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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sagas[edit]

List of sagas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Since the definition given is very vague - "a saga is a long story", that's all - it looks as if any TV series, any movie, book or video game with sequels can be listed there. If a list is likely to contain several thousands elements, I think it's useless. Sigo 21:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft and too vague. p.s. new additions to this list go at the bottom. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another entry in the "removal of listcruft" saga. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Unless refined it is a bit vague. I am not sure I understand the point although it may be useful to some. TonyTheTiger 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point may have something to do with trying to establish Norse sagas as the only sagas in wikipedia. Vegaswikian 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

votes after introduction expanded and refined

• Keep. I have updated the introduction for the article from wiktionary and other sources. This article needs to actually define saga and maybe expand it to a full article status is possible since saga is currently, and correctly so, a disambiguation page. Vegaswikian 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete still far too ambiguous to have any merit. The word SAGA, and hence any attempt to base a list on it, is hopelessly POV outside of the strict original definition. Does my saga of trying to get to work in a storm get included? Nuttah68 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only meaning of saga well-defined enough to use for a list is something like "Old Norse prose literature". Haukur 16:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, people have deleted a mention of the Gutasaga twice in the article Norse saga.--Berig 16:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Haukurth.--Berig 16:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss East Africa UK[edit]

Miss East Africa UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I am nominating for this to be deleted as because it doesn't give itself a reason for notability apart from the listing non-notable "celebrities". Dr Tobias Funke 01:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clean-Up, but Keep Seems notable to me. If more context and sources were added I think you'd see it as being more notable then it is in it's current state. Ganfon 01:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources demonstrating notability found via Google, Google News, or Google News Archive (only press releases & other promotional material). The 2006 event was the first. --Dhartung | Talk 03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it pains me to say so because commendable it is but it just does not give sources or a reason to be notable enough for a premier event which is not say it might not be in the future but now it isn't. As it is now it looks like it's using Wikipedia for advertising.--Solent 08:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of any kind of notability. Will change my mind with pleasure if someone wants to demonstrate otherwise. CiaranG 10:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources or other indicia of notability.-- danntm ^T _C 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fairly good web coverage considering the event was held in 2006 for the first time[1], but the competition isn't established enough. Julius Sahara 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: There are a good few hits and potential sources on google, but I am not quite convinced that it is notable. J Milburn 18:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-It was just established last year. Maybe if it runs a little longer it will become notable, but for now delete. (and as a side note, the name seems to contradict itself: Miss East Africa UK. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable. Needs editing and could use additional external sources. Noticket 22:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One of a huge plethora of beauty pageants, this one for East Africans in the UK. probably about the same level of notability as "Miss Nigeria in America". 61 unique Ghits, most of which are myspace, press releases, events listings. Fails WP:RS. Ohconfucius 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete and protect from recreation. --Coredesat 00:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remit2Home (2nd nomination)[edit]

Remit2Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

See the first nomination at [2] (which was about 2 days ago, by the way). I recommend salting this after the deletion for non-notability. N Shar 00:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as repost, and don't forget the sodium. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 00:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G4. So tagged. Please salt. --Dennisthe2 00:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger Of Shit[edit]

Passenger Of Shit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

• AFD closed, Artist is non-notable and no references - Makiyu 08:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod removed with argument "Artist is notable however difficult to find sources for due to nature of the music. Discogs is a good source. Corrected sloppy grammar and spelling." It actually appears to be impossible to find reliable sources that would show the subject to be notable. Seraphimblade 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:N, and the Myspace page doesn't help. --Dennisthe2 00:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Insanephantom.. Ganfon 01:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable and non-notable. Arjun 02:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not referenced/cited, and non-notable. Um, same as above. :P --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 04:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above--BozMo talk 09:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 09:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Fails WP:NOTE as all its links come from article's subject or related websites. Ronbo76 16:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 16:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Articles which can't be possibly verified with reliable sources should be removed as per WP:V. The article also doesn't seem to meet any WP:BAND criteria. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:BAND requirements due to no reliable resources provided within the external links section.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-fails WP:MUSIC and one of the links says "(Warning: Not safe for work)"--TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable band on a non notable label which fails WP:MUSIC. The apparent lack of reliable sources does also fails WP:V. Just for good measure, under 500 unique google hits. --Wildnox(talk) 00:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Quadzilla99 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes fall[edit]

Ashes fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Ashes Fall are no strangers to on stage injuries or blood and sweat . . . But they are strangers to meeting the requirements of WP:N and WP:BAND. The article was tagged for notability earlier in the month and no notability information was added. They have a single EP and the article is full of POV phrases ("the band members "flail around" etc janejellyroll 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no indication why this passes WP:BAND. Seraphimblade 00:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, page is just a cut and paste of their website. They could be a noteable in the future, but not at the moment. Neonblak 00:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You would be correct on that, good catch. I've removed the two paragraphs that were copyvios accordingly. Seraphimblade 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not, as yet, satisfy WP:MUSIC--Anthony.bradbury 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not pass WP:BAND. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 01:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BAND. Arjun 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet with WP:BAND, it's not neutral, and it's not verifiable to me. --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 04:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failing WP:BAND. Static Universe 07:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Hate to jump on the WP:BAND wagon, but the group seems non-notable at this time.
• Delete a single EP and a POV article is not enough to pass WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 17:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: One of their ex-drummers is now a member of Mortal Treason, who certainly appear to be notable. WP:MUSIC states- Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. as criteria for notability. J Milburn 18:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:MUSIC does not say that any band that ever featured anyone who went on to play in a notable is thereby notable, it says that this may be an indication that sufficient sources will exist. Aside from the fact that Mortal Treason barely passes WP:MUSIC, I could not find a single reliable independent source for this band anywhere on the internets, and that means policy says no article whatever guidelines might think. The primary notability criterion is multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. I was not able to find any provably independent coverage for this band, trivial or not. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Guy. And that sentence that the nom listed sounds like something you would find on a fansite or theirs, or a newspaper article. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and mention in Bobby Fischer article. As a side note, I turned the page into a redirect after deleting it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer's endgame[edit]

Fischer's endgame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No Few other references to it, may refer to a single game. Bubba73 (talk), 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard of this other than on Wikipedia. I searched for the phrase on Google, and all I found (other than WP and mirrors) were uses of the phrase in the context of a sentence such as "Fischer's endgame technique was ...". It may refer to the ending in a single game. Bubba73 (talk), 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to refer to the ending of a single game (see article's external link). Soltak | Talk 00:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly the game Fischer/Taimanov existed as described. But as the ending therein is fully described in the well-known book on chess endgames by Reuben Fine, which was written well before this game, the article appears unnecessary.--Anthony.bradbury 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is the length within the category (Chess endgames), might be merged to Fischer after deletion. --Brand спойт 01:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem in putting that info in the Bobby Fischer article. In Western literature, I haven't seen any reference to this as "Fischer's endgame", so one of the reasons why deleting it should be considered is that it isn't WP:Notable. Bubba73 (talk), 02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged a copyedited version to the Fischer article. --Brand спойт 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bubba. The only reference to the term "Fischer's endgame" is in a Russian source which might make it suitable for the Russian wikipedia, but there's no evidence that this term is ever used in English. That makes it a neologism at best. As noted by others, the endgame itself was well known both in tournament practice and in endgame literature decades before the Fischer-Taimanov game at issue. Quale 10:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Quale and Bubba. Only one single source (I am not even sure if that book really wanted to call such endgames Fischer's endgames in general) and not in any way a common term. (That Rook+Bishop is stronger than Rook+Knight is also quite debatable, there are great variations from position to position) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Strong keep - I used to play chess on a high school team and this was a classic match Fischer was involved in. After winning the match, Fischer became a big fan of this endgame and advocated it. A Yahoo search for the term, Fischer's endgame 1971 Taimanov yields several commentaries of it including this Java enabled version of the match, PDF analysis and other articles. The article is poorly written and could stand wikification and cleanup. Ronbo76 16:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The endgame did occur twice in the 1971 Taimanov match and once between them in the interzonal tournament the previous year. It is also the second most common type of endgame (see Endgame#Table of the most common endings). The external article you link to states that Fischer was especially good at playing the side with the bishop (with those three impressive wins over Taimanov, for example). However, I haven't found any English reference naming it "Fischer's Endgame". Bubba73 (talk), 05:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was one of Fischer's candidate matches which was a requirement to challenge the chess champion, Boris Spassky in 1971 (please see our Wiki article on Bobby Fischer and the paragraph, The road to the world championship (1969-1972). This is also commentated in this article. It is over time that this endgame has been proved to have a weakness (as all new winning variations usually do). The reason you see pathetic is a commentary on Fischer's eccentric life especially after he failed to defend beating Spassky for the championship in 1972. This might be a better candidate for a merge. Ronbo76 16:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing specifically about this game in the external article you link to. It was one game out of quite a few, although it was an interesting game. Bubba73 (talk), 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename. If this title is a neologism in English, it is also ambiguous: the article might be about Bobby Fischer's endgame play generally, rather than a specific combination of pieces on each side. On the other hand, an article on chess endgames with Rook+Knight vs Rook+Bishop describes a real position and has potential for expansion. I'm certainly open to suggestions about where it might be moved to. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Fischer's endgame 1971 and expand. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 22:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per TeckWiz. -Toptomcat 00:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this information is simply wrong. This type of endgame, or evaluation of such, is not named after Fischer like the article suggests. This is either a mis-translation of the Russian cited , or the original author took some serious liberties. You won't find any other sources to corroborate. The 1971 game(s) vs. Taimanov are not really notable by themselves either. At best they should get a brief mention in the Bobby Fischer article. SubSeven 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I added the endgame at Zugzwang#Example from actual play because it contains two zugzwang positions, and the article didn't have an example of zugzwang in the endgame from an actual game. However, it is later in the endgame after the rooks have been exchanged. Bubba73 (talk), 03:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Translation I had AltaVista translate a paragraph from the Russian source, and it does say that the endgame is named after Fischer:

  Many generations of chess players made their first motions on the board with the aid of the brilliant textbook of the second champion of the peace Jose Raoult Capablanca. There among the wise councils of great knots are similar: in the ends the boat and elephant, as a rule, are stronger than the boat and horse, as a rule, this the sufficiently open nature of position. Then in the match Robert Fisher- Mark taymanov (1971) were played several endgames surprising on the beauty precisely with this relationship, after which this relationship began to bear the name - Fisher endgame. Specifically, this end obtained computer. Although in its cold memory all parties of Robert Fisher are stored, to demonstrate anything similar for computer it was impossible. It is here necessary to note the very good protection of blacks. Motions: 24....Kg", 35... L.d', 47....fshch - this is evidence of the deepest penetration into the secrets of position.

  Bubba73 (talk), 15:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have a reasonably strong acquaintance with post-1980 literature chess endgame theory. Fischer-Taimanov 1971 (4) is generally considered a technical masterpiece (see Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, vol. 54, pp. 389-93); Kasparov does cite its influence on his generation, but more for the pure bishop vs. knight ending (p. 393). Also see Shereshevsky, Endgame Strategy, pp. 179-81. Are we going to have articles on Fischer-Unzicker, Siegen 1970 (another masterpiece), or Capablanca-Tartakover, NY 1924 (whose influence can be seen in the final game of the Kramnik-Leko WC match or Topalov's win against Kasimjanov in the 2006 WC)? Nonstandard, even in the Russian literature. Billbrock 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. Fischer botched a won ending in game 2 of the same match: Balashov called 50.c5?! "a surprising error for a player of such a high class"; and Kasparov writes that Fischer's 52.Ra2? "shows that Fischer has lost the thread of the game" (MGP 4:383). Billbrock 16:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC) corrected typo Billbrock 23:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bill means volume 4, not volume 5 above. Bubba73 (talk), 16:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Billbrock's comments on delete seem to indicate it was cited by Kasparov which means it meets WP:BIO in that this person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs)

