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

The result was redirect to 40-40 club. Pascal.Tesson 13:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40-40-40 club[edit]

Arbitrary. Made up of only one member. Not a recognized concept in baseball. If not deleted, suggest renaming to 41-41-41 club. -- Y not? 22:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NEO and WP:NOR. Shalom ^Hello 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, recognized by sportsline, The SF Giants official website, and the official website of the Washington Nationals, and that's when I quit looking. Corvus cornix 22:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh c'mon, they're obviously being facetious. There cannot be a club with only one member in it. This is preposterous -- Y not? 23:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but make it more esplainitory as to how important that is to a team or something. --Rocksanddirt 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE with 40-40 club and redirect. Consider merging all small sports-milestone "clubs" into one article per sport, with redirects. This should really be discussed on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball. This article was requested for creation in June of 2006. The current article appears to be an independent creation. If it is deleted, someone will request or recreate it sooner or later. MERGE will likely prevent this. originally unsigned, signed later by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the unsigned comment above.--JForget 00:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's next, the 1,000 stolen base club with just Rickey Henderson? The 500-win club with just Cy Young? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Next is the 27000 edits club with me, you and SimonP :) -- Y not? 01:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's simply way too much of these "clubs" for baseball. 3000, 400? They take pretty much any round number and a secondary category to show how good a player is. Delete because there is no articles about the "40-40-40" club. Corpx 02:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct clubs are the ones that are well-sourced. A-level clubs would be 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, 300 wins. Those are all automatic Hall of Fame clubs (or were before the steroid era) and are well-documented as such. B-level may be 30-30 and 40-40. Others can probably add few to that list. Outside of those, most baseball "clubs" are arbitrary or made up (this one leans towards the latter). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it may be sourced by all those publications, but that doesn't mean that it deserves an article. As noted earlier, why do we need an article on a one-member club? Instead, if there's any reference to this, add a short mention to the Soriano article. Nyttend 03:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 40-40 club. The 40-40-40 club is just a prmotional gadget for the Nationals, as it is really quite arbitrary that doubles are added. 40-40 has gained traction in baseball culture, because the two aspects - home runs and stolen bases - combine two traits perceived to be opposites: speed and power. 40-40-40? Not so much. Resolute 04:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: the only member of the club is Alfonso Soriano. I'm not entirely sure that one player doing something should create a brand new article. Additionally, I've never heard of the 40-40-40 club. I didn't even know what the final "40" was until I looked on the page. As Resolute stated, I think the Nationals just "created" the club because they wanted to create a special area for Alfonso Soriano as a promotion. Nobody really keeps track of doubles, and by that I mean when somebody hits their 40th double, it doesn't garner national attention. The 40 HR/40 SB did get notable attention from ESPN and MLB, but they weren't paying attention to how many doubles he has hit. I don't think it should be re-directed because the "40-40-40 club" isn't the 40-40 club; it has an additional parameter. Again, only one player is in the club, so to say that he found it doesn't really mean much until a couple other guys join the club, as well. I think a small note on 40-40 club saying that Soriano also achieved 40 doubles on the season should be enough. Ksy92003(talk) 06:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fine to mention the achievement on the Alfonso Soriano page (which it appears to), not notable enough to warrant a seperate page just to reiterate the accomplishment. Even that pages refers to the achievement of 40 Hr- 40 SB- 20 outfield assists; again, perhaps an accomplishment in of itself, but a separte page on the intersection on these 3 stats doesn't add anythingCander0000 22:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is trivial, even for baseball. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL - what's the implication, that most of baseball is trivial?? Heresy! -- Y not? 21:53, 30 July 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton Towne Centre[edit]

Yet another attempt to rid Wikipedia of stupid articles I shouldn't have created. Admittedly, this was written pretty well but it's just not a notable mall by any means (it's totally dead). Would be a db-author but other editors have tweaked the page. ~~(Remind me to nuke the images too.)~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I should have tagged this page ages ago -- after all, I do have a WP:COI here (for shame, for shame). The angelfire page cited as a "reference" is my own webpage. Note, however that I haven't edited the page in ages. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just to be perverse. do what you like. --Rocksanddirt 23:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rocksanddirt is suggesting that you should db-author it and get it over with. :). -- Ben 23:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that works too. Nobody else has made substantial edits (save for some IP edits back when I had a habit of forgetting to log in). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Deor 00:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and anyways 50 stores is not quite notable enough for a mall,JForget 00:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays, this mall is more like zero stores, one restaurant and six offices. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tagged with G7 by me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~::As stated initially, its not a db author as several people have worked on it. I removed the tag. The discussion should run. DGG (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

