense. It wasn't my intent to be insulting. I was merely trying tomake the point that since dip snapping wasn't covered in reliable sources, WP couldn't do an article about it but that you could write about it elsewhere. I did look at the first source (the second one was a broken link). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Wikipeida Articles on neologisms "The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate." Knehcsa 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, if it can be verified. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 04:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "It is often used by "dippers" as a sort of secret calling card, to announce to other "dippers" who know what he is doing that he is a fellow "dipper"." No notibility outside of dippers (whatever they are)--Dacium 04:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if this action is not an integral part of multiple, non-trivial, notable, published (i.e. easily re-accessible) item, then it probably should not be kept as an article. I could make a huge number of hand gestures from combinations of motions, and even notice where one is regularly used, but this does not mean that it should be an article. Merge a description of this motion into where it is frequently and used, according to a reliable source, and merge any information about the creation of the neologism into the article about the person or group that invented the word. Gracenotes ^T § 04:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was clear, concise, and didn't make me feel like crap, I will change my vote to Delete, which I believe allows this to be put up for instant deletion, due to author agreement, or whatever it's called. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could do that for me, I don't know how. Vint 04:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just checked, and I had to have created this article mistakenly to put it up for speedy deletion, so I guess this is all I can do, but I, the creator of this article, agree to stop bickering and allow it to be deleted without further conflict. Vint 04:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be honest and with respect the article contains no relevant information, it fails WP:NN and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY.Telly addict 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Neologism that is unsourced from April 2006. Ronbo76 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep -This is a very important cultural phenomenon. Ali G is a sufficient outside source.
Delete - non-notable even if it were to magically become sourced, which it won't. 声援 -- The Hyb rid
Delete. Inadequate supporting references, which immediately eliminates this article from consideration. Further, appears to be a dictionary definition, so is any any case more appropriate for Wiktionary. The reference to the performer, though interesting, is not an acceptable reference because the "dip snap" is not a principal subject of any of the performer's discourses. WMMartin 14:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dip snapping is a great way to ward off the unwanted nearby squirrel, and people around lots of squirrels need to know what they can do for personal defense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.63.6.45 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 06:01Z

FUDD[edit]

Dicdef, unreferenced - probably a neologism. Awyong J. M. Salleh 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems like a neologism that multiple people could come up with independently, but still not promising as an encyclopedia article. FreplySpang 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, No merge to Fud, Elmer Fudd is disambiguated there, and this could be an easy mispelling of FUD as well. Also would prevent the article from being casually re-created. —siro χ o 01:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Siroxo
Delete Not even werth redirecting.--Dacium 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fudd (lowercase) to Elmer Fudd. The existing FUDD article contains no notable, verifiable information. - Richardcavell 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete--Sefringle 06:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:59Z

The New Form of Deluxe[edit]

Contested PROD. Neologism, trying to get a new word/usage to catch on. FreplySpang 01:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is original research, and does not belong on Wikipedia. Cavenba 04:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aurthors admit it is a neo and made up in school one day.--Dacium 04:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This belongs on UD, not Wiki. Electricbassguy 08:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,Ok, I see what you all think about my article, but what do you think about the word.

Delete Future and uncited opinions and generally fails WP:NN and WP:NOT.Telly addict 18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should definitely have an article on WP ........... when it does "sweep the nation and possibly the world". I think WP:NEO and WP:NOR will suffice as reasons for deletion. -- Black Falcon 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deluxely... as a thing relly made up in school one day. SkierRMH 21:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Meets WP:MADEUP.
Delete. Sorry, kids, but this appears to be something you've just made up. This isn't acceptable under our standard guidelines. I feel this can be a Speedy. WMMartin 14:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:59Z

Upcoming Live CD[edit]

Mostly speculation, a little information that belongs in the main Rob Zombie article (and is already there), and a terrible, terrible title. Contested PROD. FreplySpang 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons above (except for the terrible title -- that can always be fixed.) --Kathy A. 01:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only content is WP:CRYSTAL guesses at songs list. Nothing werth merging.--Dacium 04:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculative although it'll probably be re-created when details and name is arises. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crystal ball, poorly titled to boot. Wait till the album is actually announced with details. 23skidoo 13:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ball, too soon. - Denny 23:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Probably needs a future tag on the article too. Ronbo76 01:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jogers (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted. - brenneman 01:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATLANTIS Magazine - A Sea Dweller's Guide to Living[edit]

Article reads like an advertisement for the magazine, no references or sources of notability, found it through Special:Loneypages (so it's not even linked within WP) looks like advertisement for a startup to me. Crazynas^t 01:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete from mainspace. Page was moved to User:JR330. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 05:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Rogon[edit]

45 non-wiki g-hits, none of which suggest a whiff of notability, plus a sneaking suspicion the article's creator and main editor is the subject of the article. Kathy A. 01:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can find through Google, it's suggestive that he might be a wannabe rather than actually peerage material. Note no references in the article, just a bunch of claims to titles. And Universal Life Church ordination? Yeah, me too. (Really, I sent a letter of inquiry in the 1980s and they ordained me by return mail without my consent.) They'll ordain your dog. So? --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 02:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this peer of Sealand, per Pigman. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had long enough to show something of notibility/verifiability.--Dacium 04:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or weak redirect to Sealand. The article may also fail WP:COI: the author is one User:JR330, a single usegr account. Ohconfucius 07:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sealand per Ohconfucius. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally unreferenced, claims of belonging to chivalry orders that are either so secret that nobody knows about them or happen to be in some back-room of some joint Friday nights. Besides the catholic cofradia de san isidoro would not take anybody not catholic. Alf photoman 13:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Comment I'm not sure of what purpose a redirect to the Sealand article would serve. The title of Baron of Sealand is available at price of STG£14.99 via the Sealand website, although admittedly that is a special offer. Flowerpotman 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator and just about everyone else, no objection to a redirect. (jarbarf) 00:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Edits coming from User:JR330 (I wonder what JR could stand for). Fails WP:BIO as notability is not established. Ronbo76 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Note: the same images are currently in a gallery on the main Pugad Baboy article, and should be dealt with as well. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:58Z

Gallery of Pugad Baboy comic books[edit]

This article is merely a gallery of non-free images. Galleries of non-free images are frowned upon. BigDT 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete That's very much not right. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 02:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the page has no content other that FU media; galleries of this kind have been speedied before.--Peta 02:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly not fair use at that resolution. Doesn't serve any other purpose.--Dacium 08:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was that the nominator is a dumbarse. - brenneman 02:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, this is one of the more interesting results I've encountered. :P -- Cheers, Black Falcon 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semordnilap[edit]

Once I removed the long list of words there's not much left here... No sources, and I didn't find anything that could be used to build a real article. Wiktionary at best, delete from here. brenneman 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to palindrome. Someone might see the term, not think to read backwards, and hope to find an article about it. Newyorkbrad 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Bicudo[edit]

Biography, likely autobio actually of a "Portuguese surfer, scientist and teacher". No sign of reliable third-party coverage. No sign of meeting WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to pass WP:BIO--Dacium 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally unsourced and unreferenced article about a living person Alf photoman 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No external verifiability and no real noteriety within the given fields. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:56Z

Rich Drezen[edit]

Speedy Delete Don't take this personally, but wiki requires that an individual be notable per WP:BIO to be included. Also, creating your own page is a conflict of interest. Djma12 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they violate both conflict of interest and notability. Please refer to WP:NOT:

Djma12 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Ineligible for speedy as it has a claim of notability. No Google News Archive results, top search result is YouTube. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Can't be speedied. Fails WP:BIO, no notibility shown. Not verifiable outside of itself. And most importantly is blantent WP:COI conflict of interest. Author must be made aware that someone else should create pages about him and his work when/if he becomes notable enough.--Dacium 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced claims about a living person are unacceptable in a encyclopedia Alf photoman 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't establish notability, conflict of interest. ShadowHalo 14:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The closest thing to notability is the award, but that's far from enough. WP is not the place to self-promote. --TheOther Bob 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:55Z

What is black and white and red all over?[edit]

Failed both speedy and prod - just one cliched joke of thousands. If I had to cite a particular guideline for deletion, I guess it would be WP:BAI (WP:DUMB) or that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. I just don't believe this article has any potential to be anything more than a destination for people to add their own interpretations of the joke. As the nominator, I change my vote to keep based on the new title and references by Uncle G. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ (right now): Leaning merge with another article, which one? I am not sure, perhaps something like this only merits a line in some other entry.A mcmurray 02:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The new title and the relevance raised by Uncle G.A mcmurray 00:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a joke book. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorporate into something else, it's part of our culture, it's a really old joke, belongs some where on Wikipedia. --The_stuart 02:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps incorporate into Why did the chicken cross the road? Just an idea. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a joke book, and the joke is so old that is it not worth moving to WP:BJAODN. ●DanMS • Talk 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete [revoked] This is an extremely old age joke question that i would support keeping if it had something about its history etc. But I doupt anyone is going to find the required info. other punch lines section is rather... crude.--Dacium 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Brace yourself for a surprise. Uncle G 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - KEEP After Uncle G's changes--Dacium 00:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How you can source something like this? --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would suggest moving it to an article such as "List of cliched jokes" except there'd be POV/sourcing problems there, too. Just get rid of it. JuJube 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can one source something like this? In the way that the article is now sourced. There is almost certainly no need even for a merger. Yes, as exemplified by Aviation joke (AfD discussion), a collection of jokes does not make an encyclopaedia article. The cure for that is to take the serious documentation and discussion of the jokes concerned (which doesn't exist for aviation jokes), and cleanup the article. As with Elephant joke (AfD discussion), this riddle has been studied in detail by both linguists and folklorists, and there is plenty to say on the subject. Keep. Uncle G 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like the article has been moved to the title Newspaper riddle by Uncle G. Hopefully this doesn't confuse the discussion too much. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Uncle G has done it again. Nice job. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- but that title is a plot spoiler (smile)DGG 00:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interestingly, Chiaro points out that in translation to French one has to include exactly such a spoiler, specifing a newspaper in the question. Uncle G 14:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep under new title - nice turnaround! bd2412 T 12:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep - excellent contrast between the before AfD and the current version's level of notability. If only all AfD's encouraged such positive editing rather than arguing. - WeniWidiWiki 17:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete —JeremyA 04:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellaire Yantis[edit]

Contested prod. No evidence that this person meets the inclusion criteria set out at WP:BIO. Delete.-- JeremyA 02:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No notability per WP:BIO. Suspected Vanity. Djma12 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Page has already been speedied once (yesterday), no claims of notability. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A7) Not notable, WP:COI.--Hús ö nd 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete completely non-notable. Daniel5127 | Talk 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- non-notable. Turgidson 04:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious NN --Dacium 04:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:53Z

List of light fixture manufacturers in the United States[edit]

Pretty much the same reasons as for List of streetlight manufacturers and fixtures (just deleted, AFD here). Just an indiscriminate collection of red links and spam. Hús ö nd 02:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per streetlight manufacturers. Although it should be noted that certain items lists such as list of speaker manufactures was actually accepted as keep in a previous AFD I believe. So not sure where the line is here...--Dacium 04:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like indiscriminate info to me. Is it encyclopedic? Not really. James086 ^Talk 12:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Tumbleweedtumbles 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a list trying to be a category. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolindigo 19:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nomination. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Trebor 18:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films involving amputees[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a film has an amputee character is nowhere near sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. No encylopedic association.--Dacium 04:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of films about amputees might, by some stretch, be acceptable, but a list of movies that simply involve an amputee is arbitrary and indiscriminate. Arkyan 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan. An article about the role/use of amputees in film, if non-trivial, reliable sources exist for it might be appropriate. -- Black Falcon 20:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. change to Merge as per Mermaid below. Hoverfish Talk 07:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Society often stereotype people with disabilities and their use in film is perhaps the easiest examples to study. Arguably this list should be merged with List of films with disabled protagonists. I would also point out that all the entries in this list are articles so this list serves more as an index to Wikipedia.--agr 16:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of films about disability, but keep the information involving amputees (that is, don't just indiscriminately shuffle the films in, but put it in as a sub-section). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually, there are several lists of this type that might be much better as a merged larger article with information about the disabilities portrayed in each film: List of films about disability, List of films with disabled protagonists, List of films involving amputees, List of films featuring mental illness and List of films featuring blind characters, many of which have been nominated for deletion by Otto4711 and are thus also currently undergoing their own AfD debates at this time. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment another possibility is a merge to List of amputees, which has a section on fictional amputees. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:53Z

Munnabhai Chale Amerika[edit]

stub on a planned indian film, should be deleted pursuant to WP:CRYSTAL Travelbird 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Not even sure the name will be the correct final name. --Dacium 08:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per user Dacium. --GreatShash 11:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Alf photoman 15:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of athletes in film[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That an athlete was in a movie is nowhere near sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 02:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is what categories are for. Unmaintainable as it is US-centric at the money, focussing mainly on US based sports etc. Will surely become to big and unmaintainable, categories are a much better idea.--Dacium 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost impossible to maintain. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad. Kolindigo 19:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good collection of information, but needs more expansion. If worse comes to worse, it should be split into lists such as "List of football athletes in film"/"List of basketball athletes in film", etc. It needs more dedicated efforts to perhaps explain the role of the athlete in the film. --Nehrams2020 05:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Nehrams2020. Hoverfish Talk 07:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Huge superlist w/o any use. Pavel Vozenilek 19:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sports movie genre is a significant one, and this list even goes so far as to divide up the list by the particular sport involved. Useful, and IMHO fails the "loosely-associated" rule used to list it for deletion in the first place. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a list of "sports movies." It is a list of movies in which an athlete appears, without regard to whether the athlete is playing an athlete or some other type of character and without regard to the subject matter of the film. The list is not divided into film by type of sport, rather, by film by sport the athlete/actor played. Your comments do not appear to apply to the article as it currently exists. And as always, WP:USEFUL is not the greatest of arguments. Otto4711 20:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. Well, my vote is still "keep" (and expand) per the reasons given byNehrams2020 and Peregrine Fisher. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:LIST: information and navigation. An athlete being in the film is sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 02:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Create new category: It should be in a category instead of a list (ex:professionnal athletes appearing in movies or something like that)JForget 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good call on the mass nomination for all these film lists. Usedup 01:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. --Parker007 17:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring automobile racing[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a film has a car race in it is nowhere near sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 02:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly modify, maybe merge into the category. While certainly a film that merely has Nascar playing in the background isn't something that belongs on this list, the genre of auto-racing films is reasonably distinct enough that I would recommend keeping it. There's at least one channel dedicated to automobile racing and it frequently features films that involve racing so I'm satisfied that the genre exists enough to warrant some coverage. See for example: this book. That said, this page is woefully incomplete, but then I'd say the same about the Auto racing films category. FrozenPurpleCube 04:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what categories are for.--Dacium 04:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Category:Auto racing films is woefully underpopulated, so if this list were deleted, it would be important to make sure all the entries were properly categorized. FrozenPurpleCube 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and categorize per FrozenPurpleCube. JuJube 06:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise per Mister Manticore, unless additional, WP:Attributed information and context can be added to this list. -- saberwyn 10:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of films about automobile racing would be acceptable, but a collection of titles that merely featured a car race at soem point amounts to nothing more than an arbitrary list of only vaguely related items. Arkyan 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary and trivial inclusion criterion. List of auto racing films would be OK, but this is not. Whatever anyone wants to do with the categories is irrelevant. Recury 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary list.-- danntm ^T _C 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize per Mister Manticore, possibly to Category:Auto racing films since I don't see a good way to title a grouping of movies that weren't strictly about auto racing, but included some racing in a way important to the story. Tag all listed articles as that category. I guess the list should be deleted unless attributed info giving relevance and context are added. There are several books about auto-racing movies as a group, so such a list article is both possible and justifiable under WP:V and the list guidelines, if it's clearly defined like Arkyan and Recury suggest. I don't have any of these books. Barno 00:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize per MisterManticore. — Brother Flounder 04:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize per FrozenPurpleCube. Hoverfish Talk 07:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons given by User:FrozenPurpleCube (very good reasons!) Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize The list should be deleted and transferred to a category as described above. --Nehrams2020 23:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:LIST: information and navigation. Featuring auto racing is sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 02:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these films have a common thematic element which is racing. The list can (and eventually would) also be improved to detail the type of racing and other details of the movies, which could not be done with a category.--JayHenry 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second JayHenry's excellent points. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of biker films[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a film has an biker in it is nowhere near sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 02:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, certainly adding a film just for having a biker in it would be a problem, but there are such things as biker movies just as there are movies about auto racing. Take a look at this. I think that's more than enough to establish that the genre is generally accepted. This is not to say some clean-up wouldn't be worthwhile or conversion to a category, but your nomination is unsound. FrozenPurpleCube 04:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take it upon yourself to overhaul this article so that it is not a list of any movie that has someone in it who rides a motorcycle, go right ahead. Otto4711 07:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is far from a list of "any movie that has someone in it who rides a motorcycle" and the introduction makes that clear. The biker subculture is a long-lived and important one that has spawned many depictions in fiction. A "biker" is not "anyone who rides a motorcycle." Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is what categories are for. Mark the movies as Movie with bikers category or something. --Dacium 04:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not "loosely-associated". The biker film genre is a well-recognized though small genre. Admittedly, it would be nice to see the article expanded with more info on the genre in general (which I was hoping to get around to myself, though I've been quite busy), but "needs expansion" isn't a good enough reason to delete by itself either. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The "biker movie" is certainly a genre that deserves an article, but this isn't it. Just because at least one biker appears as a significant plot element in a film doesn't make it a biker movie. Several of the films listed are not biker movies. Probably better to delete this and create a new article about the actual "biker movie" genre. And include Hells Angels on Wheels in it! Croxley 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no biker film article; maybe there should be one, but until then, I don't see the relevance of having a list. JuJube 06:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following reccopmendations can happen independantly of each other. Overall, Increase inclusion bar to movies about bikers, while adding externaly sourved and verifiable content and context to the article... then (1) - write an externally sourced, verifiable, fact-checked Biker film (genre) article or similar. (2) List all movies with articles at Category:Films about bikers and delete. -- saberwyn 10:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article Biker film (genre) may not yet be written, it seems to me to be a worthy subject. This list will be a logical adjunct to any future article on the subject. It may need editing, but that is not reason to delete it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is worth keeping, it has it's relevances, and it is a genre. Taramoon 15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until we have an article on the Biker film genre, then it can me merged into that article. 96T 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much as I am no fan of lists, at least this one is coherent and useful enough to merit inclusion. Arkyan 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Dacium. Whether or not it is coherent or useful does not mean it meets encyclopedic criteria. The means to determine inclusion of an entry is far too vague and open to debate. Agent 86 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for now, but perhaps preferable to the above suggestion of a category. The JPS ^{talk to me} 00:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a true type of film, and it is usually reasonably clear which films are included. It seems an unexpected oversight that WP doesnt have an article on the subject. This is different from the other AfDs being discussed here -- if it were a "List of films with motorcycles in them", then it would be suitable for deletion. DGG 00:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could use more expansion of course and perhaps an explanation of the role of the bikes in the film. This could get a start on the article of the biker film genre as listed above. --Nehrams2020 05:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Nehrams2020. An explanation should be given and if the film contains biking only marginally, cleanup. Hoverfish Talk 07:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the article to be useful and not just a random list it needs a stricter definition. I can see how a list of films centered around biker culture would be valuable. In my opinion it is the current definition that makes the list bad. Pax:Vobiscum 22:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:LIST: information and navigation. Being a biker film is sufficient commonality. Notable genre, too. - Peregrine Fisher 02:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per reasons here and at auto-racing deletion.--JayHenry 21:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - put maybe just a new category would be better--JForget 00:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Someone write the Biker Film genre article, then link to notable films.--Absurdist 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there now exists a new article: Outlaw biker film. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per consensus. Article has shown improvement. Nomination withdrawn Pea ceNT 06:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Boraas[edit]

~~As it stands this bio fails WP:PROF~~ Steve.Moulding 02:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC). Keep The article has been significantly improved and expanded. Steve.Moulding 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. Tentative because he might be one of the foremost experts on the Dena'ina, which would seem to qualify him under criterion #1 in WP:PROF ... but there's no assertion to that effect. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete If nothing can be shown to be front expert on the tribe. You would think if he was there would be something of his to mention on the tribes page...--Dacium 06:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~, sources offered do not demonstrate notability, besides hardly a reliable source to confirm the one-line articles claims Alf photoman 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, additional sources seem to indicate notability and Dcastimore seems to have a keen interest in working on this article, so for now keep Alf photoman 20:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the article is weak, I am finding it difficult to find references to this information. I do believe that Dr. Boraas is one of the leading experts of the Dena'ina language, but am not sure how to prove this. I have added more references, a book which he edited, and included the fact that he is an honorary member of the Kenaitze Indian Tribe. I will create a page for the Kenaitze Indian Tribe if I have time. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to prevent this deletion. Dcastimore 18:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hopefully the article can be kept and the added material may support that. It certainly didn't help that the only link originally provided (Dena'ina Language Guide) was (and still is) broken. I think we can reassess as the article improves (soon!) -- Regards 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe N of his work certified by his adoption. The presence of lack of a ref. in the WP article does not affect decisions here.WP is not authority for WP.

DGG

I understand the Keep, but thereafter you've lost me. Could you rephrase your comments? Thx. Regards Steve.Moulding 03:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:PROF #1: significant expert in his area. —David Eppstein 03:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar and WorldCat confirm: Alan Boraas is notable. And Dan Castimore is working on the WP:V side of things so the article can be renominated in future if things havent improved. Dan, if you need assistance ask for it over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alaska. John Vandenberg 04:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I have been working extensively on improving articles on Peter Kalifornsky and Kalifornsky village and hope to be updating these pages further soon (hopefully by the end of today). In the process of researching that article, I've come across numerous references to/by Alan Boraas, and his expertise on the Dena'ina can't be denied. I don't know that I can commit to overall improvement of this article, but I will certainly be adding the references I've found in the next few days as I complete work on the Kalifornsky articles. -- Yksin 12:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've made some major additions to the page, some based on a bibliography I found, some on an 2000 article in a local paper, etc. There are still significant holes in his bio, but some significant improvement, I think. Still conducting research. -- Yksin 02:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the tremendous improvements to the article made by User:Yksin. Thank you! -- Black Falcon 19:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring blind characters[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a film has a blind character is nowhere near sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 02:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loose association. Could be categorised if required. A list is meant to have some sort meaningful entry data, not just a list of names, otherwise it is merely a category listing.--Dacium 06:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711 superapathyman 06:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is one of the sillier of the film lists. Hoo hah! JuJube 06:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps if the list was movies about blind characters/blindness or something like that it would be ok, but this is just a pointless group of vaguely related films. Arkyan 18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tumbleweedtumbles (talk • contribs) 18:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as a list based on a non-defining characteristic. Semi-trivial might still be OK, but this association is completely trivial. As noted by Arkyan, a list of movies about blind persons/blindness would be acceptable (though not under this title). -- Black Falcon 20:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Merge as explained below Hoverfish Talk 07:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Society often stereotypes people with disabilities and their use in film is perhaps the easiest examples to study. Arguably this list should be merged with List of films with disabled protagonists. I would also point out that all the entries in this list are articles so this list serves more as an index to Wikipedia.--agr 16:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of films with disabled protagonists. Disability in films IS a topic of significance. There is no reason to delete it. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are all of the characters on the list "protagonists"? If not, then a merger would be inappropriate (assuming either list survives). Otto4711 22:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:LIST: information and navigation. Featuring blind characters is sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 02:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, there are several lists of this type that might be much better as a merged larger article with information about the disabilities portrayed in each film: List of films about disability, List of films with disabled protagonists, List of films involving amputees, List of films featuring mental illness and List of films featuring blind characters, many of which have been nominated for deletion by Otto4711 and are thus also currently undergoing their own AfD debates at this time. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd, when addressing issues of loose association and indiscrimacy, to try to solve it by casting an even wider, looser and indiscriminate net. Otto4711 20:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or new category Maybe a category would be better for this, not a listing, especially since this one is incomplete and a disaster as far as style is concern--JForget 00:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Usedup 07:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Rlevse 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer-related films[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a film features computers is nowhere near sufficient to justify this article. There is also no clear definition as to what constitutes being "computer-related." Otto4711 02:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is what categories are for.--Dacium 04:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. The definition of "computer-related film", especially these days, is vague. JuJube 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From WP:LIST: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." I agree the definition should be tightened, but the films included show that sensible criteria are being employed. Note that this list is further broken down by type, so use of categories would not be appropriate. Films are a useful source for understanding society's changing attitude toward computers.--agr 12:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete based on the ambiguity of "computer-related". That definition is a little too broad and undefined to make the list meaningful. Arkyan 18:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too broad and vague, both in terms of its title and the description in the article. WP:LIST is not policy, and it's more of a style-guide than anything. It cannot trump WP:NOT, which is policy. Agent 86 19:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. All of the movies in this list deal specifically with computers, computer programs, etc. These aren't films in which a computer appears on-screen somewhere in the background for a second. This could serve as the basis for an article on films revolving around computer technology (or in which such technology is a major part of the plot). -- Black Falcon 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've edited the intro to define the list as including "... movies where activities involving computers play a central role in the development of the plot." If that is not clear enough, I am open to suggestions. The article's name is easily changed as well. --agr 21:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly defined list. -- Stbalbach 04:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does need further expansion and possibly focus on the detail of how the computer-related activities affect the film. --Nehrams2020 05:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as long as computers play a central role in the film. Else cleanup. Hoverfish Talk 07:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I agree with all the reasons to keep given so far, and I don't agree that [WP:NOT#DIR|Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics]] was applied properly as a reason to AfD in the first place. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:LIST: information and navigation. Featuring computer related material is sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 02:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be heading for a keep, but I cannot really see the valid distinction between this and other "List of Films involving X, Y or Z" which seem to be heading more readily for deletion. Computers play a central role in our everyday lives these days, whether real or apparent, unlike 20 years ago. By the same token, computers are frequently involved in the plot of films. Films remain "modern" by becoming futuristic. The protagonist and villain in The Terminator series are cyborgs. Gone are the Bank heists by artillery (replaced by cybercrime), break-ins (now replaced by hacking), facial recognition software and wiretapping (replacing dumb security guards' surveillance), communications are now largely electronic (email, chat, blog). I think that arguably, a film such as "You've Got Mail" would also qualify, because there's no email without computers; "Entrapment" as it involves hacking into the computer security at the Petronas Tower.... Defined any more precisely, the list would be caught by "loose association". Ohconfucius 09:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "play a central role in the development of the plot" is pretty tight. Cyborgs are not computers. A movie about a bank heist where the robbers have to get past a computerized security system would not qualify as it is incidental to the plot. I think "You got mail" belongs on this list as it deals with the impact of anonymous e-mail on the protagonist's lives.--agr 12:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the criteria for inclusion are tight, not loose. There are a lot of things that play a role in everyday life (cars, computers, politics, romance, weather) but it is also quite possible to have a film focused on one of these things as a main theme. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that the technology is used in most cases just to set the modern or futuristic context, and is not central to the plot in but a few cases. Let's take the Matrix series, which are arguably about political freedom. The Matrix is a substitute for "Big Brother" in 1984 - the computer therein defines the context because the explosive power of computers was not imaginable by Orwell when he wrote his book. A. I. is a modern-day Pinocchio, and is not really about computers at all, but about human adoptions/emotions, and the dilemma which is posed when a supposedly inanimate object becomes a sentient being. By my recollection, the central subjects of Jurassic Park are genetic engineered dinosaurs, with computers being only a tool in that show, a bit like the computerized security system bank heisters have to get past. I think we may be caught in a debate where it is still possible to confuse the medium with the central subject. Either that, or there may still be some debate as to whether all the films included actually belong on the list. Ohconfucius 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your reasoning. Why would the political symbolic elements of a film like The Matrix totally negate its strong focus on technology? That would be like arguing that Teen Wolf doesn't really count as a werewolf film because it really symbolizes puberty. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, mon ami. It's the other way around: Why would the setting and context of a film like The Matrix totally negate its central theme, which is political freedom? What about the other films I named as examples? I contend that the problem lies not within the Matrix films, but the whold scope of this list, IMHO. Ohconfucius 06:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot devices in most fiction are employed to create situations where basic human conditions are explored. Jurassic Park is not about dinosaurs, it's about hubris and greed. It's central subjects are people. Moby Dick is not about whales. Still plot devices are important and it is interesting and appropriate to use them to group fictional works. --agr 11:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Ohconfucius: I'm not saying that The Matrix couldn't belong on a list of political films too. I'm just saying that having a symbolic theme (politics) doesn't negate the fact that there's a really strong focus on technology throughout the film. In other words, symbolic plot elements are not the only reason to group similar films together. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films by crash scene[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a film has a crash scene, even a "spectacular" one (which term is subject to POV problems) is nowhere near sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 02:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate list. Plus, it's missing most of the really cool crash scenes--Bullitt, Blues Brothers and Police Story come to mind. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia isn't repository of looself asociated topics., and also indiscriminated list. Daniel5127 | Talk 03:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loose association.--Dacium 06:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and I don't see how this list can ever be maintained. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. JuJube 07:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to have been compiled by people who only watch movies made in the last 10 years. Croxley 07:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Crash scenes are a staple of Hollywood, trying to make a list of movies on that criteria alone is silly. Arkyan 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Split The list should be split into separate lists such as "List of films about airplane crashes" to avoid the loosely based topic collection of films. Also, it would be beneficial for an explanation to be added after each film about the significance of the crash scene to each film. --Nehrams2020 05:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Only if the crash plays a central role in the film. I suggest an urgent cleanup to see how many valid entries we have here. If enough airplane-crash-based films exist, then split too. Hoverfish Talk 07:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with urgent cleanup per Hoverfish. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fundamentally agree with Arkyan: Crashes and explosions make for spectacular movies, and there is the ability to enhance using special visual and sound effects. Crash in films are ubiquitous, and such a list would hardly qualify as encyclopaedic material. Ohconfucius 02:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani gangs in the UK[edit]

Almost entirely original research, with many unfounded statements such as "the Pakistani gang "Shieldz" are known for their part in the murder of schoolboy Kriss Donald". Googling "Shieldz" + "Kriss Donald" returns zero results. Croxley 03:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not what you would call reliable media coverage. The rest is OR.--Dacium 06:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was torn between the two sides of delete or keep on this one - but you only have to look in the history of the page to note that msot of it is craeted by anonymous users. There are a lot of quotes with citation needed on them and for me that ruined the article, not only are the claims unverifiable, but it makes it harder to read.

On the other hand if the information is true its an interesting article on race relations in the UK going back to the 1960s.

But to be honest its a lot of work to be done in such a short space of time and some of the phrases used are a little inappropriate for an encyclopedia even if they were used in that context. --PrincessBrat 12:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR unless sourced. The article would indeed be a valuable addition to WP if it was sourced. Some of the content (again, only if sourced) might appropriate in an article about Race relations in the United Kingdom. -- Black Falcon 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has potential, but as it stands I don't find it adequately sourced/referenced, and there is that nasty smell of OR. If the article were substantially pruned and a couple of references could be found by the close of this debate I'd change my opinion. WMMartin 15:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for pretty much the same reasons mentioned above. It could be an interesting and relevant article if it was based on reliable documented facts instead of the uncited claims by anonymous IP users. Spylab 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - it's a great pity because if refed it would be a useful article, but it isn't and must go. NBeale 12:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Rlevse 02:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devil in fiction[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every appearance of the Devil in fiction, without providing any context as to the importance of that appearance either within the fiction or in the real world. Otto4711 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Loose association. Could be categorised if required. A list is meant to have some sort meaningful entry data, not just a list of names, otherwise it is merely a category listing.--Dacium 06:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Devil has appearead in fiction for thousands of years, and his appearances through the years could be used as a source to understanding religion and literature. The article could have been something better than a list, though. 96T 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some massive reworking of the article. As it stands it reads more like a list of movies/songs/etc that feature the Devil, this should probably be pared down to those that are specifically about the Devil or feature him in a prominent fashion, not those that merely mention him. Additional information from someone knowledgable on the subject should be added to address the topic of the Devil in fiction itself so that this is something more than a mere list. The topic of the Devil in fiction itself is significant enough to warrant an article. Arkyan 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, I just realized there is an excellent article at Satan in popular culture that covers the subject in detail. If someone wants to preserve this article as a list of references to the Devil in the media, in a different article with a different name, that'd be fine, but I now think the best way to handle this one would be a simple redirect to the above. Arkyan 18:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Satan in popular culture per Arkyan. A merge would be desirable, but just copy-pasting the content into Satan in popular culture is not (it would overwhelm the latter without adding much useful information). -- Black Falcon 21:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Satan in popular culture. -- Stbalbach 04:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Merge as above. In any case, strong remove film list category. Hoverfish Talk 07:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with possible merge in future. (Due to Abrahamic POV in title of Satan in popular culture.) Devil does not equal Satan. - WeniWidiWiki 17:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with possible merge, per reasons given by WeniWidiWiki above. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WeniWidiWiki does not actually ofer any reasons to keep, only a reason not to merge. Otto4711 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. I was agreeing with WeniWidiWiki's reason not to merge. I should have said that I was agreeing with everyone else's reasons to keep. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article would be interesting if it wasn't in list format like it is now. Usedup 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment interesting or not interesting has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy on whether an article should exist or not. Instead, this right to exist or not is based on ideas such as WP:N. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize I said "delete" Usedup 07:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very notable, easy to find online sources. Do not merge, but would make good sister article to Satan in pop culture article. Meets WP:LIST - Information and Navigation. Featuring the devil in fiction is sufficient commonality. Rename to "List of..." - Peregrine Fisher 06:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I'll point satan isn't the same as a devil. Not a pov, just simply different. Mathmo ^Talk 10:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-done list of "The devil in literature." However, consider merging material such as "the devil in music" into the "devil in popular culture" article as it does not seem appropriate here. Crypticfirefly 06:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep merging some to Satan in popular culture, some to Satan in literature and possibly keeping anything that's left over. --Richard 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuh, so I was bold and went ahead and did what I proposed. Check it out. Now all that's left is to decide what to do with this article title. I say Redirect it to Satan in literature. --Richard 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with disabled protagonists[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a film has a disabled protagonist is nowhere near sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list would be a very useful adjunct to an article on disabilities and public perception of disabilities. Furthermore, the criteria for films being included in the list is well-defined-- the film must be about a disabled person. Crypticfirefly 05:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it fit the definition the film must be about a disabled person that would be something worth hanging on to, but look at the list of movies - most of them have nothing at all to do with disabilities or disabled people, they merely feature a disabled character. Arkyan 18:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you should remove those films from the list. The list is titled "films with disabled protagonists" not "films with a disabled character in them somewhere." Bad Day at Black Rock's main character is missing an arm. The Best Years of Our Lives is about three disabled military veterans. The Elephant Man is about a person with neurofibromatosis. Etc. Crypticfirefly 05:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loose association. Could be categorised if required. A list is meant to have some sort meaningful entry data, not just a list of names, otherwise it is merely a category listing.--Dacium 06:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps categorize, but this isn't list material. JuJube 07:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of films about disabilities or that otherwise deal with the subject of disabilities as a primary plot point would be fine, but a list of movies with disabled protagonists by itself is arbitrary and indiscriminate. Arkyan 18:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delete per Otto and Arkyan.~~ I reject arguments that this would be better served by categorisation~~, but agree that it fails WP:NOT.~~ A list of films about disabled persons or disabilities is a different matter. -- Black Falcon 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am changing my recommendation to keep. I had missed the part about the list being about "protagonists" of a film, which is certainly not indiscriminate. -- Black Falcon 05:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly defined list. -- Stbalbach 04:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However, it would be beneficial to add explanations after each film on which protagonists are disabled and how. --Nehrams2020 05:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. Explanations needed, and only if disability plays a central role in the film, keep entry in list (as in Children of a Lesser God). Hoverfish Talk 08:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the protagonist is disabled, the disability is inherently a plot point. If the protagonist ignores it and gets on with winning over his love or running for president, that is as significant as their becoming depressed and committing suicide. This is a valuable page for people studying attitudes toward disability. --agr 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon superapathyman 17:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:LIST: information and navigation. A disabled protagonist is sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 02:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, there are several lists of this type that might be much better as a merged larger article with information about the disabilities portrayed in each film: List of films about disability, List of films with disabled protagonists, List of films involving amputees, List of films featuring mental illness and List of films featuring blind characters, many of which have been nominated for deletion by Otto4711 and are thus also currently undergoing their own AfD debates at this time. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That the protagonist is disabled is an important thematic element for the films in this list. It's not "trivial" information. --JayHenry 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I maintain that the arguments above stating a film with a disabled protagonist implies a common, important thematic element are inherently flawed. IFF the assertion could be made that a disabled protagonist meant that the film would make use of the disability as a major plot element, then I would be willing to concede the point and vote for a keep. However, that kind of assumption cannot be made - just because the protagonist suffers a disability does NOT universally imply that the disability will play an important, or even passing, role in the film. As a case in point, The Matrix Revolutions is included in this list because the protagonist, Neo, is blinded during the film. Thus this film fits the criteria in that the protagonist is disabled. However the movie does not focus on his blindness, nor does it take a central role in the plot. At best, it only serves to introduce his pseudo-magic powers, and is henceforth a discarded element in the plot. I am not familiar with all the movies in that list, but it is not unreasonable to imagine a movie in which a protagonist suffers some sort of disability that does not however figure prominently, or perhaps at all, in the film's plot. Therefore this list becomes about as useful as a List of films with male protagonists - it is simply an arbitrary list of films with an arbitrary inclusion criterion. I am not at all opposed to a merge with List of films about disability, however, I have to strongly argue against the case for keeping this list as it stants. Arkyan 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - How people with disabilities are portrayed in literature is certainly a legitimate matter of interest. The Matrix trilogy poses problems for any study since it questions the very meaning of reality. That said, the notion that a blind or deaf person is endowed with compensating superior powers in other realms is a common disability stereotype and The Matrix is arguable a good example. Why, we might ask, did the writer choose that particular injury for a character in a savior role? Anyway, a few difficult cases should not invalidate the validity of a list.--agr 16:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Thank you for elaborating on your position. I'm sure your comparison of this list to List of films with male protagonists must be intended as an exaggeration, but I understand your concern about the inclusion of outliers. Nevertheless, I would argue that while it is possible that a film with a disabled protagonist would not address disability in any way, one would expect that such films would be less usual. Repectfully, I must still disagree. Crypticfirefly 01:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plus there's a mistake in Unbreakable. Usedup 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article desperately needs sourcing, but compiling lists from external data is definately not the same as OR. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Regardless of the result of this AfD, our aim should be to turn this and many other film lists into informative articles, with an explanation (or "summary") for each entry, with merges wherever this would help us organize the matterial better and with a cleanup or expansion to justify the title. A mere "Keep" shouldn't indicate that we should have lists that are just substitutes to categories. During this massive AfD, the US Marines list was transformed into a good example of what we could do here too. Hoverfish Talk 09:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films involving food[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a film is about food or eating is nowhere near sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 03:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too vague to do any good. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loose association.--Dacium 06:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is very vague with no set criteria. Very loose association. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above superapathyman 06:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And don't read the list if you've never seen Soylent Green! Croxley 07:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you have got to be kidding. (Plus, spoiling "Soylent Green"? Isn't that like spoiling "The Empire Strikes Back" or "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"? JuJube 07:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another "List of films with/featuring/involving whatever" that amounts to an indiscriminate list. Arkyan 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is slightly different from the other "List of films involving" genre as it includes only those "films in which food or eating is a major theme". However, due the poor state of the list, the inappropriate title, and the lack of any context, I will not support a keep unless the article is cleaned up and these issues are addressed. -- Black Falcon 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every film has Images and/or References of Food. Corporal Punishment 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Hoverfish Talk 08:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - random information 声援 -- The Hyb rid 21:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to clean this up some time ago, but it was hard and I only fixed a few problems. I agree that the article is in a very sad condition and it needs yet more clean-up in order to stay. I'm abstaining for now, but if the article is cleaned up, drop a note on my talk page so I can come back and vote. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMHO, this definitely qualifies as loose association. Food is the basis of existence for all the animal kingdom. I may be wrong, but the film Soul Food doesn't seem to be about food that we eat, but just has the word 'food' in the title. Ditto Fried Green Tomatoes ;-) Ohconfucius 10:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fried Green Tomatoes does have food as an important plot element (part of it involves a spoiler). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Discounting the single-purpose account comments, and those based on WP:USEFUL arguments, there seems to be a consensus to keep. As noted, many lists have cut-off points for inclusion that are fairly arbitrary (see this featured list, for instance), and in itself this is not a reason for deletion (although the cut-off point will preferably have been chosen by consensus). It is verified and, as PeregrineFisher explains below, compiling a sourced list is not original research. Finally, as argued by Josiah Rowe, external sources have seen fit to compile lists, which indicates a level of notability. Trebor 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"[edit]