• Comment No one doubts Fischer's contributions to chess. (There is plenty of information about Fischer in WP.) The issue is whether or not the endgame of rook and bishop versus rook and knight (with pawns) is commonly known as "Fischer's endgame", and whether or not it is notable (WP:NOTE), which says that there should be two independant sources in order to be notable. Fifty years before the 1971 match, Capablanca's 1921 book Chess Fundamentals states that the bishop is better. The endgame is also discussed thirty years earlier in Fine's 1941 Basic Chess Endings. Recently, this article by endgame expert Karsten Muller discusses three games between Fischer and Taimanov in 1970 and 71, but does not call it "Fischer's endgame". Also recently, My Great Predecessors by Kasparov discusses it but does not call it "Fischer's endgame". The only source we have been able to find is the Russian one, and it is a little wishy-washy. The translation says that "it began to be called...". Perhaps it did began to be called "Fischer's endgame", but the name doesn't seem to have stuck. I favor deletion on the basis that it is a non-notable stub. Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In adition, Soltis examines one of these games in Bobby Fischer Rediscovered (game 90) and even says it is "perhaps Fischer's most famous endgame", but does not mention "Fischer's Endgame". And the Oxford Companion to Chess (first edition) lists "Fischer Attack" and "Fischer defense", but no "Fischer endgame". Bubba73 (talk), 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference found. Well, after quite a bit of searching, I found a reference in English. From Fundamental Chess Endings, by Karsten Muller and Frank Lamprecht, page 304, "... has sometimes been dubbed the 'Fischer Endgame' in view of a number of instructive wins by Fischer." This has a bearing on my earlier remarks. However, I'm still in favor of deleting it because it isn't very significant. I think it can be mentioned in the Bobby Fischer article. Bubba73 (talk), 01:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is notable; the term (and thus the encylopedia entry) is not. I refer the interested reader to Kasparov and Agur to get an appreciation of the wide variety of Fischer's contributions to chess theory. Does each one of these ideas get an article? The catalogue would be Borgesian. Billbrock 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It (the idea) is notable, as a lot of others are too, but it doesn't deserve an article under this title. Bubba73 (talk), 18:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have several books about Fischer and I will look and try to find further references. I have recently published an article on a specific endgame (K+R vs K+R+B) in http://www.chessville.com/Dothan/index.htm (article 10) and it seems that a deep analysis of an endgame should be on a chess site and not in wikipedia, unless we want to develop a branch of wikipedia that deals with endgame technique. After reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chess_games and seeing 16 games (there could be much more!!!) I thought why not do a similiar category of famous endgames? This is certainly one of them. --YoavD 11:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few articles on endgames, but they are general and not from specific games. Bubba73 (talk), 15:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Endgame Strategy by Shereshevsky and Secrets of Chess Endgame Strategy by Hansen discuss the ending between Fischer and Taimanov, but neither of them call it the "Fischer endgame". I like the idea of an article about famous endgames from actual games, but I still think this article should be deleted. Bubba73 (talk), 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The brand-new book Silman's Complete Endgame Course by Jeremy Silman also discusses the Fischer-Taimanov endgame, but it does not mention it being called the "Fischer endgame" either. Bubba73 (talk), 18:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added this information to the Fischer article Bobby Fischer#Fischer Endgame. Bubba73 (talk), 19:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First of all, if this were about any other board game besides chess, it wouldn't even have gotten to AfD. I don't even think a general-interest encyclopedia should be covering individual chess matches, much less parts of individual chess matches. We certainly wouldn't tolerate an article on, say, an individual inning of a baseball game, for example. Besides, given the wealth of information on Fischer, including a number of full-length books, we should have plenty of sources for this if it's something he's famous for, but I couldn't even manage a single Google Books hit for either "Fischer's endgame" or "Fischer endgame". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If anyone seriously believes that before Fischer, folks didn't know that R & B (in the general case, with many exceptions) were stronger than R & N, they're naive. If someone can't articulate a particular contribution to endgame theory made by Fischer in game 4 of the Taimanov match, this article should go. Game 2 of the same match is notable only for the atypically blunder-filled play of both players; the Palma 1970 game was well-played but otherwise non-notable.
• Delete Quite simply put, there's no indication that this is widely known as Fischer's endgame. Pascal.Tesson 23:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete OK I've been looking further into the guidelines, policies and various other bits connected to video games.

The Video Games Wiki (yes I know it's not policy but seems to the "considered" viewpoint on what should and should not be done with video game articles) has the following to say: A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. I'd say this article fails that test, I do not see how content such as: Light Arrows are also featured in The Minish Cap as an arrow upgrade. They are the first item ever that can be missed. If Link doesn't save Gregal before officially visiting the Wind Tribe, Gregal dies and Link will not get the Light Arrows ever. is of much interest to someone who is not playing that game.

It also says that other content that might be moved to a gaming wiki includes: Lists of mere statistics, items, or other minutiae. The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the swords available in the game. I'd say this article seems to fail one as well: Bottles are an essential part to many of Link's quests. These containers are used and often required to carry various things, such as: <list of all the bottles that link encountered Larry laptop 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added this six days ago, I also raised it here on the talkpage with no effect, and it was also mentioned here . For anyone about to suggest MERGE I would suggest they read this --Larry laptop 01:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Clearly against WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list and not a game guide. This article is literally a game guide covering the entire Legend of Zelda series and is unhelpful to anyone who hasn't played the games. The article also lacks sources as per WP:V and is probably original research. --Scottie theNerd 01:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting on my own stance: in light of points made in this debate, I actually do think that it is possible to cleanup and/or rewrite the article in such a way that it would not appear to be a game guide/indiscriminate list, hence negating the proposed reason for deletion. I too think that the subject is worthy of its article, though it seriously needs credible sources to back up such a claim. --Scottie theNerd 00:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --Scottie theNerd 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unnecessary. (also per WP:NOT and WP:V) Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 01:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: This article is informing about parts of one of the biggest game-series ever, and has been created because the article of the series itself was already too big. The fact it's only of interest to gamers is bullocks. Are we going to delete the article about the Pope, because Muslims and non-catholics don't find it interesting?

• Comment" This article is not written as a game guide. It does not explain the location or anything how to get it. It (generally) explains the items in the most encyclopedic way possible. JackSparrow Ninja 01:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You consider this encyclopedic (this is random, I could pick 100s of other examples) - The Mirror Shield is also required in order to solve several puzzles in The Wind Waker. In The Minish Cap, whenever an enemy fired a projectile and you block it with the Mirror Shield, the shield emits a small damaging beam of light (roughly equivalent to half the power of the Four Sword) back to the enemy. Interestingly, this is the first time an item cannot be obtained on the first playthrough. Only when the is finished can the Mirror Shield be obtained. Therefore, it's rather useless in The Minish Cap. It is formed by Biggoron eating the normal shield and spitting it out a few days later. Really?

how about Ooccoo is a being who acts like a warp item in Twilight Princess, much like Farore's Wind in Ocarina of Time. She will let you set a warp point in a dungeon by staying there and having her son, Ooccoo Jr., warp you outside and, if used again, back to the original warp point inside the dungeon. Unlike other warp items, she must be found again in each dungeon. She also doesn't appear in the final two dungeons or return with Link to already completed dungeons for storyline reasons.

and clear this is not a games guide In The Wind Waker, Link can buy All-Purpose Bait at Beedle's Shop Ship and store it in his Bait Bag. It is purchased in groups of three servings. A purchasable group of this bait will occupy one pouch in the Bait Bag, regardless of how many servings are left. Throwing some bait on the ground can cause pigs to dig there; throwing it near a rat hole causes rats to offer various helpful items for purchase. It can also distract Miniblins, and if thrown onto the sea near Fishman, he can fill in Link's Sea Chart and offer advice about the area. and I've seen some wonky "what about article X" views but you think that compares to an article on one of the world's major religious leaders? really? --Larry laptop 01:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just because it is interesting and useful does not mean it is encyclopedic according to Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:ILIKEIT. --Scottie theNerd 02:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Given that I'm packing at the moment I don't have time to go into my usual depth of argument. However, let me summarize as such: WP:FICT specifically allows for the creation of list articles when the sheer volume of content is enough to outright disrupt the article. This is one such case. This article may go into somewhat excessive detail in a few places, but by and large it is perfectly justified. At most this calls for a cleanup. Additionally, once the Link fans get wind of this, be prepared to face the reality of WP:SNOW. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

once the Link fans get wind of this, be prepared to face the reality of WP:SNOW - yeah I already know the special interest group will flood the afd and force no-concensus but one has to try. But don't worry if you are stuck with of the deku stick, it can be swung by using the assigned "C" button. They inflict double the damage to that of the Kokiri Sword, and double still when set ablaze, making them the most powerful weapon available to Young Link. --Larry laptop 02:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it is obvious that there is no way you might be wrong with this afd, and any keep means it's just by Link fanboys. JackSparrow Ninja 03:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is obviously not perfect, but as I said, that merely warrants cleanup. All of your concerns can be addressed without deleting the article. Additionally, both you and JackSparrow's comments fail WP:SARCASM. :P -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article is not supposed to be a game guide, and is in line with the proper list of items style in most of its locations. It contains some game guide content, but that can be removed. --tjstrf talk 03:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whether or not the content of the article is a game guide, the subject itself is notable enough (and verifiable enough) to have an article. --- RockMFR 03:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This isn't a game guide. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is game guide material and is not encyclopedic. This kind of information is more appropriate for a website such as gamefaqs.com. Furthermore, much of the article appears to suffer from original research and the article provides absolutely no real-world context. This information is of absolutely no use outside of playing the game; when is someone going to need to look up this sort of information other than when they are playing? Those who argue that it should be kept because it is too long for the main article on the game are missing the point that this sort of information shouldn't be in an encyclopedia at all. --The Way 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Yukichigai. The Legend of Zelda series is huge and this is a logical subarticle. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability asserted, yes, the game itself is notable, but what, specifically, is notable about a specific sword in the game? I consider items and such within games kinda like celebrities' wives, they may warrant a mention in the main article, but they hardly ever warrant seperate articles. There is no encyclopedic reason for a list of items within games, there are game wikis and gamefaqs for that reason. In addition, the definition of "game guide" per WP:NOT suggests that anytime something is useful primarily only to someone actually playing the game, it's not encyclopedic. In all honesty speedy delete criterion for "no context" and "no notability asserted" may well apply to the numerous lists of this kind, descriptions of game items offer us no commentary or context to ascertain why they are important. Wintermut3 05:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Wikipedia is not a game guide. Otto4711 06:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To anyone claiming this page is a game guide: go read the article game guide. Game guides are strategy guides: collections of tips, plans, and statistics to be used for defeating your enemies, not this. While this may be an article designed to explain a game, that is not the same as being a game guide. --tjstrf talk 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intention of the article may not be a game guide, but parts of it (such as the sections quoted above) clearly are. As the article stands, I would consider it more a guide than an informative article on items in a popular video game series. --Scottie theNerd 06:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable per WP:FICT, game guide elements can be cleaned up. Resolute 06:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one's argued that it isn't notable. --Scottie theNerd 07:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per tjstrf. AFD isn't for pointing out that an article needs cleanup. Yzak Jule 07:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The only time WP:NOT mentions games guides is under the Instruction manuals section. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This is none of those things. It would only violate policy if it included a guide on how to get these items, suggestions on how/where to use them, or advice on how to use them. An article about these items does not violate policy.VegaDark 10:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm as much a Link boy as the next guy that never in his life owned a Nintendo, but I think that the article in itself should stay, since there is clearly enough material to warrant an article, on a subject that seems reasonably notable. Surely, a thorough clean-up could solve the game-guide issue. It just seems like a such a waste to delete what is clearly hours of well-intended work. The article desperately needs a clean-up, sure enough, to remove game-guide content as well as to make it less sprawling, but deleting seems unjustified. Just my two-pence. Druworos 10:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep So what if it's a bit of a game guide, I like it a lot. I've found it very useful when playing as I don't have to search all over the net to find a decent guide. I think the article actually needs expanding. oh and a big up to the person who linked this AFD. --ICRArmy 12:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classic case of WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you like it and find it useful doesn't necessarily means it belongs on Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's just a long and unwieldy list of pointless trivia. P Ingerson (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The game is notable... but the individual weapons and items used in the game are not. Trivia.Blueboar 17:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Verifiable, notable, and is not a game guide, so WP:NOT does not apply. --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tag for cleanup. Some of the quotes here are indeed a bit too much detail/trivia oriented (and should be removed), but given the importance of this game (and its focus on item/weapon collection) the subject is clearly notable. User:VegaDark is exactly right about WP:NOT a game guide; it does not exclude articles about games or their contents, it only excludes how-to material. The material is certainly verifiable; descriptive claims can be sourced to the primary sources and multiple independent published guides for these games exist. (And though WP:NOT a game guide, they can of course be used as references.) — brighterorange (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: to me, what makes this a more like a game guide than an encyclopedia article is that it's entirely written from an in-game-universe perspective. Are sources talking about the real-world impact of these objects? That's what an encyclopedia article would contain. What we have here belongs in a game wiki, not an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what an in-universe perspective has to do with being a guide. WP:NOT clearly excludes game guides because they are instuctional, how-to material. Most of this article is not (and what's there should be removed). Compare List of Shakespearean characters for another mammoth list of in-universe descriptions of elements of notable fiction. I'd certainly vote to keep that article as well. — brighterorange (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In universe description is a nono based on the writing about fiction guidelines not just the wp:not a game guide criteria. Basically, an article must provide context in addition to content in order to fulfill the encyclopedic requirement. Things written from an entirely in-univese perspective about fiction also tend to result in confusion when they don't assert the character is fictional or why they're important in a more general sense. For example writing that a character is "the captain of the 124th lancer division of the galactic empire" could result in confusion, whereas "In sci/fi story Admiral soandso is the leader of the 124th lancer division, the protagonist's unit..." makes it explicitly clear the universe and importance to the story of the character. Wintermut3 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, of course, and the article does in fact do that. (Actually, looking over the list it seems that much of it is not in-universe at all.) Being in-universe is not grounds for deletion, anyway, since that can easily be corrected. What I don't understand is User:Friday's supposed alleged link between in universe and game guide. — brighterorange (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be fixed- that's my point. If proper sources are not talking about the real-world impact of these fictional objects, there's no encyclopedia article that can cover these subjects. If it were just a matter of writing style, this would surely be a candidate to be fixed by editing, rather than deletion. Friday (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems fairly useful. CosmicWaffles 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, please read WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you like it or find it useful does not necessarily mean it should be on Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 22:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CosmicWaffles has his own reason for keep, regardless of WP:ILIKEIT. --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 22:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ILIKEIT explains exactly why the "to each his own" principle is not appropriate for deletion debates. Saying "I like it" contributes nothing to the discussion; this is not a ballot. --Scottie theNerd 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, you got a point there. Disregard the above, I apologize in advance. --♥Tohru Honda13♥^Talk 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologise. I don't know much about Wikipedia, I'm a newbie, and I'm female. Sorry! CosmicWaffles 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable, notable. All this article needs is cleanup, and this reads nothing at all like a game guide. And I'm gonna be a bit of a rebel (jokingly) and say It's useful(I'm just playing!). --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 22:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If any videogame series deserves an article like this, it's Legend of Zelda. -Toptomcat 00:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable enough. Killroy4 07:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - in response to the MOS point - when the "sheer volume of content is enough to outright disrupt the article" why can't such content just be prunned off wikipedia? Especially when it's cruft, and not notable. Notable game series, yes. But is each item in the Zelda series really notable enough that we have an entry (and in many cases, a picture) in the encyclopedia? I see no point in keeping the article in its current state. It would need a massive cleanup before i would see it as not violating WP:NOT. We don't *need* a list of all weapons and items from Zelda, whether that's an independant list or a list that's part of another article. --`/aksha 10:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - your WP:NOT also states that

"Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." JackSparrow Ninja 17:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The problem is that you are applying notability standards for determining the inclusion of articles to the process of determining the inclusion of sections of articles. Furthermore, as to not "needing" a list of Zelda weapons: technically, Wikipedia doesn't *need* to exist either. This is not an exercise in minimalism, it's an exercise in consensus information gathering. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per solid precedent for such in-game item lists:
  • List of weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved
  • List of weapons in Halo 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo 2
  • List of vehicles in the Halo universe at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe
  • List of Weapons in the Resident Evil Outbreak Series at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Weapons in the Resident Evil Outbreak Series
  • List of vehicles in Star Wars: Battlefront II at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Star Wars: Battlefront II
  • List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series
  • List of cars in Burnout Legends at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cars in Burnout Legends
  • List of Cars in Forza Motorsport at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cars in Forza Motorsport
  • List of F.E.A.R. weapons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of F.E.A.R. weapons
  • Equipment in the Guild Wars Universe at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars articles
  • Mega Man weapons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Man weapons
  • List of weapons in Battlefield 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Battlefield 2
  • Battlefield 1942 Weapons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry
  • And many others that I didn't find with 5 minutes of searching. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Each one of those articles which you have listed detailed a specific subset of items (e.g. weapons, cars, etc.) from a single game. (Or was redundant information already listed elsewhere) This article, however, details all items and weapons from an entire series of games. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Guild Wars equipment list doesn't fall into the same category you pointed out. Having a broader list doesn't necessarily make it more appropriate, and in fact it can be worse for the article's existence. --Scottie theNerd 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Rubbish. Are you telling me that there has been only one Mega Man game? What does "series" in "Grand Theft Auto series" mean? How many games inhabit the "Halo universe"? Most importantly, so what? The bulk of an article that indiscriminately lists every widget in an ever growing series of games should hardly be its raison d'être. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - The Mega Man info was redundant. All the rest were articles with remarkably narrow focus, e.g about a specific subtype of items, usually in one specific game. The point is that each of these articles boiled down to a needless sub-article about a trivial portion of (in almost all cases) one game. (Though I do take some exception to the deletion of the Mega Man article) This article is not so narrow or trivial in its focus, and using the "precedent" of the previous AfDs simply does not apply, even ignoring the fact that not every AfD result is the right one. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Precedents are not formed by the presence of articles, but rather by consensus in community-wide discussions such as the policy/guideline pages, AfD (cf.) etc. Individual AfDs don't exist in a vacuum; if over dozens of AfDs the community has decided that such lists are not suitable for Wikipedia, then we must see extraordinary arguments for why this particular article is special. The mere fact of covering a series such as Zelda is not such an exceptional argument. Some more AfDs to munch on:
            • Armoured units of the USA (game), Aerial units of the USA (game), Naval units of the USA (game), Infantry units of China (game), Armoured units of China (C&C: Generals), Infantry units of the GLA (game), Armoured units of the GLA (game), Red Alert 2 Infantry, C&C Red Alert Vehicles, and C&C Red Alert Infantry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infantry units of the USA (C&CG)
            • Units in Advance Wars at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Units in Advance Wars
            • Units in Nintendo Wars at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Units in Nintendo Wars
            • Duke Nukem 3D monsters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Nukem 3D monsters
            • Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry, Soviet Union (C&C: Red Alert), Allies (C&C: Red Alert), Command & Conquer Red Alert Vehicles, C&C Red Alert Aircraft, Command & Conquer Red Alert Naval Units, Infantry units of the Global Defense Initiative, Armoured units of the Global Defense Initiative, Aerial units of the Global Defense Initiative, Infantry units of the Brotherhood of Nod, Armoured units of the Brotherhood of Nod, Aerial units of the Brotherhood of Nod, Structures of the Global Defense Initiative, and Structures of the Brotherhood of Nod at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry
            • Age of Empires units and structures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Empires units and structures
            • StarCraft units and structures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft units and structures (now just a redirect)
            • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zergling (a most illuminating AfD)
            • Weapons of Eve Online at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Eve Online
              — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment - I could be a chode here and cherry-pick AfDs to counter your claims, but I'd rather give everyone an opportunity to view the entire picture, as it were, on AfDs relating to lists like this one. Here is a list of every Computer and Video Game related AfD in the past several months. It's a lot of data to digest, but then again so are all the AfDs you seem to have arbitrarily picked. The one thing that is clear in this list, however, is that the "consensus in community-wide discussions" you talked about doesn't exist. I've not kept clear count, but it seems to be a roughly 60-40 split on the delete/keep results for "list" CVG articles. Even if you ignore the other CVG-related "list" articles that have never been nominated for AfD you cannot possibly shape a 60-40 margin into a "clear consensus". Trying to justify the deletion of this article because some other, somewhat similar articles were deleted is lazy at best, and just doesn't fly in an AfD discussion. Just like inclusion is not an indicator of notability, neither is exclusion. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Far from being "somewhat similar" and "arbitrary", the above is an essentially comprehensive list of AfDs in the past year dealing with exactly the same thing: lists of widgets and doohdahs from video games with no notability outside the community that plays the game. Any random chump can "include" an article in WP, which is why WP:INN exists. It requires consensus and at least one concurring admin to delete an article, which is why ignoring precedent on AfD is silly. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 09:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This is not a "comprehensive list", it's a cherry-picked collection. As for WP:INN, read my above comment: just like inclusion is not an indicator of notability, lack of inclusion is not an indicator of non-notability. If we start relying on "precedent" then the entire AfD process becomes moot; there will be no discussion, just people citing previous AfDs. Articles for Deletion discussions are to be done based on the individual merits of each article, not on what has come before. Citing a handpicked collection of previous AfDs as "precedent" is tangential, misleading, and just plain wrong. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Your statement above amounts to little more than stewing a word soup out of negative adjectives. Scream "cherrypicking" all you like: the facts are clear. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Comment - Yup, the facts are clear: there's no "general" consensus for deleting CVG list articles. Some stay, some go. Each is evaluated on the merits of the article, not "precedent". -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 19:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Comment - See also WP:AADD#What about article x?. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some more:
            • Buildings of Age of Empires III at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buildings of Age of Empires III
            • Cards in Sonic Rivals at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cards in Sonic Rivals
            • Counter-Strike equipment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike equipment
            • List of Gears of War weapons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gears of War weapons (now just a redirect)
            • List of GunBound Mobiles and Attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of GunBound Mobiles and Attacks
            • List of vehicles in Halo 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Halo 2 (2nd nomination)
            • List of vehicles in Battlefield 2142 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2142
            • List of Weapons in Alien Breed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Weapons in Alien Breed
            • List of weapons in Perfect Dark at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Perfect Dark (now just a redirect)
            • List of Weapons in Metal Gear Acid 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Weapons in Metal Gear Acid 2
            • List of weapons in Naruto at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Naruto
            • Mega Man vehicles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Man vehicles
            • Red Alert 2 Tech Buildings at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Alert 2 Tech Buildings
            • RuneScape items at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape items (yes, it is possible to delete runecruft)
            • Weapons of Halo 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Halo 2 (now just a redirect)
            • Weapons in Call of Duty 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons in Call of Duty 2 (merged with Call of Duty 2)
          • The only AfDs that break the pattern that I have found:
            • Items in the Metroid series at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Items in the Metroid series (was kept)
            • The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask masks, weapons and items at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask masks, weapons and items (no consensus, but obviously a clear overlap with the currently nominated article)
            • RuneScape weaponry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape weaponry (third nomination) (no consensus, but we all know how difficult purging runecruft is)
          • I hope the closing admin will comment on the applicability or not of relevant past AfDs in setting a citable precedent. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but ensure that it only addresses well-known and recognized weapons and items from the LoZ series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minutia from the game. I'm sure a summary within the main article would do the trick. This is far too extensive for a general encyclopaedia. More information is not always better; sometimes it is best to condense a lot of information to its crux and not go into such great detail. Plus, it caused a discussion where I saw video game trivia equated with the Pope, which I found offensive not to my religious values (as the Pope isn't part of my religion), but to my sense of... reality. GassyGuy 08:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• MAJOR COMMENT The article under discussion has been trimmed to about a tenth its previous size, and no longer covers any items that could possibly be considered minutia. It's basically not the same article anymore, so everyone should reconsider their positions in light of this fact. --tjstrf talk 08:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks more appropriate, but it still resembles a comprehensive list of trivial information that belongs on a game wiki rather than Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 08:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, now it's a non-comprehensive list of non-trivial information and is still just as useless of a game guide as ever. --tjstrf talk 08:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Lord, I didn't realize the version I read was after a major overhaul. The version when the AfD tag was applied is downright scary. Still, while Zelda is notable, weapons of Zelda don't get much in the line of reliable third party coverage and the likes, and the article as it stands still strikes me as mainly trivial. It's much better than it was, but it seems like there ought to be a way to condense it far more. GassyGuy 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given the recuring nature of a significant number weapons, and their importance to the evoltion of the series, I'd say it is notable. That's not to say the article couldn't use work though. JQF • Talk • Contribs 17:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nobody brought up the Pokemon yet? Because I'd argue that Pokemon and Zelda's items are damn near the same thing. At least nobody's listed Zelda items as individual entries yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.220 (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. As it stands currently, the article is not (just) a game guide and is an aggregation entries on items from a notable fictional series much as invisioned by WP:FICT. More clean-up may be desirable but I think that this is a logical and encyclopedic sub-article of Legend of Zelda series that should not be deleted. Eluchil404 14:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Take this type of article to a video game Wiki. RobJ1981 06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP It's fine. You people, (specifically the guy who posted direct links to a bunch of other articles like they form a legal precedent) have far to much time on your hands. The page shows the items involved in the series, as well as how they progress from title to title. It needs to be cleaned up, that's about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.53.167 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-26T09:10:42 (UTC)
  • — 66.215.53.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep or at worst relist the AFD. I can see why contributors were up in arms about the previous version, it had eschewed all traces of wanting to be an encyclopedia article and was running wild. However, unlike most (if not all) of the examples given of weapon-pages deleted, LoZ isn't a single game which happens to feature weapons or items, it's one of the longest running still-active game series. Since a great deal of the weapons feature in different games of the series, a page about them seems perfectly reasonable. Master Sword has a seperate article, could it not be merged in? If the article is kept, it certainly needs continued cleanup and referencing, but I think this does justify a stay of execution.
  As a side-issue, since RuneScape was mentioned, can I point out that the contributors to RuneScape themselves voted for deletion or merge of many of the articles they themselves worked on. Despite of a lack of familiarity with the policies and guidelines and having to cope with one of the most heavily editted articles on WP with an army of anons who've never editted before bombarding it constantly, the RS contributors are well on the way to getting the article to GA status and have tried to reign-in the sub-articles. Credit where it's due please, 'RuneCruft' is getting old. QuagmireDog 17:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if you were offended by that. I do honestly wish the RuneScape editors the best of luck with cleaning those articles up, even though I remain pessimistic about their chances and the state of video game articles in general. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good of you to respond, I really appreciate that. Rather thank taking offense, it's worry more than anything that any RS article which may get listed for AFD immediately conjures the thought "It's those bloody RS fanatics again!", especially when so many rogue articles appear from new contributors being bold, but which weren't wanted by those trying to build the RS series within the policies. I'll do my bit to try and keep gaming articles up to scratch and encourage others to do the same. :) QuagmireDog 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless you can prove nobody would be interested in this.--Nelson Ricardo 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, we don't have to prove no one would be interested, all we have to prove is that this information is not of encyclopaedic merit. There are many useful things or things people are interested in that we cannot cover (per WP:Not a howto guide, a directory, ect.) In fact WP:Not is entirely about things that, while useful/interesting/important do not belong on Wikipedia. The trimmed article is better, but I still think it asserts no significance. why is that sword *Important* is the key question here, and why is it important beyond the context of the game itself? This is still material primarily of interest only to people actually playing the game. Wintermut3 16:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rainbow Six: Vegas Weapons[edit]