My error--it is just TenPoundHammer, in any substantial way. i deleted it per his request.DGG (talk) 01:33, 26 July 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. Sr 13 03:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vale Community[edit]

Non-notable commune Nyttend 22:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable; insufficient sources. Shalom ^Hello 22:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Shalom. Pharmboy 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per criterion A7. The article failed to assert any notability for this community (2nd oldest? Oldest maybe...), and virtually no reliable sources can be found.--Kylohk 01:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. Bearian 15:23, 27 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kunstler[edit]

Strong Delete, Article sounds more like a resume or self promotion, and there are serious questions about notability. Pharmboy 22:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I fixed this AfD so it would show up properly. Please, when you make an AfD, click on "preloaded debate" and fill out the form properly. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me Not so different from other bio pages of children of 60s radicals (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin) --Sulphite76

Actually, the article you quote is a another candidate, as it is contrary to WP:Notability, ie: being related to someone famous doesn't make you famous. Pharmboy 23:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - seems notable enough, if weakly so. --Rocksanddirt 23:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it- Ms Kunstler is a published Author, has been interviewed for articles in major publications, and is now producing a documentary for PBS

'now producing seems rather 'forward looking'. Pharmboy 23:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think I saw "Getting Through to the President" on The Sundance Channel. Definitely heard about it somewhere. --Sulphite76

Not to be contrary, but hard to consider her notability using information that isn't even in the article itself. Heads up, I also submitted Chesa Boudin for same reason. Not everyone is WP:BIO worthy. Pharmboy 00:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sundance Channel and Getting Through to the President are both in the article - perhaps a later edit than the one you marked for deletion. --Mediamaker 00:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD considers information that isn't "in the article itself" all the time. Consensus is based on whether the topic passes the notability guideline, not on the state of the article; cleanup or tag for sources is a valid outcome of AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 01:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you can consider info not in the article to determine notability, but there is also a limit as to how far someone should be expected to go to find this info, before expressing an opinion. I've noticed often a nomination is the prod needed to get that info finally put IN the article, finally justifying it. (no comment as to current article) Pharmboy 23:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joke: Hmm, I thought it was usually the ((prod)) that led to the nomination. >;-) Sorry, couldn't resist. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with her father's article until notability is established.--JForget 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, alternately merge a summary paragraph to William Kunstler. I think there's a smidgen of notability here but attributable sources are slim. The documentary Disturbing the Universe: Radical Lawyer William Kunstler (film) is also a clear WP:CRYSTAL candidate. --Dhartung | Talk 01:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough on her own, as shown by the refs That being her father's daughter may have given her a start does not detract from her own independent notability.DGG (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable on her own, per DGG, Dhartung and Pharmboy. Needs a reflist badly. Bearian 15:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep: Keep, but tag it for cleanup, and immediately remove the crud that makes it sound like a self-aggrandizing bio from her own website. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 28 July 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. Sr 13 03:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goof Ball[edit]

DEAR FELLOW WIKIPEDIANS: I, Gaspan, confess that Goof Ball was not as notable as some other cue sports. I also am so sorry, I have created many sock-puppets on Wikipedia such as Gaspan, easypeasy12, monopoly123, and WIKIERthanYOU. I am new to Wikipedia and I did not realize how serious that Wikipedia was about this incident. I promise that I will not do such a thing again, yet I ask that you do realize that Goof Ball is really a cue sport (not a hoax)! I ask for someone to delete this page (because I... don't know how properly...) I have learned an important lesson (on Wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monopoly123 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 29 July 2007

Unsourced article on a pool game. Note sure this is verifiable and is a possible hoax. Certainly this does not appear to meet our notability standards. The article states that the game was "popularized in 2006." Only two hits searching Google for "goof ball tournament" [2] both resolving to a yahoo geocities page that is defunct [3]. Various other searches I attempted with Pennsylvania, and other terms with the name were fruitless. No results at Google news or books. I also searched the archives at Billiardsdigest.com and bupkis [4]. For what it's worth, while we all should remain leery of "I’ve never heard of it" type arguments, I am one of the majority contributors to Wikipedia’s billiard content, play the occasional professional tournament in real life, and: I’ve never heard of it.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as a hoax or nonsense, just nothing notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please allow time for this article to develop.--Gaspan 23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Gaspan[reply]