Delete - this article has been nominated for deletion several times previously. All the previous AFDs are linked on the article's talk page. Having looked over the previous AFDs, many of the "keep"s strike me as variations of WP:ILIKEIT. First, the article uses an arbitrary standard of inclusion, that being 100 or more uses of the term. There is nothing inherently more notable about films that use the word 100 times than one with 50 or 75 or 99 uses. There is no context or sourced analysis offered in the article explaining why 100 or more uses of the word "fuck" in a film is significant either within the works of fiction or in the real world. Otto4711 03:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - if you see this nomination and your inclination is to !vote "keep" based solely on the fact that it has been nominated previously, please consider that consensus can change and please review the previous AFDs and evaluate the quality of the arguments. Otto4711 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nom. Further, it's not clear why we should have a list for "fuck" and not "shit" or any of a number of one's 'favorite' racial, religious, or ethnic slurs. Maybe merge to Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system? - 71.232.29.141 03:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I totally agree with 71.232.29.141 that we should have one for shit also. But seriously, this is a solid piece of original research that should be considered one of the best OR articles on wikipedia. --Selket ^Talk 04:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is not original research, please read the article before participating in an AfD debate (citations and sources are clearly noted within the article). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is actually useful because it lists data like counts.Dacium 06:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't think the criteria is arbitary ("fuck" is commonly accepted as the strongest English curse), and unlike the other plethora of film lists up for deletion, this list is totally objective and maintainable. However, merely stating that a film uses "fuck" a lot is not enough; you need sources to back that up. JuJube 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certain movie's F-word counts have frequently been quoted in the media as well, so this exists as a "subject" outside of this article. Croxley 07:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, page is well put together, but not in scope of an encyclopedia. Booshakla 07:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usefull information. --Djsasso 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am torn - I don't think the article should be kept on the basis of "I like it." However, it is sourced, factual, well put-together, and in good shape as an article. The question then becomes, is it notable? Certainly many people treat this word as a sort of totem and make a big deal out of its use in pop culture, and the Family Media Guide cares enough to actually document its usage in great detail. I lean toward keeping. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hmm. It's far better sourced and more strictly defined than most of these "List of movies" articles showing up, so it has that in its favor. However I have to question the usefuless of such an article in an encyclopedia. In spite of the sourcing and rigorous definition it still smacks of arbitrary inclusion rules as well as being nothing more than a list of loosely related topics - those movies really have little in common other than prolific use of the word. Perhaps the top few could warrant a section on the fuck article (if it isn't already, I've not looked). But I have to concur with Otto4711 and agree with deletion. Arkyan 18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. Tumbleweedtumbles 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC) — Tumbleweedtumbles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The article on the word fuck discusses its significance quite well. The article on movies that make use of the word fuck... well, the link speaks for itself. GassyGuy 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see the objections, but the page is well referenced and non-arbitrary (as JuJube indicates). Put it this way: if a cultural phenomenon is notable enough to have been satirized as far back as 1982 (see our article on Life, the Universe and Everything), it's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. In other words: Keep, per Douglas Adams. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is arbitrary, because it sets a standard for inclusion with no explanation. Only films with 100 or more uses may be included and the article makes no case for why 100 uses of the word "fuck" is notable enough for inclusion while a film with even one less usage is not. Otto4711 04:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, that particular criterion is arbitrary — but that's not an argument for deletion, it's an argument for reconsidering the criterion within the article. The main issue is whether "films that use the word 'fuck' a lot" are noteworthy as a category, and the answer — as indicated by the cited sources in the article — is yes. It's true that 100 uses is an arbitrary line — you could just as easily list the "100 films that use the word 'fuck' most frequently" or something — but the core concept is one that's not arbitrary and even, dare I say it, encyclopedic. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - While I disagree with your conclusion, even if the arbitrariness of inclusion based on the number of uses were not an issue, the article still lacks sourced analysis explaining why the use of the word a great many times is significant and it still amounts to a WP:NOT#DIRdirectory tying together films which have no thematic similarity and have nothing in common other than having the word "fuck" in them a lot. What themes do Martin Lawrence Live: Runteldat and Hoffa and Clerks II and Boys Don't Cry, to choose four films off the list, share in common with each other? Do they have any commonality at all other than the word? This list is no different than List of films with the word The in the title or List of films that have blue things in them. Otto4711 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it's substantially different — because reliable external sources have categorized films by the frequency of their use of the word "fuck". If the article were not sourced, or if the sources were not reliable, your argument might hold water. But the fact that the Family Media Guide and Screen It! Entertainment Reviews have chosen to record this data indicates that it is a meaningful criterion. If there were a noteworthy and reliable index of films with the word "The" in the title, there would be an argument for having Wikipedia articles on those topics as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone has done their home work here... and a lot has went into it It isn't thoughtless or offensive it's just FACT KEEP! --User:ElwoodsbrotherJake (talk)

Keep Lugnuts 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is nothing like the other "List of films" that have been AfD'd today. It is well-referenced and non-arbitrary (per JuJube). Also, WP:OR has no role in this article: all of the information is verified and taken from essentially 2-4 sources. -- Black Falcon 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic and well put-together list. --Aude (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Some time back I was curious and looked this up (just watched Reservoir Dogs or something)... anyway I found the article very informative. Not only does it have references it discusses reliability. Potatoswatter 22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it might not seem like it from the article title, but the article is well organized, annotated, sourced, and has a well-defined (non-arbitrary) scope.-- danntm ^T _C 22:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to harp on this, but can you explain how limiting the article to films that use the word 100 times or more is not arbitrary? Otto4711 04:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is arbitrary, it isn't very arbitrary, and limiting it to 100 uses within a film is probably based on what can be verified (that is, when it is enough times to make WP:N sources count and document the number of uses). I'd rather think that NOT having any lower limit would be FAR more likely to run afoul of Wikipedia policy (because then it could be argued that the list could keep growing forever and could potentially hold thousands of films with little in common). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it's a bit hypocritical for the Wikipedia community to keep a list of movies that use the F-word, while deleting other movie lists (movies that involve guessing a password, movies that feature an amputee, and so on) If this article is somehow worthy because it's well organized, then triviality has nothing to do with it, and the other articles should stay. I don't personally see how the F-word as the basis for maintaining a movie list is any less arbitrary than the others. This lack of consistency is confusing to new editors. MoodyGroove 03:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
Keep. -- Stbalbach 04:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Robert Brockway 05:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not my favorite list of course, but it is well-sourced and I have referenced to it several times in the past. --Nehrams2020 05:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as per JuJube. Hoverfish Talk 08:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE. How is this of any importance? Let's start another list where we count how many times they say the word "lovely" and another one where we count how many times they use the bathroom. — 24.90.239.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- This topic has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published sources and therefore passes WP:Notability. I assume the same is not true of "lovely" or "bathroom". -- Black Falcon 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please post some links to the sources that explain what the listed films have in common other than the repeated use of the word "fuck" and also some links to the sources which provide analysis as to why the presence of the word "fuck" 100 times in a film has significance either within the film or in the real world, while the presence of the word "fuck" 99 times in a film hasn't. Otto4711 02:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who says that the subjects of lists need to have two thing in common? What these films have in common is that they use the word fuck a very large number of times. As for the number 100, it is arbitrary. So? I'm sure for many, many lists we've established arbitrary limits (see List of masts). That doesn't seem like a reason for deletion. --Daniel Olsen 03:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Who says? Wikipedia policy says that Wikipedia is not for lists of loosely associated topics. If the only point of commonality between the items on this list are that they have people saying "fuck" a lot, the items on the list are too loosely associated. Otto4711 14:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me summarize your argument: (1) "a high frequency of 'fuck' is a loose association" (assumption); (2) WP excludes loosely-associated lists (policy); (3) therefore a list of films with a high frequency of 'fuck' should be excluded (conclusion). That's a very nice argument iff you can support the first assumption, which I'm pretty sure WP policy says nothing about. That assumption is you personal opinion and it does no good to keep repeating it over and over again without providing an explanation that justifies the claim that that is indeed a loose association. -- Black Falcon 19:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How exactly else would "loose association" be defined if not as a grouping of things with little or nothing in common? Otto4711 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That is the exact definition of "loose association". But what I'm disputing is your assumption that having a high frequency of a certain word use is equivalent to having "little or nothing in common". That's still an assumption, which you have not justified. Also note please that there is a lot more similarity between the top 10 films on thist list than between the top 10 on this list and Cinderella or The Little Mermaid. -- Black Falcon 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Where is your rebuttal of the presumption? "No it isn't" is not an argument anywhere outside a Monty Python sketch. As for the top ten films having more in common with each other than with Disney flicks, that's a nonsense argument. The question is not whether the films more closely resemble each other than they do other films. The question is whether they are closely associated enough amongst themselves. And the top ten films are a documentary about the word "fuck," a mockumentary about two beer-drinking headbangers, a drama about an abusive husband, a Mafia crime drama, a fictionalized account of a drug-dealing kidnapper, an adaptation of an Iraqi marine's memoir, a comedy about a pair of hooligan twins, the story of the Son of Sam killings, a Martin Lawrence concert film and the true story of a mob informer. Of those films, exactly two of them share any commonality of theme or plot with each other. Where exactly is the vast reach of commonality that connects these films outside the word "fuck"? Otto4711 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My rebuttal is this: Why do they need to share anything else? There's plenty of published sources on that alone. We should, as WP editors, try to avoid (I realize that sometimes it's inevitable and/or necessary) setting our own (subjective) standards on such things as the strength of association or notability. There are articles about the usage of the word 'fuck' in film ([3]), sources whose sole purpose is to document the frequency of usage of various "profane" words ([4]) or who otherwise gather/present such information ([5])--although why "God", "Jesus", and "Christ" are included as profane words by "http://www.familymediaguide.com" is beyond me. -- Black Falcon 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do they need to share anything else? Because things that are not in loose association with each other tend to have more than one point of commonality. As for avoiding subjective standards, I agree that's a good thing. Which is why the entirely arbitrary and subjective standard set by this article (100 or more "fuck"s for inclusion) are yet one more insurmountable problem with the article. As for there existing websites and organizations that bean-count dirty words, I have not disputed that such sites exist. The still unanswered point is that within the article there is no sourced analysis. Counting up the number of a specific word in a movie is not sourced analysis. I've asked any number of times for the sourced analysis of the multiple use of the word "fuck" in a movie and you have yet to provide any. Are you conceding that there isn't any? Are you ignoring this repeated request? Is there something else going on? Where is the sourced analysis? Otto4711 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Otto, if reliable sources external to Wikipedia indicate that a single criterion is noteworthy, then it's sufficiently noteworthy for our purposes. Just because there is no sourced analysis of that criterion's significance does not mean that the criterion is arbitrary. If sourced analysis of why a statistic is important were a requirement for all Wikipedia lists, we'd have to delete every page in Category:Sports-related lists. There's no sourced analysis of why the List of National Football League quarterbacks who have thrown at least 100 career touchdowns is a noteworthy criterion for quarterbacks, but that page provides a link to an almanac site that categorizes quarterbacks in that manner. Similarly, this page has links to organizations that categorize films by the frequency of use of the word "fuck". It may seem arbitrary to you, but the existence of the reliable external sources proves that it's not arbitrary by the standards set by Wikipedia. It might be nice if we had some analysis of why a particular criterion is noteworthy, but the absence of that analysis is not a sufficient justification for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sports-related lists are not about works of fiction, therefore fall under different guidelines, therefore are not germane to this discussion. And I dispute the notion that because a bean-counting website or two tots up the raw number of f-bombs in a film that makes it notable for our purposes. If a website totaled up the number of ceiling tiles that appeared in a bunch of films, would that confer notability? If it totaled up the number of paper clips in a chain in a bunch of films, would that conver notability? If it totalled up the number of times the word "blue" or "sailboat" or "President Bush" appeared in a film, would that confer notability? No. Otto4711 20:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said elsewhere, I don't see any evidence that the writers of WP:FICT were thinking about almanac-style lists when they called for "sourced analysis". Also, please notice that some of the films on this list, including the #1 entry, are documentaries, not works of fiction, making your attempt at applying WP:FICT even more absurd.
        As for notability: notability on Wikipedia is established by what external reliable sources say. So, yes, if a reliable source counted ceiling tiles or the word "sailboat" in films, that might make it notable for Wikipedia's purposes. This seems absurd, but that's because our culture considers ceiling tiles and the word "sailboat" much less notable than the word "fuck" in the context of films. The MPAA doesn't rate films based on the number of ceiling tiles or the word "sailboat", but the use of the word "fuck" is one of their criteria for film ratings. In part because of that criterion, reliable external sources have taken to tallying up the frequency of its use. If it were not notable, the "bean-counting websites" would not exist. Q.E.D. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm. So counting "sailboats" or "President Bushes" don't get counted because our culture (and which culture is that, exactly? The phrase "Our culture" seems to have systemic bias issues) doesn't consider it the same as "fuck." Yet the lack of cultural context in the article is OK? That seems...flawed as an argument somehow. And, bean counting websites count the word because it's notable, but notability is established by the existence of the bean-counting websites? Circular logic. Otto4711 18:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it's not circular. The beginning is the culture-at-large (and since we're talking about English-language films, it's not systemic bias for us to speak of the common culture of Anglophone nations). As individuals at Wikipedia we cannot and should not attempt to determine what is and is not notable by merely using our own judgments. We can only judge notability based on external criteria, the most important of which is whether notable external sources have written on the subject. Notability flows from the culture (primary source) to external sources (secondary sources) to Wikipedia (tertiary source). POV problems arise when we attempt to judge the culture-at-large directly, unmediated by secondary sources. But if the secondary sources exist and are considered reliable by a consensus of Wikipedians, then they may be interpreted as a reasonable measure of the culture-at-large.
        In the context of a list, the question is not "Have notable external sources written essays about why this is important?", but "Have notable external sources catalogued this information?" If we were discussing a hypothetical article on profanity in film, you would be correct in calling for sources analyzing the cultural context. But since this is merely a list, all that is needed to establish notability is the existence of reliable external sources cataloguing the data. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Otto, technically (and I do realize that my noting this may be a sign of OCD), they do have another similarity: they are all films (unlike your bananas and yellow balls example in the List of films by gory death AfD). Where is the sourced analysis? Simple, it's not there. This is not a concession on my part, as I never asserted that there was any sourced analysis. But consider this. First, lack of analysis is not an inherent flaw of this article, but rather an editing issue. Second, it's a list. How much "sourced analysis" should we really expect? Any such analysis belongs in a main Profanity in film article (it unforuntately doesn't exist yet). -- Black Falcon 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Otto4711, why on earth would I do that? This is not a list of films that have things in common other than the repeated use of the word "fuck". It's a list of films that have precisely that in common! As for 99 vs. 100, that's a content dispute better suited to the talk page. -- Black Falcon 03:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why on earth would you source a Wikipedia article? Um, because Wikipedia articles about fiction are supposed to provide sourced analysis and not just plot points? Otto4711 14:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Please do not misrepresent (or misunderstand if it was in good faith) my words. I didn't question the need to source the article. I questioned the need to source it with irrelevant sources that establish additional and unrelated commonalities between the films. The current sources already establish the relevant association: the frequency of 'fucks'. -- Black Falcon 19:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And I am not suggesting that these films are not associated by the high frequency of the word "fuck." I am not saying that the films are not associated, I am saying that the association is so small as to be a "loose association" under WP:NOT. I am saying that in the absence of sourced third-party analysis attesting to the significance of the word fuck in the context either of the films, the films in relation to each other or the real world the list is untenable. I have asked a number of times how various films on this list are rendered similar by the repeated "fuck"s. No answer to that question. I've offered examples of several other potential lists of films and of other objects which would not stand under Wikipedia guidelines and asked how this list differs from those. No answer. I've asked for a source which offers analysis of the repetition of the word within the films, between the films or in the real world. None has been offered beyond bean-counting profanity watchdog sites who count words but don't analyze them. Otto4711 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How they've been "rendered similar by the repeated 'fuck's"? That itself is one similarity! Also, as I just noted above, these films are much more similar to each other than any one of them is to, for instance, Beauty and the Beast or Cinderella (unless they've put out a new version that I'm unaware of). How could this be significant to anyone? How about considering it in the context of the increasing commonality/acceptance of profanity on televsion? Given that there are multiple sources which document this, I don't see what the problem is in terms of policy. Yes, you view this as a "loose" association. Others (including those published sources which are used in the article) do not. -- Black Falcon 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, let's consider the topic in terms of the increasing commonality and acceptance of profanity on television. What does the article say about the number of times the word fuck is in a theatrical film and the increasing commonality and acceptance of profanity on television... Huh. The article doesn't seem to say anything about the use of the word fuck in theatrical films and the increasing commonality and acceptance of profanity on television! In fact, the article doesn't say anything at all about the use of the word "fuck" anywhere, other than listing off times that it happens. Well, you know, all sorts of things happen. They happen even more frequently than "fuck" does in a film and there aren't Wikipedia articles about them. Which, even if you somehow can't grasp number of "fuck"s in a film is a loose association, the article, as I have noted a number of times with no rebuttal, is completely free of any context as to why "fuck" in a film is important. Otto4711 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it doesn't say anything now. But the last time I checked, there is no deadline to finishing Wikipedia (if such a thing is indeed possible). By the way, WP:TIND is an essay and not an authorative policy or guideline, so it is an opinion that is not necessarily supported by consensus. There's no need to question my ability to process this discussion. I can perfectly well understand the rationale behind the notion that the number of 'fuck's in a film is a loose association. Yet despite the fact that I understand your argument (and even see it as having merit), I can also disagree with it, as I believe it to be inapplicable in this case (please see my reply above regarding the proliferation of published materials). -- Black Falcon 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That Wikipedia might never be finished is not an excuse for retaining articles which do not meet Wikipedia policies or guidelines. It remains my contention that this article violates the policy of WP:NOT and the refutation of that has amounted to "nuh uh!" I have contended that the article fails the guideline of WP:NPOV because of setting the arbitrary standard of "100 uses can be included but 99 can't" and the response has to an extent been an admission that yes, the inclusion criteria is arbitrary. I have contended that the article fails the guideline of WP:FICT because it does not include real-world context and sourced analysis and the response has been to offer up google searches and links to sites which do not offer real-world context or sourced analysis. Otto4711 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with your first sentence, but find it irrelevant in this case. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean my refutation is a "nuh uh!" (please see WP:TRUTH). My refutation of your charge of violating WP:NOT#DIR has been to demand proof that this constitutes a "loose association", which you have not furnished to my satisfaction (I ask again: how does a list whose subject has been extensively covered in outside sources and which 2 commonalities--films and frequency of 'fuck's--qualify as "loose association"?). As for WP:NPOV, huh?? Exactly what is the POV that is being advanced? Pro-100ism vs. Anti-99ism? The application of NPOV, which is about "representing fairly and without bias all significant views", makes absolutely no sense. Lastly, regarding WP:FICT. I read through the guideline and it does not seem to say anything that would be applicable in this case. This article does not deal with "Major characters", "Minor characters", or "Plot summaries". In addiiton, while the plot of the films is fictional and the characters are fictional (usually), the frequency of the use of a word in the dialogue (a published text) is not factual. -- Black Falcon 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The POV that's being advanced is that 100 uses of the word is significant while fewer uses of the word is not. There is no rational basis for that assertion (unless you can point to some reliable source that supports the notion that triple digits is significant but double digits isn't). And your constant "proveitproveitproveit" which in my opinion (which under the humorous essay WP:TRUTH is every bit as true as yours) amounts to little more than "nuh uh." I have explained by analogy. I have explained that the films share no elements of plot, style or setting in the majority of cases. I have shown that these items have nothing in common other than the presence of a word (and yes, that they are films, which, duh, it's a list of films). I'm at a loss as to how much looser an association between these items can possibly be.
        
        I agree with Black Falcon — there's nothing at WP:FICT that applies to an almanac-style list of this type. Also, Otto's repitition of "100 is an arbitrary number" is becoming tiresome — the same could be said of any almanac-style list with an arbitrary cut-off point, such as List of highest-grossing films (why the top 50?) or List of National Football League quarterbacks who have thrown at least 100 career touchdowns (it's right there in the title). This is a red herring which has nothing to do with the question of a list's worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It may very well be true that other almanac-style lists have arbitrary inclusion standards. Pointing to one article as justification for another, also known as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, is not particularly compelling, no matter how tiresome your and others' repeated use of the excuse is used. Otto4711 18:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Please note that the redirect WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is being considered for deletion, as needlessly uncivil. My point in mentioning the sports-related lists was not to say "other crap articles exist", but to indicate that an arbitrary cut-off point is common for almanac-style lists, and not in and of itself an argument for deletion. Please also note that your examples of hypothetical lists of films with ceiling tiles or the word "sailboat" could also be denigrated as examples of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? — the sword cuts both ways. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree with Otto. It's not the frequency of use but the context that determines the meaning of the F-word. There's a big difference between a soldier getting a finger shot off, a sexual predator telling a little girl what he's going to do to her, and a comedian throwing a word in for effect, that the mere act of counting the number of times the word is used without regard for the context is the very definition of trivial. MoodyGroove 04:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
Delete. What's next List of Movies that use the word faggot? Information has no possible use other than stupid trivia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.134.118.184 (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Sockpuppet...I mean fuck. Interesting how 2 of the "delete" voters here have never made an edit on WIkipedia before voting in this afd, and another "delete" voter's only contributions have been on this and a few other afd votes. What's going on? 172.189.209.223 06:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons I articulated in the last go-round on this one. Consensus can change, I can change my mind. It seems not to have, and I certainly haven't. Carlossuarez46 06:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of the word "fuck" in films is supported by Google Books and Scholar. Not all these results have to do with the number of times the word has been said, but if you search variant terms long enough you should find enough to your liking. The lower bound of the list being arbitrary is irrelevant to this discussion, and applies to all top/most lists in general. The concern of the article is the most frequent uses, i.e. the top of the list, not the bottom, and the cut-off point is a consequence that is dealt with by consensus. Pomte 09:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the notability of the word "fuck", and how many times "fuck" is said in films. I don't see any valid reasons from those whose opinion is delete, and we must remember that Wiki ain't paper, no reason why we can't have those nice little notable list. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one appears to be arguing that the word "fuck" is not of cultural significance. The question that I keep asking, and which no one seems able to answer, is regarding the cultural significance of the use of the word "fuck" 100 or more times in a movie. Otto4711 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list is useful, well-cited, extremely well-written and of cultural significance. So far, I haven't seen any reasons given to delete it that make sense according to Wikipedia policy as I understand it. Please make sure that you actually read the article before voting, I rather suspect that a number of the "delete" votes here are basing their opinions on the name of the article alone, which does sound a bit iffy until you actually read the article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the list is of such cultural significance, then where is the sourced analysis within the article that explains its cultural significance? Surely for a list of such weighty cultural importance, it should be simplicity itself to point to a sourced analysis that explains why it's important that such-and-such movie used the word "fuck" eleventy-seven times, but the article is curiously lacking.
Keep - It meets WP:LIST:
- Information - lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists
- Navigation - Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind - Peregrine Fisher 19:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:LIST is a guideline as to the form and function of lists. Lists that do not conform to policy are not saved by conforming to guidelines. Otto4711 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but how has it so far been established that the list "does not conform to policy"? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. -- Black Falcon 19:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, so far I've offered examples of films from the list that have no relation to each other besides using the word a lot and there's been no refutation of it other than your saying "that doesn't prove anything" without offering up the slightest counter-argument. I've offered several examples of lists both concerning films and things outside of films which are as loose of an association as this list is and there's been no refutation of that at all. Otto4711 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You have reiterated your opinion that the frequency of the word's usage is a "loose" association without actually justifying this opinion. Your statements assume a priori that this is a loose association, whereas what they should do is reach this conclusion (which justifies deletion) based on an initial set of premises. -- Black Falcon 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The premise is, look at the articles for the films. Look at the plots, the themes, the settings. Do they share anything in common outside the word "fuck"? Your own top ten challenge shows exactly how loose the association is. Of the top ten films on the list, exactly two of them share any measure of plot, setting or theme, Goodfellas and Casino. None of the others bear any resemblance to those films or to each other. The films are the premise and the conclusion is they are not related to each other. Otto4711 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I ask again: why do they need to share anything besides the frequent of use the word 'fuck'? There is plenty of published material on that narrow subject alone. Please see my response above. Also, for the sake of brevity, I suggest we confine any further comments to one place as it's somewhat pointless to repeat similar points in three separate places in the article (and also out of consideration for the closing admin). -- Black Falcon 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And I answer again, because the fact that the films have the word "fuck" in them a lot tells us nothing about the films, their relationship to each other, the use of the word "fuck" in films, or the real world. Otto4711 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        See my response above. -- Black Falcon 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Of course this word is more notable than words such as "bathroom" or even "shit" given its controversial status and its unofficial classification as one of the worst swear words out there. Also, I'm constantly hearing about how "blank film has the most f-words ever" in the media and its useful to have an actual list to reference these claims. Furthermore, this list is much better organized and sourced then the majority of movie-related lists on Wikipedia. As for notability, heck, look at the number of people who have responded to this AFD already.-- Grandpafootsoldier 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL is not a valid criterion for keeping. The number of people who respond to an AFD has no bearing on the notability of the subject. Otto4711 20:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look on the web there are a lot independant sources that discuss the frequency of the word being used in films, for instance this. This demonstrates notability. - Peregrine Fisher 20:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, notability is not the issue here. And the frequency of a word in a film does not tell us anything about the use of the word in the film, or the context of the usage in the film, or the meaning of the use of the word in the world outside the film. Otto4711 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is not in the scope of this article, and is covered by fuck. Pomte 03:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:AADD (in which WP:USEFUL is contained) is an essay only. Thus, it can make no authoritative judgments on the validity or lack thereof of arguments for deletion. For the opposite to WP:AADD, please see WP:BASH. -- Black Falcon 20:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, WP:USEFUL is an essay. It's an essay that explains that arguing for keeping an article on the basis of its being "useful" is generally looked upon as unpersuasive. Otto4711 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - To quote from it directly, "it simply reflects some opinions of its authors". I am not opposed to the principles enunciated in WP:AADD nor do I oppose its use in AFD discussions. However, I do object to a claim that an essay can make authoritative judgments on the validity (or lack thereof) of certain actions or arguments. It's one thing to note that "useful" arguments are "generally looked upon as unpersuasive", but it's another to say that "useful" arguments are just not valid. -- Black Falcon 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WTF, what's next, List of films that most frequently use the word "baby"? --Howard the Duck 02:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in nine months... Otto4711 04:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. articles should not be deleted simply because someone finds the information offensive. i can't raise any more valid points than several of the "keep" ones above... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Triplej2676 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete this broad, useless category that requires POV to define "frequently". Who gets to define "most frequently"? Why 100 of all numbers? What's the point? Doczilla 06:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows what "most frequently" means as it pertains to the top film in the list. Now extend the list, and these are obviously the films that most frequently use "fuck". "Most frequently" has nothing to do with the cut-off number, which is 100 in this case, because anyone would rightly say that these are the films that most frequently use "fuck". The cut-off number does require POV established by consensus, but it's not a problem with this particular list; it's a problem inherent in all unbounded lists in general. Would you question what "tallest" means in List of tallest buildings and structures in the world? Pomte 07:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. As someone who watches and recommends movies to other people, the use of the word "fuck" seems to have gotten into ridiculous levels. I find this list extremely useful as a tool to inform people who would like to know about a certain movie. I can explain to them that this movie has X number times using the term and let them have a good reason to see or not see this movie. I frequently hear about how one movie has the most f words in it but this list does well with sources to actually back it up. I think Otto is just a little too hardcore here and needs to take a vacation. I also like it as a monument to the illiteracy of Hollywood screenwriters these days. -- A S Williams
Keep. It's an entertaining and informative list. Those ninnies and prudes who would be offended by it need not look at it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.45.224.217 (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep. If you are a movie-lover, ALL information about movies are welcome. And lists like that are very amusing AND informative to read. In a democratic forum all sort of information should be present, even the ones that does´nt follow the common path. Let alone that the info is correct.84.216.95.139 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an entertaining and informative list.
Keep. This article kicks ass. Doppelganger E 02:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Although the connection may be loose in this case, I believe it is trumped by it having had multiple coverage. Use of the word in film is a subject which is often written about, as the references would indicate. There is also no small controversy, as moral-religious groups tend also to make a big brouhaha about this. However, to eliminate cultural bias in this article, it could/should be widened to use of similar expletives in other languages. Ohconfucius 03:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The f-word is so important in English-language popular culture (and even, increasingly in non-English languages) that its intersection with the film industry is indeed f***ing notable. --Leifern 14:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its amusing. sikander 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fun trivia, but anyone looking for this can go somewhere other than wikipedia Usedup 07:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes I am biased, as I've edited the article a lot, and yes its amusing (and there is nothing wrong with that). But more importantly:
- Obviously, the word fuck is different from random other words (including other swearing and sexual slang), given the controversy that surrounds it.
- Excessive usage of the word fuck in specific movies is often mentioned in reviews/reports, showing the notability of the subject.
- A clearly defined cut-off (100 in this case) narrows the scope of the article, making it easier to maintain and sets it apart from what are often called "indiscriminate lists". As also explained above, many lists naming the top XXXX of something on Wikipedia use an arbitrary cut-off. This is not original research, but only a way to keep the maintenance and size of such articles under control.
- The main argument in all previous AfDs was sourcing. It is properly sourced now for a long time, making all information verifiable.
- Articles likes this are exactly what makes Wikipedia different from other encyclopedias (NOT:PAPER).

So in summary, the article does NOT violate WP:A, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:LIST or WP:CLS. Therefore, I do not see the grounds for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had to use this page as jumping off point to find some more information and found it quite valuable. The loss of this page would be detrimental to wikipedia as a whole. 68.103.207.65 16:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There have been some well-reasoned delete votes and almost no compelling reason to keep. The vast majority of keep votes are completely insubstantial. That being said, my reason to delete is that this violates WP:OR. The data is sourced, but there is no source for compiling the data in this manner and making this conclusion about it - that makes it original research and it is prohibited. You need to find reliable sources that compile and analyze the usage of the word "fuck" in films, its effects, and even more important, why the word "fuck" is worth studying over others at this particular threshold. Otherwise, it is pure WP:OR. --Mus Musculus 19:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Compiling a sourced list is not OR. This page does not introduce any theories, define new terms, introduce any arguments, or introduce an analysis or synthesis of published facts, opinions, or arguments in a way that advances a position. - Peregrine Fisher 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Bucketsofg 02:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films by gory death scene[edit]

Delete the article was nominated once previously with a result of no consensus. The article is an indscriminate collection of information along with being a repository of loosely-associated topics. The fact that a film has one or more "gory death scenes" is not sufficient to relate it to another such film. Many of the "keep"s from the last round were variations on WP:ILIKEIT. There are also POV issues in deciding whether a film death is "gory" enough to qualify.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm feeling torn about this one. It potentially could be useful, and it isn't an indiscriminate list in the sense that a list of pizza parlors in St. Louis would be. Crypticfirefly 06:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To explain what I mean by "useful" I mean as an aid to navigating Wikipedia as well as "useful" as a general directory. But holy damn what a list! If this winds up getting deleted, I hope it can be moved to Wikisource. Crypticfirefly 03:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know it's subjective, but I like referencing; especially if I'm looking for a new horror/gore flick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.253.171.226 (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete And I like gory scenes! But this is just too damn vague and overarching, potentially covering thousands of films. Per nom, an indiscriminate collection of info. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 06:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To generalised. The list is already filled extremely loosly associated groups. Could be categorised per group listing.--Dacium 06:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the idea seems like one that could be executed within Wikipedia standards (why not "List of films featuring death by asphyxiation"?), but when thought about further, limitless expansion becomes a problem, and it's better to just cut that off at the bud. JuJube 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep list content correspond to definition of scope. List in line with WP:LISTS. Nominator should take his other concerns to the article's talk page, unless he is only interested in deletion. -- User:Docu

WP:LISTS deals with the form of lists. If the content of a list violates actual policy, then conformity with the list guidelines is irrelevant. Otto4711 07:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your opinion on this even if I disagree with you.
Besides I don't share your understanding what "loosely-associated topics" are. Oddly, you seem to use this exclusively to create many requests on AfD for longstanding lists. -- User:Docu