List of Rainbow Six: Vegas Weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Close-ended list of real-life weapons in video game, does not comply with WP:NOT: not an indiscriminate list/game guide. Scottie theNerd 01:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --Scottie theNerd 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per my reasons above for the simular Zelda list, lists of items provide no useful context or information regarding the notability or importance of the items. If a guide WERE to (for instance a well-sourced list of iconic gaming items) then that might be different, but this is a game guide. Wintermut3 05:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless list that isn't encyclopedic and doesnt belong on wikipedia. DurinsBane87 08:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. P Ingerson (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have been bold and merged it with the article, pointing this page as a redirect. The list is just a bunch of names, without importance or extra information, so there's no reason to keep it outside of the article. I'd suggest closing this AfD and continuing to discuss it on Talk:Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas. --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Unlike the Zelda list, there is no information in this article to justify a list. But still, how is this a game guide? A game guide is an instruction manual (this is quite clear at WP:NOT) and this list says nothing about how to play the game. — brighterorange (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't have to be an instruction manual, anything "primarily of use to someone actually playing the game" is suspect. Even so, lacking verifiable information on the notability of the weapons violates WP:V and WP:N right off the bat. Wintermut3 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted above, game guides aren't purely instruction manuals. Game guides often contain miscellaneous lists that would be of interest to a player but not to a general reader. A full list of weapons does not belong in a game article as it directly violates WP:NOT - Not an indiscriminate list. There's no reason to list all the weapons in a game. --Scottie theNerd 21:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete n-n per nom DaveApter 19:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Freese[edit]

Jason Freese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No sources... unless you count the livejournal at the bottom... and thats not of very good (if any quality) at all. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 01:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, only a few news hits[4] (many of those the same article), an IMDB entry[5]. He's included in the Green Day template as a secondary musician (arguably typical), but seems to fail WP:MUSIC by himself (although that guideline does not specify a standard for members or temporary members of a notable group). The WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument is that innumberable bands have articles for all their members anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 03:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the lack of reliable sources, changing vote to delete. --Dhartung | Talk 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep, I actually own the community that's listed at the bottom, and for the most part Mr. Freese has been uninterested in anything having to do with it. It's mainly just there to collect google hits, to be honest, because no one ever visits it anymore. I think that Mr. Freese is a very talented man, but I understand his notability is in question, and I can't answer for it. I stay "weak keep" until someone can help me source the information in the article, because I've tried my best. I found a source this time around, and I'm digging up more, currently. I'm adding a note to the Green Day Wikipedia Project and see if I can get some help sourcing the article.--Jude 04:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added one source. I'm working on finding more. I'm sure I can dig some up, but all the information in the article is sourced at the link provided.--Jude 04:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now there's a reference. Seems like a fairly prolific backing musician. Chovain^(t|c) 12:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is now a reference and there is an effort being made to source the article.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 18:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a referenced article about a notable performer. Performing with so many such notable bands in such a manner makes him notable. J Milburn 18:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has a reference. FirefoxMan 23:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. WP:N requires two references where the article subject is the primary topic. The reference provided is also not a WP:RS, it's a fansite for Green Day. --Dhartung | Talk 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are plenty of references that verify that this fellow is a notable session musician. Google News Archive comes up with 21 references referring to his performances with Green Day [6] and his work with Tommy Stinson. [7]

Clearly verifiable and notable enough for mine and we should use common sense about sources. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not convinced that the source meets WP:RS, but it indicates that the claims are verifiable. If no reliable source were to turn up in a reasonable time, re-list. Eludium-q36 10:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Can you point me to where in the deletion policy "unreferenced" is? If so, I think several thousand articles will have to disappear -137.222.10.67 20:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XPyUnit[edit]

XPyUnit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Topic is NN software (436 google hits). Article violates WP:NOT (original research & how-to). -- JLaTondre 02:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikibooks:Computer_software_bookshelf. -- MarcoTolo 02:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It can be C&Ped across to wikibooks while the afd happens perhaps. The history is not rich enough to worry about transwikied, IMO. Chovain^(t|c) 12:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Chovain. Seems a shame that it is such a well written article. J Milburn 18:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Good Article", but not notible. FirefoxMan 23:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Everett Morrison[edit]

Glenn Everett Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable person --Infrangible 02:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no assertation of notability. -- MarcoTolo 02:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google scholar at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=GE+Morrison+Kooy lists a number of papers by GE Morrison which have been cited by others. This suggests some notability. --Eastmain 03:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hard to tell which papers are his on ISI, but he seems to have an h-index of about 4 or 5 at the very most, not enough to pass WP:PROF via the impact of his published work at this stage, IMHO. Pete.Hurd 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He's not there yet. GS is tricky to interpret, some are acknowledgments in a paper & some are just citing the papers. Since this is biomedicine, I use PubMed: there are only 3 real articles, the other 11 listed with his name are other people. all three of them he were with his professor. the most recent was in 2001. There is no indication of any scientific work since then. I am very ready to accept any claim of notability for a researcher, but 3 pubs while a grad student and none since is below the average. Didn't even go for a post-doc, which is sort of the minimum qualification for a bio researcher. DGG 04:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with User:DGG, he only got his PhD in 2000, I'd expect it to take longer for him to establish notability in academia.-- danntm ^T _C 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG and danntm. --Dhartung | Talk 18:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per DGG. Seems like he could become notable in the future. J Milburn 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG. Pete.Hurd 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN. It was contributed from a WP:SPA (Special:Contributions/Hnicgm), which always makes me worry that notability is a big problem, and the arguments above definitely make this a quick decision to delete for me. John Vandenberg 08:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as spam --BigDT 04:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido Of Maine[edit]

Aikido Of Maine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Advert for non-notable aikido dojo. Contested PROD. ➥the Epopt 02:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as spam. --Dennisthe2 04:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Concur and so marked.Peter Rehse 04:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy's lullaby[edit]

Ivy's lullaby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article seems to be somewhat esoteric and lacking in encyclopedic value. Seriously, do we need an article about some tune sung by some character in some movie? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, seems to exist only to copyvio the lyrics. No notability outside of the film asserted, fails WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 03:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Someone seems to have removed the lyrics, eliminating the copyvio issue. Regardless, I still feel that the article is unencyclopedic and deserves to be deleted. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A song sung in a brief scene in a single movie is trivial and non-notable. No real-world context. --The Way 05:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does it even have enough significance to consider merging to The Village (film)? I think not. CiaranG 10:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing useful or notable. P Ingerson (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too trivial, and thus fails WP:FICT.-- danntm ^T _C 17:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definately trivial- I have seen the film, and have no memory of the lullaby. J Milburn 18:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above FirefoxMan 23:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Outlaw[edit]

John Outlaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

High school football coach. Interestingly there's another John Outlaw who had a brief NFL career. The John Outlaw that this article is about, while having enjoyed, or so it seems, a nice career as a high school coach is still, as any football coach, not someone about whom scholarly references abound. What one can find are multiple mentions of his name or a quick quote in local newspapers or websites about high school football. As far as I could tell from my quick research, there are no reliable sources to build a significant article. Pascal.Tesson 03:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Half of all high school coaches have winning careers, statistically. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete FirefoxMan 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons above and then some. House of Scandal 11:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of toll roads[edit]

This nomination includes:

List of toll bridges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, nor is it a directory of places. I argue that this page be deleted as per these reasons. Yuser31415 03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't really like "listcruft" with too broad of a focus (I'd delete list of unused highways if I were in charge), but this seems to be a reasonably bounded set of notable items. Maybe the bridges should be split off from the roads (and we can argue over a few edge cases), but in general this is a very discriminate list that links to many articles. If you think it's too big, you could consider splitting list of toll roads in the United States or list of toll roads in North America. --NE2 03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What's the harm? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't make WP:ILIKEIT arguments, and provide a reason for your comment - AfD is not a vote. Cheers! Yuser31415 03:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fully aware of that. Per NE2. We've got List of Interstate Highways, List of California State Routes... need I say more? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarifying a little would help, yes, although the choice is up to you. WP:ILIKEIT#What about article x? handles this argument. Yuser31415 04:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that having this as a category would be more suitable, if only for maintainability. As such, Merge to Category and redirect. Otherwise, keep per precedent. --Dennisthe2 04:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the arguments at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Advantages of lists seem to apply here, specifically about annotations and red links. --NE2 04:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well said - with the added advantage of a suggested "create me". --Dennisthe2 04:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. Do people just like using that word? Does anyone actually know what indiscriminate means? --- RockMFR 04:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Per RockMFR, it is certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. I also happen to like it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, properly scoped list, information is useful and in no way indiscriminate. Lists and categories serve different purposes, as NE2 stated. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I question whether these lists are maintainable. Is this a complete list? Hard to tell without sources. Resolute 07:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are within the articles. There is no need to cite, for example, that the West Virginia Turnpike is a tolled facility when it clearly states in the article itself that it is tolled. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. I don't really want to have to cyphon through hundreds of articles to verify that this list is accurate. Maintainability remains in question. Specific to these lists, how can I know that this list is complete? Resolute 07:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can't know that it's complete, and that's the point. There at least four countries not even mentioned that I know have toll roads (France, Italy, Spain, Portugal) and surely dozens more. As I don't see how this list can ever be authoritative, I suggest delete Emeraude 12:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC) See comment below. Emeraude 12:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see Template:Dynamic list. --NE2 13:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete because incomplete? I'm seeing this argument more frequently, and it baffles me. There is no assertion that lists must be complete in WP:LIST, so I must assume that this is a personal opinion and not an argument from any guideline. --Dhartung | Talk 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have an idea Emeraude. Why not contribute to Wikipedia by adding these toll roads instead of taking the easy way out by deleting via a weak AFD? You know, Wikipedia would operate much more smoothly if everyone would constructively contribute to the encylopedia. Just because its incomplete does not mean it should be deleted -- that's why we have editors to help complete the process. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Emeraude, with all due respect, it is much easier to add these countries and their toll roads than it is to submit an AFD. --Dennisthe2 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • [Comment: My point about the incompleteness (real word?) was a reply to the question immediately before, not a reason for deletion. I am not prepared to add other countries and their toll roads because, quite simply, I have neither the time nor resources, and it is most definitely NOT much easier to add them than submit an AfD - anyone know how many toll roads there are in France for example? However, in view of other comments made I am changing my view to neutral, my main concern being maintainability.] Emeraude 12:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reasonable list which also happens to tie in with the large number of articles on highways. There aren't so many of these that such a list couldn't be maintainable (toll roads rarely become non-toll roads). 23skidoo 17:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per RockMFR. (And well said I must say!) --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the list is verifiable and of limited scope. I also concur with RockMFR's sentiment.-- danntm ^T _C 19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful and verifiable. TonyTheTiger 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Usefull, lots of content and lots of potential. Thatperson 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being a list is not a reason to delete. --Kevin Murray 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please the reason for deletion does not make any sense to me at all yuckfoo 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Attack Iran Coalition[edit]