Dear Ten Pound Hammer and Fughettaboutit:

I understand your reason for deletion of a page on the sport of Goof Ball. Yet I am still constructing the Goof Ball page and I ask for some time to improve the article to reach the standards of Wikipedia. There currently is sources from the GBC such as the rulebook and the Goof Ball constitution that have not yet been published on the internet. Also Goof Ball is not yet a well known billiard game, so I wanted to teach others about this new growing sport. I have visited your user page and I hope you will understand this circumstance different from the many others you look at. Thank you for your understanding.--Gaspan 23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Gaspan[reply]

Comment: This so called GBC "organization" is simply the same handful of friends and family as play the game; this is clear from the web site (see below), so it is not an independent source, and thus cannot be used for purposes of establishing notabilty. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STrong Delete. The author Gaspan said it best, it is not well known yet, thus not noteable, thus not article material. Pharmboy 00:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 02:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've played in the Goof Ball tournament last year, and I know about this new sport!--Easypeasy12 02:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)easypeasy12[reply]

span style="color:purple">

Note: User has only existed on the system after this AfD started. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet report filed: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gaspan — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per article creator's comment "Also Goof Ball is not yet a well known billiard game, so I wanted to teach others about this new growing sport." -- assertion of lack of notability. Spazure 05:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC) no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", fails WP:NOTE spazure (contribs) 09:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't want to sound like a total defender of this article, but ~~I don't see that it's been demonstrated~~ found the original stuff; see below that there are no such sources, only that the article (which the principal author says (s)he's still right in the middle of working on) doesn't have any cited in it at this time. I.e., it's entirely possible that Wikipedia:Notability can be satisfied with some effort. I don't see anyone saying here whether they have tried to ascertain whether this is likely to be sourceable as notable. It's also possible that there are no such sources for this piece, but I am at least slightly skeptical that someone would have written as much as was written, engaged us here, assured us that it's still in progress, etc., if the article were utter nonsense. Sure, it does happen from time to time, but most hoax articles a "drive-by" edits. There is also a stronger likelihood that the main author is connected in some way with the organization sponsoring the alleged tournaments, or one of their promoters, which could raise some WP:COI/WP:SPAM issues, but does not necessarily mean that a good article couldn't eventually come out of this one the editor understands our policies more fully. If there are sources, I would expect them to be Philly, et al., newspapers and such, so Google may not be much help. I spent weeks trying to source another game, known by hundreds of thousands if not more, and played remarkably consistently all over at least North America, and it was very, very difficult to find anything, because it is a "folk" game, "ya just know how to play; everyone does" I was told when I contacted a venue that actually holds tournaments in that game, but has no printed rules. Our reliance on e-sources is perhaps too heavy. Anyway, if this game really is the subject organized competition in several major cities, dating back over a decade, it's absolutely noteworthy enough for an article (and like Fuhghettabout, I am generally quite quick to prod/SD/AfD any WP:NFT pool games like Indians Don't Share Lunches, so I'm generally unsympathetic to things like this); it's just a matter of demonstrating that notability with a couple of references. Sorry for the ramble; just feel this stuff is worth thinking about (generally in AfD, not just in this nomination). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, and I've even tried keep votes on the basis that "Well it might be notable, if somebody could find some sources" .. that argument has never worked, and doesn't seem to be backed by any policy. spazure (contribs) 11:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to say it should be kept on that basis, but rather that we should do legwork to find out whether there are reliable sources for the claims in the article (I just did, and there aren't!) I kind of see that as a duty of the AfD participant, per WP:IDONTKNOWIT - you have to either come to know it or come to find that its not worth knowing. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it is an hoax, but it is certainly not notable. Havardk 11:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if this is true, the author has effectively stated that it isn't notable (in the wikipedian sense); not notable yet is still not notable. SamBC 00:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~Userspace it, and~~ assume good faith I do not see any reason for all the assumptions of bad faith up there. This article should be deleted because it does not (yet?) demonstrate the topic's notability, with independent reliable sources, and it is confused and fragmentary to the extent that it can plausibly said to be patent nonsense as it stands. One need not throw around words like "hoax" without strong justification (e.g. Disguised space aliens in the U.S. Congress). Gaspan, on the assumption that you can demonstrate with third-party sources (newspaper articles, etc.) that the game is actually popularly played in several major metropolitan areas, it could actually be notable enough (perhaps as a section of a larger article rather than a separate one, but that's of little consequence), if it is actually put together as an article, and not a bunch of fragments of incompleted thoughts (e.g., I've never seen a "Rules" section that didn't mention any rules! :-). I encourage ~~you to copy~~ your ~~work so far into User:Gaspan/Sandbox (since it will probably be deleted as an article before you can complete it) and work on it there, especially after~~ reading The Manual of Style and its subguidelines, and famililarizing yourself with other policies & guidelines that I believe Fuhghettaboutit has already refered you to. ~~Feel free to ask other editors if they think the result is ready for prime-time when you think it is.~~ — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Most of that is no longer applicable; I instead have a "delete" !vote below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to some !voters here: A few of you appear to be still, somehow, operating under the ca. 2004-5 "fame and popularity" conception of notability, an idea long abandoned. Please actually read WP:N before throwing it around in AfD. Notability means non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, period. "Not yet well-known" does not automatically translate into "non-notable". A great many notable things are not well-known, and a great many well-known things, like the fact that boogers are salty, are not notable. I'm skeptical that the author of this article will be able to demonstrate notability, but that's no reason to attack him with accusations of hoaxing, or attempt to fallaciously bend his own words against him ("not well known" coming from him almost certainly meant "not well known outside the [alleged] significant area in which it is well known") in a rather tortured reinterpretation of WP:N. Play fair. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Fair enough. Vote modified. spazure (contribs) 09:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Update: Actually Speedy delete per G1: The game rules recently added to the article are (in summary form) precisely those of common eight-ball so the article's premise that this is a notable and variant version of eight-ball is "patent nonsense" under CSD G1: it is "unsalvageably incoherent" reasoning, that "while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC) It is blantant made-up-one-day stuff, it's just that "one day" was over a decade ago. This game, while real and not a hoax, is the product of a single family and their friends. While I think the article was created in good faith, it was a mistake, one that many new editors make here. Take something fun that you and your buddies do and exaggerate its importance (i.e. the business about it being played in multiple cities, and there being a National Tournament really means that some friend or family member in a different city plays it with the rest of the gang when he visits Philly.) Took a while to dig it up, but here's the "lost" website of the inventor. It's hard to navigate because archive.org often drops a lot of images and even entire pages, but all you need to look at is the "history", "rules" and "records" pages to see that this, while amusing, is the furthest thing from encyclopedic. The "records" list, which is just a scoresheet of all the regular players, demonstrates that you could fit all of them into one living room with a keg of beer. ;-) I apologize if I might have come off as too protective/credulous of a sketchy article, but see Golf (pool)#"Around-the-world" variant - equally suspicious at first glance (I know I was!), but quite real and sourced, all the way back to 1947, with genuine organized tournaments – it's really hard to tell with these things sometimes. That one wasn't notable enough for a separate article (but goof ball wouldn't've been either; if it had survived AfD, I would have merged it into Eight-ball under the American variants section.) So, there we have it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No worries. I actually like seeing people fight for articles -- because I always have an open mind, and very rarely is my !vote ever set in stone, so I like seeing the arguments for both sides, no matter what my current stance is. spazure (contribs) 03:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Though I've never even heard of a game called "Goof Ball" that does not mean it is not true! I'm almost sure that some group of people, somewhere know a whole lot about "Goof Ball" yet are not speaking out. ~~This lately created sport may be played internationally (or may just fall into extinction)~~yet it does contain some encyclopedic information. Also You cannot say something does not exist just because it does not have a website!!!. All the searches being conducted related to Goof Ball have been done through the internet! This is becoming a growing problem on Wikipedia, and well... its actually has little of a solution since there are thousands of places to look. (But once someone finds the goldmine of information related to Goof Ball, this page can be verified.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKIERthanU (talk • contribs) 01:41, 29 July 2007