Loosely-associated topics are ones which are connected through incidental similarities. Apples, fire trucks and red giant suns are all red, but beyond the coincidence of color they share no similarities which would warrant including them together on an encyclopedic list. A film about the French Revolution has nothing in common with Friday the 13th just because both involve scenes of decapitation, but this list would lump such films together based solely on that one commonality. That is simply insufficient association between the subjects to warrant a list. Otto4711 17:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate and subjective list unlike say pizza parlours in St. Louis which would be a non-notable list of discriminating information. MLA 11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no set criteria. "Gory" may be subjective. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another "List of films with/featuring/involving/by whatever" that amounts to an indiscriminate list. Arkyan 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and WP:NOT. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list meets WP:LIST: aids navigation and is informative in a morbid way (but who's to say there's anything wrong with that?). I don't see how categorization by form of death qualifies as "loosely-associated topics". -- Black Falcon 21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the relationship between, for example, Apocalypto, a film set in the closing days of the Mayan civilization, and I Spit on Your Grave, set in the United States in the 1970s, other than they contain "death by violent organ removal"? The only thing that the items have in common is that a character dies in a similar fashion. Otto4711 22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you answered your own question. The fashion of death they portray is something they have in common. Now granted, you or I may not think this association is particularly interesting, but then again, I don't find the subject of Oriel College (FA on the main page today) particularly riveting (no offense to the editors of that article). -- Black Falcon 20:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, the manner of death of a character is what they have in common. That is all they have in common. There is no commonality between The Evil Dead and Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers: The Movie other than they both have a death scene involving dismemberment (which, by the way, I question that MMPR has any "gory" death scenes at all) and this one trivial intersection makes the list an improper loose association. There is no commonality between Gremlins 2 and Universal Soldier other than a "death by blendering" (which, U.S. was a "wood chippering" so that's even less commonality) which makes the list an improper loose association. There is no commonality between The Day After and Jaws 2 beyond that each has a character who burns to death, making listing them together an improper loose association. Items on a list need to have more in common with each other than the items on this list do, under WP:NOT#DIR. Otto4711 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are taking a very broad interpretation of WP:NOT#DIR. WP:NOT#DIR is for lists of loosely-associated "quotations, aphorisms, or persons", phonebooks, and business directories. Only the first one might (note my emphasis) be applicable. Note that all of your examples are of the type "no commonality ... other than". Other than suggests that there is a commonality. Whether that commonality is sufficient is a different matter. You believe it's not; I believe it is. Obviously those editors who created and edited this article believe it is. You or I may not find the association interesting enough so that it isn't "loose", but that does not imply that it is an inherently loose association. Rather it is a reflection of our personal preferences. -- Black Falcon 23:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The exact wording is "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." (italics added, bold in original). These are examples of loosely-associated topics, not an exhaustive list of them. This is a list of loosely-associated topics, and if you don't think that the association of the films qualifies under the policy then it certainly does as a losse association of fictional characters who have nothing in common but mode of death. And the strength of the association has nothing to do with whether the associated items are "interesting." I have not said one word about whether this list is "interesting" or not as WP:INTERESTING is not a valid argument for inclusion. Otto4711 23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I did notice the wording and that's why I wrote "might" above instead of "doesn't". WP:NOT#DIR can only apply if it is indeed proven that this is a loose association. How can you prove it? My point is that the fact that you think it is "loose" is only your interpretation resulting, in my opinion, from your lack of interest in the association. "Interesting" is not a valid reason for inclusion, but "Uninteresting" is not a valid reason for deletion. If the consensus view is that the association is indeed "loose", then alright. But as long as it is the opinion of just a few editors, I think it ought to be kept and improved. -- Black Falcon 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I have offered a number of examples of how this is a loose association. I have offered multiple combinations of films included on the list and asked what they have in common other than a character dying a certain way. No one has offered up anything to refute the notion that the examples are anything other than loosely associated. And I have not suggested either that this list is uninterested or that the level of interest in the list is a reason for deleting it. Now. Can you explain how the films listed here are not a loose association or not? Otto4711 00:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You have offered multiple combinations of films that are associated only by a character dying a certain way. You asked what they have in common other than this? The simple answer is: nothing (at least that I know of)! However, this is not proof of "loose association". You are assuming a priori that "a character dying a certain way" is a loose association. That is only an assumption. Only once that assumption is accepted, is WP:NOT#DIR applicable. However, I dispute that assumption, and thus think it should be kept. -- Black Falcon 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Which frankly strikes me as a variation of WP:ILIKEIT. Otto4711 15:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As I have commented above, your arguments strikes me as a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is an association/commonality between the films, which you (for whatever reason) don't like and don't seem to think is sufficient. My argument is mostly a counter to your insistence on the presence of at least two commonalities between films to establish a "non-loose" association. -- Black Falcon 19:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually I don't think you said anything about WP:IDONTLIKEIT before but your arguments all tend to blend together after a while. Anyway, yes, things on a list should generally have more than one thing in common to be retained here. Bananas, canaries, some diamonds and the Sun are all yellow, but List of yellow things would be deleted as a loose association. Films that share no elements of plot, theme, setting, time period or style, but have in common a particular method of killing a character (but even that's not really a common feature since even within the subsets of death types there is a wide variety of implements and manners of death), are similarly lossely associated. I don't think it's the slightest bit unreasonable to expect that a listing of films have something more in common than a few feet of footage depicting a similar thing. We would not have List of films with shoes in them or List of films that show bunny rabbits or any other of a wide variety of unrelated loose associations and this one is no better. Otto4711 19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My comments that attributed your arguments to a lack of "interest" on your part in the topic was my (perhaps too) subtle way of suggesting WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As for my argument, they blend together, do they? I have a hard time seeing how one object can blend "together" with itself. My argument from the start has been that the association is not "loose", thus rejecting the basis of your nomination. The number of associations is not as relevant as the nature of the association(s). List of yellow things that are round, weigh less than 1kg, edible, and can be penetrated by a butter knife is not an improvement over List of yellow things even though the former has 5 associations versus the latter's 1. You think this association is loose? Fine, that's your personal preference. I don't consider it loose. Yes, the article needs significant improvement (specific criteria, additional information on the films, better sourcing, etc.), but I disagree that the concept itself is fundamentally flawed. -- Black Falcon 19:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resetting indent. Fine, even if you reject the idea of the number of associations in favor of the quality, which is a mistake, the quality ofg the associations here is also poor, as I've pointed out several times. Apocalypto and I Spit on Your Grave. They are associated only by the "death by violent organe removal" scene. But what does knowing that both of these films have "violent organ removal" tell us about either film or about the films in relation to each other? The former is a high-budget prestige project about the final days of the Mayan civilization. The other is a low-budget exploitation-style film about a woman avenging her rape. What kind of quality association do these films have with each other? Fargo is a critically-acclaimed Academy Award-winning black comedy about a heavily pregnant sheriff investigating murder and blackmail. Universal Soldier is a science fiction/action film about Vietnam soldiers who are cryonically frozen, mindwiped and unleashed as super-cyborgs. Where is the high-quality association between those films, despite each having a scene where a man gets fed through a woodchipper? The Day After has a scene of unnamed extras burning to death in a nuclear explosion in Kansas in the 1980s. The quality association with Young Sherlock Holmes, in which young women are burned to death by hot wax or oil during the Victorian era, is what exactly? None. None of these films has any association with each other, from either a quantitative or a qualitative standpoint, beyond a death by a similar method, and even that one similarity in many or most cases don't even match up. No similarities, no commonalities, loose association, bad list. Otto4711 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you don't mind--I'm capitalizing the "Resetting indent" part of your comment so that it's easier to find and distinguish. I understand your points and will readily admit that the association that exists between the movies is not among the most relevant or significant (I disagree, however, with the idea that it is irrelevant or insiginificant). However, consider this. Henry Antchouet is a Gabonese football attacker. Jono Bacon is a writer and software developer based in the United Kingdom. These people seem to share nothing in common other than that they were both born in 1979 and are both classified in Category:1979 births. Does this mean that the "by birth" categories are based on a "loose association"? Of course not. You ask for sources that demonstrate the cultural significance of "gory deaths". There are plenty here, here, and here, and you could get a lot more by using various different search terms. There is cultural interest in and plenty of publishes sources about death scenes in film. There are directories of deaths in films (more than one), articles about disturbing deaths scenes, and plenty of blogs and online polls about the "best" or "worst" death scenes (which usually don't count as RS's, but are an indication of cultural interest in the subject). -- Black Falcon 00:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if there are so many other indexes of gory deaths on the web, this one is hardly necessary, is it? And a cursory look at a few of the things your google searches turned up doesn't seem to indicate that they are analyses of the cultural significance of gory death scenes in films. But since I never suggested that there wasn't interest in the topic, your point isn't really that relevant. As far as the "by birth" categories, my understanding is that they are maintined in some measure for legal reasons because of WP:BLP. But of course you know that the existence of that series of categories has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of this article so I'm not sure why you even brought them up. Otto4711 01:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I brought in the analogy to illustrate the point that two entries can be categorized/listed together even if they share only one commonality. As regards your first point about the necessity of the list, I will give three replies. First, the online directors of gory deaths are indexes of deaths by movie or deaths by actress (not deaths by type, which is the case here). Second, in addition to indexes of gory deaths, there are articles which address the subject. Third, ... almost everything on Wikipedia is taken from online sources. If we follow the principle of "why write on it if it's already on the web?", we'd need to eliminate all but a few hundred or few thousand WP articles which exclusively use book sources. -- Black Falcon 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Categories and lists serve different purposes and are subject to different rules and guidelines. Things that would not survive as lists routinely exist as categories because of the differences in the two organizationsl systems. Citing a category tree as support for a list article, especially when the category tree may be maintained for specific legal reasons, is a poor analogy. Otto4711 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, granted, the analogy may not have been a particularly good one (I thought it applicable because the basic purpose of categories and lists is essentially the same--to organize information/entries), especially if what you say about issues of legality is true (I'm not doubting your honesty, it just is obvious from your comment that you yourself are not entirely certain). -- Black Falcon 04:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly split The information for the list should be kept, but perhaps split the sections up into separate lists to get a better focus on the type of death scene. A separate intro could be included for each type of death to explain their significance in films. This list should obviously be expanded, and if it's split up, it will be easier to focus on adding films on each individual death scene. --Nehrams2020 05:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but strong cleanup. I don't see how crucifixion in The Passion of the Christ, The Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus Christ Superstar, Spartacus makes a gory scene film. With this logic every film where someone gets shot or executed is a gory scene film too, so imagine what we would get here. Hoverfish Talk 08:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which demonstrates the incurable WP:NPOV problems this article has, since there is no possible objective standard for whether a death scene is "gory" or not. Otto4711 23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment using some logic in including entries does not automatically make for incurable WP:NPOV problems, as the same could be said for pretty much ANY list or category. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why do you keep trying to drag other articles and lists into this when it is this article that is under discussion? Otto4711 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep With a cleanup and proper guidelines.--Tenka Muteki 08:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe split, definitely rename to something more accurate and more encyclopedic (like List of films categorized by unnatural methods of death). bd2412 T 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per all the reasons already given, plus this is a highly-detailed, information-packed, well-organized list that could not easily be replaced with a category. Gore-hounds are extremely interested in just this information, making it of cultural significance. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like horror movies as much as anyone, I find this list to be crufty and non-encyclopedic. Liberal Classic 18:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:LIST. Gory death scenes are sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and couldn't there have been a better way to address what is and isn't an appropriate list about films? --JayHenry 21:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is useful for categorising and/or listing films notable for gory and cruel death scenes. This, coupled with the manner of death in question, speeds research into various modes of violence used the splatter/horror/ultra violent genre. However I agree the article needs some guidelines in the nature of what to include and where -- it is too easy to degenerate into a "cool list of splatter scenes". --Jquarry 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The information is useful, e.g., for someone researching violence in movies. Argyrios 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Possibly split, criteria would be useful too. Provides an opportunity to expand the horizons of the film viewer who looks specifically for this sort of thing. Executioners has a prominent death by explosion in it, but that's not what it's about...(how do you format a link to an article that hasn't been written yet, anyway?)Cmdr Spock 18:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)--Cmdr Spock 18:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and the subjective nature of the criterion (gory? that'll be WP:ATTributable right enough). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring independent body parts[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a film has an "independent body part" in it is nowhere near sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loose association, movies with indepedant body parts?--Dacium 06:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Just too vague. But not quite as vague as the gory death I just voted against. It feels more like catering to a fetish than a good WP article. Per nom. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 06:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just no. JuJube 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, but I also think it is indiscriminate. Delete per nom. Ohconfucius 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another "List of films with/featuring/involving/by whatever" that amounts to an indiscriminate list. Furthermore the "independent body parts" is confusing and vague - what precisely is that supposed to mean? Arkyan 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The criteria for inclusion are too broad ("featuring"). -- Black Falcon 21:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Hoverfish Talk 08:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after tightening up the intro and probably renaming the article. This topic is of significant interest to horror fans, but the article needs clarity. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Rlevse 02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring May-December romances[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a film has an old/young mixed couple in it is not sufficient to justify this article. There is no objective definition as to what constitutes a May December romance or what age difference "risks social disapproval." Otto4711 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-defined list, and organized in a way that would be difficult to duplicated with a category. Although there is no objective definition of a May-December romance, the list states that it includes only films where significant age difference is part of the plot. Crypticfirefly 05:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What from an objective standpoint constitutes a "significant" age difference? Otto4711 06:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One where the age difference is a major element of the plot. If the people are two years apart in age, the aren't going to having age-difference related problems. If they are 20 years apart in age, they probably are.Crypticfirefly 13:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What then constitutes a "major element" of the plot, and how does trying to decide if the relationship is such an element not constitute original research? Otto4711 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same way you figure that out for any film. For example, if the Wall Street Journal describes The Human Stain as being about "about race, political correctness and May- December romance" (WSJ, October 24, 2003, "Hollywood Report" by John Lipman, page W10) then one might reasonably conclude that it is in fact about a "May-December romance." Crypticfirefly 01:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That only leaves some 95 items on the list to be sourced (The Human Stain doesn't appear to be on the list). Otto4711 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was merely giving an example of how this might be done without resorting to "original research" in response to your query. Crypticfirefly 06:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be categorised if required. A list is meant to have some sort meaningful entry data, not just a list of names, otherwise it is merely a category listing.--Dacium 06:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defining May-December romance? Why don't I just flush my time down the toilet? JuJube 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like the ??? section at the bottom though. That should be used more often as a section heading on Wikipedia. Croxley 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the ??? section heading. If anyone knows which section those movies belong in, they can put them back where they belong. Crypticfirefly 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another "List of films with/featuring/involving/by whatever" that amounts to an indiscriminate list. Arkyan 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary.-- danntm ^T _C 23:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting and well defined list. This is not a mathematics article where we have to have ridged numerical boundaries, it is an article about art. It is pretty obvious when a film qualifies for this list, and any disagreement can be handled per the usual talk page discussions. -- Stbalbach 04:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting is not a valid retention criterion. And could you please quote from the article what the well-defined objective definition of a May-December romance is? "Risks societal disapproval" is not an objective definition. Otto4711 15:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No art genre has an "objective definition", it is ridiculous to suggest such a thing as reason to delete the article. If that is the case you should nominate every genre list on Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 15:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see, the thing is, this is an encyclopedia, not a film theory site. Encyclopedias deal in objective information, which is why we have policies in place here banning original thought. If "May-December romance" can't be objectively defined then it should not serve as the basis for a Wikipedia article (and in fact we do not have an article called "May-December romance" but instead Age disparity in sexual relationships which is sociological in nature. Otto4711 17:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever looked at a professional encyclopedia on art topics? -- Stbalbach 14:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think that anything involved with "film theory" isn't encyclopedic? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that something involving film theory can't be encyclopedic. Please stop making things up. Clearly, film theory is an encyclopedic topic; however, Wikipedia editors should not be the ones theorizing. Deciding that an age gap exists between two characters and then deciding that the age gap is significant enough to "risk societal disapproval" is not the job of Wikipedia editors. Otto4711 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be against removing the "societal disaproval" line. It's just a list of MDR films. Talking about society without a ref probably isn't good. One of the refs discusses societal disaproval, but it mentions that that changes with the times. I guess we could say that. - Peregrine Fisher 22:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could use some expansion and perhaps an intro paragraph to each section. Also each film should have a short summary or information about the relationship if possible. --Nehrams2020 05:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but display in the list (not just in the talk page) informative reason for inclusion. The point of lists (as opposed to categories) is that they can display additional relevant information. Hoverfish Talk 08:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significance of age differences to the plot can almost certainly be established by citation to independent sources. bd2412 T 12:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Whether or not the age difference is significant to the plot is not the point of contention. The point of contention is that the listed movies have nothing in common with each other beyond the inclusion of a relationship with a difference in ages, and that the article contains no information to suggest why the difference in ages is significant or what standard is used to determine whether an age difference is wide enough to warrant inclusion. Is a relationship between a 60 year old and a 40 year old likely to be met with the same societal reaction as a relationship between a 35 year old and a 15 year old? If not, then what do films involving such age gaps have in common with each other that warrants listing them together? Otto4711 17:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment significance to the plot is of every importance. Whether a film list is loosely-connected or not (the prime accusation made in your deletion nomination) is entirely dependent on the importance of the element that ties it all together. Thus, List of films featuring red objects would be prime deletion fodder, unless there was a sub-genre of films based around red objects. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the film list subject is well-defined, the article is well-written and I don't think that any of the reasons that have been given to delete really apply. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you define in any sort of objective way "where the age differential between the two adults is wide enough to risk social disapproval"? Otto4711 03:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for example, when the film's plot is based around that societal dissaproval. The criteria are defined very well in the article itself, especially in the criteria excluding many early films made in the era when such age gaps were considered normal if the female was the younger of the pair. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion is not defined, very well or otherwise, in the article. The only thing that passes for a definition is what I posted above. An age difference that "risks societal disapproval." How big a difference is that? And, by the way, where is the sourcing that attests to the age difference in the film, the significance to the plot of that age difference or the "societal disapproval" that the couple "risks" being subjected to? Otto4711 19:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to give you a specific age gap, any more than I need to give you a specific number of minutes that basketball must be played in a film in order for it to qualify as a basketball film. Nor do the exact consequences need to be precisely defined, since it should be obvious within the context of the film whether the characters feel that they may face disapproval. I think your above comment is overly nit-picky and misses the point. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Should be obvious within the context of the film" is another way of saying POV or original research. We are not to make judgments as to whether the age gap is broad enough to "risk societal disapproval." To whom is this context supposed to be obvious? You? Me? Some random person who watches a movie and pops on to Wikipedia to add it? Nor should we be making judgments as to whether the potential societal disapproval is based on the age difference or some other factor. If Maurice and his gamekeeper lover were found out in Edwardian England, the first level of societal disapproval would likely be because they are same-sex, second would be because of the class difference. The age difference would be far, far down the list if even mentioned at all. Otto4711 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Should be obvious within the context of the film" is NOT another way of saying POV or original research. Films, like books, websites and other media, can be valid WP:N sources about themselves. What Otto4711 is claiming is much like claiming that reading a book, then concluding that the book was about clams and putting a citation to that effect in Wikipedia is original research. Making an independent judgement about an aspect of the film that isn't totally obvious (such as "I think this character secretly symbolizes carrots") is original research unless you can cite a WP:N film reviewer claiming that. Being able to repeat obvious events and plot points after watching a film is NOT original research, it is, in fact, sourcing. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at some of the articles for Heroes episodes and then tell me again about how it's so "totally obvious" that editors watching TV shows or films can conclude what happened simply from watching. Two people watching the same exact film or TV episode can come to diametrically opposite conclusions about what happened and what it means when it's a question of supposed pure fact. I am flummoxed that you would suggest that on a matter of subjective interpretation that editors observing the primary source and concluding that the source illustrates a "May-December romance" can be done across the board without involving POV judgment calls. I've already offered one such example (which you have not answered), the film Maurice. Someone added it to the list based on the supposed (unsourced) age difference between Maurice and Alec; however, I don't recall a single suggestion from the book or the film that either the characters or the author thought that anyone outside the relationship would look at it and disapprove because of the age difference. What one editor decides that in her mind is "totally obvious" is not necessarily so "totally obvious" to another editor, and including something in an article with the source of "totally obvious" can't be anything but POV and OR. Otto4711 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying isn't what I meant. "Totally obvious" plot points are ones that don't start edit wars. Furthermore, those controversies on the Heroes episodes all involve interpreted elements such as whether Isaac Mendez truly needed heroin in order to paint the future, not obvious plot points such as Matt Parkman being a police officer. If it provokes a lot of argument, then it isn't obvious. If it doesn't provoke much argument, then it is obvious. Disputes can and do arise when books are being interpreted instead of cited too, but that doesn't mean that books aren't suitable sources on articles about themselves. Fixing problems with an article can and should be done instead of deletion. On these many film lists you've nominated, I'm tired of hearing that the film list can never be verified because you found a few errors in it. By that reasoning, every article in Wikipedia that gets vandalized should immediately be put in AfD. Please try to argue according to the Wikipedia deletion policy. When so many people think your reasoning is flawed on about three-fourths of these AfDs you've started, mainly its because you tend to bring up all sorts of small flaws and nitpicky issues that are editing concerns more than deletion concerns. It would really help if you read Wikipedia deletion policy and applied it when you argue in AfDs. More people would likely see your points that way, and also you'd recognize more easily when an AfD nomination would get seen as frivolous, and avoid all this arguing. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, one of the recent edit wars that broke out was over whether Peter used TK to stop a taser dart or whether he slowed time. Right there on the screen and both sides believed that their interpretation was "totally obvious." And of course books can be cited for factual answers from the text. They can't be cited to support an editor's interpretation of the text. Saying that "it's totally obvious" that an age gap in a film is likely to risk societal disapproval by citing the film itself rather than a reliable secondary source is POV and OR and is not allowed. I'm sorry to hear that you're tired of hearing that the film list can't be verified, but since that has not been my argument I can't imagine where you've been hearing it. You might do better to criticise things that I've actually said rather than making things up and decrying me for them. Your claim that I am not citing Wikipedia policy is a lie. I have cited policy. And it's not really my problem if you or some other editor decide to look upon this as a frivolous nomination, and it's not really my problem if you decide to dismiss WP:NOT and other policies and guidelines as "nitpicky." I see your responses to my arguments as frivolous, not to mention patronizing, and perhaps motivated by something other than a desire to discuss the actual issues, but then I suppose that's not your problem either. Otto4711 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence in your above statement doesn't prove your point, because it is a debatable issue. That the dart was stopped is an obvious plot point, but how it was stopped (unless a narrator or character actually says how) is inherently open to interpretation. Furthermore, I'm not claiming that you never cite Wikipedia policy. You usually have some sort of nod to policy in the canned phrase that you typically used on most of these mass AfD nominations, but then (except on those articles where the policy concern cited really applied) you typically have a flood of editors who agree that the policy you've cited simply doesn't apply to that article, at which point you tend to bring up every little flaw the article has or could have in the future, flaws that are not deletion criteria themselves, and then you try to argue that the article should be deleted on the basis of those flaws. The most obvious point raised in Wikipedia deletion policy is that normal editing concerns are not deletion criteria. That's why I keep telling you to stick to deletion criteria and use Wikipedia deletion policy instead of your personal dislikes. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you can say that I'm not quoting policy as many times as you want, and it doesn't become any more true for saying it. As for the dart stoppage, that it was stopped is observable. How it was stopped (absent a reliable source) is POV and OR. Similarly, that an age gap exists may be (although is not always) observable. The risk of societal disapproval of the couple because of that age gap, absent a reliable source, is POV and OR. And in any number of cases the age gap is itself a matter of POV or OR. Very few films give ages for their characters. Deciding that the creators of the film intended an age gap absent a reliable source may itself constitute POV or OR. As for your misrepresentation of my actions during these nominations, well, I've already advised you of the regard in ahich I hold your distortions so there's not much need to repeat that here. Otto4711 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, though, I think Mermaid is speaking in terms of the movies in which ages are given, and the gap is brought into question or at least mentioned. In this case, it's neither POV nor OR, since it's a part of the plot. Just saying that it's rare doesn't say to me that it's negligible. King Zeal 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the age gap is never mentioned in the film, and the risk of societal disapproval is never mentioned, then it's not going to be obvious and my point about cases in which it was obvious wouldn't apply, of course. If it's a matter of any controversy, then people will be required to introduce citations from movie reviews and film theory books, or their additions will get deleted. That process is called cleanup, and it happens with nearly every Wikipedia article. Arguing that normal types of cleanup may be required is still not deletion criteria, no matter how many times Otto4711 acts as if it should be treated like a critical issue in an AfD debate. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:LIST: information and navigation. Featuring May-December is sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 02:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's a stretch to claim these films are "loosely associated." It's a sub-genre of romantic films, satisfies WP:LIST.--JayHenry 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Though major cleanup (and perhaps elaboration on individual entries) is needed. King Zeal 08:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment refs are pretty easy to find. Anyone know if this is reliable? - Peregrine Fisher 22:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't treat it as such. Maybe if the list were published in Redbook, but as a random website, no. The linked reviews aren't too bad, the company obviously bought them from somewhere, but you can do better. Crypticfirefly 04:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't like "List of..." articles, but an article dealing with May-December romance in Films would be legitimate. I'd like to see this article evolve.--Absurdist 01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring mental illness[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a film has a mentally ill character or characters in it is not sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 03:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-defined list, useful for a discussion of the perception of mental illness in society. And because it is divided by disorder, it would be difficult to duplicate with a category. However, the list should be limited to situations where mental illness is a major part of the story, not just films that have a mentally ill character somewhere in them. The other option would be for someone to move each sub-list to the article on each type of mental disorder. Crypticfirefly 06:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loose association. Could be categorised if required. A list is meant to have some sort meaningful entry data, not just a list of names, otherwise it is merely a category listing.--Dacium 06:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not categorizable (sift through CfD logs if you don't believe me). JuJube 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I have edited the list numerous times myself, I must vote to delete. It is not maintainable. People will always insert POV and OR into the list. The list is not well defined at all. Inclusion criteria have not been clearly established and really cannot be. Most films have some characters who appear to qualify for a mental illness. Does the article define mental illness? Does it say it should only include characters presented as having been diagnosed with specific mental illnesses? Not at all. Doczilla 08:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list looks better than most of these "List of movies" articles, as the movies listed actually seem to deal with mental illnesses as a major theme, at least as far as I am familiar with the films listed. However I ahve to agree with the above and go with deletion based on the arbitrary inclusion criteria. Arkyan 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. This list is not like most of the other "List of films..." lists. Mental illness figures prominently in all or most of these movies as a major plot theme. And no, it is not OR to call something a "major plot theme" because it can be sourced by movie reviews. -- Black Falcon 22:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well-defined and useful list. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Josiah Rowe, Crypticfirefly, Black Falcon and others. -- Stbalbach 04:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-defined list as per above. Note that this is a specific and notable genre, and many actors casted in that role have received Oscar award or nomination, as in Philadelphia, Rain man, I am Sam, Aviator, As Good as It Gets. Suggest expand to add the actor/actress casted in the role, provide note on Oscar awards/nomination. --Vsion 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-defined list but could use some explanation of which characters have the mental illness/impact on film. Also as listed by Vsion if there were any awards that the actors may have worn for portraying the illness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nehrams2020 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep but needs frequent cleanup to make sure entries involve a major plot theme. Such "featuring" lists can easily start including just about any background detail. Hoverfish Talk 08:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to those who want this list kept because it is "well-defined": How well-defined the list is is not under contention. The list could be the most perfectly-defined list in the world and that definition does not address the assertion of the nomination that the subjects of the list are too loosely associated. Yes, all of the listed films have a mentally ill character. That is all that the listed films have in common. They do not otherwise share sufficient similarity to warrant being listed together. There has been no refutation of that assertion. Otto4711 00:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply/Rebuttal. Actually, if you look more closely at the list, that is not what they have in common. What they have in common is mental illness as a major plot theme or plot device. These are not movies that feature a mentally ill person in a bed while the camera is panning through a hospital hallway. In all of these movies, at least one of the main characters is mentally ill and the storyline is largely driven by the presence and/or characteristics of this mental illness. Your assertion "they do not ... share sufficient similarity to warrant being listed together" is your opinion, but I respectfully disagree. That a film's plot focuses on and/or revolves around the presence/characteristics of a mental illness is more than enough association. -- Black Falcon 03:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just looking at one subset of the list, that of AIDS-related dementia. I haven't seen The Hours so I can't comment on it, but "Philadelphia" does not hinge on any character's having AIDS-related dementia. The character doesn't get fired for having AIDS-related dementia, the plot is not advanced by his having AIDS-related dementia, there is IIRC no mention of AIDS-related dementia until very late in the film. "Angels in America" similarly does not feature a charatcer with AIDS-related dementia. The character has what are apparently divinely-inspired visions. Even if, though, both characters did indeed have AIDS-related dementia, the films are so diverse that listed them together as "films featuring mental illness" is ludicrous. Neither film features mental illness. They aren't about the characters dealing with mental illness. The stories are completely divergent in plot, development and tone. One is about a lawyer suing over AIDS discrimination. The other is about a man being used as an instrument of the Almighty. An article on how AIDS has been presented on film would be very encyclopedic and I would be very interested in reading it. A mishmash list of films thrown together because they's got the AIDS in 'em or any other illness (mental or otherwise) is garbage. Otto4711 14:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment if one film (or a few films) have been listed erroneously, then delete them from the list! By itself, that is not a reason to delete the entire article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. If there are films on the list that do not belong, please go ahead and remove them. However, you make a hasty generalization to condem the whole list. Consider the films: Rain Man, 50 First Dates, and Radio. Do you really intend to argue that these films don't feature mental illness? That they aren't about characters dealing with mental illness? That the entire storyline is based on the existence and/or characteristics of the illness? That the plots of those films could exist in the absence of the illness? If it will satisfy your concerns, I can modify the list as per User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps (adding additional information to the list, imposing stringent inclusion guidelines--actually, the latter should be done in any case if the list is kept). However, I suspect that you object to the entire premise of the list itself and are not willing to accept any modification or improvement as sufficient. I would be most happy to discover myself in error in this case, so please correct me if I'm wrong. -- Black Falcon 18:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment If you are willing to improve this and related lists, perhaps merging some, that would be very helpful.--agr 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see absolutely no reason why [[Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics would apply to this article, and the list is about a topic of cultural importance - the portrayal of mental illness in fiction. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:LIST: information and navigation. Featuring mental illness is sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 01:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-defined list. Films closely-associated because of their common thematic element.--JayHenry 21:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to reasons already given, almost all listed moves will have Wikipedia articles, so this list serves as an index to related articles. In case of a questionable inclusion, the reader can go to the article for more details.--agr 22:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -I don't like "List of..." articles, but an article on mental illness depicted in film would be legitimate. I'd like to see this article evolve.--Absurdist 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most "List of..." articles are indeed pointless, but this one seems to focus on serious issues that could aid people in research, such as how disorders are presented in multimedia, a topic I actually had to write a paper on in college.--User:Schwenkstar 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Save this for a movie-trivia site. Usedup 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is well sourced and compiling lists from external data is definately not the same as OR. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I went around actually searching to see if we had an article for this (by clicking on "What links here" for As Good As It Gets), and was pleased to find this. Macarenaman 09:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Topic is notable and article is well sourced. --Parker007 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC) why the hell has this list been deleted?!?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.98.129 (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring Mini cars[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a particular make or model of car appears in a film is not sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 03:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that a substantial number of lists in Category:Lists of films with features in common have recently been put up for AfD. Rather than discuss each one in turn, perhaps it would be more productive to have a single discussion somewhere? SteveBaker 04:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of a way to discuss multiple articles other than a mass nomination. Since there are something like 30 articles in the category, a number of which present different issues, I felt that a mass nomination would be chaotic and would make it impossible to reach consensus on anything. Otto4711 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good way to decide on such an issue, if all main editors of the lists have been invited. Hoverfish Talk 09:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good way to decide on such an issue (even though about half the nominations seem to have been done in haste, without thinking things through, probably as a sideline to trying to delete the whole category). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there's some reason why you're failing to assume good faith on my part but I don't know what that reason might be. Otto4711 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~& convert into a category.~~Crypticfirefly I'm changing my vote, as I did not consider long enough. I was thinking this was a list of movies with Mini's in them in the sense that a film like Herbie the Love Bug would be in a list of movies with Volkswagen Beetles in them. But most of these only have brief scenes with Mini's in them. Crypticfirefly 01:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loose association. Could be categorised if required. A list is meant to have some sort meaningful entry data, not just a list of names, otherwise it is merely a category listing.--Dacium 06:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mini cars? Who cares? JuJube 07:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mini car enthusiasts care (and there are a LOT of Mini enthusiasts). This information was originally collected on an car enthusiast site - later moved to Wikipedia to allow linking to movie descriptions. SteveBaker 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, sorry. ^_^ JuJube 01:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this information was lifted from another website then it's a copyright violation and needs to be removed immediately. Otto4711 17:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Mere lists of facts, mechanically arranged, cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law. That's why the phone directory isn't under copyright. The mere fact that this information was originally collected elsewhere don't automatically mean that this listing is a copyright violation.Crypticfirefly 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, and no category either. Listing films by what kind of cars are in them is just asking for trouble. Some films would be in dozens of categories like that. Recury 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another "List of films with/featuring/involving/by whatever" that amounts to an indiscriminate list. Arkyan 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that you are looking it from the point of view of the movies - look at it from the point of view of the car. If you are a classic car owner/enthusiast/restorer then it's very relevent to be able to find a list of movies where these cars can be found. It's at least as relevent as a list of all of the movies a particular actor has appeared in. SteveBaker 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You bring up a valid point in that it's no worse than the lists of movies by a particular actor. I would contend that those too are arbitrary lists of loosely related topics. In any case, it might be relevant to a Mini enthusiast to find a list of movies that show a Mini in them, but that's not what Wikipedia is for - it's an encyclopedia, not an almanac or catch-all reference guide. Arkyan 19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely could use some cleanup and expansion of the lead paragraph, and it does have clearly defined parameters. It also could use some further explanation of the role of the cars in the film especially for films that focus on them ("The Italian Job"). --Nehrams2020 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that it's encyclopedic to have an article full of entries like "The Wicker Man (1973) The Mini makes an all-too-brief cameo in the opening scenes as a police car in which Edward Woodward takes a trip from his water-landing aeroplane back to his local nick." and "Munich (film) (2005) When the Mossad Squad are in London, a Mini drives past Avner"? I mean, really?

'Weak keep, the rest as per Nehrams2020. Hoverfish Talk 09:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless others can bring in better reasons for keeping this list. If you come up with a reason that hasn't been discussed yet, feel free to drop a note on my talk page to see if I will change my vote. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films which end in protagonist's death[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That the good guy dies at the end of a film is not sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you attempt tp AfD all this "list of films ...." together. Is it still possible to go back and make them one AfD as this is getting rediculous. I think the same comments are to be said by everyone on over and over again.--Dacium 04:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in response to a similar comment elsewhere, these articles present multiple issues. A mass nomination of all the articles would result in confusion and an inability to reach consensus, so I nominated them separately. Otto4711 05:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here too I repeat that the process is quite in order. Hoverfish Talk 09:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Loose association. Could be categorised if required. A list is meant to have some sort meaningful entry data, not just a list of names, otherwise it is merely a category listing.--Dacium 06:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, plus this is not interesting enough for a list. JuJube 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate. In most films where someone dies, it is most often either the good guy or the bad guy, or extras. I don't believe wikipedia should have lists in each of these cases. Ohconfucius 07:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another "List of films with/featuring/involving/by whatever" that amounts to an indiscriminate list. Arkyan 18:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Hoverfish Talk 09:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I object to this mass nomination, but support deletion of this list. This is what I would call a loose association. The mere fact that the protagonist dies says nothing about the movie. It could be a comedy, it could be a tragedy. It could be a biography of a long and happy life. If it were fully populated, the list would have thousands of entries. This list is not useful to anyone and never will be.--agr 01:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reason given by original nominater. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Mac Rap[edit]

Delete nn internet meme...honestly there are internet memes far more popular that aren't on WP, and for good reason feb^talk 03:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun. SchmuckyTheCat 05:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even confesses to being a meme--Dacium 06:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Being a meme" is not grounds for deletion-K@ngi e ^meep! 07:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops I thought it was. Eitherway i don't see notibility.--Dacium 08:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the notability or deletion policies/guidelines say "kill all memes" - would you AfD All your base? The problem with this meme is notability and sources- that is the reason its been nommed, after all...-K@ngi e ^meep! 08:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with a lot of these internet memes is verifiability - lack of reliable sources. Despite what may be huge popularity amongst certain internet communities (such as Longcat from 4chan), they require teh sourcez, and this one doesn't seem to have 'em. I found a few things [6][7], but they don't mention no meme. Delete but I think an article about the rap and whatever controversy it may have sparked, rather than the meme would be very possible, and easily doable given the links I gave-K@ngi e ^meep! 07:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I Created This Article Simply Because I Thought It Was A Funny Video, And Honestly, Their Are Many More Mundane Things On Wikipedia Than The "Big Mac Rap"...That Is All — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powtinfet (talk • contribs)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS -- feb^talk 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails a number of policies. John Vandenberg 04:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NBeale 12:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscrapers in film[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a skyscraper appears in a film is not sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 03:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loose association. Could be categorised if required for movies that are based around sky scrappers.--Dacium 06:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another "List of films with/featuring/involving/by whatever" that amounts to an indiscriminate list. A list of movies about skyscrapers? Maybe. But this? No. Arkyan 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. If the intro sentences are sourced, they would form the basis for a stub-class article on "Skyscrapers in film". -- Black Falcon 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUMMARY. There is a precedent for splitting off sections into subarticles that go into detail on various aspects of a topic. Pop culture is always something lots of people are interested in, and these subarticles are helpful for managing such information. The main article on skyscrapers is a bit of a mess, but it would only get worse if pop culture is all dumpted into the main article and not split off. --Aude (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUMMARY is a guideline, not a policy. Otto4711 04:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like most of these lists listed for deletion, they need expansion and cleanup. Each film clearly has explanation of the impact of skyscraper in the film, which for some of these films, the skyscraper is one of the most important parts of the film. With more dedicated efforts, the article could continue to include more entries and more details to improve its quality. --Nehrams2020 05:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Nehrams2020. Maintenance/cleanup will be needed to keep this list clear of background details. Hoverfish Talk 09:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nehrams2020; this article is encyclopedic and seems to have been caught up in a major purge. Hopefully, the closing admin will pay attention. Carlossuarez46 06:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per reason given in nomination. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:LIST: information and navigation. Featuring Skyscrapers is sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 02:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are fun lists yes and I wouldn't mind scanning through them on a movie trivia site, but having this type of information on wikipedia is totally unnecessary and in my opinion, making the encyclopedia appear less professional. Usedup 01:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:50Z

Jerome Dyson[edit]

non-notable college basketball player, prod removed, Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Freshman BB player with no assertion of notability and no sources --Kevin Murray 05:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Connecticut Huskies list their notable players, and he isn't one of them.--Dacium 06:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Freshman college BB player, really not notable. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 06:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no Sources. Corporal Punishment 22:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per consensus. Pea ceNT 06:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Statue of Liberty in popular culture[edit]

Delete as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every appearance of the SoL in any medium regardless of the importance or lack of same of the appearance either within the medium or in the real world. Otto4711 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. borderline bad faith nomination; no reason to be on AfD. Notorious4life 04:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to accuse me of making a bad faith nomination, "borderline" or otherwise. Otto4711 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Notorious4life probably meant was that you've basically listed almost every article from a category in a seemingly hasty attempt to get the category itself deleted, and targeting such a prestigious article as this during your mass purge seemed petty. Personally, I think you were just impatient and weren't actually reading all the articles you nominated for AfD, and likely listed this by mistake. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I dislike these pop culture articles and sections, and think this one is particularly terrible, this page serves a useful purpose. It helps keep the "pop culture" section in the main Statue of Liberty article pared down to just what's most relevant, with all the excess junk trivia in the subarticle. --Aude (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:USEFUL argument is brought up with all pop culture article deletions, ignoring the merits of the article itself. You shouldn't be in favour of keeping an article full of "excess junk trivia". Pomte 06:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I am in favour of keeping it. Subarticles, per WP:SUMMARY, are helpful for keeping excess trivia and detail out of the main article. --Aude (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But also note WP:AVTRIV. If a trivia section is too massive for a main article it serves Wikipedia no better as a separate article. Otto4711 07:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one that is helping maintain the main article (one article out of my massive watchlist), I'd rather keep the subarticle rather than go back to having people keep adding trivia to the main article. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles (We need to stay at #3 and avoid #5). Not ideal, but doing it this way makes maintaining the article more manageable. --Aude (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intention, in nominating these sorts of garbage dump articles, to make life more dificult for people who monitor articles which attract this kind of pop culture crap. However, unless the culture of Wikipedia changes so that both indiscriminate "in pop culture" sections in articles and "in pop culture" articles are both consdered unacceptable, this sort of crap will be perpetuated. If you don;t want this crap in its own article or in the main article, then take a stand in this and similar AFDs to send the message that it is not wanted anywhere on WP. Otto4711 07:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Otto4711 is misunderstanding policies quite a bit. Articles need to be of a managable size and reasonably focused. Separating out aspects dealing with pop culture and fiction from the main article keeps everything nicer. Each article should be considered on it's own merits, and according to Wikipedia policy, not Otto4711's personal dislikes and beliefs. Furthermore, I strongly object to Otto4711's frequent use of strong words like "crap" to characterize what Otto4711 wants to delete. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the info is to big to fit on the Statue of Liberty page this page was created. It shows the influence of the statue on society and how often it is used.--Dacium 06:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, the problem with that is, if this information is garbage in the main SoL article, it's garbage on its own in a standalone article. Otto4711 07:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a widely used icon in fiction, so there is nothing indiscriminate about listing those works where it plays a part. The article is well referenced. And I am not imporessed to agree with you by your arguing with each person who disagrees with you. You just keep repeating the same arguments. Inkpaduta 14:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that scope makes it indiscriminate? Look at the example for National Treasure: "Brief view in an intro shot of New York City." This implies that the Statue plays as insignificant a part as it can in the movie, merely because it happens to be in the city it is set. The article is not well-referenced. Look how many ((fact))'s there are. Pomte 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with improvements. I'm certain more could be said about the topic itself - the use of the Statue in pop culture - and less emphasis on an exhaustive list of appearances. In particular the summary descriptions of each appearance creates a bloated article and those should be heavily pared down. But again, more work on making this an article about the Statue in pop culture and less a list of appearances, and this will be a much more encyclopedic article. Arkyan 18:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but are there reliable sources on this subject? Pomte 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep ridiculous nomination. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Statue of Liberty Exhibit has a section titled "The Statue in Popular Culture" (see [8]). Also, this pdf source has a section on the status in popular culture (starting on page 11). -- Black Falcon 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — useful and not intrinsically indiscriminate. If the article is attracting indiscriminate additions, that is an argument for paring the article down, not for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has a lot of the pointless sub-trivia that plagues all "...in popular culture" articles, but unlike many of them, there's still plenty left to write about once that's cleared away. In addition to the sources Black Falcon pointed out, see also:
- "Monumental Fictions: National Monument as a Science Fiction Space", Banks, Miranda J.. Journal of Popular Film & Television 30:3 (2002).
- A Guide to Apocalyptic Cinema by Charles P. Mitchell, ISBN 0313315272 (compares the destruction of the statue in the movies Deluge (1933) and Deep Impact)
- K. Evertz, "The 1986 Statue of Liberty Centennial : Commercialization and reaganism", Journal of Popular Culture, Volume 29, Number 3, Winter 1995, pp. 203-224(22) (discusses images of the destruction or disintegration of the statue in advertising, from the 19th century to the statue's centennial)
- Barry Moreno, The Statue of Liberty Encyclopedia, ISBN 0684862271
- Roger A Fischer, "Oddity, Icon, Challenge: The Statue of Liberty in American Cartoon Art, 1879-1986", The Journal of American Culture 1986, 9 (4), 63–81
- also this online exhibit for 19th century cartoons and illustrations