Don't Attack Iran Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable local organization. About 90 non-wikipedia google hits, of which about 24 are unique.[8]. No Google news hits - [9]. There are certainly many notable and encyclopedic anti-war organizations, but this is not one of them. GabrielF 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable organization. --tjstrf talk 14:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable organization. Madman 15:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:NN living-room-sized organization with no mention in the reputable press. Morton Devonshire^Yo 19:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated. I did my own Google search to be sure. The very few hits were unconvincing of any notability. Therefore, delete. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above --BenWhitey 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sounds like something someone started up in an afternoon. Non-notable to the extreme --TommyOliver 03:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. DaveApter 19:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz standards[edit]

List of jazz standards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Del Inherently POV and unmaintainable list. For example, [10] contains 1000 standards and [11] already 3000 (!) jazz standards. The only possible approach would be List of jazz standards per Jazz Radio UK or something, kind of "Forbes List of Tycoons" or how you call it. `'mikka 03:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This could be a worthy and useful list (currently it's worse than useless), but I reluctantly agree with the nominator regarding POV and unmaintainability. I don't think there is much point duplicating someone else's list either - Jazz standards explains the concept, and provides external links to others' lists, which I think is the encyclopedic way to deal with it. CiaranG 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed with CiaranG. NostinAdrek 14:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per many articles on here, it lacks notability and I agree with nomination. Tellyaddict 17:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete from roster. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peltosaaren Nikkarit[edit]

Peltosaaren Nikkarit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Possibly not notable enough hockey team. No article in the corresponding Finnish WP and no article on the league it is in (II-Divisioona). After some research here's the Finnish order of Finnish hockey leagues: (highest, 1st) SM-liiga, (2nd) Mestis, (3rd) Suomi-sarja, and then (4th) this II-Divisioona (2 Divisioona). P.S. WP needs an article on the order of Finnish hockey leagues feydey 12:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are 43 Finnish teams playing at a higher level and 52 teams playing at the "II divisioona" level. Of these 95 teams, only the 14 teams at SM-liiga level really have any players that might have some international recognition. --Park70 02:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless sourced... Addhoc 19:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relisted: This was started on January 15 but added to the January 12 page. Back of the line... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Spam is out of stock and deleted from the inventory.. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rack N Road[edit]

Rack N Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article is about a chain of ten stores in the Western United States. I edited it to make it read less like an ad, but consider it not notable enough for WP. The user who created this article also added links related to this article and business to the Bicycle article. Figma 03:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable local company. Ghits produced nothing but links to their own homepage. --Tainter 23:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:CSD#g4 --Hu12 01:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aploximodoais[edit]

Aploximodoais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Possible hoax. I can find no mention of this term. Joyous! | Talk 04:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Absolutely a hoax. "J. Porter Tash", "Porter Tash", and "Essae IIV" all return the gold medal of zero Google hits whatsoever. "Principia Malum Debello" returns only this WP article, as does "Revelatio Decaratio". And that doesn't even address that none of these purported titles are particularly literate Latin, and that the word itself is etymologically unlikely, to say the least (-oai- is an incredibly unlikely letter sequence in either Latin or English). Serpent's Choice 05:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The term is not in my Webster's Ninth Collegiate dictionary nor in any of the on-line dictionaries I consulted. It shows zero non-Wikipedia google hits. As Serpent points out, the alleged sources are dubious and, so far, unverified. The opening paragraph referencing "an unpublished manuscript by an unknown author" is particularly suspicious. Unless this can be definitively sourced by the end of the discussion period, delete as a hoax. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax, but alas, not amusing enough for BJAODN. --Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per hoax. "Aploximodoais" is apparently only the name of a myspace user. Static Universe 07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 07:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the worst kind of hoax- a hoax with hoax sources. There should be a speedy delete criteria that this can fall under... J Milburn 19:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JuJube. "The aploximodoais terms... are involving wolves, alligartos, and the fictional chimera"?? Fvasconcellos 20:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Speedy Keep - I would like to change my vote to KEEP after seeing the above. I, personally, was unaware of the Dyer Critique, but I will definitely add it to me research. Other words with 'OAI' halloaing, hilloaing, holloaing, hulloaing, psoai, stoai, also please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_English_words Below is my original posting: I wrote this article. While I do have the sources in my library, (old, dry books that are on the verge of disintigrating, quite sadly) and do not question the existence of the word myself, I admit that what I cannot meet is Wikipedia's standards of verifiability (but I see that others have now added verifiable sources). My books cannot be scanned, due to their fragility, and I have made countless efforts to photograph the pages, but no amount of lighting, or steadying can capture the characters properly. However, as for issues you have noted in this article: I myself have been trying to track down these authors, but to no avail. I can be quite certain these books are from the 1700s, as they meet the criteria for dating books of this time, however the authors themselves are difficult to trace. I believe that since they may, themselves, have been dealing with Black Magic or writing about it, they may have either have written under pen-names, or in other cases were ordinary, non-authoring citizens. As for the 'an unpublished manuscript by an unknown author' I agree, that it sounds quite suspicious, and my only explanation is that, to my embarassment, I have an original, but partial manuscript which I have dated to be from the early 1700s. Unfortunatly, I cannot find mention or clue of the author, or to the piece itself. Finally, the alligarto was my own typographical error, and the chimera is a mythical animal mentioned in philosophical pieces (Descartes' Meditiations comes to mind). Scientists have since named a certain biological anamoly 'Chimera' due to the original mythical meaning. I am, myself, writing on a book that will be about 'aploximodoais', and other such words that had once appeared in texts, but then ceased to exist. Perhaps then, I will try to change this article, as it will then have a verifiable source, though the source would be myself. I should also note, I am not affiliated with the MySpace user account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.87.152 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  I wanted to take a closer look at the -oai- vowel grouping also. Of the six words provided above, four are alternate spellings of hallooing (present participles of halloo, to call on hunting dogs), one is a valid plural of psoas, and one is an improperly formed plural of stoa (which could allow stoas or stoae, but not stoai). Regardless, the term under discussion is not formed from either the addition of the present participle -ing nor from the pluralization of -as to -ai. I cannot envision any etymology that would permit this term. Serpent's Choice 06:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. RFerreira 11:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I myself have seen this word in a critique of Dyer. I have edited the main article page accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.235.153.9 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 22 January 2007.
• Keep I'm a graduate student at the University of Toronto, and I have come across the word 'Aploximodoais' myself. The exact source I am unsure of (I'll have to do some digging around to find out where I saw it, but it was in the stacks of one the libraries, one of the more sensitive materials, I'm sure. I'll try finding the book when I get a free moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.135.248 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 22 January 2007.
• Comment regarding the most recently added "source". It is no better than the rest. Although "Nathan ben Saddi"'s Chronicle of the Kings of England is a real work (albeit published after the 1739 date given), the quoted text is mysteriously elusive. Despite the fact that this public domain work is readily available online, these two Google searches for distinctive phrases from the purported quote return nothing at all.[12][13] In fact, Google shows no intersection at all between that work and John Dyer.[14] It bears note that the only non-blog (and only 2 or 3 of those!), non-mirror use of this word I've been able to find anywhere is from a USENET post citing WP content.[15] Any effort to demonstrate that this word has ever been used, in any legitimate source, anywhere, is going to require a precise reference. "Unsure" sources, "unpublished manuscript[s]", and "sensitive materials" somewhere in a library (especially ones that cannot be scanned or photographed and that no other scholars seem to have heard of) simply do not meet the needs of Wikipedia's policy on verifiable content from reliable sources. Serpent's Choice 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted, attack page. Mak (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mat fluet[edit]

Mat fluet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Completely NN, nevertheless, an editor has removed "speedy delete" tags placed by two difference editors. janejellyroll 04:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Page is very useless, and doesn't follow WP:BIO. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 04:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Barnes (Sailor)[edit]

Ken Barnes (Sailor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not notable. His attempt was not very notable, privately funded attempt, there are a few every year. His rescue is of minor notability in that it got some minor media coverage. Page also does not conform to wikipedia standards or cite references. Russeasby 04:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there are much more notable completions, let alone attempts.[16] --Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Madman 15:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. J Milburn 19:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Static Universe 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung. --Kevin Murray 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart rivalry[edit]

St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Mentioning a rivalry on a high school's page is fine. But having an entire page devoted to it is another thing. If we had a page on every high school rivalry in the US, we'd be overloaded with pages. Need to just have notable ones and I don't think this is notable. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Why did this article go to AfD within 5 minutes of its creation and not even prodded? [17] --Oakshade 05:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the author objected and I felt like it should be given more input before deletion. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE this article is redundant to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy, which is the official name for this contest. --Kevin Murray 00:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This rivalry is notable to the entire San Francisco Bay Area which has millions of people in it and notable rivalries have millions of people knowing about it too. Why can't this article get it or other high school articles get it? And isn't the point of Wikipedia to create an informative online encyclopedia based on created topics that might not be easy to find online? Wikpedia English has over 1.5 million articles now. Their are probably only about 100,000 high school rivalries in the US. Would it make a difference at all to have 100,000 more articles. That's just a fraction compared to the whole Wikipedia English website. Every rivalry also has a deep history to people and is a tradtion and Wikipedia doesn't discourage users to not write about a local tradition. This article should be able to stay on Wikipedia and all articles that have the same rivalry topic should stay on Wikipedia. --Gndawydiak 06:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Your first sentence basically states the problem. It is known locally and that is all. It would be like having separate articles on every principal of every high school or every superintendent of every district. There has to be a limit somewhere. We already allow any high school to have a page. I just don't see the point in going beyond that and including non-notable rivalries such as this one. What's the problem with just including the information in the pages themselves?

--Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete - Actually I'd say "known locally only to people who follow local HS sports", because I'm local and I've never even heard of the schools, much less the rivalry. If we kept this sort of thing, it would grow exponentially - in my HS football division alone there were 11 teams and 5 long-standing rivalries. Anyone remember Bell-Trinity? Didn't think so. --Jamoche 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. This information is best handled in the pages for the individual schools. --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In the Bay Area there is millions of people and that makes it very notable and there's records of it on newspapers and websites [18]. Writing about every principal and superintendent for every school and district is different. Rivalries people care and listen about it and high school rivalries shouldn't be limited. It shows the rich history of their culture and city or town and shouldn't be discouraged from creating their own article on it and shouldn't just be limited a section on the school's article where it can't flourish like an article. Their are hundreds of thousands of alumni of these school's that would feel the same way as I do and probably the general public of the Bay Area and Northern California would feel the same way. --Gndawydiak 07:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's already a page for Bruce-Mahoney Trophy which has existed for over a year, although I suspect that isn't notable either. Static Universe
• Comment - Bruce-Mahoney Trophy just explains the trophy and the game and this article explains the whole rivalry which should be told if local or not. --Gndawydiak 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether the vote is to keep or delete this article, we definitely do not need 2 articles on essentially the same topic. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Madman 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a school rivalry between the Christian Brothers all-male high school and Jesuit all male high-school (there's no need for in the same city is nothing new, and certainly not notable for its own encyclopedia article, myself being party to the La Salle College High School-Saint Joseph's Preparatory rivalry, although the rivalry possibly could be mentioned in the article on the schools. The article certainly also does not need a the list of pranks done in furtherance of the rivalry, less anyone gets ideas.-- danntm ^T _C 19:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To begin with, an article of this nature is going to be a magnet for original research; this particular article has no citations. Secondly, rivalries of this nature, especially at the high school level, are simply not notable. The fact that the rivalry concerns schools in a big city makes no difference, it may be somewhat notable locally but notability needs to extend outside of the locale where the rivalry exists. Almost all high schools are going to have these 'rivalries' and many high schools are going to have multiple rivalries and most of the time these rivalries are going to be rather subjective as rivalries of this sort are, quite frankly, rather arbitrary constructs. I doubt, though am unsure, that there are articles on rivalries between major national teams or college teams, either, and for good reason. --The Way 00:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - actually being in a large metro area makes it less notable because HS football is not a major event, unlike someplace like Odessa, Texas - the Odessa-Permian rivalry has been subject of documentaries and movies, yet there's no article for it (and no, I'm not proposing it needs one). --Jamoche 06:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well this one is mentioned in newspapers and is well known even though its a high school sport. In the Bay Area, high school sports between different high schools are a big thing here. People go these games and come from very far away and is mentioned across the area. If somebody wanted to, they would make a documentary about this rivalry and mention it to the country. It doesn't make a difference on if they have a documentary or not. --Gndawydiak 06:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Redirect Redirect to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy. I agree with Static Universe in everything except keeping this as an independent article. Yes, I see WP as being a source which stores info. not available elsewhere, but I don't see the title as being a likely search, and why not call it Sacred Heart - St. Ignatius rivalry. Only if the articles about the schools are overly long would I support a separate article -- there are precedents for this. Since there is already an article on this subject at Bruce-Mahoney Trophy this is a less complete redundancy --Kevin Murray 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I researched the deletion policy and this article is against the policy in all ways possible so this is an unneeded deletion and is taken to a level that was not needed. You could of just put a clean up tag on it or something like that at a lower level but this is un-needed. I take this deletion as really offensive and if this article is deleted, I'll bring it back no matter what anyone says and I'll fight for it. All users that want this article deleted don't understand any of this and are just following a corrupt user that takes everything at a big level when it's something small. And I don't care if this hurts my future nomination for administrator because I'd rather fight for these articles as a user. Hit me on a personal level hard, I'll hit you on a personal level harder. --Gndawydiak 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well known rivalry in major metropolitan area. There's too much subject-specific information here to be merged to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy article. Added one ref to article [19]--Oakshade 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because Aunt Mildred's masterful crochet doesn't get an article either. GassyGuy 04:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The San Francisco Bay Area with a population of over 7 million is not a "local village" as the example WP:AADD refers to. --Oakshade 05:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The area of the Bay Area that knows/cares about this rivalry is not the same as the population of the Bay Area. GassyGuy 05:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the big rivalry of San Francisco and I am glad that I have more users to go against your deletion. This shows we are large and a large ammount of people know about this. Everybody doesn't know about it because they're not from the Bay Area or Nothern California and actually have to research this like every other Wikipedian would do. --Gndawydiak 05:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I hope they know better than to try finding it an encyclopaedia, though I'm not sure how/why they'd research it if they don't know about it in the first place? GassyGuy 05:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well what about the 7 million or more people that know about and that want to research about this? Why don't you think about them then you? Why can't you understand that this is a notbale rivalry? How would you feel if you we're in my place? --Gndawydiak 05:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a ton of WP articles on subjects most people don't know anything about. Teaching people about these subjects is one of the most basic principles behind an encyclopedia. --Oakshade 05:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my point. I was saying that "people might want to know about this" is true of almost everything, but does not make a topic encyclopaedic. My other point was simply that Gndawydiak seemed to be contradicting himself/herself. GassyGuy 06:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not contradicting myself. For the record I am a guy and this and all of what is stated is true for this article. The topic is perfectly encyclopaedic for Wikipedia and doesn't discourage any kind of article. --Gndawydiak 06:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I just looked over what you should look over before nominating an article for deletion. I says that some articles start out bad if they were just created. This article got a deletion notice five minutes after getting it created. This article needs to have a clean up instead of a deletion because as I stated before, the "attacking" user gave this article no chance and is letting it drown in the water with no mercy at all. This user took it to an un-needed level and any administrator who believes in me should remove the deletion and put a clean up tag instead. Here's the page itself that says this. Before Nominating an AfD --Gndawydiak 08:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This has already been nominated and the nominating user is within rights, so it is a waste of your energy to contest the nomination (as opposed to the deletion). It is a waste of your energy to make unsupported claims of notability. What you need to be doing here is demonstrating why this article should stay. If you've said what you have to say about that, the best idea would be to simply allow this to run its course and see what the rest of the community has to say. GassyGuy 08:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well the rest of the community is turning a deaf ear to me and listen to a corrupt user that believes that this article is not notable. It is notable and it's being deleted for reasons that are stupid. I'll waste my energy if I want to to keeping this article alive and I won't let this article get deleted for reasons that are not true in which you believe in. I can look up a list of newspaper articles with this issue and give them to you and this article wasn't given a thought before being nominated for deletion. --Gndawydiak 08:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well this has ceased to be at all productive, so I'll do what I should have done a while ago and ignore this debate now. However, while you're up for some newspaper reading, I hope you find time for some of this material, too: 1) WP:AGF 2) WP:CIVIL 3) WP:OWN. GassyGuy 09:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy. And either someone straighten out Gndawydiak or ban him. Statements like "I'll recreate this article no matter what" and taking it to deletion review before the deletion is even over, and calling other users "corrupt" is simply not acceptable behavior. Stop hurling insults now. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Ok I'm going to shut up after this comment because I'm tired of dealing with these users. What I want to say before I stop is that this article shouldn't be on for deletion just after 5 minutes of its creation. Woohookitty went and over reacted and nominated it for deletion instead of following the Before nominating an AfD and reading that you should consider putting a clean-up tag instead. If he/she put that up, the article probably would of changed over a while making the article better than it is. Now this article is going to be deleted because of an over-reaction of an administrator that didn't look over the deletion policy. This article is notable to millions of people and can be supported by countless articles about this in newspapers. This article can't be merged with Bruce-Mahoney Trophy because these articles are different things but have some similarites but are different topics. I am sorry for my behavior for this debate but I over-react when somebody does something personal to me and I felt like I have to fight for this because this administrator didn't give this article a chance. Again, I am sorry for my behavior and you may accept this apology or not. If this article is reviewed by anyone else, look at the things that matter about the article and not my behavior or behavior of others. Look at this things that matter for this article. --Gndawydiak 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gndawydiak, the process can be frustrating. When I first began with WP, an article could begin as a seed and grow with time. However, the huge volume of junk that is submitted each day has forced WP into a defensive posture to battle the junk and spam. As volunteers we have to be efficient in nipping the junk in the bud ASAP. Now I develop my articles off-line and cut & paste something substantial enough to avoid the deletion process. This is respectful of the efforts by dilligent volunteers who are looking out for our mutual interest in having a credible WP. It is the spammers etc. at whom you should direct your anger. Good Luck. --Kevin Murray 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Bay Area resident and Stuart Hall Alum[reply]

• Delete, it's only notable inside the city of San Francisco, and only amongst the Catholic community there. Nobody else cares. Fails WP:LOCAL. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter what the religion of the participants may be the rivalry is noticed by the general community. To say that "nobody else cares" is shallow thought. This is about an athletic rivalry with a long tradition. WP calls for notablility not broad ranged fame or importance --Kevin Murray 02:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This rivalry is notable to the entire San Francisco Bay Area which has millions of people in it and notable rivalries have millions of people knowing about it too, as per above. I was attempting to show that the overinflated claims of the supporters are untrue. I grew up in the Bay Area. I repeat. Nobody cares. User:Zoe|(talk)

• Delete. Trivia; not encyclopedic or of notability outside of one part of the world. Agent 86 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonsense The Boston Marathon is a local event but is clearly notable. Just because it isn't famous doesn't mean that it isn't notable -- read the WP guidlelines. --Kevin Murray 02:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Read what Agent 86 said. Notability outside of one part of the world. That isn't saying "local". It's saying that it's unknown outside of the Bay Area. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this belongs on the school blog or somewhere. Not an encyclopaedic subject. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not encyclopedic (see for example the "pranks" section). For a fairly encyclopedic tratment of the same basic topic, see Bruce-Mahoney Trophy. I don't think this is worth a redirect though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There isn't an article on the Cal-Stanford rivalry (even though there is an article on the Big Game and The Play), and a rivalry between two teams which can't beat De La Salle High School just isn't that important, even in the Bay Area. Argyriou (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not proven. I have advocated retention of other articles on rivalries, but here notability is not adequately demonstrated. Sorry. ( I don't advocate a re-direct either. ) WMMartin 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subject matter inherently non-notable. Slac speak up! 04:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. ST47Talk 11:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Shepherd[edit]

Victor Shepherd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

non-notable biography. Article asserts no real encyclopedic value; seems to be just another university prof, and an adjunct at that. Agent 86 06:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "University professor" does not meet BIO by itself. Madman 15:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His awards (see my comment near the end) make him pass both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Do you not agree? --Quirex 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Author of several books, but might not pass WP:BOOK. He is a full-time professor at one university-level institution (Tyndale University College and Seminary), and adjunct at another, the University of Toronto and its school of theology. The honorary degree would be proof of notability if it were from a more pretigious institution. I was only able to find one published review of his books, although a Google search for "nature and function of faith in the theology of John Calvin" turns up a few citations of that book. --Eastmain 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment an area he preaches/teaches/writes/studies is Methodism. Wesley was the founder of methodism and thus the institution which bears his name might be very notable in the study of Methodism. --Quirex 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability, does not appear to pass WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 19:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Pete Hurd is citing a proposed guideline;WP:PROF has not been adopted and is heavilly disputed. The current professor test at BIO states: "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included."--Kevin Murray 00:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that WP:PROF is "heavily disupted". To the contrary, a quick look through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators shows it to be the accepted standard for academics. Pete.Hurd 05:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pete, please read the tag at the top of the page for WP:PROF: "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".--Kevin Murray 08:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators is not WP policy. It is an opinion statement by a group of Wikipedians. You've been duped! --Kevin Murray 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, I didn't say that page was policy, I merely note that it's a deletion sorting list, which allows one to view all the AfD's for educators and academics together in one place. I've removed the "proposed" template you put on the page, since it's not a proposal, it's a sorting list. Pete.Hurd 19:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, your statement is misleading. The fact is that there is only one recognized Prof standard and that is the one at BIO. WP is getting overburdened by rule-mongering, and micro-lawyering. BIO is relatively simple and comprehensive. The ongoing efforts to "clarify" seem to just become more and more restrictive, redundant, and conflicting. --Kevin Murray 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Notability (academics) supports Pete's assessment. WP:PROF is frequently applied when discussing academics. ~ trialsanderrors 05:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete From the information provided in the article, this particular professor does not meet notability requirements. I have several professors at my graduate school who have done much more than this person and still don't merit having articles of their own. If some sources can be provided that show that his books are notable then I'd be willing to change my 'vote' to keep. --The Way 00:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that--I congratulate you on the excellence of your graduate school judging from the apparent notability of your teachers: you most certainly should write articles about them, or enter on the list of requested articlesDGG

Excellent remark! Ohconfucius 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Passes professor test absolutely and seems to make it as an author as well. He only needs to pass one test to be deemed notable. I see a review of his work by an independent source, and a biography at another independent source. What's the problem? --Kevin Murray 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To establish notability you need multiple reviews, the article supplies only one and that one source is rather non-notable itself. Also, there is no independent biography; I believe the biography you consider to be independent is a biography on a Writer's Union website, in other words that biography is likely to have been submitted by Victor himself since he is a member of that union. This is supported by the fact that that biography gives Victor's email address for responses... --The Way 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right and wrong (a) he doesn't have to pass all tests; the multiple reviews is just one test. The Professor Test has different criteria (b) from what you say the Writer's Union website may not be an independent source. --Kevin Murray 08:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per The Way. Subject does not appear to pass WP:PROF; of 7 books listed on Amazon.com, the highest ranking one is in the 1.5millionsths, the other ones languish in the 3 - 4 millionsths region, and there are no signs of published reviews. Ohconfucius 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Academic works in theology are not expected to be best sellers and should not be judged by the Amazon rank. Popular ones, yes, but thats not what he has been writing. DGG 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep according to WP:PROF, if the subject has been given an award or honor they meet one of the 6 criteria for inclusion. Dr. Shepherd has an honorary doctorate given to him for his work. A note in WP:PROF says that a professorship at a prestigious institution is enough to grant inclusion. Unfortunately WP:PROF is not specific and does not mention honorary doctorates. Although his CV does list a bunch of awards. According to WP:BIO one criteria for inclusion is "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." 2 awards of possible note would be: "Award of Excellence for Outstanding Contribution in the Fields of Historical-Systematic Theology and Preaching, Center for Mentorship and Theological Reflection, 2004" and "Scholarship Excellence Award, Tyndale University College & Seminary, 2006". So it seems he meets both WP:PROF and WP:BIO primarily due to his awards. --Quirex 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability I believe is establised. Dwain 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment since I created the original entry, but the comments regarding Amazon sales rankings are not a fair comparison given that (1) the Dr. Shepherd is Canadian and (2) the books are Christian in content which would mean they would usually be sold through the CBA market rather than secular channels. Dr. Shepherd teaches theology at the largest evangelical university/seminary in this country -- does this not count for something?Robclem 04:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep since I see I didnt actually express an opinion. This time there are external articles, just as for non professors. There is nothing special about professors that isn't implied by the general N policy. "another prof" and may we have many thousand more--all N--just like major league athletes. (""Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, "--WP:N)--there a a few thousand of them also. DGG 06:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have improved this article to demonstrate notability, and would like to point out that the media coverage on [20] should be accepted as factual, because this man is very respected, holding positions at the most reputable divinity institutions of the world, and these publications are either not online, or only recently online and their archives dont go back this far. Refer to United Church Observer, a stub I have created for one of these publications. John Vandenberg 08:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Prosified CV. No notability outside common accomplishments within the profession established or even asserted. ~ trialsanderrors 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. A search on Wikipedia for "Victor Shepherd" brought up four articles, which I have now linked to the article. (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Victor_Shepherd) Three of those were using Victor's biography of the subject as a reference: Menno Simons, Thomas Torrance and Thomas Coke (bishop). These were all published in his book "Witnesses to the Word". The book isnt terribly notable in its own right, but it covers a lot of notable people, so I expect it will be useful to fill in missing articles. John Vandenberg 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of HD DVD releases[edit]