—Cel ithemis 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is what justifies listing these articles for AfD individually--this particular topic is sufficiently important.DGG 01:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Statue of Liberty is important to the plots of many of the films/television series and I have referenced to it a few times. The article could use some more cleanup getting more sources added and focus on getting the screenshots for the films listed. --Nehrams2020 05:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with maintenance/cleanup to keep list clear of background details. The statue should be a main theme and explanations should be given for each entry. Hoverfish Talk 09:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the entries may be unencyclopedic but things like Planet of the Apes need to be mentioned. --Error 22:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is an important piece of pop culture. Also, note that the nominator has nominated nearly every article in Category:Lists of films with features in common, most of which do not fit the reason given by the nominator. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with TV shows and other films in them[edit]

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any instance of a TV show or film appearing in another film regardless of how trivial that inclusion might be. A list of movies where someone's watching TV is unnecessary. Otto4711 03:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gotta agree with you on this one, way way to trivial to do any good. Particularly because there is no reference to what TV show or film is in what movie. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No association what so ever. Way to vague and unimportant--Dacium 06:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uhmk. JuJube 06:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too indiscriminate. Not to be judgmental (but I'm going to be anyway), I think someone has OCD and created all these movie lists. Per nom and comments. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This list is very useful. I have referred to it several times when I see a movie or TV clip in a film and want to know what it is. Perhaps if the information was better organized and more precise, say giving a time code for when the clip/movie is visible in the movie. --The_stuart 15:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you want to know that kind of information visit the film's page on IMDb and click on "movie connections" section which lists all this type of information and more. Croxley 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Loose to no assocation. Almost impossible to maintain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysepsion (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete yet another "List of films with/featuring/involving/by whatever" that amounts to an indiscriminate list. Arkyan 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely arbitrary and a bit too recursive.-- danntm ^T _C 00:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely if you want to know what a TV show or film featured in a film is, you would go to that film's article, which woul dbe much easier to find than this article. The JPS ^{talk to me} 00:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination (and uhmk indeed). Hoverfish Talk 09:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Move to a fan wiki if possible. RobJ1981 12:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as I believe the list is culturally significant, and the article is well-written. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per consensus. Restrict and Rename to List of films about trains. Pea ceNT 06:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring trains[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. The presence of a train in a film is not sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but modify. Make this a list about movies that involve trains in a significant way, not just having a train in it. The Orient Express for example, or the Polar Express. Maybe make a category. FrozenPurpleCube 04:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do all that and move it to an article named List of flims about trains rather than featuring trains, and I'd support a keep. As it stands, though, delete.
  - Fair enough, I'd support the move to a new title, though with some concerns. FrozenPurpleCube 19:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with FrozenPurpleCube. Crypticfirefly 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loose association. Could be categorised if required. A list is meant to have some sort meaningful entry data, not just a list of names, otherwise it is merely a category listing. Make category 'film based on trains' if you want.--Dacium 06:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorise per the best bits of Mister Manticore (identifying films about or almost exclusovely involving trains) and the best bits of Dacuim (Category:Films based on trains - which can be dually interpreted to be films about trains and films set on trains. -- saberwyn 10:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Restrict to films about trains, per Mr. Manticore. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Train films are a distinct genre. Film genres are not "indiscriminate facts". -- Stbalbach 04:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I am unfamiliar with the term "train film" as denoting a distinct genre. Can you offer a citation? Otto4711 05:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could use an explanation after each film to the importance of the train to the film however. The list should also be renamed to list of films about trains and include films based on that requirement. --Nehrams2020 05:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename ("about trains"), Keep and Restrict. Note that the list was moved from "List of trains in films", which was not the case. However frequent cleanup is needed to keep list free of background details. Hoverfish Talk 09:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, restrict, heavily clean up A list of films that simply have trains in them at some point is not worthy of Wikipedia. Suriel1981 15:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree it needs work, but films preserve some of the history of train travel.--agr 01:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not? Antonio on bullet train speed Martin 11:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given by FrozenPurpleCube, with tightening of inclusionary principles and possible move to a new title. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:LIST: information and navigation. Featuring trains is sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 02:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with a twist ending[edit]

Delete - grouping films by what sort of ending they have is indiscriminate. The films have nothing in common other than a style of ending, making this a repository of loosely-associated topics. Otto4711 03:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's a twist? (Other than going to a M. Night Shyamalan film expecting to be entertained?) JuJube 06:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable and open to interpretation. Almost every story must have a 'twist' other wise there is no point in telling the end as everyone would guess it.--Dacium 06:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another "List of films with/featuring/involving/by whatever" that amounts to an indiscriminate list. Also subject to POV interpretations. Arkyan 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether certain endings are considered twists or not would be too open to interpretation. SubSeven 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~Please stop already with the indiscriminate arguments for these lists! Or, if the same argument is going to be used on all of these article, do a mass nomination.~~ This list is potentially verifiable, but I think it would be extremely difficult to do. However, I agree with Dacium that the inclusion criteria are too broad. -- Black Falcon 22:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have noted in at least two other of these AFDs in response to similar comments, a mass nomination of these articles would have been extremely impractical. Trying to talk about 20-some articles nominated together would result in chaos and confusion and would undoubtedly lead to a closure with instruction to re-nominate individually. These nominations seem to be going smoothly enough, not sure what the grounds for complaint about them is. Otto4711 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that a mass nomination of >20 articles would be confusing, but nomination of 3-5 related articles (as the arguments against all are essentially the same) would cut down on the number of separate debates where separate and/or distinct points may be raised. In any case, my main complaint is not the separate nominations, but the blanket application of the "indiscriminate" criticism (that is, of course, your prerogative and I don't think it was in bad-faith; I simply disagree). I voted to delete in a number of cases based on "loose association", voted to delete in a number of cases based on other reasons, and voted to keep in a number of cases because I did not think the criticisms were applicable and/or grounds for deletion (vs. improvement). -- Black Falcon 00:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Indiscriminate" was not blanket-applied to all of the nominations. No single criterion was applied to every one of the nominations, as various of the articles present different issues. I recently mass-nominated around seven or eight articles for million-dollar winners from Who Wants to be a Millionaire and the nomination was shut down because it was a group nom. I can't think of a group of articles that are much more closely related than those, but they were considered too diverse to consider together. I did not want to go through the hassle of mass-nominating the articles only to have to repeat the work after it got shut down. Otto4711 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly understand your desire to avoid a mass nom. In all fairness, you did provide different comments for each nomination. However, there was also a significant degree of similarity between a number of the nominations (for example, a dozen of them (+/- a few) started out by citing WP:NOT#DIR and then stating that "a list of every time X has appeared in a film is indiscriminate"). In any case, I agree that this article deserves to be deleted; my comment was to express my frustration with some of the other nominations. However, it is still your prerogative as the nominator whether you do them together or separately. Cheers, Black Falcon 00:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind that they were nominated for deletion separately - I actually prefer it that way. However, the canned statements at the beginning made it look like Otto4711 hadn't considered each article's problems and merits individually, and had just been impatient to sweep them all out of the way. However, it only looked like that to people who knew how many substantially identical AfDs were being launched with that same canned statement. To the casual debate participant, it might have appeared as if Otto4711's canned statement was not canned. That fact is likely to ruffle some feathers, as has happened, because some may feel that Otto4711 was attempting to pull the wool over our eyes. It is easy to see how such an act could set off alarm bells, even though there is nothing actually wrong with it. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I am becoming truly tired of your constant passive-aggressive, bat-your-eyelashes, skirt-the-edge-of-civility comments throughout these nominations. You've continually misrepresented my arguments and on at least one occasion have flat out spoken untruthfully, and your constant (completely wrong, by the way) speculation on my motives in nominating these articles and your implication (couched oh-so-carefully in "gosh, I can certainly see how some people might think he did something wrong" terms) that I have in some way acted improperly demonstrates your abject failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. I also agree with how Otto4711 went about the nomination. It's the most orderly way to do it, everyone involved can participate and individual factors can be discussed/decided easier. Hoverfish Talk 09:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is useful and I don't understand why correct articles should be deleted.194.105.107.36 13:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list here but merge small amount into Twist ending since some are worth noting. Usedup 07:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Bucketsofg 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring United States Marines[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. That a Marine or Marines appear in a film is not sufficient to justify this article. Otto4711 03:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure, an article that merely has films because they have marines in it (no matter the role) would be a problem, however, this article does not have to be that article. It should be limited to those whose primary subject is related to the Marines. IOW, the American Presient which merely features marines wouldn't qualify, but something like Jarhead would. This is really no different than listing war movies by the war they depict. It might also work better as a category. Or see List of World War II films for an example of how this list should look. FrozenPurpleCube 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mister M makes a good point. Nomination not convincing. --Kevin Murray 05:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see "Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics" is the new "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Nominator's mass separate listing is only slightly preferable to a mass nomination, and I really, really wish he would attempt to establish some policy consensus or clarity on the WP:NOT talk page rather than showering us with dozens of AfDs to test what seems to me like a rather dubious interpretation of policy. --Canley 06:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have offered up a policy suggestion on that talk page. Perhaps you missed the thing that has my name all over it. Otto4711 06:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that, you offered a suggestion for text forbidding pop culture references, that's great. You do not, however, seem to have mentioned your latest argument about "loosely-associated topics". --Canley 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with FrozenPurpleCube. "Films featuring the Marines" is a pretty-well defined topic, it is not "loosely-associated." Crypticfirefly 06:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the connection between Aliens, A Few Good Men and U.S. Marshals that warrants lumping them together under a list of "films featuring United States Marines"? Aliens features no US Marines, US Marshals article makes no mention of the U.S. Marines. Where's the commonality? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Feel free to remove Aliens and US Marshals from the page. I'd say AFGM was more about the JAG, but there's something substantial in its connection to the USMC. FrozenPurpleCube 11:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well defined topic and not a pointless list as the nominator would like to portray.--Looper5920 06:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why have list with no data apart from names? Could be categorised if required. A list is meant to have some sort meaningful entry data, not just a list of names, otherwise it is merely a category listing. make category films featuing US marines and dump this.--Dacium 06:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, adding data would be highly useful. Date, war(s) featured, and any other information would be quite viable. Go for it. FrozenPurpleCube 07:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep discriminate list with clear definition and articles in scope with definition. Seems to be part of a spree by the same nominator. -- User:Docu

Oh yes, by all means fail to assume good faith and make this about me instead of the merits of the article. Otto4711 07:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it unrelated to the others? -- User:Docu

Any article must stand or fall on its own, regardless of whatever other articles may or may not exist. Otto4711 07:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned when I see so many nominations at once. For various reasons, it troubles me. Perhaps you mean well, but I do think you might wish to consider a bit more discretion, just so you don't raise people's warning flags. FrozenPurpleCube 11:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that ad hominem arguments are inappropriate, but that comment was not the gist of Docu's argument. Rather, it was an afternote to his main argument. It does, however, raise some concern that you nominated this for AfD two minutes after the "twist ending" article. That is hardly enough time to consider the merits of an article. Granted, maybe you looked them all over beforehand and then proceeded to nominate them for deletion. However, if the same criticism(s) are going to be applied to all of the articles, then a bundled nomination (or at least, a few bundled nominations of a couple articles each) would have been appropriate. -- Black Falcon 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in other AFDs, a mass nomination of 20-some articles would create chaos and would result in no consensus being reached and the nomination being closed with an instruction to renominate individually. Even smaller groupings are likely to be shut down, as recent grouped nominations of Amazing Race contestants and Millionaire contestants were shut down for being too unrelated to each other. And frankly it's not like any of these articles are so in-depth that they require vast amounts of time to consider. This article is a list of about 40 names. How long does it take to read that and come to a conclusion about it? Otto4711 00:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take long to read and judge this list as being of high/low quality (seconds at most), but it does take more time to consider whether the topic itself has merit or if the article can potentially be refocused/improved. Perhaps you consider such lists/articles (no matter how they're written) to be inherently unencyclopedic (even if its, for example, "films about the USMC"). If that is the case, then I understand your fast-paced nominations, but I disagree strongly with that notion. It is not indiscriminate to group films by their primary subject of focus or the use of an object or characteristic as a major plot theme. -- Black Falcon 01:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while I do respect that a single mass nomination would have been even worse, so many nominations at once is still a concern to me. Either way it's a potential flood that might be better space out over a few days, perhaps nominating a few, seeing the response, and reacting accordingly. FrozenPurpleCube 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a very concerned WP Films member, especially on film lists issues. I am not a "deletionist" as such. However, Otto4711's move is having a very positive effect. Our lists have to be developed into useful articles, or should give their place to some category. The current AfD has brought out this issue and already solutions are being worked out. Please note that the List of years in film, which was innitially just a navigation to a series of lists, had grown into an indiscriminate POV collection of films. So at one point it was nominated for AfD. During the AfD discussion, an editor was motivated to start developing it into something very useful. It's still under development, so please notice how it evolved (up to the 1930s) and how it looked berofe (1940s on). Hoverfish Talk 14:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite as a list of movies about the United States Marine Corps (the organisation itself, or major characters with major roles) per Mister Manticore, with context about the film and appropriate events portrayed. Failing that, delete and categorise at Category:Films featuring the US Marine Corps or similar title, with emphasis on movies that feature the USMC, and not movies with a minor marine character or featuring an organisation that 'looks like' the USMC. -- saberwyn 10:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I support Saberwyn's idea wholeheartedly. Arkyan 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rewrite per Mister Manticore. This isn't an unreasonable list and it has a specific criteria. 23skidoo 13:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets rewritten as discussed so that it is films which are mostly or exclusively about USM, keep. If it does not, delete. Do not keep because it could be rewritten and moved to another title, because that rarely actually happens, and it is basically writing an entirely new article anyway. GassyGuy 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, rewrite and keep per Saberwyn. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and rewrite per Saberwyn. -- Black Falcon 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and rewrite per Saberwyn. -- Stbalbach 04:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, rewrite and keep per Saberwyn. Hoverfish Talk 09:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

At this point in the discussion, I took it upon myself to rewrite the article, which can be found at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps. The top half of the article is a table displaying title and director, summary, date of release, and awards (a field which in hindsight should really be replaced with something else). The bottom half is an annotated version of the current article, saying why a particluar movie is or isn't included in the table (there are borderline cases in this section). Please comment and reconsider based on this rewrite. -- saberwyn 11:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this rewrite article is a fisrt draft, the formatting and some content is subject to change. I can't believe I just did this... -- saberwyn 12:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the draft quite acceptable. I would recommend it as an example for several other film lists in need of cleanup/inclusion-explanations under the current AfD nomination. Details: not so many awards where applicable - give 1-2 main ones by name and the rest by number. Suggestion: border=0 formatting, if possible. Hoverfish Talk 14:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post this article Much improved! I agree with the deletions except The Great Santini, which is a great film about a military family and a hard-boiled marine flyer. --Kevin Murray 16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! This version is much better in terms of content, compliance with WP:LIST, and presentation. I would suggest renaming the "Awards" section to "Notes" to include a wide range of information on the movie such as awards received, financial success, breakthrough performance of an actor/actress, and so on. Many thanks for your improvements, Black Falcon 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent I like the improvements to the page, and I believe this is the concept that should be used in improving this page. I don't know that it should be explicitly limited to films (though another page could cover other media appearances), and I might modify the criteria to include former marine characters if they're still central to the plot. Maybe adding exclusion criteria too, so folks no that a movie that just has some marines in it would not qualify. FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which movies would you add in, and what disqualification criteria would you add? -- saberwyn 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One thing: I noticed that you decided not to include movies that don't have a corresponding Wiki article. However, I would leave those in IF you know that they would otherwise qualify. Crypticfirefly 03:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC) By the way, I've added the movie "Tribes" to the Tribes disambig page-- it looks like it would qualify per information found on Amazon.com. Crypticfirefly 03:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC) You should also leave in "Shores of Tripoli" the wiki article is under its full title To the Shores of Tripoli. According to IMDB it is about the Marines. Also notable as Maureen O'Hara's first Technicolor film. Crypticfirefly 03:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Oh, also leave in The Great Santini. Crypticfirefly 03:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further query: would you folks consider it appropriate to include something like the 1937 Busby Berkeley musical The Singing Marine? Crypticfirefly 05:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason movies without Wiki articles were not included as without the article, I cannot confirm or deny the presence and impact of Marines in the plot. -- saberwyn 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially after the re-write, it doesn't meet the reason given to delete it in the first place. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:LIST: information and navigation. Featuring US Marines is sufficient commonality. - Peregrine Fisher 02:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per others.--JayHenry 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Post the rewrite and keep. The new way is much better. Crypticfirefly 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REWRITE NOW IN MAINSPACE. Please move to List of films featuring the United States Marine Corps following the conclusion of this discussion, if kept. -- saberwyn 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. GassyGuy 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the rewrite. I'm still not keen on the title but the article is cleaner and the rewrite is good. Arkyan 20:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the rewrite. I wouldn't have thought it was possible to treat the subject well enough for an article, but I was wrong. Also support renaming to help clarify scope. Eluchil404 09:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:50Z

Davinci sort[edit]

Vanity, original research, not notable. We're in AfD because the author removed the prod tag - using a wikipedia:sock puppet! Potatoswatter 03:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE (no results in Google News Archive, Google Books, or Google Scholar). --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not for stuff you and your friends thought up one day. --Selket ^Talk 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where is notibility shown? All i found was site and some obsurce news group references.--Dacium 06:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments above. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 06:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't actually a sorting algorith contrary to the name, and as software, fails WP:SOFTWARE -- Whpq 17:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NFT, WP:VAIN, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:SNOW, and, of course, WP:CHEESE. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. (jarbarf) 00:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of good code repositories for PHP which would be where I would look for an algorithm like this! Mike 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all the above Nevakee11 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Tlalpan. Eluchil404 09:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Coapa[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:LOCAL. Nv8200p talk 04:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~, it does appear to be as advertised though English sources are thin. Connected to 1968 Olympics as journalist housing. --Dhartung | Talk 04:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge and redirect per Selket, that article could use some meat. --Dhartung | Talk 07:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tlalpan as per this] on the the Spanish Wikipedia. --Selket ^Talk 04:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tlalpan. Selket has already added a mention of the Villa Coapa to that article; there is nothing else from this article that can really be merged.--Kubigula (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:48Z

Rebecca Stevens[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notibility per WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 04:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found to indicate that the subject is notable. janejellyroll 04:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability. WP:COI issues also. -Selket ^Talk 04:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did anyone notice that the article was written by 'Lauri Stevens'? It seems to be promotion from someone with a conflict of interest. If the closing admin deletes Rebecca Stevens, I suggest that he or she also deal with the orphaned image [[Image:Img 8365.jpg]] either by deletion or IfD. - Richardcavell 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete Yeah seems to be COI. Not really notable unless her plays have good media coverage, which wasn't shown.--Dacium 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - defeinte WP:COI issues with the article. Credits appear to be community theatre. Claims of TV and film roles unsubstantiated, witrh no IMDB entry. Faile WP:V. -- Whpq 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a totally unsourced and unreferenced article about a living person leaves no choice. Change to Weak Keep is sources are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is only regional. It also looks like promotion

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:48Z

Tamara Landry[edit]

Nom - in reading WP:PORN BIO, I don't see how she satisfies any of the criteria. This article has been speedied once already. Rklawton 04:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Selket ^Talk 04:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy? else delete. WP:BIO failure.--Dacium 06:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real noteriety in her field. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Poltergeist (film series). (Redirects are not just for search terms, but also many other uses, such as disambig pages - The Other Side). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:47Z

The Other Side (Poltergeist films' spiritual otherworld)[edit]

Delete as trivia. Trivia doesn;t even describe how trivial this article is. No redirect required as no one is likely to search for "The Other Side (Poltergeist films' spiritual otherworld)". Otto4711 04:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Poltergeist film. No content, a redirect doesn't seem to controversial to me I doubt anyone would object. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nothing that can't fit in the films article.--Dacium 06:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, seems the best (or only) option -Markeer 15:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a redirect is put in place when it is likely that people will search for the redirected term. No one is going to type The Other Side (Poltergeist films' spiritual otherworld) into the search box. Otto4711 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I added the reference to this in the Disambig page for The Other Side, and echoing Otto4711, this would probably be shot down at RfD as an unlikely search term. SkierRMH 21:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not srictly opposed to a redirect, but this seems like a highly unlikely search phrase. -- Black Falcon 22:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redir to Poltergeist (film series). - WeniWidiWiki 17:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:44Z

Taxidermy Recital[edit]

Nothing in the article indicates that the band meets WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 04:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no claims of notability, advert, and COI. --Selket ^Talk 04:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SPAM. No notibiltiy. fails all music standards for bands WP:BAND--Dacium 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs).

Reverend Henry Kane[edit]

Delete - normally I would just redirect this per WP:FICT but since the charatcer apparently figures in two different films it's unclear what redirect would be prefereable. If no proper redirect can be determined, delete the article since the character does not appear to be so notable as to warrant a separate article. Additionally, much of the article is plot summary which also falls afoul of WP:FICT. Otto4711 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this character is sufficiently ingrained in popular culture that having what amounts to a disambiguation page (for the different movies) with a little context is, I think, entirely appropriate. --Selket ^Talk 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a Poltergeist article, preferably create a list of characters. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a character list for this movie? Should be moved there. Only major characters are allowed there own page as per WP:FICT. Cannot justify own page based that the text is mainly on describing plot elements, a violation of WP:FICT--Dacium 07:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If not kept (as per User:Selket), an appropriate redirect might be to Poltergeist (film series) or to a character list (however, I don't think one exists). -- Black Falcon 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No harm in having an article about a fictional character. The stated reason as "not notable" is not convincing, the character is notable, it is part of a major popular culture film series. -- Stbalbach 04:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No harm is not a valid argument for inclusion. Otto4711 17:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AADD (the main page that includes WP:NOHARM is an essay, not a guideline or policy. -- Black Falcon 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is an essay. An essay about arguments to avoid in trying to keep an article. "There's no harm in it" is an argument to avoid in trying to keep an article. What's your point? Otto4711 15:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it is an essay reflecting the views of one or more editors, not a policy or guideline supported by consensus. You wrote "No harm is not a valid argument for inclusion". Well, not valid according to whose authority? It's just an essay--it would take me two minutes to create another essay according to which WP:NOHARM is the only legitimate argument that can be brought forth in an AfD. According to WP:BASH (an existing essay), such arguments are perfectly "valid". My point, in short, is: please don't cite essays as authoritative policies. You may write that WP:NOHARM is not a good argument for inclusion or that it's not an informative or constructive argument for inclusion, but it's misleading to say that it's not a valid argument. -- Black Falcon 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per = Wikipedia:No_original_research & does NOT include Wikipedia:Reliable_sources for WP:Verifiability of content. --Parker007 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did NOT notify creator? --Parker007 18:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional portrayals of the Japan Self-Defense Forces[edit]

Article was originally created as a laundry list for the ever growing amount of pop culture trivia accumulating on the main Japan Self-Defense Force article, which I felt detracted from the main point of the article. Several months later I fail to see how including every tangential reference to the JSDF in any game/anime/manga provides any additional insight into the JSDF or its place in society (there's already a section in the JSDF article for that). The list is fancruft at best and internal linkspamming at worst. Loren 04:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is eqivalent of mentioning all fictional portrayals of the NYPD or some such. There is no significant association since the JSDF is so large.--Dacium 05:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Fictional portrayals of the NYPD. I think I slightly prefer FBI portrayal in the media as a model.

FrozenPurpleCube 06:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which should also be nominated for deletion and moved to a category, which was my points kinda :-)--Dacium 07:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you missed my point, which was that the articles should be made like the FBI one. Believe it or not, there's quite a bit of good information on the NYPD in the media. For example this article tells quite an interesting story. And there are others. So, I would say this is information that should be on Wikipedia, just presented in a different form. At least for the NYPD. I have no idea about the JSDF, but I'm not Japanese so...I leave it to people who know better than I do. FrozenPurpleCube 07:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree the FBI article is fine. This is what the NYPD and JSDF articles should be. Not merely lists that could be categories.--Dacium 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think a navigational list, like List of fictional portrayals of the NYPD (I moved it, since it's really a list) is fine. It's preferable to have lists to categories here, because of the tangential nature of the observation: we don't want to have articles with hundreds of categories, only really relevant ones. Mango juice^talk 13:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any mention of the JSDF with no regard to how prominent or trivial that mention might be to the fiction from which the mention is drawn or the real world. Otto4711 06:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a waste of time. Thanks for the nomination, Loren. John Smith's 09:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. Mango juice^talk 13:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because delete would be worse: this article serves rather well in keeping this stuff out of the main text. If deleted people will start to add the pop-ref links into Japan Self-Defense Forces and the cycle will repeat itself over and over. The only lasting result could be that seriously minded maintainers of the main article will leave WP being annoyed by this. This is problem for all Category:In popular culture articles but currently there is no better solution than this kind of leaf articles. After (if) stable versions will be implemented there will be time to deal with "... in popular culture" texts. Pavel Vozenilek 19:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The better solution is to exercise basic editorial vigilance and, when this kind of crap turns up in a main article, get rid of it instead of throwing up one's hands, sighing that there can't possibly be any way for it not to happen, and sluffing it off into a separate article to make it someone else's problem. Otto4711 22:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I used to think this sort of article better deleted, but closer inspection of some topics shows the advisability of keeping in separated to enable more serious editing of the main article. DGG 22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I once held the same opinion expressed by Pavel Vozenilek and DDG, that trivia articles helped by keeping fancruft out of serious articles. However, I now believe that the presence of such trivia lists only serves to encourage the adition of even more trivia, most of it only tangentially related. I believe the solution to this problem is not the creation of fancruft magnents like this one, but through the vigilance of editors watching the main article who can nip these things off at the bud. -Loren 23:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Loren. Bad stuff is bad stuff: if it doesn't belong, it doesn't belong, and trash heaps like this article tend to collect junk without being monitored. I actually started a Wikipedia essay on the subject with some more detail: Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Mango juice^talk 04:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kershaw[edit]

Article previously deleted for not having asserted notability, this one asserts it in abundance. Created by single purpose accounts User:Yudansha and User:Konjakushin, the subjects are a walled garden consisting of a local (provincial) karate instructor, his school, and chief instructor of its front organisation, Shotokan Karate International of Great Britain, only appear to have had local press coverage. The main subject's achievements were all wins awarded by the same organisation who he fronts (SKIGB); the Wilkinson sword is just more of the same. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konjaku Shin National School of Karate. Ohconfucius 04:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still don't see notibility or any media coverage that isn't focused on the that field "senior instructor of Shotokan Karate International of Great Britain" seems to be the only claim for notibility. Not enough to pass WP:BIO--Dacium 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shotokan Karate International of Great Britain (SKIGB) is another school set up by Kershaw and manned by Shiro Asano, the person who he claims is his mentor. Note that the copyright to the SKIGB website is owned by Konjaku Shin. Ohconfucius 08:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Real WP:V and WP:RS issues. PubliusFL 08:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-refed non-notable. NBeale 12:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Ebrahim Shah-hosseini[edit]

Does not meet the WP:BIO requirements. Ozgod 05:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof he even existed let alone accomplishments to pass WP:BIO. Retired in 1357??--Dacium 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub. Admirals are generally notable. Note the retirement took place around the year A.D. 1979 (sometimes written 1979 C.E.). 1357 would be the corresponding A.H. date (after hejira). --Eastmain 13:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some time back I tried to establish a criterion that all soldiers with ranks of general or admiral (and equivalents) would be automatically notable, but there was a strong argument that without an independent verifiable source no article could be written. What evidence do we have other than assume good faith, that this officer ever existed and attained the rank of admiral? At this point I am unconvinced either way. --Kevin Murray 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably because people don't realise how many generals there are. Like each division actually has a generalty and there are thousands of divisions in the world.--Dacium 01:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that would be a poor precedent. Most peacetime flag officers in any military would not be notable.--Dhartung | Talk 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete There should be sources to establish the reality of every one of them: for the UK, there is http://www.navylist.org/. For Iran, I haven't any idea what would be the equivalent, but others may . But this might be a good time to question that earlier assumption that they are all notable. In this case there are apparently not enough sources to write a meaningful article. A little odd, because the orig. editor was "AminSh," & this is his only article. DGG 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eastmain 01:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no sources exist. If sources exist, I'll reneg. --Wafulz 04:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending addition of any information displaying his military (or other) notability, other than by dint of holding rank. --Dweller 11:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of Motorola products. I chose redirect because there's honestly nothing to merge.--Wizardman 19:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H350[edit]

Stub of phone handset info. Unencyclopedic. waffle iron ^talk 05:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is there some kind of "series" of models (probably entirely the wrong word) which these could be redirected to (or merged with, for that matter)? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to motoralla headsets or create an article and merge them together. Single products not notable enough to have own page, but the range is, this is inline with other things like printers etc..--Dacium 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dacium. --Parker007 18:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was ultimate, ultimate delete. --Core desat 04:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate, Ultimate Challenge[edit]

"A one-hour pilot will be shot in late summer 2005" (note future tense) for this top-secret reality show. Nothing with this title or featuring this cast has aired on American TV. Link to official website is dead. See identical article The ultimate, ultimate challenge. Andrew Levine 18:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No information available. No information has been added to the page since its creation on August 17, 2005. No information available on IMDB. “Official” website is dead. The whole thing could very well be a hoax. ●DanMS 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I redirected The ultimate, ultimate challenge here since it was a duplicate page. If this page gets deleted, the closing admin should also delete the above. ●DanMS 18:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note my comments below in my vote, this is not a hoax (rather a failed attempted at producing a TV show that got as far as making a Pilot and the story of it was later told in a film that was produced). Mathmo ^Talk 10:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or speedy). This is obviously inaccurate at this point, and keeping it, even for five days, will serve no purpose. --N Shar 19:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note my comments below, and I have made basic fixing to the article so that it is nolonger quite so out of date. Mathmo ^Talk 10:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - out of date, unverifiable; if it was never screened then it isn't notable either. Walton monarchist89 19:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- if it was never screened then it isn't notable either. Well, I disagree with this part at least; depending on the cast and crew attached to a particular planned show, or if it excited some controversy which led to it being pulled, it may be notable despite never coming to air. See Star Trek: Phase II, Mr. Dugan, and Welcome to the Neighborhood (TV series) for examples. If this article had not been a hoax, and a high-budget reality show was produced and filmed but for whatever reason never aired, that alone might make it notable. Andrew Levine 01:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, see my vote below. Mathmo ^Talk 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was originally thinking delete after looking at the article and reading the votes. However thanks to then digging around I'm now leaning towards keep. First of all I saw this press release. Ok I went, that is interesting. But is just a press release, so still no reason to keep. But then I saw this coverage. [9] [10] plus another press release [11] I decided the topic is worth keeping. And this is just from the first two pages of google results, am sure looking through the rest of the pages and also trying this search can only yield yet more information. Alternatively I would strongly support anybody writing American Cannibal: The Road to Reality and merging (and re-directing) whatever content there is into that. Mathmo ^Talk 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Made a very very basic tidying up of the article, mainly fixing tenses and updating/correcting details a little bit. Mathmo ^Talk 10:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm completely confused by this article. Is this series coming up soon? Is it not? Is it a failed pilot? How can something be notable if no details are released except the name? The only sources in the article are a dead site and an empty IMDB page. I might change my mind if I knew exactly what it was I was reading about. --UsaSatsui 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read my comments on this AfD. Some of the tenses are slightly wrong in the article, though I mostly fixed that. Mathmo ^Talk 03:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and just now fixed up a couple of th links. Mathmo ^Talk 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no need to start making articles to tell us that no details are available about a project. GassyGuy 23:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: The article was expanded with sources during this AfD, so the first three comments would appear to no longer apply. Sandstein 08:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where to start? In media res, I suppose. Mathmo tried to wave the red flag but nobody paid attention. Let me endorse a move to American Cannibal: The Road to Reality. From what I can make out this is a Blair Witch Project for grown-ups, or something. It's a documentary about a reality show that couldn't happen (what lawyer would sign off on starving people to death?). Yet everyone in it -- playing themselves, as writers, producers, or actors -- somehow keeps a straight face. Or maybe some of them really believed.... Here's the trailer, AICN, EW, Tribeca Film Fest, Variety, and for good measure, the IMDB trivia page. (I'm not trying to assert notability here, I'm trying to let you get a handle on this.) The HuffPo wrote,

But one can't help but wonder how both sides played each other in this reality show within a reality show about a doomed reality TV production. The drama between Blatt and the filmmakers seems as creatively concocted and surreal as "The Ultimate, Ultimate Challenge," the reality show chronicled in the movie. Both crafted for maximum benefit.

I think that sums it up. It's a hoax (at least the part that this article plays). On the other hand, it's a real hoax. Who knows if the blood was real? Seems if it were people would be facing federal prison. --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible redirect to the Cannibal one. Is the claim to notibility that it was never released, riiiiight? 'sources' are trivial mentions at best, none are exclusively about the show, the other is a self advertisement. Despite the sources being added there is still no shown notibility for this series.--Dacium 07:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, how many more times is this going to be relisted "so that consensus may be reached"?? If this is so after so many times I'd have thought surely it ought to be closed as no consensus. Mathmo ^Talk 08:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was not 'no conesus', the consensus was nullified from the updates to the article, thus relisting was required.--Dacium 08:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment American Cannibal will have a limited US theater release beginning March 16, 2007. Either we redirect this to that article name now, or it will probably be created anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the addition of references still fail WP:V for me. They are mentions of the show without providing any real information. -- Whpq 20:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's almost no substance to the article, in a few year either no one will care and it will have to be deleted or it will have been screened and have to be completely rewritten - articles based only on speculation aren't in themselves encylopedic, only actual discussion about the speculation is sourceable information Mike 16:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean leí[edit]

Dictionary definition of an Irish term for Chinese whispers or "friend of a friend story". Croxley 06:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Um, can you say "English Wikipedia"? And yes, I've seen many instances where foreign language entries are appropriate on the English Wikipedia. But not this one. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has had years to show sources to show that it is in any way notable. If it is a common phrase at best if could be on page for that language.--Dacium 07:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is the English Wikipedia. Ben W Bell talk 08:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is there a List of Irish proverbs, either here, at Wikiquote, or somewhere else, where this might be moved to? - Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- q:Irish proverbs is your man. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it is already there. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Strong, it reads beautifully in the Irish Language. It is of interest, but maybe not to the above editors. Taramoon 15:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remark léi is misspelt in the title jnestorius^(talk) 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is the English language Wikipedia. In any case, a) it is not a common expression in Hiberno-English and b) léi, in the title, is misspelt leí. Could be corrected, translated and included in Irish-language Wiki. Bastun 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chinese whispers. The phrases, in Irish, is used in English-language contexts in Ireland, and so should not just arbitrarily be deleted. -- Evertype·✆ 18:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is used, but not widely, since most Irish people have insufficient command of Irish to understand it, much less produce it. Wikipedia is not a Thesaurus. Your argument means it can legitimately be added to en.wiktionary as well as ga.wiktionary, but no Wikipedia article can list every synonym for its subject in every English dialect. jnestorius^(talk) 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete but include on a page of Irish proverbs, or some such article. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I looked and at least expected a few quotes in which the phrase had been used. As presented it is simply another Irish phrase of no particular notability Mike 16:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, if something is notable in Ireland, but not in your neck of the woods, should it still be deleted? Taramoon 17:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Husham Al-Husainy[edit]

This is a technical renomination, please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNC imam controversy for prior discussion. Smmurphy has substantially rewritten this article since February 17, and is looking for feedback from the community as to whether or not we should continue with it as refocused. No vote, yadda yadda. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can someone please fix the references for this page, I can't figure out what is going on but they are all brocken.--Dacium 07:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it is impossible to give feedback if we find no references Alf photoman 13:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it to me to type </references> rather than <references/>. Its fixed now. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as far I can see leafing through the references there are no problems with WP:NPOV and information is factual Alf photoman 15:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criteria for inclusion. --Kevin Murray 19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the current article meets standards for inclusion based on the references provided. (jarbarf) 00:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, disregarding the single-purpose accounts. --Core desat 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hancock II[edit]

Author whose three books were self-published by vanity press PublishAmerica. Article claims that he has appeared in two local newspapers and on two local TV stations, but nothing other than this very local coverage. His books have almost nonexistent sales on amazon.com, with SalesRanks of 3,009,889, 3,848,619, and 2,514,005. Google turns up 38 unique hits for his name plus any one of his books, the only ones of any note being press releases from PRWeb, which appears to be a service allowing anyone to make their own press releases, and this appearance on a local news station's website. I see nothing in the article, Google results, or SalesRanks indicating that this author has any following beyond his local area. -Elmer Clark 06:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Probably should have been tagged for sources required. The claims to the interviews don't actually provide anything that allows people to look them up so they are totally unverifiable. Nothing in this article is verifiable except for the fact that he has published some books (as we all know this doesn't make one notable). All other information is completely un verifiable. The overwhelming majority of the text must have been created from someone with a COI, how the details could be known without a published source is unbelievable.--Dacium 07:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, tagging for sources would have been better than first nominating it for AfD and then ask for sources, as stands totally unverifiable so a bio of a living person leaves no choice. If non-trivial verifiable sources are added by end of this AfD change to KEEP Alf photoman 13:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don't think this person would be notable even if the alluded-to TV and newspaper sources were provided. -Elmer Clark 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep I would say keep only if the authors were to cite the specifics of the TV and news coverage in the reference section, and limit the text of the article to the verifiable source material, with limited autobiographic information to fill-in the blanks (e.g., subject's webpage). This is now a vanity/promotional for the subject's products and POV, which does not belong at WP. --Kevin Murray 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V -- Whpq 20:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability outside his own imagination. The Boy that time forgot 00:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it - I don't see what the problem is with the sources. The list of links goes to his confirmed myspace page and to his own page at tripod.com. Other websites such as other small press authors also link to his websites. Vanity presses charge for payment. As PublishAmerica does not charge fees they can not be considered a VANITY press by definition, therefore this argument is moot. Small press publisher, yes. Author Mill, absolutely. But not a vanity press. Deleting it on this criteria is false and in bad faith. The author has received recognition from Midwest Book Review on amazon.com And has also won a contest sponsored by writer's digest.com in 2004 (http://www.writersdigest.com/contests/your_chronicle_previous.asp?id=153) Rankings on amazon.com are subjective and unverifiably changing all the time. I have personally seen Edward's amazon.com ranking break past 100,000, which is not an easy feat for a virtual unknown. A ranking of 3,000,000 now simply means his book has been out for over a year and sales are slowing down. His rank on barnes and noble's website is still higher than many of Dean Koontz's books. Are we going to delete Dean Koontz now? His association with a publisher of ill repute (Publish America) does not reflect on his talent. Unless we have personally read his works (and I have. I enjoy it!) We should not assume he lacks talent simply by the association with his publisher. Most of the stuff in his "bio" comes from his own webpage, a link for which appears on this page. We can confirm he has spina bifida and has struggled with pituitary cancer. We can confirm he's the writer of the books as it lays out on this page. We can also confirm he currently lives in the East Texas area because there are several press releases from PRWEB.COM that cite book signings in the East Texas towns of Longview and Tyler. He has also recently started a blog on his amazon.com listing for In The Breath of God. And I have heard he's on blogger.com. (http://edwardhancockii.blogspot.com/) I can't confirm this is him though. We have an article on Michelle Shocked who is also from the town of Gilmer, TX. I have never heard of her. Don't know who she is. She's not a celebrity to me. Celebrity is as celebrity does. Just because he's not known in your circles doesn't make him not known. Obviously some fan out there thought he was worth writing a story about. Maybe the story isn't in his books but in all he's overcome to write those books. As a trained investigative journalist, I believe in looking deeper. And my cousin is a technician for Channel 56 and confirmed meeting Edward on the day of his interview. If you go to KETK's website, you will see a listing for Edward's book. They only put a listing up after the author has been interviewed. Everyone started out small. Even Stephen King wasn't born a prolific writer. The Eagles were once a "band" of misfits hanging out on the college campus of UNT. Country Music Legend Neil McCoy once played bars and clubs all across Longview, Tyler and Carthage. Encyclopedias aren't supposed to contain knowledge about things people know about. Encyclopedias are meant to INCREASE one's knowledge. I learned about Michelle Shocked. Maybe some of the naysayers can learn about Edward Hancock II. Maybe someone looking for a way to inspire their disabled child to do better in school can point to this article and say "Look at what he's overcome." Anyone that votes to delete this article simply because they haven't heard of this man might as well delete half of the encyclopedia. Because apparently you only want to share knowledge you've already acquired. I say leave it up so that people can learn about a very strong person who continues to overcome adversity after adversity and is creating quite a buzz on the internet. So what if most of it's local. Throw a pebble in a pond. How do the ripples form? First small, locally. Then wider and wider until they reach the far edges of the pond. Perhaps Wikipedia will be somewhat responsible for the ripples of Edward Hancock II reaching farther and wider. Is that not a great thing?