List of HD DVD releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is a list that doesn't seem to have a place on Wikipedia. The external links (which can be added to the HD DVD article instead) are better suited to list these releases. We don't have a List of VHS releases article. This article is likely to be constantly out-of-date, and its inclusion on Wikipedia adds no value. —Cleared as filed. 06:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete List will very soon become completely unmaintainable, if it is not already. Resolute 07:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list would have been useful when only a few were available but now that HD DVD is being sold in large quantities this will become too long and would be outdated daily. A category could replace this but even that would be rather pointless if HD DVD replaces DVD. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. James086Talk 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In the long term, this is unmaintainable, especially if HD-DVD ends up being the prevailing format. There is no List of Beta releases, so even if HD DVD goes the way of the dodo, it still is too broad a topic for a list. 23skidoo 14:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete all per above -   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per y'all above. Caknuck 17:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This may have been notable if the fact that something has been released in this format is an interesting fact, but the fact that so many are, and will be, means that this is irrelevent, so much so that it does not even deserve a category. J Milburn 19:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but possibly reinstate if Blu-ray wins the war. -Toptomcat 00:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, I have changed the American releases to ABC order. The list can be maintained but users will need to work on it each week. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.82.220.77 (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment: Just because something is maintainable, does not mean that it should be kept. This has no real encyclopedic value. J Milburn 15:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've also nominated List of Blu-ray releases for deletion along the same lines; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Blu-ray releases. —Cleared as filed. 16:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I can only see this being useful as a shopping guide for the short period of time when we only have a few HD-DVD releases, and that's not something for Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ... again*** While this isnt the usual wikipedia type article , it is highly useful as a shopping guide and could become very active if blu ray fails. At some point this must be deleated, however until we see such a flurry of titles that this becomes unmaintainable or unneccesseray, I vfeel that this article should be updated periodically to help out the consumer. EDIT : I Compleatly agree with DGG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.82.220.77 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • A shopping guide is something which Wikipedia is pretty definitely not. Also, you've already !voted. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Eventually there will be way too many releases on the HD-DVD format to keep track of. Maniac 00:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep eventually there will be too many, but not for a while. We can then rename it something like list of early HD releases in 2007(or possibly 2007 and 8), DGG 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Teply 02:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Great idea for a list!!! Dwain 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Static Universe ^talk|edits 05:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Solidarity[edit]

Iran Solidarity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Defunct British anti-war group with no real assertion of notability. Googling the phrase "Iran Solidarity" is meaningless because these are two common words, but a search for "Iran Solidarity" anti-war group gets only about 400 results of which only about 40 are unique[21]. Browsing the organization's website, I could only find one example of a protest they organized, which managed to attract about 30 people [22]. Given that this organization no longer exists and thus will never become more notable, it should be deleted. GabrielF 06:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Static Universe 07:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Madman 15:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. This group formally merged in to larger umbrella group, thus merger is more appropriate than deletion. --70.51.231.96 21:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, unless you believe that he People's Workers for Justice Anarchy Coalition Daily provides notability. Morton Devonshire^Yo 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This is what we did with Peace Action, where the groups that made up Peace Action were described under a "history" heading. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Solidarity Iran seems to have been mostly an online group - http://iransolidarity.endofempire.org/about.php - apart from the demo linked to by gabrielf. Boud 21:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not merge. Dwain 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WildRose[edit]

WildRose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to have the notability required by WP:MUSIC. Speedy and prod have been removed by various editors with the idea to bring it to AfD, so here it is. JuJube 09:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC but if the "statewide medi coverage" of her contract dispute can be sourced might meet WP:N directly. Article currently has no independent, reliable sources. Eluchil404 07:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Eluchil404... Addhoc 12:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A few mild claims to fame, but none enough to make her notable. J Milburn 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Static Universe 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge useful content and Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Action Iran[edit]

Action Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Defunct British anti-war group. A Google search for "Action Iran" is meaningless because the words are very common, but a search for "Action Iran" anti-war group gets only about 600 results, of which only about 200 are unique. Of these 200 results, many are sites that contain a phrase such as "...action. Iran" or "...action, Iran..." Browsing through the organization's website, I don't see any evidence that they did anything notable such as organized a significant protest. Given that the organization no longer exists and will never become notable, the article should be deleted. GabrielF 06:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Gets '1' hit in the blog Payvand's Iran News, and as such, violates our WP:Notability rules. Morton Devonshire^Yo 18:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Static Universe 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. This group formally merged in to larger umbrella group, thus merger is more appropriate than deletion. --70.51.231.96 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A google search on "Action Iran" anti-war gets 13,700 hits ("Action Iran" anti-war group gets 601 hits - i agree). WP:Notability is not about popularity nor about wikipedia editors' subjective judgments of notability. The article now includes five references from different sources, most of whom themselves are notable in the wikipedia sense. Boud 03:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the results for a search on "Action Iran" anti-war beyond the first four or five are irrelevant. The article cites seven sources, two are from the organization, one is from the group Action Iran merged into, one is from Internet Archive which accepts submissions from anyone and doesn't meet WP:RS, the remaining three are from anti-war websites. None of these demonstrates the group's notability. GabrielF 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • one is from the group Action Iran merged into: that only implies that the groups have a common interest, it does not provide any evidence that prior to the merger, they should be considered as a single organisation; the Internet Archive is in-depth material (to some extent) - it presents a video; the remaining three are from anti-war websites - so are you claiming that anti-war websites are not reliable sources? That's your personal POV. Alex Callinicos may call himself a "Marxist", but he nevertheless has a reasonably solid wikipedia page. Boud 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read: Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations). It is sufficient that the scope of the organisation is international (which it clearly is) and that it's verified by a third party (which it clearly is, by several third parties). It may have been a small organisation, in fact this seems fairly clear, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a "third-party-confirmed" organisation whose "scope of activities was international". i've written this in a more structured form on the talk page Talk:Action Iran. Boud 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This is what we did with Peace Action, where the groups that made up Peace Action were described under a "history" heading. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I agree with SchuminWeb
  • They do have a "website or anything". Please look at "External links" in the article. You'll find: http://www.actioniran.org.uk/ Boud 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, sorry. I got mixed up, thinking of a different article. SeanWDP 20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete: Despite all the keep arguments, the original concerns were never addressed. WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial sources - one is not multiple, and that one source was never really provided (given that I Love Music is a web forum, it is also not a non-trivial source). --Coredesat 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potter Puppet Pals[edit]

Potter Puppet Pals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Random Harry Potter parody. No proper assertion of notability. No independent, reliable coverage. Prod was removed. Drat (Talk) 09:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable Internet videos. JuJube 10:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Neil Cicierega. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We kept Salad Fingers; why shouldn't we keep this?--Releeshan 22:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That doesn't mean that this is therefor notable.--Drat (Talk) 09:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Okay, a better reason, then: The Boston Globe devoted a whole article to Neil and PPP. --Releeshan 19:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable --Bill.matthews 02:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They have been a fairly notable phenomenon associated with Harry Potter, and the author is reasonably well-known as a web personality. Michaelsanders 17:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has been mentioned on I Love Music, notable. 86.31.51.60 23:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. ugen64 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 07:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; this is a popular parody and Internet cartoon. -/- Warren 09:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the nom states, no independent reliable sources have been provided. If none show up, this fails WP:V. WarpstarRider 14:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable independent coverage, fails WP:N. Sandstein 14:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do not assert notibility at all. Fails WP:N and WP:WEB because of no decent sources. I follow HP community and passed by it once.--Dacium 15:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, despite fanboy assurances that this is encyclopedic. Madman 15:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Neil Cicierega. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 15:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Hang on, hang on, whoa' whoa, whoa! A fairly huge claim to notability has just been made. Can we give Releeshan/Kittychick a chance to source that claim to a Boston Globe article before we proceed? That alone should be more than enough. -Toptomcat 00:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThat's just one source. There needs to be multiple. That I Love Music "mention" hasn't been explained or sourced. Is it a full article? Or is it just a trivial "Hey, go check this funny flash thing"? Besides, as far as I can see, it's a forum, so anyone can post there, rendering it unreliable.--Drat (Talk) 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Eep, nevermind. The article in question was more about Neil himself, and has already been linked to on the Neil Cicierega page.--Releeshan 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I see those freakin' puppets everywhere! It's a very popular flash cartoon. --Candy-Panda 09:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Neil Cicierga. Of course I WANT to say keep because I love this flash cartoon, but its notability is in question.--Wizardman 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Hall (St Andrews)[edit]

New Hall (St Andrews) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

absoluely nothing notable about these halls outside of St Andrews Uni. Delete this one, just like the others: Gannochy House, John Burnet Hall, St Salvator's Hall, University Hall (University of St Andrews). Ohconfucius 07:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I spent a drunken year of my life in John Burnet Hall. I can't possibly think of a reason why it would deserve an article and the same applies to New Hall. User:EricDuffy should probably take a look at WP:COI and WP:AUTO before Wikilinking to his user page from within articles he's written about himself. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Are any of these buildings of special architectural merit? --Eastmain 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well New Hall is (or at least was) pretty luxurious by British student accommodation standards (double beds, satellite TV etc.) but I don't think there's anything architecturally significant about it and it's only been there since 1993. I've really no idea if any of the other buildings are of any particular significance beyond age and former royal inhabitants. Hamilton Hall is probably the most recognisable building (if only because of an appearance in Chariots of Fire) and that's no longer a university building anyway. [23] -- IslaySolomon | talk 21:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete individual residence halls tend not to be notable.-- danntm ^T _C 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no more notable than the others. Nuttah68 17:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When it was first built there was some controversy about the principle of charging higher fees for higher standard accommocation within the University (I was on the Students' Representative Council executive at the time) but this would hardly make it notable --Captdoc 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. (Actually, only three people have commented, so that's consensus, isn't it? :) Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BIIAB[edit]

BIIAB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

not notable, fails WP:ORG Carabinieri 19:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick Google says it doesn't fail WP:ORG. CiaranG 23:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 07:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• conditional keep and holdon If the legal requirement for certification can be sourced, then this is clearly notable. They appear to be an important regulatory and industry body. I'm looking for sources right now, so if you can bear with me a bit I can probably improve the article. Wintermut3 19:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if it can be sourced and clean up. The article wording at the moment implies more than the BIIAB is. It is not a regulatory body, it offers training (along with many others) to meet the regulations. Nuttah68 17:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuttah68, I've made a cleanup pass to clarify that it's only one body offering liscensing, but it seems that they do do a fair share of the governmental training for certain required certifications. I'd compare it to ServSafe in the US, yes there are other food safety training programs availible, but ServSafe is definately the primary certification I've ever encountered (though that might be geographical). As such I still think it's probably notable. Wintermut3 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Against Urban 4x4s[edit]

Alliance Against Urban 4x4s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

WP:N not established. TonyTheTiger 20:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Googling mostly turns up this group's own websites and press releases on fringe politics sites. Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS Dragomiloff 05:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 07:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. CiaranG 10:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable. While the citations seem to indicate that the center has garnered local and national attention, and (through its director) a small amount of international attention, the same can be said of a large number of youth centers that receive awards from mayors, governors, presidents, and other leaders. There is nothing asserted in the article or through the citations that indicates that this particular youth center is more notable than any others with similar credentials. The center should be mentioned in the Stepanavan article, and would even help bring it out of stubiness. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stepanavan Youth Center[edit]