Here are some links where his name appears that are not through PRWEB, his myspace and what not:

http://samantha-lj.livejournal.com/ (Samantha Branham, another self-published author mentions Edward in her live journal entries. She says she will be hosting a book signing with him. )

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/butt_monkey (As humorous as this may be, this wiktionary article cites Edward’s book SPLINTERED SOULS using the word BUTT MONKEY. If it’s being CITED as a source for something, that should lend credence to it’s value, thereby giving credibility to the man who wrote it.)

http://www.gottawritenetwork.com/gwnreviewclipboard.html (Gotta write Network has asked to receive a copy of Edward’s Book in order to review it.)

http://www.freewebs.com/readmorebooks/inspirational.htm

http://www.ringsurf.com/netring?action=info&ring=publishing (He’s number 28 in the small press web ring.)

http://home.bellsouth.net/p/s/community.dll?ep=87&subpageid=231729&ck= (Joyce Ann Edmondson’s Christian Family Reading and Resources endorses the book and lists his page as being “under construction.”)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-publishing (This from your OWN website!) Self-published works that find large audiences tend to be rare exceptions, and are usually the result of self-promotion. However, many works now considered classic were originally self-published, including the original writings of William Blake, Virginia Woolf, Walt Whitman, William Morris, and James Joyce. · The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield · The Joy of Cooking by Irma Rombauer · What Color is Your Parachute by Richard Nelson Bolles · In Search of Excellence by Tom Peters · Eragon by Christopher Paolini · The Christmas Box by Richard Paul Evans · Invisible Life by E. Lynn Harris (You can also add Edgar Allan Poe and John Grisham to this list. Grisham’s book A TIME TO KILL was originally self-published and sold out of the back of his car. My uncle owns an original copy from the self-publisher. If you can find one, apparently it’s worth a lot of money now. )

http://www.parapublishing.com/files/pressroom/155-Self-Published%20Books.pdf

According to the website above, you can also add W.E.B. Dubois, Dan Poynter, Deepak Chopra, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Zane Grey, George Bernard Shaw, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, D.H. Lawrence, Stephen Crane, Mark Twain and many others.

http://www.selfpublishingresources.com/Booknews.htm

(You might be interested in reading true statistics on Self-publishing. )

Also, an article in a November or December, 2006 issue of the Dallas Morning News stated that 25 percent of the books released in 2005 were self-published. This statistic was up from 7 percent the year before. If this trend continues, there’s no telling what it will be once the 2006 numbers are crunched.

If anyone wishes to verify it further, links to his HOMEPAGE and page on myspace.com have been provided with the article. A reader's own laziness and refusal to click on a SOURCE link is not reason to cite poor sources. The information was obviously gained from these sources.

http://www.ketknbc.com/plus/bookclub/2584136.html

This is all KETK put up following his April 4, 2006 interview, but it's pretty typical to some of the things they put up.

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?s=4894281

This is the lead in to Edward's story that appeared on KSLA. There was a video of the newscast at one point but it has been removed, as is the case with many stories after they've been up a while. It is to save on web space, not a slam on anyone's importance or talent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.127.179.10 (talk • contribs)

I think you have some misunderstandings of our objections to this article. First of all, PublishAmerica may or may not be a vanity press - although our article on vanity presses suggests it is, as does PublishAmerica's article itself. Either way though, the only reason I mentioned that was because some Wikipedians might consider publication by a well-known traditional publisher acceptable grounds for inclusion, and I was pointing out that this was not the case. As far as verifiability, sites like MySpace and pages by the author himself aren't considered reliable sources. And the reliable sources you do list, the two sites from local TV stations, do verify that he exists and did write these books, but not really that he is notable. And "I have personally seen Edward's amazon.com ranking break past 100,000, which is not an easy feat for a virtual unknown" is a perfect example of why this should be deleted - Hancock is a "virtual unknown." Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, and as long as he is an "unknown," he is not notable enough for an article. You cite other famous authors who started out as unknowns - they, too, would not have been notable enough for Wikipedia articles until they wrote the works that made them famous. If Hancock follows their paths and one day becomes a famous writer, then a Wikipedia article would be in order. Until he reaches the point where he meets the criteria at WP:NN, though, the community is very unlikely to support his inclusion. A lot of your comment sounds like you disagree with having a notability requirement at all - if this is so, the right place to voice those objections is at Wikipedia talk:Notability, although you're very likely to receive much support as the notability criteria are widely accepted by the community.

Hope this cleared things up. -Elmer Clark 22:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it So because he's not currently as known as Dean Koontz you would just delete him? I have to agree with the person who said that Encyclopedias are supposed to be about furthering knowledge. About gaining new knowledge. PublishAmerica's own article suggests it's a vanity press? It's own article where? Here on Wikipedia? So the OPINION Of Wikipedia means more than factual definition of what a VANITY press is? VANITY presses charge money. PublishAmerica does not charge money. Therefore it can not be labeled a vanity press! It is not a traditional publisher. AT MOST I would call it a "small press" but yes I admit even THAT is pushing it. But the person above makes a great point. We shouldn't judge this person based on the reputation of his publisher but on the quality of his work. The links above (If you go to them) credit Hancock with a REPUTABLE win for a writer's digest contest. What other reputable sources does it take? You can't LINK an interview with his aunt Martha or his sister suzie. You can't link telephone calls unless you post the audio. I searched YOUTUBE but there's nothing I could find to link. You've had news organizations such as KETK and KSLA (Both of which HAVE articles on Wikipedia) cite Edward as being reputable. The person makes an excellent point. He must be a celebrity to somebody because SOMEBODY posted an article on him. Who is Michele Shocked anyway? Heck I read the article on Edward and I learned who the heck Abel Upshur and Thomas Gilmer were in the process. I didn't even come here looking for that, but I increased my knowledge. If you're going to take down everybody who is of local fame your list is going to be very short.

I also agree that there's more to this story than the content of his writing or the resume therein. Who among the objecting parties has conquered Spina Bifida, and Pituitary Cancer? Who among you was the only disabled person in an otherwise "normal" school? I believe his story is one that should be left for all to see. It's inspiring.

If you're going to wait until you feel like he's good enough to be in your elitist club of "I'm good enough to be here" You should change the name of Wikipedia to "The encyclopedia anyone can edit, so long as you're on the short list of people we think are cool enough to be in our clique."

He's written three books, overcome spina bifida and pituitary cancer and he's a giving and generous person who is busily involved in charity work. In a world where there are so many tabloid articles of Britney's Bald Head and Anna Nicole's Baby dispute, why are we even debating the inclusion of such a bright spot in this universe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.28.83 03:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Eric (I'm not sure how to sign these things. I'm just following the instructions below.)— 63.215.28.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Notability. Surviving a disease or donating to charity in no way makes one notable, unless, perhaps, he donated a record amount or was the only survivor of some horrible plague. And the argument that "even though he's not famous, he should be kept because he is a great guy" isn't likely to hold much weight I'm afraid. And winning a monthly Reader's Digest contest isn't much of a notability claim either. Also, whether or not PublishAmerica is a vanity press, getting published by them is not a very difficult achievement. -Elmer Clark 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable non-refed. NBeale 12:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it

Here's the funny part. It's not noteworthy that he's survived spina bifida and pituitary cancer. He won 125 dollars in the Writer's Digest contest (Writer's Digest being THE pinnacle of any writer's success prior to a "book deal" with a major publisher.)His book has been REFERERNCED here at wikiquote.com!! He's part of a growing trend of self-publishers and is using his money to fund the American Heart Association and various other charities, which is not a notable contribution to society... but if he'd sucked the president's wiener we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky

Apparently having sex with a politician would give him more clout in the wikipedia community. If I were Edward, that notion would almost have me begging for deletion.

And for those who argue there are no links, please use your eyes and your computers to explore the links to WRITERS DIGEST, to KSLA Channel 7 and to KETK Channel 56 as well as Edward's own MYSPACE PAGE. these are links to reputable organizations and credible sources all. You can't link CONVERSATIONS or personal knowledge. If someone who KNOWS Edward writes or edits this article, they can't link their own exposure to Edward.

and if you delete this article, you're going to have to change the articles on Kilgore College, Sabine ISD (Edward's high school) and Gilmer, TX itself. ALL of these articles link back to Edward and reference him in some way. Apparently SOMEBODY thinks Edward is noteworthy.

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:43Z

Moonwarriors[edit]

Book self-published by vanity press PublishAmerica. Article gives nothing but a plot summary, and Google turns up 84 unique hits when excluding amazon and wikipedia results. Looking through them, I found only one review, the other hits all being websites where it can be bought or postings by the author on various message boards. Its amazon.com SalesRank is 1,316,982. No real indication that this book has generated any buzz. -Elmer Clark 07:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but a geocities city to claim notibility. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books)--Dacium 07:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent reviews from reliable sources. -- Whpq 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication it could be considered even slightly notable. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:43Z

The Ryoko Project[edit]

Book self-published by vanity press PublishAmerica. Article gives nothing but a plot summary, and a Google search produces only 9 unique hits, all of which are online booksellers. The book has an amazon.com SalesRank of 2,467,926. No indication whatsoever that this book has achieved any notability. -Elmer Clark 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books).--Dacium 07:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent reviews from reliable sources. -- Whpq 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable book --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:43Z

Nanaca crash[edit]

Non-notable, completely devoid of any reliable sourcing online establishing notability ju66l3r 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly speed A7? NN--Dacium 07:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable online game. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a fun little game I enjoy, but there's no reviews or articles about it from reliable sources. -- Whpq 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion seem to be stronger than those for keeping, and nothing vouching for notability has been presented. The mere existence of something does not automatically warrant inclusion. --Core desat 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forged in Flames[edit]

Book self-published with vanity press AuthorHouse. An unlicensed work of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan fiction. Article gives no indication that book is notable, and Google produces only 14 unique hits, none of which indicate any notability. amazon.com SalesRank is 2,935,994. -Elmer Clark 07:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books).--Dacium 07:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - considered by itself it may not meet the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (books), however it is verifiable (on Amazon), non-POV, and does not contain original research, also it does not contain any link to any of the several web sites it can be be brought from. It is associated with the notables franchises Buffy and Angel, and to me it is interesting because it is the only unofficial novel related to these series even if it isn't a bestseller. - Paxomen 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Paxomen, the fact that something is verifiable is irrelevant, it MUST also be notable. My existence is easily verifiable but I don't get my own wikipedia article. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the core Wikipedia official policies are Verifiability, No Original Research and Neutral Point of View, along with what Wikipedia is not.
You would struggle to write an article on yourself without breaking these policies - it may not be so easy for someone who lives far away to verify your existence from a trusted web site like Amazon? If you made your own article based on your own memories you would be performing original research (from unverifiable sources), and the act of you (or any of your friends/family) writing the article would make it too biased and entirely unneutral point of view? You would struggle to create the article without either using original research or not using original research but having to rely on unverifiable sources. That's why these are the official policies.
I can see it does not meet criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books), but that is not an "official policy", it is only a "guideline" and until several months ago Notability pages were classified as an "essay" that "expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians".
When an article containing someone's efforts is being stood up for deletion, I do think it is relevant if at least one person talks about whether the article meets criteria laid out in the official policies. - Paxomen 23:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you would support the inclusion of articles on all 2,935,993 books with a higher SalesRank than this one? They're also verifiable by the same method. This kind of problem is the basis for notability requirements, and while they aren't core policy, the existance of SOME kind of notability policy is overwhelmingly supported. I can't imagine any notability critera this book would meet. -Elmer Clark 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many other fictional books low in the sales rank will be works of original fiction not related to television series that drew millions of viewers across the world. I agree the novel is still not very notable, but I think it gets just enough notability (by the skin of its teeth) from being the only unofficial published novel relating to hugely notable Buffy/Angel. -- Paxomen 03:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think the intro meant that it's the only one; it's ambiguous and I read it as unlike [some] other... rather than unlike [all] other... -Elmer Clark 04:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know because I'm a fan of Buffy (and wrote the article), it is the only published Buffy novel not licensed by Fox. -- Paxomen 20:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reviews from reliable sources -- Whpq 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is now, but Keep if reviews or articles discussing the book can be found in reliable sources — in this context, this would include the official Buffy magazine and any Buffy fansites which are themselves sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia articles. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete A listing on Amazon is only valid as a source for the existence of a book. Rank is sort of meaningful, and sometimes there are links to real reviews--not reader reviews--but the bare inclusion is just a listing. DGG 01:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not massively notable, but a good enough and neutral enough article, and it's status as the unique unofficial novel related to "Buffy" makes it a little bit more special than it otherwise would have been. -- Buffyverse 15:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not forget that that statement is unsourced and unverifiable. -Elmer Clark 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Forged in Flames" is the only original unofficial Buffy novel found from "Amazon" (although it can also be found on from various other online retailers), "Google" and so on.. It is certainly clear and verifiable through our access to search engines such as those of Google, Amazon.. that this book is the only unofficial Buffy novel that has been published and is presently widely-available. -- Paxomen 23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a noteworthy claim anyway. Anyone could write and self-publish an unofficial Buffy novel. If anything, being unofficial hurts its claim to notability. -Elmer Clark 01:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically anyone could, but it appears that only one person has, perhaps this was the one person in the world that has had (a) written a Buffy story long enough to be a novel (b) believes it is worthwhile to go on sale, (c) the money to make it happen. Since there is just one, is it really neccessary to delete it? -- Paxomen 13:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a page worth keeping to me. Article describes book well. If some people have a problem with the way it is published, maybe more could be made of that in the article, flesh out what it means that 'AuthorHouse' published this, e.g. 'means that it could have been self-published..' Anyway, I'd say Buffy related stuff is notable, especially if there is only one unofficial novel people can get. Crazybacon 13:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence of multiple nontrivial sources that would provide evidence of notability. Those arguing to keep the article are invited to provide links to sources that would help this article pass the notability requirement, but my search didn't turn up anything that I thought would support keeping it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no refs, no evidence of notability, generally ludicrous. NBeale 12:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:42Z

Traveling Sitting Still[edit]

Soon-to-be-released book self-published through vanity press iUniverse. There are only 13 unique Google hits for this book, and neither they nor the article indicate that it's generating any sort of pre-release buzz that might justify a Wikipedia article. -Elmer Clark 07:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books).--Dacium 07:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have no patience for vanity articles -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unpublished book from a vanity press. If it somehow becomes notable after it is published, by all means recreate the article then. -- Whpq 20:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads like an advertisement. Suriel1981 09:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:41Z

Love in the Time of the Apocalypse[edit]

Book self-published through vanity press iUniverse. Article gives no indication of notability, and of the 25 unique Google hits, only one is neither an online book seller nor postings on Blogger, etc, and that article is not about the book, but simply uses it as an example of self-publishing. amazon.com SalesRank is 1,282,898 -Elmer Clark 07:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books).--Dacium 07:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly non-notable, self-published, original research, etc. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reviews from reliable sources -- Whpq 20:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:41Z

Jason S. Hornsby[edit]

Author known for two books published by vanity press iUniverse. Other than these books, article gives no indication of notability. The article on his recent book, Every sigh, the end, is up for deletion as well. Only 28 unique Google hits for this guy, none of which help to establish notability. Article claims an interview with something called "Omnibus," but whatever it is it has no Wikipedia article, and this briefly-alluded-to interview probably would not be enough for notability anyway. -Elmer Clark 07:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only reference is extremely vague and not even enough for me to look up. Why is the reference partially wikified to the word in general? Are we meant to believe the whole article comes from an interview? Even then no notibility is shown at all to pass WP:BIO, nor is the book passing notbility books guidelines.--Dacium 08:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question has anybody checked the sales figures for his books, or are they sold out of his garage? Alf photoman 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One book is sold through Yahoo, with a rank around 180,000th. --Kevin Murray 19:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book at Amazon.com

Delete - vanity plain and simple.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As written and referenced (interview) this is original research. The reference to a magazine article is compelling assuming good faith that it is more than trivial. Do we have the right to get some details on what the magazine said, before judging the notability? At minimum this is a candidate for a cleanup. --Kevin Murray 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced and of very little note to the rest of the world Alf photoman 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. The fact that the article describes him as an 'underground author' only confirms this.--The Spith 19:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. -- Whpq 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:38Z

Andy Nguyen[edit]

Probably a hoax - can't find any proof on internet to back up claims. Possible autobiography. Prod was already removed, so I brought it here. Rawr 07:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? Seems to be hoax. No one called Andy Nguyen is a Member of the Order of Australia (AO) nor an officer of the order of Australia. see www.itsanhonour.gov.au. No one with the last name Nyugen has been granted either in 2006. I still suspect that there is a problem with the name. Could not find any reference to him at the university.--Dacium 08:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources or references to assert any of the claims in an article about a living person Alf photoman 13:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, nothing seems to check out WP:V --Tikiwont 15:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V -- Whpq 20:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google scholar search for "Andy Nguyen" comes up with plenty of patents by a Sacramento inventor but little or nothing from this supposedly prolific academic. [12]

Dacium's search for his honours has also come up empty so real problems for this under WP:V. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. The contributor of this article has repeatedly been vandalising University of Sydney (history). John Vandenberg 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax - someone as prolific and intelligent as the subject of this article would have a lot more of a Google footprint. Lankiveil 06:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:37Z

Daniel Cure[edit]

Author whose only work is the self-published book The Road to Inherita[nce], from vanity press Trafford Publishing. A Google search for him and his book produces 8 unique hits. The book does not have an amazon.com SalesRank. Other than the book, no other indication of notability is given. Elmer Clark 07:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Delete both The bio page for failing WP:BIO and the book for failing notibility books guidelines.--Dacium 08:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, while it is not the publisher or who paid for a bokks publishing that makes it notable, the fact that Amazon evidently has not sold a single copy of it makes it 100% ignorable Alf photoman 13:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO -- Whpq 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:36Z

List of television shows available in iTunes Store[edit]

spammy, nn list, violates much of WP:NOT Booshakla 07:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could see how this is useful but not encylopedic. Possibly categorise each linked article as Shows Available in Itunes or something.--Dacium 08:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete full stop That's why they have the iTunes Store. They can list the shows they have, not us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harryboyles (talk • contribs) 09:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - it feels too adspammy to me. Though I assume that the authors are acting in good faith, I don't think wikipedia needs this. - Richardcavell 09:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete, listcruft, its redundant keeping such lists as the TV shows available at iTunes Music Store will always be changing. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory - we also don't have lists of every brand of soda available at Wal-mart or brands of clothing they sell at Macy's.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spammy, indiscriminate list. Arkyan 18:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this poster child of list cruft. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, specifically per WP:NOT#DIR. Adambro 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is not encyclopedic-related and therefore does not need a place on Wikipedia. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet guidlines for lists IMHO. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Suppression Control Framework[edit]

I doubt this concept passes the notability requirement. The article includes four references, all by the same group of authors. There is very little to be found on Google. Web of Science only lists two of the four papers, but it does not have any articles referring to them.

I asked the author for comment on User talk:Aux1496 four weeks ago, but I didn't receive a response. The only other edits of the author was to add some of the same references to Artificial immune system. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where is the notibility? There are thousands of papers like that. No wide spread usage or acceptance seen.--Dacium 08:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All 4 of the articles are published in non peer-reviewed sources. Wouldn't justify an article about any of them, let alone a new concept. About as NN as a concept can be. DGG 01:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 22:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taprogge GmbH[edit]

Procedural relisting, after the G11 speedy deletion was overturned at Deletion Review. A consensus at DRV existed to relist at AfD immediately, and as such I abstain as this is procedural. Daniel.Bryant 08:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are no sources at all. Nothing to show notibility, nothing is verifiable. I think the article is very good and should be given a change to provide these things, hopefully during this AfD. Beause of the lack of sources there is a COI in that the info must have come from somebody working for/involved with the company. There are not even clear claims to pass WP:CORP. Will revoke vote if any sources given etc.--Dacium 08:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~, sources are insufficient, but then, from what I know about GmbHs (Corporation with limited liability) they only have to disclose information to the Internal Revenue Department (secret) and to their shareholders. Therefore I see very little chance of finding independent verifiable sources. Alf photoman 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, in view of source found by DGG, but tag as expert needed Alf photoman 13:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The key N considerations are the unsupported claims that "Nearly 90% of all steam power plants in the world are equipped with Taprogge tube cleaning systems and debris filters, and there is a similar market penetration in the industrial sector" Their web site contains "TAPROGGE generated several hundreds of international patents" The basic invention was in 1949, now long out of patent protection, so they have been presumably patenting improved versions on a regular basis.. They do cite a German text on the general subject, which is possible adequate if it were available. If it is in use worldwide it should be possible to source in English. I am not about to do it, as it would be too much work, but at the same time, I am not comfortable deleting it.

The illustrations and most of the text are a clear copy of various parts of their website, but at least some of the images have been given permission in Wikicommons, and I think permission wold be given for the text as well. Someone who actually knows about civil engineering is really needed to edit this. I think it likely that it is indeed N and our problems with it are the style in which it is written, and our unfamiliarity with the appropriate sources. Ref: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week23/OG/html/1307-1/US07055580-20060606.html DGG 03:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text hasn't been taken from the company's homepage but has been translated from the de:Taprogge as the german origin, so there is no copyvio anymore.The same is to be mentioned about the pictures and the grafics. As the first step I would suggest to move the article to an other lemma, Taprogge for example. --Markus Schweiss 12:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As next step I will ask for checkable sources in the english language, I will publish them if possible or link them in the article. --Markus Schweiss 13:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and here are additionally some patents as pdfs:

[13]
[14]

--Markus Schweiss 05:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The intro paragraph needs to be rewritten though. This is just another example of what bull dung the "primary notability criterion" is. This is a mid-sized German engineering company, active since the 1950s. Does anyone actually think it has never been covered by neutral sources? The point of creating specialized notability criteria was to establish cases where notability is not in doubt, even though secondary sources might not be easily accessible. Clearly this is given here (and btw, there are 29 English language sources in Factiva). Abtw, the German version is considered "Lesenswerter Artikel" (cf. "Good article"), so much for G11. trialsanderrors 21:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG source finding. This appears to be a technologically notable company. --Oakshade 17:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only want to inform the members of the board that Mr. Markus Schweiß is involved in a conflict of interest belonging this article, because he is a fully employed sales rep. for this company. Other companies who have got the same size will never be mentioned in the englisch wikipedia neither in the german wikipedia. Kind regards You can directly get him on the phone under the number 237--80.144.245.53 12:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Rlevse 14:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baldev Raj Gupta[edit]

Indian author/academic whose name might also be Baladwa Rāja Gupatā from a book ref[15]. Brought from prod to AFD to be sure: the prod nomination just said "nn", but the article does assert "honoured by" the Government of India. Mereda 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- DrKiernan 08:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would prefer the tags are put on and the article and that it is left for a few months. Tagging after/at AfD gives no change for authors to respond who might not be aware of the full requirements of notibility and verifiability. I think the nomination should be revoked.--Dacium 08:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - the article asserts that he's written a number of books and received honours, which might make him notable, but reliable independent sources are needed to back up this assertion. Delete unless sources can be found by the end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 10:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the total lack of sources leave no choice Alf photoman 13:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googling does reveal that he has authored at least two or three books, but none of these results indicate notability. utcursch | talk 14:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amazon[16] and WorldCat[17] results indicate his name is probably "Baladwa Rāja Gupatā" or "Baladewa Rāja Gupatā"; using the later as a search term for WorldCat returns quite a few more results[18] for books that are quite widely distributed to libraries. John Vandenberg 04:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the current information. Publications are sufficient N.DGG 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Books seem to be notable.Baka man 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there seems to be enough. Perhaps we could organize this a little better with a checklist. As is , we seem to among ourselves be rewriting quite a lot of bios that should have been done better in the first place. DGG 06:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please only !vote once per nomination Pete.Hurd 06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RAWNet[edit]

Contested PROD, seems like NN web radio station. Delete Kesac 19:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I ask this - What about other radio stations that are web based on here? Or Online games? Or anything for that matter? This article has been up for at most 1-2 weeks and is still in the process of editing, which is being hampered by users on here seemingly wanting to delete it before it can get off the ground. I have a serious issue with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.91.58 (talk • contribs)
- The question is how notable this radio station is, not about other articles.. As a side note, while doing a little deeper research into "Rawnet", it seems that this term is also used to refer to Resource allocation in Wireless Networks. RAWnet workshop Kesac 04:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally I would say let them have more time to show notibility. But in this case the article is reaks of SPAM and advertising. Displaying the current shows and times that they are on etc. Author does not seem able to provide notibility per WP:WEB or WP:ORG requirements.--Dacium 08:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable website, spam article. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by me. It's been deleted many times before and cannot survive this AfD debate. - Richardcavell 09:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Clockcrew[edit]

No explanation of notability. Ben W Bell talk 08:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Definitly could be speedied under A7 - Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content The Kinslayer 09:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete NN web group, tagged as such --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 09:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:35Z

Paul Campbell (Karateka)[edit]

Not-notable (local). Also it appears to fail WP:OR, WP:BIO and .... Peter Rehse 08:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sounds like a decent fellow, but he's just not encyclopedia material. There are countless traditional karate schools out there. - Richardcavell 09:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability per WP:BIO; no independent external sources. Walton monarchist89 09:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Suriel1981 11:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:35Z

List of bands with no lineup changes[edit]

Indiscriminate, unencyclopedic list —Doug Bell ^talk 08:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands with only one consistent member. Personally I would have nominated all three "lists of bands with..." as one AfD. Walton monarchist89 09:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Arkyan 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walton monarchist89. JuJube 03:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:34Z

List of bands with no consistent members[edit]

Indiscriminate, unencyclopedic list, can never be complete. Previous AfD closed as no consensus. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands with only one consistent member. Walton monarchist89 09:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Arkyan 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walton monarchist89. JuJube 03:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:32Z

List of bands with only one consistent member[edit]

Indescriminate unencyclopedic list, can never be complete —Doug Bell ^talk 08:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary list per WP:LIST; also unverifiable and original research, as the term "consistent member" is subjective. Walton monarchist89 09:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Arkyan 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walton monarchist89. JuJube 03:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Grimhim 09:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:32Z

Saleem Jahangir[edit]

No ghits except those generated via wikipedia. Peter Rehse 08:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, unverified, no evidence of independent external coverage to establish notability. Walton monarchist89 09:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced article asserting claims about a living person Alf photoman 14:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:V, WP:BIO. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No info except from mirror sites. Suriel1981 14:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also searched Newsbank and found nothing. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:32Z

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have covered songs by The Smiths[edit]

Unencyclopedic list; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information —Doug Bell ^talk 08:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - unnecessary list per WP:LIST, and probably comes under WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Also currently unverified (although it should be possible to verify it, as the criteria for inclusion are quite specific and aren't subjective or random). Walton monarchist89 09:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep Probably a reasonable split of valuable information from The Smiths, whose songs are frequently covered. As long as artists are notable. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. If the original songs are notable the covers can be mentioned in the song article, and the covers can also be mentioned in the articles for those covering them. Otto4711 20:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would expect that a song that gets covered by multiple notable artists is automatically notable itself per WP:N. I suppose this info could be split out, and a WP:CAT (i.e. Category:Smith's Songs covered by other artists could be used to cover this. Seems like a bit of footwork.... -- Kendrick7^talk 20:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. This is but one important band, of many. Just multiply that by a few hundred times, and for good measure add the Beatles, Stones, Quincy Jones, Jean-Jacques Goldman, Michel Berger, 黃霑 and you will see the unmaintanable scale of the potential problem. Ohconfucius 09:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merged. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bhekar Ro[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danlev (talk • contribs) 2007/02/19 07:31:43

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article on StarCraft or create a List of locations in the StarCraft series. No evidence of real-world notability to merit its own article per WP:FICT. Walton monarchist89 09:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Walton. --Parker007 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I merged it to List of locations in the StarCraft series. - Peregrine Fisher 22:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I guess this discussion is closed. :). --Parker007 23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. TigerShark 13:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Baggs[edit]

Article has already been created and deleted in the past. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Baggs and the deletion log. The subject has been interviewed by CNN and has videos on YouTube. I would say that one CNN interview and having videos on YouTube is insufficient grounds for notability. ~~I think~~ Amanda Baggs has stated on her blog ~~in March or April 2006~~ that she did not want a Wikipedia article. In addition, on a recent blog entry [19] Amanda Baggs has expressed dislike towards the recent media attention. ~~Delete~~ as unnotable. Q0 09:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Comment: It was February 27, 2006 (not March or April) when she made the statement that she did not want a Wikipedia article. Q0 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction from nominator: I am the one who nominated this article for deletion. At this point, I'd be willing to retract my nomination, if Wikipedia allows nominators to retract AfD's. If I cannot retract my nomination, I would like to retract my delete vote and change my vote to No vote. Q0 21:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - having an interview on CNN may count as non-trivial coverage in independent sources per WP:BIO; however, more than one external source is ideally needed. Delete unless sources are added. (Incidentally, whether or not the subject wants a Wikipedia article has no bearing on their inclusion. If George W. Bush announced that he didn't want a Wikipedia article, that wouldn't be grounds to delete him. The same notability standards apply to everyone.) Walton monarchist89 09:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think that in cases of borderline notability, whether or not a person wants an article should be taken into consideration. Concerns about privacy and information that might be damaging or otherwise sensitive are awkward issues for those who are not used to being written about. Q0 10:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "Not used to being written about"? She consented to being interviewed on CNN by Anderson Cooper and Sanjay Gupta, and worked hard to get it done. How can you be sure where she stands on the privacy issue today? Jim Butler^(talk) 20:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: When I talked about people not used to being written about, I did was not referring to Amanda specifically, but I meant that I expect that it is common for non-public people to not be used to being written about and would be uncomfortable to have a Wikipedia article, and that therefore, it should be reasonable to take a person's preference to not have an article into consideration in cases of borderline notability. Q0 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I acknowledge and respect the privacy issue, but I don't think you've demonstrated that this case is "borderline". Three independent CNN pieces do not = borderline. Squarely within WP:BIO and WP:N. That is not the issue here. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In April 2006, the CNN stuff didn't exist, nor (AFAIK) did any other good secondary source, so notability was at that time a valid concern. The article could have been created and deleted a thousand times between then and now, but the new mass media cites change everything. Now that the CNN article exists, the article passes WP's primary notability criterion in exactly the same way other activists like Jim Sinclair and Sue Rubin do. WP:N says A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other. ... (snip)... For example, several newspapers all publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works, while several researchers or journalists all doing their own research on a single subject and writing their own separate articles do constitute "multiple" sources. At CNN we have A. Chris Gajilan[20], Sanjay Gupta [21] and Anderson Cooper [22] reporting separately. Seems a pretty clear-cut keep to me, per WP:N. If the concern is about other issues, like privacy, then let's just discuss those. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 10:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jim Butler, and expand. As long as the article adheres to WP:BLP standards and is correct there's no reason not to have it now that the notability criteria has been met. 23skidoo 13:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Artaxiad 15:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Jim Butler. Notability has been established. I hope to see an expansion in the article with more sources. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just being interviewed about your medical condition is not notability. There seems to be nothing beyond this interview, either; Google News Archive has nothing. Given there is no compelling reason to retain this article, WP:BLP's presumption in favor of privacy seems to be appropriate here. --Dhartung | Talk 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Just being interviewed about your (disability)" -- please let's be clear about the facts here. She was interviewed on CNN, about a YouTube video she posted to raise awareness of her disability, and (per CNN and her linked self-published material) is a longtime activist and self-advocate in disability rights. That is pretty clear evidence of consent and cooperation toward getting her message into the public eye, and unambiguously meets WP:N. How is a WP article that strictly follows such sources an invasion of privacy?

With regard to non-public figures, WP:BLP says:

In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source....(snip)... in borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

I was judiciously attentive to WP:N and WP:BLP when I created the article. If Amanda Baggs has decided (recently, not in April 2006, before she did the YouTube and CNN thing) that she wants the article removed, then I'll go along with that, even though I believe the article is compliant. Perhaps what would be more appropriate than deleting would be concerned editors watching the article and helping keep it up to par. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: [23] is the blog entry from February 27, 2006 where Amanda Baggs expresses the desire to not have a Wikipedia article (in comment #5). She seems to suggest that a biographical article would require original research. Q0 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, but how do you know that she didn't change her mind between then and now, especially since she so recently consented to go through all the interviews and Q&A at CNN? Not meaning to be contentious, Q0, just trying to ask the right questions. I don't see how the article does harm, being based not in original research but rather in reliable sources. WP bio articles are explicitly not intended as a vehicle for editors to do original research, and such attempts are quickly quashed by other alert editors. Jim Butler^(talk) 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know if Amanda has changed her views since February, 27 2006 about not wanting a Wikipedia article. ~~Even though the current article is not based on original research, I'm not sure it could go beyond being a stub since there is only one CNN interview to base it on.~~ I'll try asking Amanda on her blog if she has changed her mind about not wanting an article, though since she said she won't be writing much in the near future due to disliking the media attention, I don't know if she will reply. Given that she considers the media attention as a necessary evil to getting the information out and wished she was not the messenger, I would not consider the fact that she consented to a CNN interview to be evidence that she has changed her mind about the wikipedia article. Q0 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Necessary evil" sums up the issue well; Amanda recognizes that it's inherently hard for self-advocates to convey their ideas without some degree of attention to the messenger. I agree that the message is more important than the messenger, and I believe we can get it across in WP with or without an article on Amanda herself, although having the article would be more helpful than not for this reason: the ability to cite self-published sources by the article's subject. That would allow greater dissemination of Amanda's ideas, which is kind of the whole point of her activism, right? Either way, the CNN articles (again, there are three of them[24][25][26], Q0, not one) have lots of great quotes from experts that can and should be included in WP. (Along those lines, the article could indeed grow beyond stub status, via CNN and her own non-pseudonymous, verifiably self-published work.) Amanda, if you're reading this, I hope you understand my rationale, and am sorry if you didn't want this article to appear. If it stays, I and other editors will keep it well within appropriate boundaries; WP:BLP is very clear about those. I only wanted to help raise awareness, not stress levels. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 04:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not intend to raise stress levels and did not realize that this AFD would generate this much debate. I apologize if anyone has been upset by this. I should say that I do not speak for Amanda and can only go by what I have read from her blog. If Amanda says that she has changed her mind about her previous preference to not have a Wikipedia article, then I will retract my delete vote, and if possible, I will retract the AFD (I'm not sure if nominators can retract an AFD). Also, I think Jim Butler has a point that Amanda's blog entries and other writings can be used as references so I guess the article can grow beyond a stub. Q0 06:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi, I'm the subject of this article. My main concerns in the past were that the article in Wikipedia contained some information about me that was unintentionally inaccurate (as I recall, it was someone saying that I'd been institutionalized my entire childhood, which is not true, I was institutionalized on and off throughout my adolescence), but since I was the only source of information otherwise or of most biographical information about me, it would constitute original research to correct it or for that matter to write a biographical article on me at all. I still don't think there's much out there (given that I've only been in CNN, for a very short amount of time, and doubt I'm really a public figure), but I'm indifferent at this point as long as Jim or someone keeps on top of it for inaccuracies, since I know we're not allowed to edit articles about ourselves. Silentmiaow 15:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello, and thank you very much for taking the time to comment here. Yes, you have my firm commitment that I'll keep close tabs on this article (it it's retained) for inaccurate or inappropriate material(and I'm sure I won't be the only one). I also wanted to say that your hands are not tied with respect to editing; see these two sections from WP:BLP: dealing with edits by the subject of the article; using the subject as a source. Not only can you correct inaccuracies if you choose, it's no longer original research to do so since self-published material by the article's subject is considered an acceptable primary source (as I mentioned just above, and within the parameters of WP:BLP: not just any random quote can or should be used). So you may make such changes, or feel free to contact me or another editor. All the best to you, Jim Butler^(talk) 01:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject's desire to be in or out of WP is irrelevant, per precedents. I see three respected journalists through one credible medium CNN; to me that provides the multiple; however, the multiple criterion is being disputed at WP:NOTE and consideration of one strong source is being acknowledged by many without clear consensus. Clearly this is above trivial notice; whether it is important or not is not required by WP. --Kevin Murray 20:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted. ITAQALLAH 01:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salaami[edit]

The article written here is a very obscure topic in Islamic theology with little details about it. I usually am cautious about recommending things for deletion but this topic is not well known and has little basis. Even the name "Salaami" in Arabic doesn't make sense for this term as it just means "My peace" which isn't the point. It seems like part of a campaign to put references to Ahmed Rida Khan in as many articles as possible. ZaydHammoudeh 09:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by me. The original name used for this poetry in India & Pakistan is Salaam or Durood o Salaam. The link I followed about salaam had an entry about it being called salaami (I personally havent heard that ever). I just created the article and moved the text there. Alternative name is Darood-e-pak found at Darood. I can however suggest to merge the article with Durood.