Stepanavan Youth Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Unclear notability, sound like advertising. A notability tag has been removed twice. Chris 73 | Talk 19:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Chris 73, no notability asserted and most certainly an advert. The Rambling Man 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 07:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SPAM, as well as WP:N and WP:V. No assertion of notability, no verifiable sources given, just an email address (which is a bad idea anyway). -- Kesh 21:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable youth center/organization.--Tainter 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete n-n and spam. DaveApter 19:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm looking into this one. Some suggestion of notability (I'm not convinced yet, myself) is that "Lilit Simonyan, MPA Candidate; Founder, Former CEO, International Director, Stepanavan Youth Center NGO Armenia" will be speaking in that capacity at "Unite For Sight's Fourth Annual International Health Conference ... April 14-15, 2007 - Stanford University School of Medicine".[24] That's one point in this org's favor. I'll go look for more. — coelacan talk — 02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems the "Unite for Sight" group is independent of "Stepanavan Youth Center" but collaborates on work that they can do together in Armenia. Here's some coverage of that from UFS's website.[25] I'm not adding this stuff into the article yet, not until I'm satisfied that it actually does pass WP:N. — coelacan talk — 02:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Okay, here it is. YouthActionNet is an initiative of Nokia and the International Youth Foundation. YouthActionNet has given an award for the work of the Stepanavan Youth Center.[26] [27] Then the Prime Minister of Armenia, Andranik Margaryan, recognized the work as well, and honored the coordinator as "Outstanding Youth Worker". This award is given to only two people per year, and the coordinator was specifically "recognized for her work in the implementation of state youth policy as president of the Stepanavan Youth Center."[28] That's good enough for me, and I'll go put this into the article. — coelacan talk — 03:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After incorporation of new citations[edit]

• Comment: The new citations mentioned above are now incorporated at Stepanavan Youth Center#Recognition. The article could still use some cleanup, but that is no argument for deletion. I believe the new citations establish notability, particularly the recognition of the Prime Minister of Armenia. If anyone makes serious arguments to the contrary, please notify me on my talk page so that I may consider those arguments. — coelacan talk — 07:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to say even by the title it seems to be non notable. If wikipedia had an article for every youth or community centre in the world it would have about 10 million articles so I do think it should be deleted. Tellyaddict 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack_Leasure[edit]

Jack_Leasure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not Notable Bill.matthews 18:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable, come back in a few years... The Rambling Man 19:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly non-notable. CiaranG 12:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 23:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ribbon College Basketball Yearbook[edit]

College yearbookof unclear notability. A notability tag was removed without comment, hence I initiated the more formal AfD process. Chris 73 | Talk 17:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep revised version, notable and now also NPOV -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think it's probably notable, but it's also probably spam. Reads like a cut-and-paste of their promotional materials. I'll change if it's rewritten and sourced at the end of the discussion period. Change to keep. Good job. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)(timestamp last ... Bpmullins | Talk 05:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The yearbook is pretty notable in college basketball circles. Using Factiva, I found 232 newspaper articles referencing the guide, including 26 that mention the title of the book in their headlines or lead paragraphs. At least 99 libraries carry the yearbooks, as well (according to WorldCat). The article is kind of spammy, but it doesn't appear to be a straight cut-and-paste job. Just tag it for cleanup; maybe I'll get to it later. Zagalejo 20:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Potentially notable, but no attempt at verifiability at all. Perhaps it can be cited, but someone needs to do it before this AfD closes. If the article can't be updated within a week to add references, it's not being maintained enough to be worth keeping. -- Kesh 21:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - With the current references, I'm revising my vote to Keep. Good job tagging and cleaning it up! Hopefully more information can be added later to expand this article. It'd be good to see a History section about where it came from, and why it's referred to as the "Bible" for basketball. -- Kesh
• Comment I just turned it into a stub, removing the promotional language and adding a few references. I'm sure it can be expanded further, but I have other things I should be doing right now. Anyone else want to take a crack at it? Zagalejo 21:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The newly revised and reformatted version is a keeper although the original was not necessarily so. This is used as a resource across the country as is easily seen by the references. TonyTheTiger 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This new version meets verifiability and notability standards. Good job, Zagalego. --The Way 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Blossom Tattoo[edit]

Cherry Blossom Tattoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Complete original research; reads like an essay; trivia John Reaves (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—I agree with deleting the Cherry Blossom Tattoo article. Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete junk. JuJube 08:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Maustrauser 08:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I fail to see how there can be anything notable about this. The article seems to have been written to confirm that point of view. CiaranG 10:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one of a zillion potential tattoo designs/subjects. I can't really see individual tattoo designs being encyclopedic anyway: we don't even have Heart tattoo or Skull tattoo, for example. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, essay, promotional, and copyvio. --Dhartung | Talk 17:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:OR. Static Universe 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essay like and WP:OR so not notable enough for tattoo Thatperson 21:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is the sort of article that pisses me off. Not only shouldn't it have been created, there has been no effort to Wikify it. House of Scandal 11:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Non-notable tattoo design. Plus if nothing else the bit that states: It is easy to see why as the delicate nature of a cherry blossom and beauty of the flower makes a wonderful compliment to the natural beauty of a woman. makes it beyond saving. Who wrote this article, Swiss Toni?! Keresaspa 14:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-notable, massive POV problems, and one of so many possibilities for tattoo design, most of them probably being non-notable (unless someone actually gets the Wiki Logo/globe tattooed!!)SkierRMH 02:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per commenters above, read like original research material. Yamaguchi先生 00:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Drop a Daisy Cutter on it (delete). --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of killed, threatened or kidnapped Iraqi academics[edit]

List of killed, threatened or kidnapped Iraqi academics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

First, wikipedia is not a memorial. There is a lot of precedent for deleting lists of otherwise non-notable people who died in a particular event. Even if casualty lists were acceptable, this list is downright weird. First, there is almost no information provided about these people. Although this is supposedly a list of "academics" it includes people like hotel managers, consultants, doctors, etc. In most cases there isn't even a date of death. Second, almost everyone is unsourced and thus impossible to verify. If a person listed here was kidnapped or killed, how do we know that this had anything to do with his being an academic? GabrielF 08:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This topic -- the violent purge of Iraqi intelligencia -- is worthy of encyclopedia space, but I find a list of the particular targets problematic at best. In addition to the nominator's concerns about the broadly inclusive view of "academics" taken by the list, I am concerned about its premise. Tracking everyone in any field who has been threatened in what is essentially an active civil war is simply beyond the scope of Wikipedia. With verification also uniquely unlikely, WP:BLP issues seems a plausible hazard as well. With all that said, this might be an idea to revisit after the situation calms down in the region and some more objective reporting can occur. But not now, not like this. Serpent's Choice 11:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Try a category instead. Madman 15:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Academic intimidation in Iraq since 2003 (perhaps, open to other suggestions) and delete the list. The introduction could be a start to a real article. The list is not our responsibility and it's just a bad uncategorized list of non-notable people. It's much more useful to say "The University of Najaf closed on April 31, 2005 after 13 department heads and 37 academics fled the country" than to just list them.--Dhartung | Talk 17:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hopelessly original research and unsourced by reputable citation. Morton Devonshire^Yo 18:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• wikisource it. Derex 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I fully agree with Serpent's Choice, the broader topic of the purging of Iraqi intellectuals is certainly an encyclopedic topic. However, a list of this sort is too problematic. What, precicely, constitutes an 'academic?' How are we going to verify all of this, especially those being threatened... and what constitutes a threat in this instance? And, to add some really dark humor, isn't this unmaintainable too? --The Way 00:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the topic definitely warrants an article. It is one of the most disturbing things I've seen on wikipedia. The problem is that the list doesn't really tell us very much about what is actually happening. Were these people targeted because of their profession? Their politics? Their sect? Were they targeted randomly? Who is doing the "threatening"? Are Shi'ites and Sunnis being targeted equally? If we want to create an article about it we need to do more research and not just use the existing text as a starting point. GabrielF 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started a preliminary article at Violence against academics in post-invasion Iraq GabrielF 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'keep and improve as needed. I guess I'm the only one, but perhaps my comments may be useful in recreation. I do not find the definition of academics very much over-broad: they are almost all of the college lectures or faculty; the new list might be specifically limited to that, and then have list of Physicians, etc.etc. I think perhaps threatened is too broad a term, for who there is not? Killed/kidnapped is more verifiable. OR it is not, it is compilation from sources, as is the rest of WP. I cannot understand ""the list is not our responsibility" Our responsibility is encyclopedic coverage , limited of course to those articles where someone is willing to do the work. The list would look more professional with a more sophisticated table. DGG 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Crufty McCruft. --Tbeatty 04:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely circumspect misinformation and soapboxing.--MONGO 08:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the id list in itself is unencyclopedic. Just copy what's worth to Violence against academics in post-invasion Iraq. Ultrogothe 12:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Wine Tasting of 2005[edit]

Ottawa Wine Tasting of 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This 'event' was insignificant. An internet search shows only one page (the cited source) that mentions this tasting (apart from the dozens of pages that just mirror wikipedia). The source in turn just cites two articles in local newspapers (Phillips, Rod. Battle of the bottles. Ottawa Citizen, October 19, 2005; Schreiner, John. Millenium tasting. Kelowna Daily Courier, October 22, 2005.) The event is about as important as a village flower show and does not merit an encyclopedia entry. Nunquam Dormio 09:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --John24601 13:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Qualified Delete I found the content interesting and a little surprising. That said, this wiki page seems to have been pretty-much lifted from a section of the referenced webpage http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1099940232.html (article by David Hanson) and it may merit deletion on those grounds. Insignificant content? Maybe, but then maybe not. The Hanson article also talks about a 1981 Ottowa tasting. While I love Bordeaux I do think it's interesting to see them go up against lesser known wines in a blind test with sometimes surprising results. I would vote to delete the page for copyright reasons but would hope to see the Hanson article referenced from some other wiki page. Steve.Moulding 17:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Delete On further consideraton, an interesting article does not necessarily belong in an encyclopedia. Steve.Moulding 21:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it. A quick search shows lots of other references including
  • • Statement by John Reynolds, MP, in the House of Commons of Canada (about the importance of this wine competition)
    • Tim Pawsey, B.C. wine scores big out East, Vancouver Courier, 20 October, 2005.
    • Shari Darling, Canadian wines go head-to-head with those from France, Petersborough Examiner, 20 October, 2005.

There's no possible copyright problem if the guy who wrote it approves. Does he? Grove2394Grove2394 19:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Grove2394's references seem more about promoting the Canadian wine industry than the actual wine tasting event. Static Universe 19:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Does seem to be a notable wine tasting event; The four references noted above in this AfD seem to be sufficient enough and the 1981 Ottawa Wine Tasting event seems to be rather notable which may further imply notability for this, its 'successor.' Also, http://www.blinkbits.com/blinks/wine mentions this event. Though the mention is in passing, it is included in a list of 'important' and 'historic' wine tastings... and its one of only a handful of such events. --The Way 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Blinkbits site is just one of many that copies from wikipedia (see lines "Wine Wikipedia RSS Feed shared by wikipedia into Wine Bio 11 months ago via source URL") Nunquam Dormio 09:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are numerous blind wine tastings conducted every year. Why is this any more significant than a tasting any wine enthusiast might host? Mikecase00 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Luke!

• Delete because of copyright vio per Steve.Moulding. There is no assertion of permission of any sort from the author. Slp1 12:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence that this event was particularly significant or memorable or even that this is a longstanding annual event of any standing. Hansard is a good source but MPs during Members Statements will also mention a lot of trivial affairs such as fun fairs and that year's local high school valedictorian. Sixth Estate 19:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the competition is notable for its results, which are notable and unique. Yes 'numerous blind tastings are conducted every year', but how many organized wine tastings occur that place involving Canadian wines versus quality wines from Bordeaux? None that I know of other than this one. The Canadian wine industry is small but emergent, and events like this have potential future significance. That said, I think the article should be improved with citations. Ryandaum 04:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, duplicate "not delete" argument ignored. --Coredesat 04:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat O'Malley martial artist[edit]

Pat O'Malley martial artist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

• DeleteThe author is writting about himself which violates the WP:BIO, WP:OR and WP:COI guidelines. It is also missing and lacking neutral references but includes spam. Peter Rehse 09:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Potentially notable I suppose, but needs sources to convince me and WP:BIO. It certainly does look like autobiography but I'm not one for making such accusations without indisuputable evidence. Especially not against this chap. ;) CiaranG 10:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per PRehnse. Maustrauser 12:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. There are no neutral references for the article. CloudNine 12:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per PRehnse. Static Universe 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above, spamalicious. RFerreira 11:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Delete The referance is relevant to the page it is linked from Rapid Arnis an explains who the executive cheif instructor and founder of the style is. Pat OMalley
• Not Delete I have tried to edit the article to make it more relevant to the site, any other advise you can give will be appreaciated. Pat OMalley

I've explained what's necessary on your talk page - hope that helps. CiaranG 13:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A similar situation was resolved with the moving of content to the user page (see User:Donald Munro). Peter Rehse 08:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESULT. AecisBravado 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]