I agree with posting of link and will cleanup the article now and will merge the article if agreed. --Webkami 12:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the cleaned up text to related article. This article can be deleted. I will fix the links to this article later. --Webkami 12:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete No content--Sefringle 03:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Only useful info is now moved to correct articles. --Webkami 09:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As link to salami was added we can also replace the page with a redirect page to salami. --Webkami 09:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G7. ITAQALLAH 16:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Cbrown1023 talk 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revacuee[edit]

Nelogism, dictionary definition, possible original research Clay Collier 09:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary as this is a dictionary definition. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki then Delete --Parker007 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mujahid centre[edit]

Article doesn't make sense and not much information about this group ZaydHammoudeh 10:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can not really understand at all what this article is talking about. The group "Mujahid Centre" is not well known nor deserving of an article on Wikipedia. When you put the search in Google, you only get 86 hits. This article seems more an advertisement for these groups. ZaydHammoudeh 09:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:N, WP:V. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what I can tell from the Ghits, the Centre is a building or campus that serves as the headquarters of the Kerala Nadvathul Mujahideen and various subordinate organizations. I do not see much in the article that is not in the KNM entry, though a line about the Mujahid Centre could be added to the latter. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Parker007 18:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Castillo[edit]

Non-notable - claim to fame is a loss because of a cut eye? Peter Rehse 09:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, non suitable for mainspace. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - only one external link; no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources. I know very little about martial arts and can't say whether this person is notable, but delete unless sources are added to demonstrate notability. Walton monarchist89 09:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's 8-5 in MMA, and has fought in the UFC. That makes him at least as notable as any Major League Baseball player. - Richardcavell 09:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Subject has appeared on multiple UFC pay-per-views, which definitely satisfies the "at the highest level" criteria of WP:BIO. The IMDb entry for the PPV verifies this. Caknuck 17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete but could be convinced otherswise with some reliable sources. Please contact me if the article improves. --Kevin Murray 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, mixed martial arts (MMA) have only hit the mainstream in the last two or three years. Because of that, it's difficult to tell what sources are reputable just yet. The event card from the UFC Web page confirmed the subject fought on the PPV, as do plenty of other MMA-related sites. As far as the MMA industry goes, UFC is the premier organization (over PRIDE and Pancrase). So getting a UFC title shot certainly should satisy notability requirements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caknuck (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Claim to fame is not so much that he lost to Matt Hughes because of a cut, but the fact that he was contesting for the UFC Welterweight Championship. That's a pretty big deal in mixed martial arts. Comfortably meets WP:BIO standards for athletes. SubSeven 20:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SubSeven but criteria for inclusion of sports people should be reviewed. Albatross2147 06:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I originally came across the page because it was uncategorized - could someone take care of that.Peter Rehse 05:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Caknuck 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:29Z

List of Khatri surnames[edit]

(View AfD)

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language or culture (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary (see wikt:Appendix:Khatri surnames) and may now be deleted. Recently, all lists of given names have been moved to Wiktionary and deleted; it is policy for such list of names to be transwikied and then deleted.

See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of hypocoristics, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 10:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as transwikied. -- Black Falcon 22:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#DIR. utcursch | talk 10:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress 4GL[edit]

Non-Notable subject matter, other than a promotion piece Hu12 10:52, 23 February 2007

Strong Keep - it's the major product from a notable software company. -- Whpq 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep --lauri 21:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The major problem with the article is lack of notability information in the article itself. Discussion indicates that the subject itself is somewhat notable, though it too is lacking in specifics. Saligron 09:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - it may not be as well known as some languages, but with over 5 million users of applications written in the language and over $5 billion in annual sales by partners using the language, it is certainly significant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamhas (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment New user account 21:59, 26 February 2007 --Hu12 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - Clearly meets requirements for notability MNewnham 14:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - Significant computer language cannot be ignored. Tindwcel 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete At least while the article contains no claim to notability. In fact at present I think it qualifies for speedy delete (A7)... --BozMo talk 10:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, though feel free to contact me if you disagree, and we'll try and work it out. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, the deletion was improper but was undone by the closing administrator. KazakhPol 19:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism in Kazakhstan[edit]

Strongly violates WP:NPOV WP:AD WP:NOT. It is a biased personal essay rather than an encyclopedic entry. At least two users tried for almost a month to edit the article to confirm with WP:AD WP:NPOV have failed because of creator's relentless reverts. Previous efforts included dozens of attempts to replace title and section titles to confirm with WP:AD WP:NPOV, merge the article with Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan which is a much more relevant title for the content of the page, and editing to avoid unneccesary and biased use of the term terrorism. All failed, so I am nominating it for the community's attention. cs 11:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refer to any number of dispute resolution options. If you want to get people's attention, this is not it. AFD is not the place for content disputes or cleanup. Since you're not advocating outright deletion, I suggest this be speedy closed and referred else where. FrozenPurpleCube 11:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be completely re-written, if it stays, it still refers to groups are terrorists in the narrative voice violating WP:WTA, and still refers to Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist group, or memebrs as "terror cells". I suggest we keep it on condition that it is merged with Counter-terrorism_in_Kazakhstan, and Cooperation between Kazakhstan and the United States in Counter-terrorism, then all the POVs removed. Aaliyah Stevens 12:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article's bias is beyond dispute resolution. Tried for more than a month, failed. I have a god damn Ph.D that says there is no terrorism in Kazakhstan contrary to the title of this entry. Is this an encyclopedia or a make-believe political forum?cs 12:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your possession of any degree is not convincing, especially since I have no way to verify that for myself. However, given that your claim is rather broad, and I can find reputable news sources that cover the subject...I would tend to doubt your claim. FrozenPurpleCube 19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you go on checking SSCI articles, or JSTOR or Proquest on "Terrorism in Kazakhstan" before doubting anything you may do yourself a service.cs 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, there are articles regarding terrorism in Kazakhstan? Again, this concern is not a deletion issue. It's a dispute resolution problem. FrozenPurpleCube 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is none. That is what makes it a problem for an encyclopedic entry. Regarding the news sources, I have waited more than a month to see a single news article citing a terror case in Kazakhstan. cs 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't have to a news article about a case of terrorism in Kazakhstan, the fact is, Terrorism and Kazakhstan are not unrelated concepts, and the subject does exist. It is not a concept without some information to be found. If you have differences regarding the current content, or even the article title, this is not the forum for it, and you need to work on it in a different way. WP:DR is what you want, not AfD. As I said to start with, this is the wrong way to go about resolving your problems with this page. FrozenPurpleCube 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETEI tend to agree with delete considering that there is not a single incident of terrorism in kazakhstan, so the whole article could be seen as a red-herring, or a sensationalisation of a phenomena that barely exists in this country.

1 There has not been a single terrorist bombing in Kazakhstan
2 The title says terrorism IN Kazakhstan, assuming there is terrorism IN the country when there isn't any recorded incident of it
3 The article is so littered with use of the words "terrorist", "terror cell", and "terrorist literature" used in the narrative voice violating WP:WTA it will be difficult to fix
4 The article assumes all groups that are banned by the government, are done so for terrorism, or accused of terrorism by the government, when actually the government itself in the source says that e.g. Hizb ut-tahrir is not banned for terrorism, but banned for "extremism". This article is well beyond repair.

Aaliyah Stevens 13:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an attempt to anger me by deleting an article I frequently edit. If you look at the history of the page you will see there has been nothing but disruption from Aaliyah Stevens and Cs. They want to 'rewrite' the articles to reflect their personal pov, which is pretty off-the-wall. KazakhPol 15:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Aaliyah Stevens' edits to Hizb ut-Tahrir and you will understand why she is so angry Wikipedia has an article on this. KazakhPol 15:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close AfD is not an appropriate dispute-resolution method. It is only for deletion, whereas the nom has suggested merge. If there is an ongoing content dispute about the article, please consider mediation, WP:RFC, or (as a last step) arbitration. However, be aware the last two processes may involve the imposition of binding decisions and possible warnings/blocks for inappropriate behavior for one or all sides in a dispute. -- Black Falcon 22:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable concept.--Sefringle 06:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Black Falcon's reasoning. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly encyclopedic. - Peregrine Fisher 07:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. KazakhPol does almost nothing on Wikipedia but push the POV that certain Islamic groups and political parties are terrorists, some of whom are not on the usual designated terrorist lists, which he has been told a thousand times. It seems that, for KazakhPol, if you're Islamic, you're ipso facto a terrorist. This article is an example of his extreme POV, and it will be very hard to fix it given the amount of work that would need to be done to find out which parts, if any, are accurately written up and cited. How many actual terrorist attacks have there been in Kazakhstan? Another editor has told me there have been none. It would be best to delete this and start from scratch with a new title and an entirely neutral approach. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You sunk to a new low. - trying to delete an article I edited to spite me - I did not think it was possible but you proved me wrong. Do me a favor, find me a single reference that is either unreliable or distorted. KazakhPol 18:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KazakhPol, practically every time you encounter me, I've sunk to a new low. :-) Can you produce a source showing there have been any actual terrorist acts in Kazakhstan? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attempt to cover up your incivility with a smiley face. Regretting your earlier post? Not surprising. I do not have to present proof of a terrorist act, I only have to present proof that is a valid, encyclopedia concept. The fact that has been discussed, that they arrest and deport suspects, that the government has been accused of sponsoring terrorism, makes this a valid entry as those all fall under the umbrella topic of terrorism in kazakhstan. This was already explained above by other users. KazakhPol 18:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot to respond to your smear of my editing - "for KazakhPol, if you're Islamic you're ipso facto a terrorist." Go read Terrorism in Greece. Or how about the page move history of Zionist political violence and Apartheid in Israel. KazakhPol 18:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin and KazakhPol, please try to be civil when making your points. I understand if you two have a long history and feel exasperated with each other, but nasty accusations aren't appropriate in an AfD. You can make your points without them. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid, I've been perfectly civil, and I have no "long history" with KazakhPol. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable subject, and the material in the article is supported by many good references. -- Karl Meier 20:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This article seems to cover everything except terrorism in Kazakhstan. How much longer is this kind of nonsense going to be allowed? —Viriditas | Talk 01:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it needs name and thorough content change --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Legacy[edit]

Non-notable and non-verified online reality game. The notability of online reality games in general is debatable and this one does not appear to have made any significant cultural impact. Absolutely nothing links here. MLA 11:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I'd add that the only substantive contributions were by a single-purpose account that has only edited this page and the then related Online Reality Games pages all on the same day last year. MLA 12:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Suriel1981 14:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 22:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Railpage Australia[edit]

This article sounds badly written and pretty much reads like a advertisment, yet the site itself is a popular place for trainspotters worldwide to get / exchange pictures and information of trains, infrastructure, and the like. I'll admit that I'm a railfan myself (heck, got a userbox in my user page), but many railfans and transportation fans in general worldwide visit the reguarly. No vote, but could do with a cleanup and a bit of expansion --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not an article. It's a stub. I've cleaned it up and added your observation. It's contradictory to nominate an article for deletion and then assert that it's popular! If that's true, I suggest you withdraw the nom (and add to the article). Tyrenius 17:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll admitted earlier that I'm a railfan myself. However, I did felt the stub sounded like a advertisement however. It did meet WP:WEB after a check. [27]. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 22:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transplants (70s band)[edit]

No establishment of notability. Ben W Bell talk 12:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the provided Allmusic reference actually says that "the Transplants were never really a first-string band, and they were all but unknown outside of the Highway 128 corridor." --Tikiwont 13:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. --Parker007 18:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni-Battista_Pierogli[edit]

Based on both the content and the lack of an entry in Greene's Encyclopedia or any Google result, this is certainly a hoax. Stephen Burnett 12:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources present, no sources found (WP:V) --Tikiwont 15:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the absences of sources in the article or from searches makes this fail WP:V. Nuttah68 11:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneycroft[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:LOCAL. Nv8200p talk 13:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is Stoneycroft in some way less notable than other districts of Liverpool, or are you planning to nominate all of them for deletion? --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless they meet WP:LOCAL. -Nv8200p talk 13:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article currently has very little content but communities/locations such as city districts and villages are generally notable. I think this article needs improvement, not deletion. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a real district in a major metorpolitan area. Inherently notable. --Oakshade 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the precedents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Nuttah68 11:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it just needs some historical information and other additions. Of course it should not be deleted. L1v3rp00l 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:26Z

Bryan_Mastergeorge[edit]

Article contains nonsense and unverified information on an unremarkable person Svart kultur 13:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a hoax or attack page. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A quick Google search reveals that there is probably a real Bryan Mastergeorge, but that he is not an eccentric rock star. Hoax page. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ordinary Summer (second nomination). --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7/Attack. Leuko 19:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Νάγος Σπυρίδων[edit]

Not in English Nv8200p talk 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Article written in a foreign language. Cate |_Talk 15:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

neutral/weak delete. per Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 January 28/Articles and foreign language don't help me to check better . Cate |_Talk 11:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; article has been properly listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English since Jan. 28, so its process has run. The article is written in modern Greek, which I sometimes have difficulty following, but appears to be a signed biography of a religious writer. Google searches in either Greek or English variants of the name (Spyridon, Spiridon) bring forth mostly Wikipedia and clones, suggesting limited notability even in Greece. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, my (sometimes limited) knowledge of Gree reveals that the article is completely unsourced and unreferenced, therefore it cannot assert notability Alf photoman 15:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments - if it's not going to get translated, then it's not going to get translated, let's not just leave it sitting there.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete There seems to be some suggestion that the page was not uploaded by the author, it is not in English and therefore it is impossible for most to find out whether there is a copyright problem. If I can worj out how I'll put a speedy delete tag on it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haseler (talk • contribs) 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

For info:Bablefish translation of "main" part:

“

Mr Varvare'son and other socialists that had finished their study in Germany, the oma's of Na'goy it gave and then "present" and it constituted the trunke of that progressive Organisation, that the Greek public him was accepted with enthusiasm. Atyhw's, from the beginning that ideological Organisation suffered political and party erosion and fyllorro'ise inopportunely, after it convulsed enough the political circles of our country. In 1915 the Na'gos registers in the Ceosofjki' Company and becomes chairman of Gallery "Apollo". His passage from there was short. Kaj'toj it nourished admiration for the founder of E'lena Petro'vna Mplava'tsky, the structure and the lack of - methodology suitable for that system, that however Aspired was elected the institution of Arhaj'as Sofia in the West him did not satisfy. This was in short and general lines the ideological event and drastirjo'tis the Na'goy, in his way through the various organisations that acted then in various social sectors. His passage from them scattered the radiation of his possible personality. Those who collaborated and him they knew closely, always they remember with admiration his superiority his morals, his inhexaustible kindness, his immense knowledge and the force of his always equitable crisis.

”

I'm not at all sure that even if it were translated it would satisfy the criteria of notability. I strongly suggest that before someone translates it, they put a brief summary of the main aspects of this person's life on the page in the quite likely event it comes back for AfD even when translated Mike 16:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 8comment If kept, the title should probably need to be changed to a transliterated title, but I dont know what the usual practice is on this.DGG 22:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, "E'lena Petro'vna Mplava'tsky" appears to be Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, and "Arhaj'as Sofia" is actually ancient wisdom. "Ceosofjki' Company" is likely the Theosophical Society. We have a Greek writer on spiritual themes, who was early attracted to Theosophy, and who struck out on his own path. The lack of Google hits suggests that this fellow has few followers today; the existence of this article suggests that he has at least one. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. —An gr 17:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:27Z

The Ordinary Summer[edit]

Non-notable band, has been deleted before via AfD in 2005 but apparently this version is different. The article has no sources and Google gets very few related hits. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Mastergeorge. KFP (talk | contribs) 14:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article full of nonsensical self-aggrandizement. TheLetterM 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Douaihy[edit]

This is an article about a Lebanese family. The article has a fairly long history of problems: it was deleted once as a copyright violation but recreated in good faith by the holder of the copyright. However, the tone of the article is clearly unencyclopedic and requests for sources have been systematically removed. The article is full of peacock terms and sentences (for example: "Throughout history, the El Douaihys endowed the community with a whole host of illustrious men of swords and cassock". I've tagged it a few times for NPOV (this version and the one previously deleted), tried removing the more ludicrously positive sentences, added requests for citations, engaged in dialog with the creator to explain my concerns. Once again, all tags have been removed by Douaihy (talk · contribs) so I think it's time to just shut down the page. Pascal.Tesson 14:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does need significant improvement and POV hunting, but I think information on Lebanese feudal families is good to have on Wikipedia. I don't think issues with the editor are sufficient justification to delete the article. If Douaihy continues his/her disruptive editing there are other venues to persue.—LestatdeLioncour t 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see what you mean but I'd like to clear something up: I'm not nominating the article for AfD solely on the basis of POV concerns although that's what tipped the scale for me. The article is unsourced and there's no indication that it can be properly sourced from reference material that would be independent of the El Douaihy family. Pascal.Tesson 12:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a collection of speculation and vanity. Nowhere does it make a claim to why the entire family is notable or provide any sources. If someone can create properly sourced articles for individuals fair enough. Nuttah68 11:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles about families tread very close to what Wikipedia is WP:NOT (i.e. webspace provider, directory). That is not to say that we should never have articles about families or clans, but, like Nuttah, I think it's usually better to have individual articles about notable persons in the family. An article about the family requires independant notability of the family, and there is none cited in the article. This, combined with the above WP:COI and WP:NPOV concerns compel me to support deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect to prevent re-creating the article per nom. --Parker007 18:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daemora[edit]

Fails WP:Notability - few non-wiki g-hits, most of which are myspace postings. Band has only recorded a single demo. Creator contested prod, and may have a conflict of interest. Kathy A. 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND --Tikiwont 15:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spearhead 19:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Richhoncho 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Rlevse 21:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Ramlu[edit]

NN academic. Prod tag was removed with little improvement to the article. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Greatest claim to notability is being acting director of a (very) notable college. The "acting" label troubles me, as he likely spent a short time in the role, and likely only because someone vacated the position unexpectedly. Nothing else in the article demonstrates adequate notability. Caknuck 16:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. I removed the prod as I didn't feel it was a case for uncontroversial deletion. My search for additional information to establish notability per WP:BIO was largely unsuccessful. I'd support keeping if additional information was added, but as the article currently stands, I believe it ought to be deleted. -- Black Falcon 18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I am changing my suggestion following the improvements made by John Vandenberg and this excerpt from the second source: "Head, Department of Mining Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur for nearly twenty years". A 20-year department head of a major national technology institute is notable (could do with some better sources though). -- Black Falcon 23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Mereda 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. What's there seems verifiable. And if he were really head of IIT Kharagpur I'd say keep. But acting head for a few months until a new head could be found doesn't seem quite so notable, and his research doesn't seem to have made much impact. —David Eppstein 16:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep--quite apart from acting director, professor at a major research university is N, and he has been--the iIT is the premier engineering university in India. The article just needs expansion.DGG 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep; I've expanded it a little. The book "Mine Disasters and Mine Rescue" is quite widely distributed, lending itself to possibly being a set textbook. Reliable sources arnt easy to find. John Vandenberg 22:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - breing head of a major dept of IIT asserts notability.Baka man 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable per moi. --Parker007 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

350Boiz[edit]

Contested proposed deletion (WP:N) Tikiwont 15:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Only claim to notability is "They are widely known for their customised T-shirts displaying their names, website and slogans..." The only references are four MySpace pages. Caknuck 15:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A7 I would contend that niether wearing special T-Shirts nor "many appearances in the Telford area" consitutes a proper claim to notablity. But fails WP:Band and WP:Vanity anyway. A1octopus 14:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Gray[edit]

non notable, needs better links about verifiability. I think he is Lawrence Gray (II) in IMdB (nothing notable), but: IMdB has no Fat Englishmen film, he is not listed in the producer list of Walk The Line Cate |_Talk 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no third-party external sources provided to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless more sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf^Photoman 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audio standards[edit]

This article barely makes sense. All I can see is that it appears to be a list of regulation numbers, with absolutely no context to show what they are or how they are worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Sable232 15:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary list per WP:LIST; criteria for inclusion unclear; WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Walton monarchist89 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no context, no criteria for inclusion... good example of failing LIST. SkierRMH 20:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So out of context that it's completely indecipherable. My guess is that it may have just been pasted from somewhere. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Pippy[edit]

Nonnotable child actress; probable autobiography given the content listing all her amateur stage roles. IMDB lists two roles -- one-shot appearances on Monk and Suite Life of Zack and Cody. I don't think that's enough. Reposted after two deletions (1 speedy, 1 prod); let's get a definitive ruling here. NawlinWiki 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claims to notability are not substantial enough for an encyclopedia article, and the tone is not neutral, which suggests a conflict of interest. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, obvious conflict of interest, original research.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail as spam and original research. Would reverse if rewritten with references. --Kevin Murray 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temerloh rest and service area[edit]

A rest and service area does not meet notability guidelines and this is just any ordinary rest stop. It is just like a fact sheet and has no encyclopedic value. Nothing notable about this rest and service area. This is one of the many Malaysian RSA articles . Delete Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating all the pages categorised in this category. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable service area. Wikipedia is not a list of everything. Contains information which is totally trivial such as how many petrol pumps there are in each direction. Jules1975 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or weak Keep per similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services - Neier 00:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable as mentioned. A list of service stations doesn't seem very encyclopaedic. Suriel1981 10:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Similar in character as the hundreds of stubs about masts which were deleted not long ago. Ohconfucius 09:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the road articles using a logic based on WP:LOCAL. These are not widely notable but have a level of note to the users of the road. Nuttah68 11:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. If this is not expanded beyond a single sentence in the near future, please merge as appropriate. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph Academy (Cleveland, Ohio)[edit]

Non-notable school, nearly 11 months old and never expanded. Seinfreak37 15:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Expand WP:SCHOOL --Djsasso 17:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Expand WP:SCHOOL --Hornandsoccer _Contribs ^Talk 21:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable school with a one sentence article. 11 months is more than long enough for some sort of expansion. Soltak | Talk 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Expand Noroton 15:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or cite, and AfD is not a vote. There is no assertion of notability by secondary source citation, and I can't find a thing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, there are plenty of administrators who will close this debate in accordance with their own preferences, and without any regard for out community guidelines on the need for independent references. Further, a large number of administrators do tend to treat these discussions as votes, alas. WMMartin 14:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The school was established in 1890, and according to its website is the only all-girl Catholic high school in the City of Cleveland.[28] I'd still like to see more in the way of sources (especially secondary sources), but that's enough of a claim of notability for me to say keep. --El on ka 22:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced. The assertions about age and gender-specificity are in no way notable, as these are perfectly within the normal range for peer schools. Finally, this article lacks independent references, which Wikipedia's guidelines say all articles should have. WMMartin 14:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree there is some serious expansion (maybe there website (if there is one) would help, but schools, academys, colleges, etc are notable, especially if those have a particularity (ex:private schools, girl schools, etc--JForget 00:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JForget --Masterpedia 03:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn) following expansion of the article. -- Black Falcon 23:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn High School (Brooklyn, Ohio)[edit]

Non-notable school, one of many schools added by same user (since mid 2006) without any sort of notability asserted. Seinfreak37 15:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Notability asserted. EagleFan 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SCHOOL --Djsasso 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - recent edits have asserted notability of the school. -Seinfreak37 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — RJH (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as CSD A7. Obvious hoax, no credible assertion of notability.

Joshua G. Cantor-Stone[edit]

Nom - hoax article. This person does not exist. The sources used in this article do not point to information about this person. Google has nothing on this person. Speedy was contested, but feel free to speedy anyway. Rklawton 15:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - didn't anyone notice the fact that the infobox claims he was in the US Navy yet describes him as a Lieutenant Colonel, which is an Army rank? Obvious hoax. All of the external links connect to their respective websites' home pages, with no evidence of information about this individual. Walton monarchist89 17:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was saving that little gem in the event the article's author popped up to plead his case. There's at least one more glaring error, but I'll save it just in case. Rklawton 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbitmon[edit]

Delete because this fictional character fails WP:N which says “A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other.” The article is mostly in-universe and consists of original research, violating WP:OR. Inkpaduta 15:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All -mon articles are currently undergoing a mass-merger, this is stated in the talk page. Nightmare SE 16:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let this page stay! This would be a good reference to this Digimon. Outside of that, this mass merge is ridiculous! Rtkat3 (talk) 5:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update/Article reorganization. Not ridiculous. Punkmorten 22:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER, appears to be a notable Pokemon. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - let the dust settle on the digimon reorginization. - Peregrine Fisher 18:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. TigerShark 13:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank R. Wallace[edit]

WP:N.

OK, allow me to give some background of this whole matter. Once upon a time, there was a man named Wallace Ward. He decided to call himself Frank R. Wallace, and then started a publishing company called I & O Publishing, later called Integrated Management Associates (IMA). This company sells books expounding a philosophical doctrine called Neo-Tech. So we have 3 things:

the person — Frank R. Wallace;
the company — I & O Publishing a.k.a. Neo-Tech Publishing a.k.a. IMA;
the philosophical doctrine — Neo-Tech.

Now, here's the thing: there are something like 0.000 reliable sources — as in, peer-reviewed journals or news sources with editorial oversight — which specifically discuss Wallace the person. Where news sources discuss Wallace, their stories are about his company, i.e. IMA: see

2005. 'Mystical' letter scam warning. The Age Online.
Levene, Tony (2005). Secret society rubbish is fit only for the bin. Guardian Unlimited.

User:Bridge & Tunnel has tried to show that Wallace the person is "notable" by appealing to the following sources:

Friedman, Stan (2006). Dogs Playing Poker: Poker Kit. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 1402734484.
Schreiber, Lee Robert (2005). Poker as Life: 101 Lessons from the World's Greatest Game. Hearst Books. ISBN 1588164616.
Hope, Tony: Hart, Markus; Wilson, Vicki (2005). Fresh Wisdom: Breakthough to Enlightenment. BookSurge Publishing. ISBN 1419618555.

However, as far as I can tell, these sources hadn't undergone any rigorous fact-checking or peer-review process, they weren't written by known authorities on the subject at hand (i.e. Frank R. Wallace, the person), and neither do they devote significant amount of space to discussing Wallace the man.

Also, although this article was marked with the ((Notability)) tag only this month, it had already been in an unreliable state as long as it existed (since 2005 Dec 22).

-- Bi 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course "Bi" above left out some sources like the law textook "Laws of Evidence" which discusses Wallace's legal escapades. It devotes over a page to the matter and entitled the section "Can 'Truth' By Replaced with 'Fully Integrated Honesty?'" And he neglected to mention that the New York Times had an article about it [29]. And he left out the fact that DC Comics issued a comic book series based on Wallace's philosophy of Neo-Tech called Anarky. And he neglected to mention that Wallace is a prolific author. Do a search on Amazon or other book outlet to see how many books he's written. [30] Bridge & Tunnel 17:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Bridge & Tunnel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(WP:SPA — please note that, to date, all the edits of Bridge & Tunnel are geared towards heightening the image of Wallace and Neo-Tech within Wikipedia.) Bi 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The law textbook and the New York Times article are about a specific court case. This means that the court case is notable, but says nothing about the notability of Wallace the person. (Besides, even if one admits these sources, all they say is that Wallace changed "truth" to "fully-integrated honesty" in his oath. Certainly not enough to justify having an entire article on the man.) And Anarky certainly isn't a peer-reviewed source by any stretch.

Also, Wallace being a prolific author has nothing to do with notability. Again, the issue is whether any peer-reviewed sources by other people have mentioned Wallace the person.

What next? Shall we also say that because Wallace's company is notable, therefore Wallace's niece's dog is also notable? Bi 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - although the nominator's point is valid about the distinction between the person and his idea/philosophical doctrine, the long list of external sources does demonstrate some notability for both the man and the concept. Bear in mind also that Neo-Tech redirects to this article, so if the concept of Neo-Tech is notable (which it seems to be, owing to the wide number of external sources quoted in the article) then this article can't be deleted. Alternatively, rename to Neo-Tech to reflect the fact that the concept is more notable than the person. Walton monarchist89 17:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the philosophy Neo-Tech is more notable than the person, but the person is still notable. If someone's books and philosophy are then by default the author of those is notable. Besides his classic court cases which are cited in legal studies books make him notable too. Bridge & Tunnel 17:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC) — Bridge & Tunnel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As I've pointed out above, most of this "long list of external sources" isn't anywhere near reliable. It seems that the only sources that talk about this whole bunch of stuff with any amount of reliability are the two newspaper articles I quoted above, and they're both about IMA the company. Bi 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep The nominator lost me when he started talking about peer reviewed articles etc, and the sarcastic 0.000 references. Peer review is not a requirement for recognizing notability. We are not advocating his teachings, just reporting that he exisited and why he is notable. I do think that the article vcould use some cleanup. ~~If the nominator seriously defeated the intergrity of each reference in a cogent manner, I could be convinced to support the nomination.~~ --Kevin Murray 20:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been involved in editing this topic and subject for over a year. I smell sour grapes or another agenda. If the subject was non-notable, why wait a year to let us know? --Kevin Murray 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You guessed it. There is an agenda. The nominator maintains his own anti/ridicule-Neo-Tech web page [31] and seems to spend all his time on the internet in various message bases trashing the philosophy, Frank Wallace, and others involved in it. If it's not notable then why would he devote so much energy to it? I suspect he wants to delete it simply because someone has added material to it recently that he doesn't like. JoeMystical 03:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I show great interest in my dog, does that mean my dog is notable too? Bi 06:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why wait a year? I can explain that: one reason's that I wasn't that familiar with Wikipedia policy a year ago, and it didn't occur to me to put this article up for AfD. So there. Bi 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, peer review, or at least reliability as per WP:RS, is indeed a requirement for recognizing notability, according to the policy write-up itself. And Bridge & Tunnel's sources don't fulfill this requirement. Bi 06:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Perhaps the nom as trying to find better documentation and found that there wasn't any., a very good reason to ask for AfD. The books are mostly self-published or vanity presses, and count for nothing. He mentions sigma Xi as an honor--there are over 60,000 members, and anyone with a PhD is eligible. DGG 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed the case. The only reliable sources I could find on this trio of the man, the idea, and the company are the two articles stated in my nomination, and a really brief mention of the philosophy w.r.t. "The Neo-Tech Peace and Quiet Party" (warning: huge PDF!). The cites by Bridge & Tunnel are either just random name-dropping, or not directly relevant to the subject of the article (i.e. Wallace the man). Bi 05:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean Wallace "the man"? You looking for bodily statistics or something? A "man" is what he's accomplished. Writing about anything he's written or done is writing about "the man." Bridge & Tunnel 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) — Bridge & Tunnel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I've already rebutted your argument above. Please respond to my rebuttal instead of regurgitating your argument over and over again. Bi 12:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Hard to deny the guy and his philosophy are notable. The nominator of this vote for deletion is bitter opponent of Neo-Tech and even maintains an anti-Neo-Tech web page to ridicule the philosophy, Wallace, and others involved with it: [32]. He puts the link to his web site in the article as well. JoeMystical 03:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint Ad hominem attacks from you aren't a reason to keep. I may as well point out that you're obviously an ardent supporter of Neo-Tech, speaking out for Neo-Tech at every turn. Insinuations of malevolent bias, and refusal to address facts (such as those stated in my nomination), do not advance discussion. Bi 05:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ~~(i wont comment as it seems user Bi tries to rebutt every comment)~~ --Parker007 18:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this notable:

“

The oath to which he agreed was read to him in court as follows: "Do you affirm to speak with fully integrated Honesty, only with fully integrated Honesty and nothing but fully integrated Honesty?" He was initially refused to allow him to testify, but he appealed this to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which then ruled that this form of the oath was permissible.(ref)

”

--Parker007 18:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank B. Cooper School[edit]

Non-notable elementary school. No independent sources, no real claim of notability. Fails WP:RS, WP:N, and the proposed WP:SCHOOL. Inkpaduta 15:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its only an elementary school. --Djsasso 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable elementary school. Soltak | Talk 00:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep notable historic school with history dated back to 1906, in the "early pioneer days of Seattle.[33] Subject of multiple sources, including Seattle times [34]. --Vsion 04:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- This school is of particular importance in Seattle both for historical reasons, explained above by Vsion, and for political reasons, as it was recently the center of a highly contentious fight over building closures within the Seattle Public Schools system. It is a prominent point within the West Seattle neighborhood. --Tjss (Talk) 19:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- This school holds high importance to the people of West Seattle, Washington as well as the Delridge, Seattle, Washington neighborhood, both as a landmark building and as the school that accepted the first Black teacher ever hired by Seattle Public Schools. --Irene Stewart 19:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep school is notable, article should stay, but needs a clean up and some more references LordHarris 17:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one, technically not multiple sources, but the Seattle Times coverage is a very substantial piece with the school as the central subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs to be rewritten with a more encyclopedic tone. --El on ka 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. At present there is only one independent reference; our guidelines require more. I am, as it happens, confident that a suitable reference can be found, but this needs to be done before this debate terminates. My own view is that the assertion about Mrs Dewitty is not per se notable, unless she was also the first black teacher hired in the entire state: otherwise, we are setting a very low bar for notability as every other school district in the country presumably has a "first black teacher", as well as a "first female", "first jewish", "first openly gay", and so on. If the school district or city had a particular history of treating black people notably badly this would be more notable. WMMartin 14:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - long history and notable features. TerriersFan 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autocratic democracy

The result was Speedy G11, etc --Fang Aili ^talk 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chi rho cards[edit]

Linkspam, commercial, notability not referenced MadMaxDog 06:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 (no assertion of notability), G11 (blatant advertising). Walton monarchist89 17:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam - no notability assertion... so tagged. SkierRMH 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as spam. – Steel 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cordwainers' Technical College[edit]

Just slips under non-notable for me. Possibly to merge into the article London College of Fashion, seeing as the college itself has (supposedly) merged into the London College of Fashion Montchav 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neutral/merge On the one hand it was N in its own right in the past. But both are short articles, and a merge would seem practical.DGG 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. No indication of verifiable notability, and the article is written like an ad. --El on ka 22:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Inadequate references to support a separate article at present, so suggest a merge until its section in the London College of Fashion article grows enough, when it can then be de-merged again as a sub-article. Redirect should obviously go to the LCF article throughout this process. WMMartin 14:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged as such. Copyvio - entire article straight lift from here. TerriersFan 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by ChrisO[35]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Super sonic the hedgehog[edit]

Poorly written

This article is completely poorly written, fails to say anything about the importance of the subject, and is not written in the tone expected in an encyclopedia. It comes off as a conversation almost. I'm sure there is a better counterpart somewhere on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishman2764 (talk • contribs) 2007/02/23 01:12:45

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not assert real-world notability per WP:FICT. The article is so poorly written that it's almost a candidate for speedy deletion per A7 (no assertion of notability) and A1 (no context). Walton monarchist89 17:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tagged this as speedy as extremely short article with no context. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note admin please close - already speedied. SkierRMH 21:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Perfect Dark. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 11:18Z

DataDyne[edit]

Delete or Merge A lot of this looks like OR, not enough real world notability to merit separate article, and no references. I predominately want this page deleted, but if consensus says otherwise, a merge will be fine. Either way, this page does not need to exist anymore. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Perfect Dark. It isn't OR (as it comes straight from the plot of the game), but there's no evidence of real-world notability per WP:FICT. Merging is probably the best option. Walton monarchist89 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:23Z

Joe Partington[edit]

Not notable yet - hasn't played beyond the youth team Daemonic Kangaroo 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Would think this could be speedied? WikiGull 16:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, and per past precedent. No first team appearances=no notability. - fchd 17:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nice to see he goes to me alma mater, though! HornetMike 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 04:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Scottmsg 04:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per precedent that players who have yet to progress past the youth team are not inherently notable ChrisTheDude 09:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Angelo 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:21Z

Rune Legion[edit]

Non-notable gaming fan site. Author has removed speedy tag three times despite being warned. Also deleted comments from the talk page. I vote a very strong speedy delete Improbcat 00:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the comments, i made a mistake there so dont put that agianst that article. --Mod BaldwinC 00:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - non-notable gaming clan. Google for Rune Legion yields around 20 RuneScape related hits, only 6 of which actually mention Rune Legion. Fails WP:WEB/WP:ORG. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - according to a tag on the page, the article is undergoing cleanup and improvement, so probably best to hold off for a while and give the author(s) a chance to improve it. I won't vote Keep though, as there's no evidence of notability per WP:WEB at present. Walton monarchist89 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – if we only have links to two fansites, there's no way we need a whole page on one very minor fansite. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 17:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Healing Factor: Vitamin C Against Disease[edit]

Not notable, no content, dicdef Rifleman 82 20:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, no third-party independent sources. I would say Speedy Delete under A7, but probably better to give the author time to expand the article and add sources. Walton monarchist89 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've included the useful full text link to the existing references in Irwin Stone and Vitamin C, where the latter also adresses the relationship with Linus Pauling, but then there is nothing else that should be kept or would not better be added to one of the mentioned articles. --Tikiwont 14:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Still on DRV - no consensus to overturn and relist. -Doc^g 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV in case you desire to be heard: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt[edit]

Daniel Brandt (cached) – (View AfD)

Seriously now. Not notable personality, WP:IAR, WP:BLP, WP:SENSE. Is this really worth all the trouble ? seriously ? No. The current DRV is turning into a farce the way it's going, so let's settle this "correctly", then. Delete. – Chacor 16:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline notability at best, combined with massiveWP:SELF problems and the fact that the subject doesn't want it make deleting the better choice here. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and review abuse of WP:SNOW since I've seen it abused more than once in my short time paying attention to the behind-the-scenes junk. --Dookama 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an AFD, not DRV. – Chacor 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP, there are serious ego issues going on here in regards to everything. I used to love this site, but I'm slightly revolted. Yanksox 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You do understand that it was your unilateral actions that sparked the current discussions? Perhaps you could have just taken this here in the first place rather than trying to "sneak deletions" through the so-called back door. Bumm13 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no point in keeping for the sake of keeping. Also per my reasons on the last AfD. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ask that WP:SNOW not be used on this AfD (since it's NOT policy). Perhaps a redirect to Google Watch and protect said redirect?--Wizardman 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just some guy who wrote some nasty stuff about some website that got mentioned in passing. This is not non-trival coverage in multiple reliable sources. We need to have WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY, especially in the face of articles that appeal to the vanity of wikipedia (about us, our adminstrators, our process, or our side products). Ask yourself - how does this help our goal of being an encyclopedia about FACTS rather than an encyclopedia with the bestest political wars, and documentation of internet trivialities? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) addendum delete and redirect to Google watch. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: how can we have an AfD on a red link? For one thing, it's hard for me to make up my mind if I can't read what I'm voting on; I have read the article before, but it's been quite a while. This was done very poorly; unilateral deletion was absolutely the wrong way to go about this. It should have gone to AfD first, while it still existed, not deleted outside of process, then put on DRV, then put on AfD as a red link. Everyking 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google cache. – Chacor 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardless, I refuse to vote on it as a matter of principle. It is for the community to decide whether we should have the article, and then for an admin to follow through on that decision; in this case an admin has already made the decision, and the community is just being told to rubber-stamp it. The article should be restored and then the AfD should be restarted if this is going to be valid. Everyking 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I completely agree. How can we discuss deleting an article that has already been deleted? What the hell is going on here and what are we being asked to discuss? --ElKevbo 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I found the article - it was a redirect and now it's blank with the AfD template at the top. I know I can go through the history to dig up the article but AfD'ing a blank article is really weird. This entire process stinks and I have no idea what we're being asked to do or discuss since it appears to have already been decided to delete this article. --ElKevbo 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's been a request at ANI to restore the last revision. – Chacor 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or keep deleted, rather). Our usual arguments over the exact semantics of the notability guidelines shouldn't distract us from that "do no harm" bit in WP:BLP. Kirill Lokshin 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem that notable on his own merits, when viewed without the "ARRRGH WIKIPEDIA!" goggles in place. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, Delete, Keep deleted. I've encountered too much correspondence dealing with issues surrounding the Biographies of Living persons. It has never made much sense that we apply this policy to most individuals but disregard them when it comes to Daniel Brandt. I believe there are countless more notable people with decidedly smaller or even non-existant articles. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even with nearly 100% delete !votes by now, can we please not close this early? It's just not worth the trouble. Thank you. --Conti|✉ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly seconded. There's no rush, so do this right. Trebor 17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the right reasons.--MONGO 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Bastique. I know I've taken a contrary position in the past, and was duly rewarded with a profile on wikipedia-watch (the picture does me little justice though, and is decidely out-of-date). A redirect to GoogleWatch seems sensible enough. I also join those suggesting that the debate be kept open five days or so.Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm confused... this article is a redirect to Google Watch. What are you all talking about? Walton monarchist89 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There hasn't been any sudden *public* change regarding the situation of otherwise dubious-in-notability article subject (Oversight, WP:OFFICE, etc.) to warrant what appears to be unilateral behavior by one possessing the proverbial bucket and mop. Bumm13 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. I am surprised that this article has lasted so long, actually. (jarbarf) 17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion and keep article. I agree in principle with the notion that borderline bios may be deleted on the subject's request. As someone who was familiar with Brandt's work before I ever saw his article on Wikipedia, I simply do not agree that he meets those criteria -- even less so now that his activism (inluding, whether we like it or not, his Wikipedia criticism) has been covered in many notable publications with wide circulation, online and offline (the article had 33 references, many of them to reliable secondary sources). Whatever criteria we define for "borderline" notability, they need to be fairly and consistently applied. If this article is supposed to be the measure of such a set of criteria, too many other articles will be deleted. Moreover, the abuse of process in this particular case will embolden those who confuse self-righteousness with reason. This deletion seems more like an emotional backlash than a rational evaluation of the facts to me, and as such, brings us dangerously close to ochlocracy as an editorial principle. This article should be undeleted so a proper deletion debate can take place rather than an angry shouting match.--Eloquence * 17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It would be easier to delete and forget about it, I admit that, but I don't do things because they are easy. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable enough. _→AzaToth 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. ElinorD (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If not, however, since this article was deleted in order to get Brandt to stop "troubling" Wikipedia I say we check back after a bit and see whether he actually has stopped. If he hasn't, then it doesn't matter whether having the article is "worth the trouble" because we've got the trouble regardless and so we might as well get an article out of the deal. Bryan Derksen 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Deleted by User:Jimfbleak. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:21Z

Bird Flu Planning[edit]

At first glance this reads like a potentially OK article, albeit in need of improvement. However, it appears to be in fact spam, being an advert for the Bird Flu Planning website linked at the foot of the article. The username of the author would suggest they have a vested interest too. Jules1975 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current topic of interest but its carefully concealed as an advertisement.--PrincessBrat 16:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A concealed advert is worse than a blatant one. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio from http://www.continuitybusinesssolutions.com/proactive-manager.htm RJFJR 17:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Copy vio and spam. Adambro 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio. So tagged. BryanG^(talk) 23:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Haraldsen[edit]

Not notable. Google does not return much about her (in English) [36] and the article makes no claims to notability. grubber 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I would say her family connection to Queen Sonja of Norway counts as an assertion of notability, but there is only one external source. More evidence of multiple coverage by independent sources is needed to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless article is improved. Walton monarchist89 17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, although she has not really done anything of notice, she is for some reason a celebrity in Norway. 96T 17:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. She does appear to have some celebrity status in Norway (as there are lots of hits in Norwegian), and she does have some family ties... but she really hasn't done anything notable. That's my motivation for this AfD. I would vote "weak delete" personally, but I certainly understand your "weak keep." I'm hoping we can get someone in-the-know here to help make a good case in one direction or the other. - grubber 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am a Norwegian myself and I am quite sure most Norwegians know who she is. The fact that she will appear on the "Rikets røst" show (as mentioned in the article) makes her more noteable, as that is a popular show here. The fact that she hasn't done anything to deserve fame (not as far as I know) doesn't make her less famous.96T 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well it's good to get your perspective, because many of the links in the article are red. For example, the show you mention is red-linked. I am completely ignorant of Norwegian pop-culture, so I would (naively) assume that the show isnt notable enough for an article, so neither is her appearance. It's hard to judge whether WP just doesn't have an article yet or whether the redlink is due to un-notability in general. It's clear she's notable in Norway. My question to you: Would she be considered notable to the English-speaking world? Is she worthy of an entry in the English WP? Thanks for you comments! - grubber 18:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Rikets røst" is a notable show that IMO should have an article, yes. If being a national celebrity, appearing on a notable TV show and being connected to the royal family in a country with 4.5 million people qualifies for notability, then Pia Haraldsen stays in the English Wikipedia. If that is not enough, she doesn't. [to say my personal opinion, I think the article should be kept, although I dislike that trivial Norwegian celebrities such as her have articles in Wikipedia while truly great Norwegians such as writer Sigurd Hoel haven't.] 96T 22:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Alright. Thanks for the guidance! - grubber 01:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deletethe material about the connection to the royal family is absurd: "step-daughter of the niece of Queen Sonja of Norway, " She's not actually a relative. This is straining after N. We would best remedy the lack of an article on Hoel by writing one, not be keeping this. DGG 03:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 13:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is also the former editor of the Norwegian version of Cosmopolitan, how she became a celeb is beyond me, but she's in the press all the time. 22700 ghits with 430 unique hits for "Pia Haraldsen" [37]. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 19:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:50Z

Area code cross-reference[edit]

No context. This is the schema for some (unspecified) database, which we don't have. RJFJR 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This would only be useful to programmers, who have other resources for this sort of thing. --Dhartung | Talk 17:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Tumbleweedtumbles 18:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was The closing admin making a decision based on your discussion and his discretion...er...delete Sock puppetry ain't cool, either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Remorse Corps[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable wrestling tag team, formed less than a week ago. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no reason why the tiny amount of information can't be in the individual articles. One Night In Hackney 17:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I say as creator of this article it's shouldn't be deleted because any ROH/World Tag Team Championship team deserves an article we do know that this is going to be signs of a major faction in ROH judging from comments said about the group--Cowboy From Hell 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)DJ BatWave[reply]

Not true, and we have deleted articles on teams that have won WWE tag titles (which are FAR FAR more importent than some indy title like ROH or PWG). TJ Spyke 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When you say "we", what do you mean? that smells of original research and crystal ballery. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, and the only sources is you tube. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is an official video posted by the promotion they work for though, so it's not your typical YouTube source. One Night In Hackney 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then neither is it a reliable thirdy party source. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- If you want more proof I recommend checking the ROH official website--Cowboy From Hell 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)DJ BatWave[reply]

Delete As nominator mentions, this team have (as yet) achieved nothing of note, certainly nothing that cannot be restricted to a brief mention on individual wrestler articles. If, in future, this team were to do so then this article can be recreated. I am a big Ring of Honor fan and do sympathise, but at this time I cannot see an article is merited. Suriel1981 13:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DJ BatWave--MrMorpheus 05:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)MrMorpheus[reply]
- Comment MrMorpheus is now blocked as a sockpuppet of DJ BatWave. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for good so no non-notable tag team like this can ever appear on Wikipedia, again... — Moe 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I see notability in this article as it is a developing important storyline--72.225.255.18 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The aboves ip only recent contributions are to this afd and another related wrestling afd.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Who's generally winning this debate since I'm still green on these topics —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.225.255.18 (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's not a case of winning, but putting across reasonable, verifiable points of view. The closing Admin will make the decision based on our discussion and his/her discretion. What I will say is that if you believe this article is to do with a developing important storyline then you have to prove it. Suriel1981 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article does have to do with an important storyline as it is going to, like the ECW Originals create offshoots of different teams and they are as stated by DJ BatWave (who I advocate upon viewing his history is a competant source I truly believe) now major World Tag Team Champions--72.225.255.18 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1)This is just some minor indy team and 2)The PWG Tag Team titles are NOT world titles (since only PWG considers them that). PWG's titles are just regular indy titles. TJ Spyke 01:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input DJ BatWave, however Wikipedia editors are not sources and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. One Night In Hackney 00:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not DJ BatWave I just believe what he believes--72.225.255.18 01:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable tag team. No reliable sources either. TJ Spyke 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment YouTube is a reliable source as it is video footage of of the formation of the team not only is the video run by You Tube it is run by Ring of Honor--72.225.255.18 02:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - YouTube is not considered a reliable source. Even if it were, the subject were need multiple non-trivial sources. TJ Spyke 03:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is denying that this team could potentially deserve an article in future if their achievements merit it. However, at this time they haven't done anything notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Suriel1981 08:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. While there are three people advocating Keep, one is basing it on a gut feeling and another is simply calling it "interesting". The lack of sources (and the fact that the Book of Michael appears to be unpublished) seals the deal. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Mormonism[edit]

Zero reliable sources to substantiate notability. I've checked Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News and can't find anything to justify this article. PubliusFL 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ORG. --Dhartung | Talk 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more blatant: fails WP:V Alf photoman 20:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am sure it is notable; I just don't have any proof that it is.--Sefringle 06:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and there is where the problem is... we can't prove it Alf photoman 13:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an apostasty of the LDS. WP:RS is relative to the nature of the subject. This is not only a New religious movement, the book the religion is based on is in popular culture. Wikipedia precedent and policy has shown that it is permitted to report the self-description of groups, as self-descriptions, reserving due weight considerations of the notability of the group/site/author within the article's subject. - WeniWidiWiki 18:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed something -- what book? PubliusFL 19:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. This religion is just a website at this point. Does not appear notable, not even as an LDS offshoot. If this changes in the future and they become a notable movement an article would be justified. Dragomiloff 01:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an interesting and important development within a major religion. It's small and recent, yes, but still notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.129.107 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The book is [The Book of Michael which has apparently never been printed. A quick google search shows a network of websites and a few blogs before descending into irrelevant hits. Right now there are no independent sources and the evidence is that this is simply a very small part of the Latter Day Saint movement and the mention on that page is sufficient. Just include the external link as a reference. Eluchil404 10:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 13:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of DIN standards[edit]

This is an enormous list of mainly red links with a blatant absence of notable content. Mausy5043 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, The page is in violation of WP:NOT especially par. 1.7 and 1.8 Mausy5043 17:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an encyclopedia article, might be appropriate for some kind of tech reference wiki. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, may not be relevant outside of Europe, but 'round here it is good to find it somewhere Alf photoman 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is content, because many of he redlinks are described. Probably quite a few more of them could use an article. Thery're relevant in the US do, as they are often cross-refrenced.DGG 04:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may be content but it is not notable Mausy5043 07:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: DIN standards are very important, at least throughout the Central Europe, but given current structure of Wikipedia it will take years until it will be possible to maintain such detailed and specialized information here. Pavel Vozenilek 19:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now and hope that we are wrong with our assertion that it is a dead end due to maintenance problems Alf^Photoman 01:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with DIN, entries that are not redlinked. 70.55.84.248 09:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Despite the rewrite, the concerns of the nominator were not addressed. Inclusion isn't an indicator of notability. --Core desat 05:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lakelands Park Middle School[edit]

PROD contested by WAILONG. Excluding its rather large size, there's nothing unusual at this newly-founded school to adhere the criteria of the proposed WP:SCHOOL. All of the necessary information on schools in the county is already found on Montgomery County Public Schools. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable middle school. Soltak | Talk 00:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Soltak >Kamope< Talk · Sign Here 18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep because what makes this different than any of these schools here?

DVIYCR 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most of them assert notability, this one doesn't. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst the article is informative, it neither asserts notability of the school, nor provides any evidence to support such a claim. Notability is not the same thing as verifiability. WMMartin 14:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have rewritten the article. This is a new school and undoubtedly 'notable' events will occur over future years. Meanwhile, large schools such as this have inherent notability due to their significant place in the community and readers coming to Wikipedia can rightly expect to find an article on them. TerriersFan 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it might someday be notable doesn't mean it should have an article today. Let's have a nice for instance: I am currently working on a book with a couple colleagues about the impact of the Vice Presidency on Presidential elections. This book will most likely be nothing more than a nice addition to my CV and a required text in a couple courses at my home University. If, however, it becomes wildly popular and I go on the lecture circuit, both myself and the book would probably be notable enough for an article. Right now, I'm not. I guess the basic point is this: Everything, and I do mean everything has the potential to be notable. It doesn't get written about, however, until it actually is notable. Soltak | Talk 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now a perfectly decent stub that will be of interest to anyone coming to it for information on the school. That is a far better reason to keep the article than some abstract (and undefined) concept of notability. TerriersFan 23:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely ignoring my stunningly persuasive argument is quite a crafty tactic. Notability is neither abstract nor undefined, see WP:N. In addition, hopes and dreams that someone will find an article about a non-notable middle school helpful isn't a Wikipedia policy. Notability is. Soltak | Talk 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Deleted by User:CesarB. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:20Z

List of pieces which use quotation[edit]

Topic of article is completely undefined. What does it mean to "use quotation"? Yes, many compositions prominently quote other compositions, but sometimes its unintentional, and sometimes its just similar use of stock material. Who's to say when it is and isn't notable? In fact, what is a "piece"? Does pop music count here? What about mix tapes? The poorly thought-out topic has doomed this article to having no content, and it's looked like this since 2004. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD.A1 -- no context. So tagged. -- Black Falcon 19:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged with the same cite once before and someone said it was not appropriate (I disagree.) That's why I brought it here. But hey if it gets speedied I won't be upset.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:19Z

World War III[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Takeel 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the page history is rather bizarre but telling. This article has only ever been made up of original research, which various editors have diligently tried to remove or ameliorate. The answer, I think, is to delete the article unless someone comes up with actual sources that can move this article beyond simply stating "WWIII is the hypothetical next world war." -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes it needs improving but so do various other articles. The concept of WWIII is well known within popular culture and the public psyc. This is deserving of an article. It was also a previous featured article candiate and the entry on the discussion page shows only one point missing on the star. If I wasn't so tired I'd add more (and may edit later, sorry)AlanD 18:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- is a well used phrase Astrotrain 18:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This term has been used many times by writers and politicians to describe the war on terror and the Cold War, however the article delves in "what could have been". It would be better if some mention was made of this. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well established term. Useful/interesting article. Steve.Moulding 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above comments has any relation to wikipedia policy. "I Like it" or "it's interesting" is not a valid reason to keep. "I hear this phrase a lot" is not a reason to keep. The article needs sources and assertions of verifiablity. Furthermore, I suspect the FA candidate note at the top is a hoax as there is no subpage. PLEASE try to restrict comments to how the article does/doesn't/might eventually meet wikipedia policy. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK it's not a hoax, I found the very old subpage, but still not a reason to keep the article. Even the FA discussion falls into the trap of EQUIVOCATING the concept of "World War III" with "Nuclear War" and "Cold War." This is a problem!-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very common concept. Hundreds of books, movies and video games deal with it and call it by that name. Not to mention the fact that USSR and US both based their policies on the idea for 50 years. Article could be sourced, just because it appears OR now does not mean it should be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the page history? Your point is well-taken, but look at the way it has been applied. People just add whatever they feel like "might" constitute a reference to WWIII. I am skeptical. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the history contains a lot of vandalism and pure OR but Wikipedia needs an article on WWIII. If I had the time I would go ahead and find sources and all, but I am at work. The historical close calls section could probably even be referenced using sources from the articles discussed. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just because a page is a magnet for original research is not an argument for its deletion. If it were, we would not have a page on the United States presidential election, 2008. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very widely-used term that could have some interesting content. Not very good right now, but it's still notable. But World War IV definately needs to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Froth (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unsure Ive actually read this article well before it was nominated as an AfD. If this is going then can someone remove World War IV as by the same nature this is crystal ball stuff.

Also the World War IV article mentions that world war IV as the War on Terrorism, and the World War 3 as the Cold War.

I cant decide on this one - but bear in mind that World War I was not commonly called this until many years after. --PrincessBrat 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept is well-established and the term is in relatively wide use, but the article seems to have deteriorated over time (see versions about 400 edits ago). The article needs significant cleanup, but the topic is deserving of an article. -- Black Falcon 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest as an additional possibility merging into World War III in popular culture or vice versa (merging the "popular culture" article into this one). -- Black Falcon 20:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Right now, the article deals with "close to World War III" events, which are an original research. I've noted nearly all information was indeed added by anonymous editors without a proper source, examples include [38], [39] and [40]. In order for this to be kept I suggest merging World War III in popular culture into it following a significant cleanup. I would generally expect an article on the concept and idea, not the war resembles themselves. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — At first I thought this would be a no-brainer, but now that I look at the article I think the nomination has validity. The page definitely needs more development to be a valid article on the topic. — RJH (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This title should be reserved for when the next world war starts, currently scheduled for July 2007 I believe. What, you didn't get the memo? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very common concept. --Djsasso 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't discuss the concept. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it could; AfD is as much about what an article can be as what it is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like what Josiah Rowe said. Its about what the article can become just as much as what it is now. Just because it needs to be cleaned up doesn't mean it should be deleted. --Djsasso 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well of course I'm not suggesting to remove the article, but a revamp of the article focus is necessary in this case. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Needs substantial clean-up, but I'm sure that reliable sources from the Cold War era could be found to back it up, and discuss how common a concept it was during the second half of the twentieth century. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep but delete World War IV per WP:CRYSTAL, as it really is not an important cultural entity and is entirely potential and non-factual. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Well established term with Zillions of Media refrences.Also,WWIII could start tomorrow for all we know.Corporal Punishment 22:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real Concept, not a crystal ball, as such, not our speculation. FrozenPurpleCube 22:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I !voted to merge and redirect on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War IV (second nomination) but this is different. We can definitely have this article -- a very common term/concept, although not an existing event. --N Shar 00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. World War III? Seriously? (jarbarf) 00:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did anyone happen to read the page I linked to in my reason statement? Here's an excerpt. --Takeel 03:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.

I consider that somewhat in error myself (in that future weapons development is possibly a topic of some encyclopedic value, for example the recent Air Force ray gun). However, and perhaps most importantly, the concept of World War III is established enough that it does exist, and as such should be described. FrozenPurpleCube 19:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Takeel, we can read. The article you nominated is about the reality of WWIII as we know it (as opposed to the media hype, or potential weapons that may be used). Please remember that WWI and WWII were both this century, and each resulted in a new world administrative body being created to ensure another WW didnt occur. WWIII has hovered over our heads for decades, and most nations have (big) buildings worth of classified material on scenarios, and how do deal with those scenarios should it happen. It is a real subject; the references are provided in the linked article (maybe this should be converted to a list of close calls?), and Afd is not the appropriate spot for discuss editorial issues. John Vandenberg 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good day. Would you mind adding information about the classified material you mentioned to the article? It could only help. Thank you. --Takeel 13:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I expect that some of these classified books and war scenario documents should be available under FOI by now, but the topics are politically sensitive (hence being classified in the first place) and reliable sources usually steer clear. For the Australian doctrines, we first of all need articles for Kamaria [41], Tarajara [42] and Musoria [43]. John Vandenberg 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be a misunderstanding of what "crystal ball" means, because reporting things that have been said and written in the past about a possible future event is not prophecy. There is nothing speculative about reporting that somebody in the past said something; it is a fact that the person said it. The article should be understood as being about the concept, which has a history. Everyking 08:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-established and wide used concept. --Carioca 04:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article could use some clean-up, but is not unprofessional or non-encyclopedic. It's a valid topic to make an article about, although some elaboration would be preferable. 76.168.46.83 05:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this article simply cannot be deleted because it is informative, as a Wikipedia article should be. Such a common topic should have it's place in an encyclopedia. However, this article does need more than just a "historical close calls" section. --138.89.186.113 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is a common concept, and it is the right term. See World War III in popular culture for just some examples of the term's use in science fiction. Remember, an article needing cleanup calls for cleanup tags, not deletion. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 00:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:49Z

LSEFC Champagne 7ths[edit]

Not really sure what to say, this article seems to add absolutely nothing to Wikipedia, and it reads as an announcers script KittenMya 18:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete utter utter bollocks. Unsourced, no significant claim to notability, doesn't even make clear what sport this supposed team (presumably of students) plays - I presume from the references to Giggs, etc that it is football (soccer) but there really is absolutely nothing encylopedic about this article. If there isn't a policy under which it could have been speedied then there ought to be.... ChrisTheDude 10:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and to be honest I am tempted to speedy under WP:CSD A1. Qwghlm 10:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - speedy if possible as per all opinions above. - fchd 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wtf? Robotforaday 15:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAO kimkallstrom - do NOT remove content (let alone the entire content) from an AfD page - this is considered to be vandalism

The user replaced the contents of this AfD with the following: "I have edited this document thoroughly, and have removed the areas which had garnered criticism before. I believe it now concurs with the Wikipedia mottos, and is an objective account of this popular sports team"

Fair play for replacing the obvious loads of bollocks that was there before with a sensible page, but unfortunately I have reviewed the new version and cannot see any way in which it satisfies the requirements of WP:CORP therefore I stand by my original Delete !vote. In a nutshell, outside the college football-obsessed USA, university sports teams (especially the 7th XI of a uni, if that's what the 7th refers to) simply aren't notable under WP guidelines ChrisTheDude 07:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdraw: I failed to look back in the history for sources. Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Cooper[edit]

unsourced; probably not true; Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure why you think this is "probably not true"... yes, refs need to be added, but they're definitely out there. All the stuff in the article is listed on his IMDB page [44] , and here's a Wired article about him: [45], and there's a section about his work in this article on the art of film titles: [46]. Pinball22 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Plenty of material to suggest notability and that the article is true. Adambro 20:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:48Z

F. p. kopp[edit]

non-notable person. Only allegation of notability is reference to a self-published book. The book itself appears to be non-notable. Zero ghits for "Frederick Philip Kopp"; searches for "Frederick Kopp" appear to be for anyone but this person. A search for "Frederick P. Kopp" provides 7 hits, all for his law practice. Agent 86 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up For what it's worth, the creator of this article is Eitetpimu, which happens to be an acronym for the title of the book referred to in the article. May indicate self-promotion. Agent 86 18:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of real notability, plus possible spam issues if it is indeed self-promotion. But it could be deleted on notability issues alone. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a hoax and offers no notability. Nuttah68 12:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Follow Up" Who the hell are these people??? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea? Nutta68? What credentials have they to veto anything? Eitetpimu 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Discovering the flaws in Wikipedia[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:46Z

OpenHuman[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Currently the only sources are the creators blog, and a slashdot posting which links to that same blog entry. If and when it gains notability I don't oppose its recreation, but currently its nowhere near meeting that criteria. Crossmr 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:WEB and WP:V. The article can be recreated if and when it becomes notable. Nuttah68 12:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:45Z

Tough Buck From Brocket[edit]

These appear to be non-notable comedy albums spun off from Brocket 99 (which is itself somewhat dubious, although not as dubious as these ones). Both articles previously contained (and may still contain) copyvio text from the website www.brocket99.net. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... that was a Delete, in case anyone was unsure. Is there any particular reason nobody has commented on this nomination? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim or evidence of notability and a search shows that there is no way this could ever meet WP:V. Nuttah68 12:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:45Z

Super Society[edit]

I can't find any evidence of the existence of this TV show. In fact, the article itself says, "It hasn't been created as of yet.... Someday in the future, the Super Society will become reality on TV." Prod removed without comment by article author. Delete due to unverifiability and non-notability. ... discospinster _talk 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely unverifiable, as far as I can tell, as well as being a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. JavaTenor 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete fails all notability critera and WP:V. Nuttah68 12:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speedily as possible. Fails core policies WP:V, WP:OR, and a plethora of guidelines. While we wish the creator well, we can only have an atricle on his show after he has made and marketed it. Eluchil404 10:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Yale College. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:45Z

Tyng cup[edit]

Delete - non-notable award. There appear to be no sources attesting to its importance that aren't from Yale itself. Otto4711 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Yale College; an encyclopedic article could be written about student life at Yale, and the Tyng Cup would be worth mentioning in that context. It doesn't deserve its own article, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:LOCAL this has no note outside of Yale. Nuttah68 12:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Film Critics Association Awards 2006[edit]

Delete - maybe I'm missing something but an award given by an "association" of 13 members doesn't strike me as particularly notable. Unable to find anything indicating that this is considered to be any sort of honor, let alone a major one. No sources found for which the award is the primary subject. When it is mentioned it's part of a laundry list of other similarly minor awards that studios mention in press releases and on the back of DVD boxes. Otto4711 20:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can this nomination be construed as including deletion of the infobox and navtemplate associated with the award or does that have to be done separately? Otto4711 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but I don't see which templates you're talking about -- were they deleted already? If not, please add them at the top using ((lt)). Quarl ^(talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 10:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mentions of the Utah Film Critics Association awards can be found on a number of reputable sources, but as Otto4711 they are essentially all mentioned as parts of a list. No assertion of notability. Arkyan 20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:41Z

Warwick Cairns[edit]

Article appears to be autobiographical Gerry Ashton 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any assertion or evidence his theory (only published this year) has made any impact. Sometimes Wikipedia:Autobiography articles can be salvaged if the person actually is notable but I don't see that here. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an academic, but he studied with one. One NN book. DGG 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable yet. Someone jumped the gun on creating this article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:40Z

Lorelol[edit]

Appears to fail to meet the test of WP:NEO. Sizable number of the Google entries I could find seem to be links to a particular YTMND page. Earlier prod removed with no changes to the article. The original genesis of the word seems to stem from the Draenei controversy, which is, I would assume, too game-specific to merit its own article on Wikipedia. JavaTenor 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unless this has outside media or academic coverage, its not notable in an encyclopaedia. John Vandenberg 03:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:39Z

Chris Rowe[edit]

These pages are supposedly about characters from an apparently non-notable novel (no listing on Amazon, no indication of author's name, etc.). They've been tagged with ((Notability)) for nearly a month, with no improvement. Josiah Rowe (no relation) (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Completely non notable fictional characters, written in an in-universe style. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not notable and they could be merged to the book's article, but it doesn't have one. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete both. Rlevse 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie & Her Little Pals[edit]

Non-notable, promotional, spam Pig^man_{Talk to me} 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following article for WP:BIO and WP:COI:[reply]

Comment: I feel bad nominating these two but I can't ignore the non-notability aspects of both. Advertising and promotional placement seem integrated into the articles as well. Thoughts? --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. The articles are promotional to the core. Even if they were rewritten to be non-promotional, there is nothing to show that this series and the author are even notable. janejellyroll 23:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Both articles are blatant adverts and hence fail WP:SPAM. If notability can be established then the pages may be re-created in the correct wikipedia style. A1octopus 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BbUltimate[edit]

Obvious crystalballing. Pre-alpha release isn't even out yet. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 20:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously NPOV and uncited, delete at least until there's facts -- feb^talk 20:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too early for an article. Also, contributor's username suggests they are, Ben Pillbrow, a Senior Project Developer working on the project so obvious conflict of interest. Adambro 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, I am in fact the lead developer but I didn't see the harm in creating this article since the release is very imminent. If I violated policy and this article has to be deleted, fair enough. --BenP25 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To the user above, copy it into a word document on your computer, and if it satisfies the notability criteria at a later date you can remake the article.--The Spith 19:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable. John Vandenberg 04:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xxxchurch (4th nomination)[edit]

Article previously deleted 3 times at AfD (see links from the talk page but Deletion Review (also linked from talk page) decided that they could overturn community consensus based on their own reading of Wikipedia's rules. Nardman1 20:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the links to the previous Afds are AFD #1, AFD #2, AFD #3, and the deletion review is here. I would argue the site is non-notable: while it has been covered in enough sources to satisfy the requirements of WP:V and perhaps even WP:N, it is only notable because of the unique way it approaches the porn question. It is in no way notable in any other sense, ie there is no real fanbase or people who regularly visit the site. Nardman1 02:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the specific guidelines on notability of web sites (WP:WEB) do not say anything about fanbase or number of regular visitors. The sources in Xxxchurch do provide "detail on (the) website's achievements, impact or historical significance," which is relevant to the applicable guidelines. As you say, the site is notable, and has received substantial media attention, because of the unique way it approaches the porn question. That is "notable" for Wikipedia's purposes, more than just getting a lot of visitors. PubliusFL 16:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review is subject to the same sort of consensus as AfD - anyone who participated in the initial AfD was welcome to weigh in on the DR as well, so it's not like some outside force sandbagged the community - they are also the community. Plymouths 07:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as recreated content. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per nom. ↔NMajdan•talk 21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep unless someone comes up with a much better explanation for this nomination. "Having previously been deleted" is NOT a deletion criterion. There are plenty of reliable sources establishing this site's notability. What are we talking about here? Does anyone have an actual reason to delete this article? PubliusFL 23:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The DRV closed as "relist at editorial discretion." I'm listing it because I want to, in my discretion. I don't like the idea that the community consensus can be labeled as "wrong" at DRV and overturned. Nardman1 02:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure you can relist at your discretion, but deletion should be based on Wikipedia policy. "I want to" is not a reason to delete an article. Consensus is reconsidered all the time, and it looks like some good points were made at DRV. Which Wikipedia policy does this article violate? PubliusFL 08:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep There's no reason to delete. It is N, as proven by the national coverage, and now sourced. DGG 04:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - it's not a recreation of deleted content if DRV overturns the deletion. There has been plenty of media coverage of this organization - it's obviously notable. When I saw the DRV, I was scratching my head really wondering why there was any question. --BigDT 18:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep AGAIN - new article is well-sourced. definitely needs work and expansion but that isn't grounds for deletion. also nominator doesn't give any reasons for deletion other than "it was deleted before". Call for deletion should address the actual content of the article as it is now. Previous deletions claimed it was non-notable but that has been disproven by sourcing so the reason for the previous AFDs no longer apply. Plymouths 02:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets requirements for notability, no valid reason for deletion has been given. Improbcat 13:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt always deleted and recreated. Article needs salting of all variations. SakotGrimshine 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, which CSD applies to this article? That goes for anyone who has advocated speedy delete. PubliusFL 20:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't want to look it up. It's speedy deletion criteria to speedy something that's a recreation of a deleted article. SakotGrimshine 08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not when that recreation was a result of a deletion review. Which this WAS. Plymouths 08:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well if you are going to recommend something but aren't going to do the research required to ensure you are actually following procedure, allow me to do the research for you. From CSD that PubliusFL posted:

Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. This clause does not apply in user space, to content undeleted per undeletion policy, or if the prior deletions were proposed or speedy deletions, although in this last case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply.

Note please the line This clause does not apply (...) to content undeleted per undeletion policy. Thus speedy deletion doesn't apply as the deletion was overturned. Thus any votes to speedy delete for this reason are invalid. If anyone who has voted for speedy delete has another reason for claiming speedy delete applies please put it forth. Improbcat 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Anti-pornography movement, which has a section on Christian views regarding pornography, though a new article Christianity and pornography might be more appropriate in the long-term since not all views are anti-pornography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:17Z
Keep notability has been met. Unless someone can demonstrate that there are significantly more notable examples of websites for the Anti-pornography movement (religious specific websites would be better) than this is the most newsworthy of them. John Vandenberg 04:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love . —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:35Z

Cubicles (song)[edit]

Non-notable album track. No evidence of any third-party coverage. It looks like it's really just a sentence stating what it is and then a sentence of WP:OR. ShadowHalo 20:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' No reason whatsoever for this song to have its own page. What is here can be easily put in on the album's page. A1octopus 15:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable non single. Rehevkor 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:35Z

Bryan Reynolds (2nd nomination)[edit]

After communicating with the previous closing administrator, trialsanderrors, the Reynolds article was initially userfied after being deleted in its first AfD. Since then, a number of changes have been made to the entry that correspond to the suggestions and criticisms generated by the first AfD. I have now placed it in a second AfD in concurrence with trialsanderrors' suggestion that it ought to be placed as such as part of procedure to determine whether it meets wiki critiria in being re-established as a wiki article. Gregorthebug 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't currently exist. If you're asking to have a previously-deleted article reinstated, the place for that is Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 03:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. The article was created in userspace. I moved it to mainspace. ~ trialsanderrors 20:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1st AfD, result was delete; deleteion review, result was deletion endorsed without prejudice against recreation. The article was then userfied on request; changes to the article since userfication: diff. My opinion is that the subject might be notable but the article reads more like a panegyric than an encyclopedia entry. ~ trialsanderrors 20:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author is a full professor in a major research university (UC Irvine). He is therefore presumably N; he has furthermore written at least one very widely-discussed book--which would make him N even if he had no academic distinction. The sources are adequate, though the third party references see, limited to book reviews. The article is somewhat improved, and the puffery removed from the lede. A good deal still has to be removed elsewhere. I have removed the many duplicate citation of his own works, and will return if the article is kept. DGG 23:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just returned toremove some of the detailed and jargon-laden summary of his own works, translating the kept portion into ordinary language--or as close to ordinary language as one can do with literary theory. This included quite a number of mentions of his own name, and links to many different people and subjects--I kept the links to the writers he discusses and to fellow critics. There are still some rough edges. Those who examined the article earlier might want to re-examine it now. DGG 23:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has become somewhat more encyclopedic, and I'm sure will continue to improve with DGG's help. Still needs to come out and directly say just what transversal theory is, though. —Cel ithemis 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is well-known. I've tried to say what transversal theory is. Fat Burner 19:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:09Z

Top Gear Dog[edit]

Notability, Article adds nothing to what is already included in the main Top Gear article DrFrench 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not independently notable, adequately covered in Top Gear. —Cel ithemis 02:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a seperate article is not needed. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability and has no references. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already given Suriel1981 14:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Top Gear per WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT. Although not 100% a fiction character, similiar arguments can be applied. small character on a notable TV show. The dog clearly appears in episode one of the previous season, suggest use of ((cite episode)). BTW it appears in other episodes, just less obvious and more in the "talk". --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, short lived in-joke --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 00:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:05Z

Historic Counties Trust[edit]

This article's inclusion on Wikipedia appears to act as little more beyond self promotion. It is also highly non-note worthy. It is in breach of WP:N and WP:NOT#MIRROR. Much of the content of the website to which this article refers is inaccurate also. On these grounds I nominate it for deletion. Jhamez84 21:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: A quick look at the website given shows that most or all of the article is a copyvio from the group's website. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete:

It appears to a front for the Association of British Counties. The only name I can find associated with it is Rupert Barnes who was also (surprise surprise) vice-chairman Association of British Counties in 2006, while the postal address given in [47] is

28 Alfreda Road

Whitchurch

Cardiff

Glamorgan

CF14 2EH

United Kingdom

The exact same address as recorded by Nominet for the abcounties.co.uk domain.

Oh, and they are using ABC's map (without the requested acknowledgement, but then I suppose they don't need to!)

From the content it looks very much like a site set up by ABC to answer to some of the Wikipedia content, which presumably can cited be used as a "source".

Definitely not notable: only formed in 2005 and apart from their own site, Wikipedia and the charities commission/ companies house details, the only mention I can find is that they wrote to the Totteridge Residents Association.

Lozleader 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cardiff address listed above was, according to his online CV [48], that of Peter Boyce. He was named as chairman of the ABC in a former version of our ABC article [49] The information was later removed, as there was no independent evidence of the fact. That edit was made by User:Owain, who also created the HCT article. Lozleader 11:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non notable. MRSC • Talk 07:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Un-notable. G-Man * 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Not notable. DDStretch (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conaway Ranch[edit]

This page should be deleted as there are no links to it; it will be difficult to introduce links and the topic seems non-notable GDon4t0 22:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If and only if it gets some cleanup/wikification. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clean-up is nessesary, but not deletion as this is a notable place. Per WP:NOTE, it's the subject of multiple published works. Here are just a few [50] [51] [52] --Oakshade 04:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs a little work, but most articles do. It's a real place, has gotten lots of press as the subject of a major controversy (the timeline ends while the trial was still scheduled) of eminent domain which tends to be as much a political hot potato as a legal one, etc. Carlossuarez46 06:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merged to Constitution of Peru. Pea ceNT 06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian Constitution[edit]

1. There is already an article at Constitution of Peru, which is generally how we title such documents

2. The Constitution that this article is about is no longer the Constitution of Peru. There's a newer one. This is about the short-lived 1979-1992 Constitution, which is void.

3. Some of the article is still in Spanish and all of it was horribly translated. Descendall 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with caveats. These caveats being that the article is renamed in some way to reflect that this Constitution lasted from 79-92 (which doesn't seem overly short-lived to me, but perhaps Peruvian politics is a different kettle of fish), the significance of the Constitution is expounded upon (why was it promulgated in 79? Why was it replaced in 92?) and the translation improved. As the Constitution of a sovereign country, it would appear to be notable, even if it no longer is in force. If someone with more experience in these matters can demonstrate that it was an unremarkable document, I'll reconsider my opinion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Constitution of Peru. I assume that from 1979 to 1992 this document was the supreme law of Peru, which to me confers notability automatically. Constitution of Peru should be expanded to serve as a history of all iterations of the document. Otto4711 22:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as given the size there is no reason for separate articles. If split in future naming should be e.g. Constitution of Peru (1979). But Constitution of Peru should serve as a history of all Peruvian Constitutions. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged per Otto4711 and Dhartung. I was WP:BOLD and performed the merge. I will work to improve the article using additional external sources and will remove/translate the untranslated content. -- Black Falcon 23:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No content.--Sefringle 06:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no content because it has already been merged to Constitution of Peru. -- Black Falcon 19:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge per Otto4711. --MaNeMeBasat 13:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as Redirect to Constitution of Peru - since merge to Constitution of Peru has been executed. --Richard 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor actors and actresses in Harry Potter[edit]

A person isn't notable just because they appear in Harry Potter. This listing is redundant compared to the exhaustive one at List of Harry Potter films cast members. None of the people on the page are otherwise notable and would need splitting to another article, though if there is one that I've overlooked a separate article just for them can be made. Basically, if you only need a section to say that X person played Y role in Z Harry Potter film, it's already been said at the list. Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge all relevant info into List of Harry Potter films cast members (which may need a name change). The title of the article is reason enough for deletion. Minor=not notable. What's next, List of extras in movies? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, List of Harry Potter films cast members underwent a name change from Harry Potter cast, and I think it's the shortest way of saying what we're trying to say… but if you have any suggestions, it would be great to hear. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this seems to me a better alternative than having dozens of articles on otherwise non-notable performers. It's similar to the recommendations for minor fictional characters at WP:FICTION — rather than create a dozen non-notable stubs, create a list which merges the content into a useful and comprehensive format. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Josiah, the point was not to go create individual stubs, but rather that these people were not notable enough to merit even a comprehensive article of all of them. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand that creating individual stubs wasn't the proposed alternative, but I think that it's what the actual consequence of deleting this page will be. I disagree with the judgment that these young actors en masse are non-notable, and practically speaking, it will be easier to maintain a "compendium" list like this than to continually hunt-and-destroy the stubs that will be created otherwise. As it is, pages like Eleanor Columbus can (and do) redirect to Minor actors and actresses in Harry Potter. If this page is deleted, it will be all the more difficult to prevent future stubs for Eleanor Columbus and the like from sprouting like something out of Herbology class. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Josiah, I have watchlisted all the stubs that redirect to Minor actors and actresses in Harry Potter. Hopefully, you have enough faith in our watchlisting skills and reversion of inappropriate page creation so as to change your mind? I don't agree either that these are all non-notable, because they have the good fortune of appearing in a Harry Potter film. But that information is already covered at List of Harry Potter films cast members. Surely, at least a redirect to the latter, featured, list, is more appropriate, and a vote of confidence to continually monitor all the stubs that might be created? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not a question of faith in watchlisting, it's a question of additional information. List of Harry Potter films cast members is lovely, but there is information at Minor actors and actresses in Harry Potter that isn't contained in the larger list: birthdays, yes, and also other roles and school information. For example, it's of mild interest that the actor who played Charlie Weasley is now studying Law at Cambridge (although, of course, a citation confirming this would be good). (By the way, is William Melling, who's on that list, any relation to Harry Melling, who plays Dudley and is Patrick Troughton's grandson? That's the sort of info that this list could contain that the larger one can't.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I imagine that the page could be very informative if all of the information weren't taken from IMDb, though. William Melling we have no idea about, since he plays on one of the smallest roles in the series (just a few short scenes in GF and apparently a few in OP; looks like his character is a "replacement" for Colin Creevey). If he is related to Harry, though, that may prove how he got the part. Anyway, it just seems all of the birthdays came from IMDb, which has very little editorial oversight and thus is not a reliable source for actors' personal information or upcoming films. I suppose if we really want Alex Crockford's school information, he could go back to a stub, or we could greatly reduce the page so that it only has information on minor actors who also have some other interesting information about them. For the record, Crockford appeared in a two-second cameo in a photograph of all the Weasleys. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Josiah Rowe, there will be a lot of child actors who may or may not go on to appear in any other production. Listing them is a good idea, and in future splitting off any that go onto to become famous in their own right. Tim! 08:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But if they don't go on to become more famous, we'll be stuck with this page, and we'll continue to go through this cycle again and again until they eventually die. Why not wait to see if any of them become famous, and then write an article on them, rather than keeping them in this essential duplicate to List of Harry Potter films cast members but with words? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Josiah Rowe's reasoning is convincing, the Harry Potter series is huge, but we don't have much information on these actors so maintaining a comprehensive list for them is a reasonable way of handling the situation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the complete cast can be found at List of Harry Potter films cast members, the editors there can decide who's minor and dump them toward the end. I also agree with those voting keep that you don't need to be notable to be on the list -- not every name need be a link -- and with the converse: that being on this list doesn't make one notable. Carlossuarez46 07:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, big franchise, generally speaking not all actors/actresses will be article worthy, perfect example of a good list. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you say an example of a good list has one-sentence sections such as "Jennifer Smith played Lavender Brown in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," with no other information? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's hardly any worthy information, except who played which character. And for that we already have a list. Neville Longbottom 20:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given already. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Josiah. Also, one of the most notable media franchises in history. - Peregrine Fisher 07:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't think me anti-Harry Potter! I'm one of the most active members of the WP:Harry and am a frequent poster (when not editing Wikipedia) of a number of fan forums around the web. But that does not mean I approve this article. Basically, this is just a listing of about 28 actors or so who appeared in the HP films, and essentially nothing else that's notable. They were originally all stubs, so we merged them into this one giant article. I was originally part of the creation of this page. However, I have since learned the ways of Wikipedia better to realize that you don't need to write something, even if it be one or two sentences, about somebody who's done something famous, just because they've done that. They don't need an article or even a section of an article, if the've been mentioned at List of Harry Potter films cast members, where the information there (name, role in which film) is the only information in this article we're discussing here. Look, I'm happy for Jason Boyd and all, but would you say a section that reads: "Jason Boyd (born September 29, 1989) will play Piers Polkiss, Dudley's best friend, in the upcoming Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is that necessary? Boyd is listed under the "Muggles" section of List of Harry Potter films cast members. His birthday was taken from IMDb. Not that hard to find. Now, instead of Jason Boyd (actor) redirecting to Minor actors and actresses in Harry Potter, which is a list made out of prose, it will redirect to List of Harry Potter films cast members, which is a featured list made out of tables, which is really the information you'd be searching for if you're looking for Jason Boyd. When you see that his name is not wikilinked, you will discover that there's nothing else about him which Wikipedia deems notable, so you'll be satisfied to learn Jason Boyd has played Piers Polkiss in one HP film, and that's it. You want his birthday, which may not even be true, go search IMDb. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* NOTE: This debate has been included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/AfD. John Reaves (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 08:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC in popular culture[edit]

Delete - a form of this article was put up for deletion recently with a result of no consensus. However, several recent similar AFDs lead me to renominate it. The article is an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every reference to or mention of AC/DC, one of its songs, one of its members or something that sounds similar to one of those things, without regard to or explanation of the significance of the mention in either the source material or the real world. Note for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Who in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimi Hendrix in popular culture. Otto4711 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into AC/DC. It is well cited and somewhat relevant, but it does not need its own article. Why oh why do people think "... in popular culture" deserves its own independent article. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or merge into AC/DC~~. Unlike many of the other "in popular culture" articles, this is an excellently-sourced article. A merge is somewhat problematic given the length of the AC/DC article, so if it is conducted, it should be somewhat selective. Given the qualitative difference between this and the other cited "precedent" lists, I think keeping is appropriate here. -- Black Falcon 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing is not the issue here. I agree that the article is sourced, which is why "unsourced" was not offered as a reason for deletion. The problem is that no matter how well-sourced the indiscriminate list is, it's still indiscriminate. The items listed tell us nothing about AC/DC or the things from which the thing is drawn or the real world. How does knowing that "Snowballed" was heard from Molly Ringwald's character's brother's room in "Sixteen Candles" tell us about her brother or "Sixteen Candles" or the band? What insight into AC/DC, the character or the film does knowing that "Are You Ready" was playing in the background of Chris's nipple-piercing scene in "Rock Star" offer? What does knowing that Angus Young is on top of the red building on the right, behind the dogs pouring brown matter, on the cover of "Dookie" tell us about Young, AC/DC, Green Day or "Dookie"? This stuff is pointless trivia that doesn't belong in its own article or in the AC/DC article. Otto4711 00:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you in part. A number of the entries on the article are "trivia" and can be removed. However, it is not trivial that a character on a very popular TV show always wears an AC/DC t-shirt (assuming it's true). It is also not trivial that AC/DC's album Who Made Who is the soundtrack for the film Maximum Overdrive. So, what does all of that make this article? Essentially a poor- or medium-quality list that can serve as the basis for a more encyclopedic article that discusses the influence of AC/DC on popular culture (yes, I realize they are part of pop culture, but I'm referring to that part of pop culture which they haven't directly produced). As for your main point, this article is not indiscriminate. Firstly, it meets none of the criteria on WP:NOT#IINFO. If we were to take the more general meaning of the word (outside of WP guidelines), it still has a clear, discriminating criterion: the influence of AC/DC on popular culture. If this list was unsourced or in significantly worse shape, I would probably have agreed with you. However, it is not, and as you well know, most WP articles start out in poor shape and improve over time. -- Black Falcon 00:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if I had one birthday wish, it would be that everyone who says that an article can't be an indiscriminate collection of information because it doesn't fit exactly one of the eight things mentioned there would understand that the section is not limited to just those eight things. I do not mean to take out my frustration on you but come on. None of those eight things would specifically ban List of blue things but is there any question that such a list would be indiscriminate? Would anyone seriously try to defend it by pointing to WP:NOT#IINFO and say "list of blue things isn't mentioned there"?
And I have to disagree with you that a character always wearing an AC/DC shirt is in fact trivial, especially since it's an animated show and characters in cartoons frequently wear the same clothes all the time. It's like saying that List of orange ascots in popular culture is notable because Fred from Scooby-Doo always wears one. And the soundtrack information already exists as its own article, which is linked to the AC/DC article. Otto4711 04:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But because Fred wears an orange ascot, doesn't mean that orange ascots have an influence over Scooby-doo or any other animated show. But the fact that Butt-head always wears an AC/DC t-shirt is indeed notable in that it shows how AC/DC has been used to denote anti-social characters in popular culture. I agree that the article itself needs to state why everything that is listed there is notable, but this is something which can be done in time. Deleting it is far too drastic. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 13:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing wrong with this article that can't be fixed as an internal content issue, no reason to delete it outright. -- Stbalbach 04:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stbalbach. AntiVan 05:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Stbalbach. And like I said in the previous deletion nom - while the potential for inclusionary criteria may be limitless, it does not necessarily mean information is collected on the article indiscriminately. One-off live performances, for example, are deleted, as are other non-notable and unsourced references to the band. And if we're going to delete this, all the articles on Category:Representations of people in popular culture should be deleted, as well as Pink Floyd trivia, which has been nominated and kept. I'll admit, there is room for improvement in the article and I'm willing to work on these if you point them out, but there's no need to delete the article outright. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 13:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And my other birthday wish would be for people to stop saying "If X is deleted then Y will have to be deleted too" because that's just flat out not true. Every article stands or falls on its own. Otto4711 15:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to be a little more civil my friend. Yes, it is true. The information contained in Pink Floyd trivia is the same sort of information contained in AC/DC in popular culture article. And as a matter of fact, this article is less discriminate and better referenced. So yes, if this article is deleted, then there is nothing to stop the Pink Floyd trivia article being deleted. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to stop throwing out false accusations about incivility, my friend. And if the Pink Floyd trivia article is worse than this one then maybe it should be deleted. That still doesn't make "if this article goes then that one will go too" a valid argument. Otto4711 17:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a false accusation; I take offense to people using condescending tones at me, but hey, that's a discussion which doesn't belong here. My point was that it was nominated and kept and that perhaps you should review the reasons why it was kept. It makes perfect sense to say that if one article about a band in popular culture goes, then that means perhaps another should go; but we both clearly disagree on that. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 17:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for keeping the PF trivia article look to me to range from "it's interesting" (which is not a valid criterion for inclusion) to "if it's not here it'll get stuck in the main Pink Floyd article" which I reject wholeheartedly as a reason for keeping. Garbage information does not belong on Wikipedia. All sorts of "interesting" things get deleted every day because they do not meet Wikipedia standards. If the information is garbage on its own and it's garbage in the main article, then the information should be removed. Otto4711 17:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was more referring to the users stating it should perhaps be trimmed a bit; I think this comment should be the case here. I'm certain that if we remove the "trivial" details from the article, we could make the article into a proper discussion of AC/DC's influence on popular culture. A delete is far too drastic, there is room for improvement. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but see, just that an AC/DC item appears in some other medium is not enough. There must also be reliable third-party sources which explain the significance of the reference either within the medium from which it's drawn or the real world. It's not enough to have a source that says "X appeared in Y." There must also be a source which explains why X appearing in Y matters. Otto4711 18:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, with work, this can eventually be done. The use of AC/DC to denote anti-social characters (Butt-head, Earl Hickey, etc.) is a start. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 18:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your source that Mike Judge used the AC/DC logo to denote that Butt-Head is anti-social, as opposed to, say, the AC/DC logo being easy to draw in the cartoon's crude animation style? What source indicates that Earl Hickey regrets going to an AC/DC concert instead of taking his sons to an amusement park indicates that this marks him as an anti-social character, and what source indicates that the choice of AC/DC instead of, for example, Slayer or Megadeth or Twisted Sister, was deliberate on the part of the creator of the character as opposed to the first heavy metal band that came to mind while writing the script? Otto4711 18:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources for everything will take time. But these sources [53] + [54], whilst not comprehensive, do show that Butt-head is dressed in a heavy metal t-shirt as a sign of a teenage metal-head stereotype. However, like I said, finding more reliable sources is going to take time. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 18:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source, MTV's website, only says that they wear "heavy metal t-shirts." It does not offer any analysis as to why the wearing of the t-shirts is significant, does not discuss "teenage metal-head stereotypes" and does not mention AC/DC by name. Your second source suffers from the same lack of substantive information and has the additional problem of being IMDB, which because it accepts contributions from anyone and does not engage in fact-checking, is not a reliable source. Otto4711 19:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, finding more reliable and comprehensive sources is going to take time and I'm willing to work on it. I just find your deletion nomination much too drastic considering there is room for improvement. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 19:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not because of, but for the same reason as the other articles. Ckessler 07:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:33Z

Andrew Saavedra[edit]

Does not meet notability, unsourced information of dubious veracity. A Google search turned up only mirrors to Wiki and also the fact that the claim for notability is inaccurate. A mcmurray 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC) A mcmurray 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: link shows Kyle Lehning as having been the producer of Nights And Forever.

Delete: per nom. A mcmurray 22:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: for reasons already stated.--Kranar drogin 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (which I think was also meant by "support")DGG 04:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, unreferenced = unencyclopedic Alf^Photoman 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-27 05:04Z

Israel Hdz[edit]

Underground rap artist with two singles. No info about radio play, no press sources, no links outside of myspace.com. Mixtape is "coming soon." Fails WP:MUSIC janejellyroll 23:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Got sigend to H.O.T. I Get radio play HOT 107.9, 95.5 The Beat (Atlanta radio) I am Preforming Clubb 112 in Atlanta. I got more singles belive that boi. i don't need a website i'm big i go places i dont go internet "ya digg" myspace more popular that wiki (no offence)

how can YOU help me stay on? what more do you need?

hit me up - for real (oh and every time i edit this artical it automaticlly deletes, what do i do?)

Comment Obvious WP:COI issues. Subject/creator keeps editing article to include promotional material, urging readers to call radio stations to request his songs. janejellyroll 05:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No relevant Google hits on this boi, ya digg? - IceCreamAntisocial 05:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

Speedy delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 10:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's me Israel Hdz. Please take this page off ASAP. I need to come back when my music biz get's a little more bigger and, better. So please do me this favor and delete this ASAP ya digg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.61.31.105 (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was Keep per consensus. Good sources added. Pea ceNT 06:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of global warming on Australia[edit]

Although based on some scientific predictions, this is an article about predictions - as per WP:NOT a crystal ball, articles about predicted future events are not really encyclopedic. There are also issues with undue weight, delete ---Peta 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had merged this elsewhere - but this discussion might be useful; thus the listing on Feb 23. --Peta 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this article should be deleted or redirected. It is a natural sub page of Effects of Global Warming which is extremely general. Climate change and global warming are acknowledged as some of the most important topics in the world and in Australia at present. It is not almost identical to Climate or Climate of Australia as the impacts are on species, biodiversity, industry, human occupation and communities. It is about the impact of changes to climate on a wide variety of areas, not climate. If the page should have been developed more before being put into wikipedia, I can understand that as a criticism, but a listing for deletion and redirection only a few days after commencement seems a bit over reactive. dinghy 14:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is POV speculation on the possible effects of global warming on Australia. Keep. Well done to the people or person who rewrote this article. It is now a good, well-referenced article. I have removed the stub tags because they are no longer appropriate. Capitalistroadster 02:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. On an topic like this, sources must be provide for every fact, otherwise the credibility of the encyclopaedia comes into question. I suggest moving this to user or WikiProject space to be further developed, as I am sure there is enough content to warrant an article. John Vandenberg 02:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to significant expansion with some pretty good sources to consider, I withdraw my vote for the moment. John Vandenberg 05:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The items listed are just a sketch for an article, and try to state matters without benefit of sources. I am not sure there will be quite enough for an article yet, but here soon will be, and the page should be reconstructed properly then.DGG 05:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm no climate change denier, but this is all just speculation, and doesn't really belong in an encyclopædia. Lankiveil 06:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Unsourced speculation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nice save. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All comments above rendered irrelevant by substantial changes/development in content and referencing. Article now has 17 references, most assertions referenced to articles published under Australian government or other undeniably reputable sources. This development of the article will continue over the next 7 days as advised to User PDH who nominated the article for deletion dinghy 05:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has over 40 referenced statements and is based largely on a report prepared by Australia's premier scientific research organisation the CSIRO. The referencing of the article now compares very favourably with most other articles I have looked at. The article has no POV. The report on which it is based was prepared for the Business Round Table. It ought not be deleted now, even if it should have been before. Could each person who has recommended deletion please review and reconsider your view.

keep but this is now the summary of a single point of view-- or perhaps everyone in Australia is rational about this. Still, the presentation does represent the consensus, and is not too speculative. Good job of improvement. DGG 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are so many issues tied in with the existence of this article - there is a need for the Australia Project to get a handle on the environment conservation mess it is in - deleting this article is not going to help Satu Suro 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CRYSTAL reads: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. This article is well referenced and a good addition to Wiki. --Greatwalk 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now a decent start on a tough topic. John Vandenberg 07:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. Rlevse 02:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Be Lo[edit]

An underground rapper. Deep underground. So deep that the total sales of his top two selling records are less than 20,000 copies. Mostly self-published, too. An example of bootstrapping: label notable because it's run by this individual, who is notable because he was in a band, which is notable because it includes this individual. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's beyond me why you want to delete all One Be Lo related articles. First of all, the sales figures are out of date (so they should really be updated, but that's another issue). Secondly, this guy is a hugely respected rapper in underground hip hop (by both fans and critics). All of his albums, both solo and as part of Binary Star, have had fantastic reviews from reputable sources. For instance, just checking his official Myspace page will show you he has had over 300,000 hits - massive for an underground rapper. Apologies if that was incoherant as I'm quite tired, but there's no reason the article should be deleted. Powelldinho 23:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of third party sources. External links are his site, his record label and two Myspace pages. Show me the notability please. One Night In Hackney 23:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely the album reviews on the S.O.N.O.G.R.A.M. page show notability? Powelldinho 23:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not in my opinion, I never use reviews as a measure of notability. Anyone can send a CD to a magazine or website and get a review published. Reviews of CD are generally not reliable sources that we can create an article from. One Night In Hackney 00:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree. If I were to start a band right now, release an LP with no promotion and sent it to the Onion or Vibe would I get a review published? Of course not, publications won't publish just any review, the subject has to be notable. That is why every single hip hop act doesn't get a review on rap reviews. With underground artists promotion is nearly impossible, artists in the undergound need these reviews. The reasons Guy are using to delete these articles is contradictory to the entire underground hip-hop movement, no artist will get high record sales or lots of media coverage when they are underground, this is part of the whole movement, not relying on high sales and controlling major labels for creative control. --HiphopisNOTdead 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Well that's your opinion, but it still doesn't change the fact that at present there are no reliable sources for an article to be written from, so we shouldn't have an article. One Night In Hackney 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entry has value, he is a well respected artist. That may not equate into raw record sales but that is not always the best criterion to use when judging such things. 82.9.253.47 23:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, he is a very well respected artist in the hip hop community, and any fan of underground hip hop will assert this. His albums with Binary Star have gotten positive reviews from many reputable sources and the same goes as One Be Lo, his latest album S.O.N.O.G.R.A.M. has gotten positive reviews from many different sources including rapreviews.com and scratch magazine (see his website for these links). Also the fact that he is "deep underground" has nothing to do with this, there are many "deeper" artists who have pages, it seems that this admin here would like to delete every single underground hip hop article there is, if this keeps up there won't even be an underground section. Binary Star's page is already gone, don't let One Be Lo's disappear too. Third party links from reputable sources are as follows: http://www.rapreviews.com/archive/2001_01_masters.html , Review on Binary Star album Also on rapreviews.com note S.O.N.O.G.R.A.M.'s review (under One Be Lo) it states that the said album was released under Fat Beats Records, not Subterraneous Records. http://www.fatbeats.com/catalog/index.php?manufacturers_id=913&elvis=c6ba68a3a0eb40f90d7e5649c629fe07 This is One Be Lo's page at Fat Beats records, note other artists on this label. http://www.avclub.com/content/node/16006 review from the Onion (notable source eh?) once again note the label that this record is under. Is this enough? --hiphopisNOTdead 16:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of multiple, independent, reliable sources about the subject. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, not being particularly knowledgable about rap. He seems to be popular and has been interviewed a number of times by numerous websites. Also this and this and this. "One Be Lo" also gets a whopping 191000 google hits. Oh, and here's another review of one of his albums. Just needs those links slotted in appropriately, I guess-K@ngi e ^meep! 05:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep To use the language of WP:MUSIC A review is a "non-trivial published work", and the above reviews all satisfy the guidelines therein. Low sales alone are not sufficient grounds to deny notability. Notability is a specific policy criterion on Wikipedia that is intended to insure NPOV and verifiability. This article is both neutral and verifiable from multiple reliable sources. Low sales impact neither of these two criteria. Richard Daly
Keep There appear to be scads of independent reviews for this artist and his albums. The nominator should do his homework. -MrFizyx 06:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this concludes with the article NOT getting deleted, then surely Binary Star should be undeleted? Powelldinho 21:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. Binary Star (band) has an album on Wikipedia with an article. A notable member with an album article as well. It would mean the reasons for deleting the group were not correct. --RapPhenom 12:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur also. -- Richard Daly 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Plus, it's probably a good idea to check whether an article is vandalised before submitting a AfD. Pea ceNT 08:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolwork[edit]

WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a place for publishing original research. This article is a user's opinion, and reads like a joke. Wikipediarul e s 2221 23:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article was nominated for deletion while in a vandalised state. The vandalism has now been reverted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that. As nominator, am I allowed to delete this nomination? Wikipediarul e s 2221 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw the nomination. As an aside, I just glanced through the edit history and it seems to be a vandalism magnet. (Frustrated students? Of course.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 03:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable. Could be worked on to become a good article.--Sefringle 07:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Rlevse 14:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need for Speed XI[edit]

Game has not been announced. WP is not a crystal ball. JACO PLANE • 2007-02-23 23:51

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. JACO PLANE • 2007-02-23 23:53
Delete, not enough concrete information to make it noteworthy (yet). Garrett^Talk 04:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't agree with that, there is plenty of useful information. --MrStalker 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well, from the sources used in the article so far it appears that a reasonable article was possible to construct. Also, one would imagine that being in the NFS series would confer considerable notability on the game in question. Perhaps when the game's title is officially announced, move it to the title. It isn't like someone wrote an article about "NFS XXXXXXXXII" here, just a game in development that is coming out soon-K@ngi e ^meep! 07:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well, I agree with Kangie. --MrStalker 08:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is well sourced and provides plenty of useful information. It is about a future game, it's not supposed to be 100% facts. The game might not be officially announced, but it is 99% certain that it will be pretty soon, which anyone who is somewhat up-to-date with the series whould know. --MrStalker 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apears to be sourced well. Article must be kept up-to-date though. Suriel1981 14:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the article about the game in development. And it has been announced long time ago. Elk Salmon 14:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was it announced? The article does not contain any reference for such an announcement. JACO PLANE • 2007-02-24 14:42
- I stand on keep, but I really don't know about that announcment of yours... unless you're talking about unoffical announcment, then I agree. --MrStalker 09:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. WP does not give anything to recognized franchise games; ther has to be an official announcement. See The Legend of Zelda (Wii) for another open AFD; also from a notable series, but nothing definitive yet. Hbdragon88 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is unoffically announced. Official will come soon. --MrStalker 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing it with The Legend of Zelda (Wii) is just wrong, that article hasn't got anything, Need for Speed XI got a hell of a lot more. --MrStalker 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with MrStalker. I recommended deletion for [[The Legend of Zelda (Wii) because of its lack of proper sourcing. This article seems to probably have more reliable citations, though, at least at first glance. Dugwiki 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources and enough information to warrant a small article that will expand as the game nears release. Rumors and such should be excised through the usual editing process. — brighterorange (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we removed all of the rumored information, I think we'd have a two-paragraph stub. If this survives I'll be cutting out most of the article. Hbdragon88 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's about a future game, what would you expect? --MrStalker 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's nothing wrong with a two paragraph stub! — brighterorange (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be even less than that. Remove all the rumors and speculation, and you will be left will one sentence (EA is working on the next Need for Speed, no details are known). TJ Spyke 09:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's 5 Keep vs. 2 Delete, 3 with the original post. When can the ugly afd-template be removed? --MrStalker 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AFDs usually last at least 5 days. — brighterorange (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is not a straight vote-count, it may or may not be deleted. A few good delete arguments will counter a hundred keep comments. Hbdragon88 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since article appears to be reasonably sourced. However, I agree that it needs to be cleaned up and the unverified/speculative information removed. --Alan Au 23:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it's an article about a future game, it doesn't matter if some of the information is speculative, as stated in the template --MrStalker 11:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a difference between an announced game that has yet to be released and an unannounced game that has absolutely no confirmation if it will ever be made or not. Hbdragon88 20:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming references check out WP:Crystal Ball does not require that the game be "officially announced". It only requires that the information about a future game come from reliable, referenced sources. So if the sources in the article are reliable publishers talking about things that are very likely to occur, then that is perfectly acceptable. Keep the article, and remove any unreferenced information. Dugwiki 20:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree --MrStalker 09:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You can even have articles about games that have never been released, and might not ever be released, provided there is enough published information about the "vaporware". Duke Nukem Forever is a good example of an article about a game that, even if it is never actually released, has enough references and notability to remain on Wikipedia. Dugwiki 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One key diff is that DNF has been officially announced. We know it's coming. We just don't know when. NFSXI may be coming. We don't know. Hbdragon88 01:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it will. Check out EA's offical forum and the references. --MrStalker 09:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Patent crystal balling, sources are entirely unreliable. For the record, I read until "According to rumours", then skipped to the references and saw they were all crap. --- RockMFR 08:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it would have said "according to sources" if someone hadn't changed it, but anyway. The sources are reliable, they are no more unreliable then many other sources releated to CVG articles. --MrStalker 09:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if there isn't a straight vote-count, who's the judge? --MrStalker 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the discussion I think we should keep the article and remove the afd-notice from it. --MrStalker 10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well it's clear that you feel so, but I don't think that there has been one single good argument for keeping this article. The game is unnannounced, and none of the sources used in the article qualify as Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It's up to the closing administrator to decide whether to delete or keep the article. JACO PLANE • 2007-03-2 10:52

That is your opinion, obviously. I see plenty of good arguments to keep it. One of those is, as I wrote above, the sources are no more unreliable then many other sources related to CVG articles. It may not be offically announced, but EA is already talking about it unoffically. This game will come in quarter 4, as every other game in the Need for Speed series have done each year since Motor City Online. --MrStalker 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RockMFR, Hbdragon88. As there's no deadline, we don't need to have an article until there are things to say which are WP:ATTributable. At the moment, this is crystal ball-gazing based essentially on a single source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's based on several sources. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." This applies for this article. --MrStalker 09:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just about all speculation (the rumored cars, rumored release date, the fact that the game hasn't even been announced by EA). TJ Spyke 06:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends on how you define "speculations" and "romours". Everything in the article is properly sourced. An interview with an EA employee is not what I call speculations. And, there's nothing that says Wikipedia cannot have some speculations as long as they are properly sourced, especially for an article about a future game. --MrStalker 09:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - All that interview did was say that the "Pro Street" subtitle was bullshit. There are ZERO facts in this article, and no confirmation the game even exists. WP policy says this article should be deleted until some details are known, it's the same reason articles on the PS4, and other future movies/games get deleted. These articles are not supposed to be up until some details are known (not "the game could have this", "some of the rumored cars are", "information may be announced at E3" type of stuff). TJ Spyke 09:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Katz[edit]

Poorly written, but not sure if it would be notable if it was better. Just H^{editor review} 23:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyvio. I've tagged it as such. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually, theres a very old version of the page that isn't a copyright violation and doesn't have any unverifiable information. I've reverted to the last version by Zotel. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete The old version has no evidence for n, besides that he's a radio announcer. DGG 00:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actually he's an award winning talk show host - leave it up!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.162.200.4 (talk • contribs).
Comment - Please explain why it was taken down? Everything in there from gmss0205's second edit is factual, and can be verified on the WBT-AM Web site. There are other sites on Wikipedia that give biographical information on radio personalities, and those are not removed? Why was this one taken down? Is that someone was vandalizing the site with inaccurate information? Just curious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.105.195.2 (talk • contribs).

I removed it because it was a WP:COPYVIO of this page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sailordude here: I have edited this page many times to reflect the facts contained on radio station WBT's own web site; I also KNOW Mr. Katz. I have spoken to him about the continual editing by the user of IP 67.102.230.77, who is apparently residing in San Francisco and has a grudge against Mr. Katz. I have made Mr. Katz himself aware of what is currently going on with this page, and I think that A) HE should ahve the last say as to what is contained on this page, and the page frozen, and B) the owner of 67.102.230.77 be penalized in some way, for what he is doing. I also have a strong hunch that user 208.66.31.54 and 67.102.230.77 are the same person. It appears that the IP begining with 67 is done from work, then he goes home where his Ip is the 208. Just an edjumacated hunch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sailordude (talk • contribs).

Comment I am the one (gmss0205) that posted that updated info about Jeff Katz from the WBT home page, that you are refering to as copyright infringement. I am friends with Jeff, and he approved the content. If you need to contact him, his email (which is public knowledge) is jeffkatz@wbt.com. He will verify that he approved the content. Let me know what else I can do to help. I don't want to create any false perceptions, or have you believe that the information was taken from WBT without their approval. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.105.195.2 (talk • contribs).

Hello, gmss0205, thank you for commenting on my talk page. Getting permission from Jeff isn't enough. To be included in Wikipedia, the material must be released under the GNU Free Documentation License which would be hard to do unless you can convince Jeff and WBT to do so. Also, that's besides the point. The point is that the material you're referring to isn't written in an encyclopedic tone anyways. All content must be in a neutral point of view and verifiable from reliable published sources which the WBT text doesn't quite achieve. You're not trying to copy very much material, so I'd suggest rewriting your own text from scratch. Let me know what you think. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Arichnad. Quick question. Do I go back and edit the main "Jeff Katz" page, or should I do the text elsewhere to show it to you first? Let me know what you think is best. I will also make sure that Jeff approves the text before I send it to you. Thanks for your help. - gmss0205 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.105.195.2 (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No need to get Jeff's approval. Keep in mind, this is supposed to be an unbiased account of Jeff Katz. If Jeff "needs" to approve it, then it won't be very unbiased, will it? This article could potentially have true, sourced, verifiable content that Jeff wishes wasn't on Wikipedia. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sailordude again: Once an accepted, legally acceptable entry is created, will this page be able to be frozen to the editing of the likes of 67.102.230.77? On the mention of Jeff Katz' information not being in an encylopedia, well, neither is Ray Taliaferro, who is another radio host, but resides on KGO 810 in San Francisco, yet there he is on Wikipedia as well! Thanks for the chance to input on this issue.

No, it won't be frozen from editing. The point of wikipedia is having community edited content. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I (gmss0205) made some edits and reposted a new version. Let me know if this version is acceptable. There is nothing "editorial" in there. It is all just factual information. I think Sailordude's point (which I agree with) is that is appears that someone out there is probably just going to vandalize this page again, once it is up. What can be done about that? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.105.195.2 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, this content was much less "editorial", as you call it; which is good. However, it doesn't cite any references (see reliable sources, citations, and attribution).

To answer your question about vandalism: you can remove vandalism and add warnings. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will try to figure out the best way to cite reference. Not sure the best way to do that. Also, I honestly don't know how to add a vandalizism warning. Would you be able to help with that, as this page has obviously been the target of vandalism, and probably will be again in the future? Any help is appreciated (if you are allowed to do that). Thanks again - gmss0205

I can help you cite references. If you put them here or on the page, I'll help fit them into the style usually seen on wikipedia. As for the vandalism, I can help with that too assuming this page survives deletion. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Katz was a police officer? When? Reference? Katz has a wife? When did they marry? Reference? Katz has a child with special needs? What special needs? Reference?)

I'll forward the references and cites presently. The information was pulled from transcripts of his shows and the station records from his various places of employ. He worked with the Housing Authority in Philadelphia as a police officer, so we can submit his employee records as well. As far as special needs go, his daughter is retarded - this is cited in his show transcripts. Are the medical records/insurance claims necessary? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.102.230.77 (talk • contribs).

I think whoever did the last comment is the person vandalizing the site. Come on, do not put personal attacks in here. Statements regarding his children? That is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. Grow up. -- gmss0205 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.105.195.2 (talk • contribs).

What am I missing - there was a personal attack in that last statement? I have only stated factual and unbiased information. He is a former police officer, he is married, he has children, his daughter has special needs (she is retarded), he left his last job due to poor ratings. All of this information (apart from his departure from his last job) has been discussed by him on the radio. How can this be considered to be an attack? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.102.230.77 (talk • contribs).

Calling a child "retarded" is uncalled for. You know that. What are you, 12 years old? Show me your information that he left his last job due to "poor ratings." Did you see the article in the Charlotte Observer this past Saturday that discussed how well he is doing in the ratings at WBT? Bet you missed that one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.105.195.2 (talk • contribs).

jeff did not leave sf due to low ratings...his ratings were second only to michael savage...look it up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.162.200.4 (talk • contribs).

There was a question as to what defined "special needs". As such, I explained what was meant by that terminology. It is not a diagnosis nor is it meant to be hurtful wording merely a statement of fact and used as a description. His ratings in San Francisco were something less than stellar and there is no denying that. The fact that he was dropped as a fill-in host speaks to that. His audience at WBT has been steadily dropping - particularly in light of the attempts that have been made at cross-promoting him. I have seen the articles but I've also seen the facts and figures. I'm not sure why you have felt it necessary to blow this entire issue out of proportion. My entries have never been about any sort of personal attack - I have simply been trying to present the facts in the most accurate and concise manner possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.102.230.77 (talk • contribs).

Guy's, please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Also, these discussions about the content of the article should probably go on the Jeff Katz talk page. This discussion is used for talking about whether the Jeff Katz page should be delete or not. Since there are no independent references to reliable/reputable sources listed on the main page, it might get deleted. To prevent the article from getting deleted, please focus your attention on citing your references. If you put references on the main article page, I'll make sure they're in the right format. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. The "debate" should be taken to the Talk page. References have been added. Thanks for your help - gmss0205 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.105.195.2 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong ~~Speedy~~ Delete This discussion is getting imature and pathetic. This person is NOT notable i.e. NOT WORTHY OF BEING NOTED. --Parker007 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment immature and pathetic conversation is not mentioned in WP:CSD. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you got me :) . --Parker007 23:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No doubt a fine DJ, after all he won an award, but as it stands the article does not, and has never, made a case for his importance or significance. I'm not seeing an encyclopedia article in this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted. gadfium 08:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Williams[edit]

Non-notable bio, creator apparently does not agree with speedy Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and so tagged. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, especially given the repeated removal of the speedy tag. JavaTenor 01:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 03:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete' Clearly non-notable --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]