Note: The above user has existed for less that two hours. Taking this to WP:SSP. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet report filed: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gaspan — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment: That a game exists does not make it notable. See above your post; it does have a (moribund) web site (so your whole line of reasoning here is moot), and that site is overwhelmingly evidentiary that this game is a non-notable friends-and-family affair. Also, using multiple accounts to stack votes (which I've already directly warned you against once) is not going to fool anyone, Gaspan, and will get you banned. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless you can point me to some news article or independent website. Wikipedia is not a place for independent research. Chengwes 07:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Goof Ball is not the only cue-sport page that is unreferenced. Note that the billiard games "Rotation" and "Chicago" are also unreferenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKIERthanU (talk • contribs) 14:02, 29 July 2007.

Reply comment: Please sign your posts, and please stop putting your comments at the top of this page; they go at the bottom (or indented and underneath one that you are responding to). The argument you present here is invalid and a non sequitur; please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The short version is: The fact that something else in Wikipedia is bad does not mean that something new that is bad, but which you happen to like, should or will be kept. Just because your brother hit you in the nose does not make it right for you to kick your neighbor's dog. That said, the articles you flag as unsourced are eminently sourceable, and Goof ball is not (at all). I've already just now sourced Rotation (pool) very reliably, and am about to do that with Chicago (pool), so thank you for bringing those to our attention; they will be better articles now. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald B. Cole[edit]

Contested speedy A7. This fellow meets the low criteria of "assertion of notabiliy" (he wrote a scholarly book, it seems) but not the higher notability criteria of WP:PROF. Delete. Shalom ^Hello 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Searching by his two books they seem to have been reviewed by a lot of historical journals. They were used as source material for the Grolier Enc. [5] and Syracuse University Press NY State encyclopedia [6]. Possibly also for Van Buren Article on E.Britannica it's on the further reading list for the article, not sure if that means it was a ref used.

Google News [7] [8]. Not all hits are him, but still seems widely reviewed, and quoted. I'm not sure how much bio info is available about the subject, but work seems sufficient to pass WP:N, not that you can tell from the article. Horrorshowj 00:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have published notable books about two US Presidents.--JForget 00:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. His books have received scholarly attention, passes WP:BIO. Article needs improvement ... --Dhartung | Talk 01:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From Worldcat, he has actually written 5, all published by university presses, (including one each from Harvard University Press and Princeton University Press), all 5 of them held by hundreds of US libraries. Clearly there's something more to the biography. DGG (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like he is notable, on the low side, but definitely could be sourced more. --Haemo 04:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From a slightly different news search to Horrorshow's it looks like his 1989 book was reviewed both by the Washington Post and the New York Times. I think this is a pass for WP:PROF #3, "a significant and well-known academic work." —David Eppstein 17:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above as notable and verifiable. Needs more content and cites. Bearian 15:27, 27 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Mahaffy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article is pretty close to not being about the nominal subject at all. At best it would be an entry in a directory of victims of serial criminals (if Wikipedia was a directory, which it isn't), but actually there is only one subject and the two perpetrators and any victims should all be rolled into one article on the notable case. The single reference is not encouraging. A purported biography teased from an article in one magazine. Name recognition (stated as a reason for keep last time round) can and should be handled with a redirect to the article on the case. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability does not expire. In Canada it was a very big news and was partly resurrected two years ago when one of her killer's was freed. We can certainly find other article's to delete. This is not one of them IMO. Fighting for Justice 22:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in general, crime victims aren't notable if only known as being victims. Pats Sox Princess 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known in Canada. Type 40 23:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a huge story in Buffalo too, and the names are still very much associated with the crimes. This search shows 553 hits for her name at Google News Archive search, over 100 since the beginning of 2006. ATren 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Type 40 and her murder is one of the most publicized and followed cases here in Canada.--JForget 00:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator, this is exactly the kind of article that doesnt improve the encyclopedia and should be deleted and salted, SqueakBox 01:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I go by the sources, and 500 in Google News over 2 years is sufficient notability by any standard.DGG (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the nomination again. I came here because I don't think this should be a separate article. Merging this and other articles to a single article on the crimes, which are notable, is fine, but this article is essentially not about the purported subject at all, it's about the crimes. "Biographies" founded on a single event are simply wrong. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction - it's 500 total, and more than 100 in the last two years. ATren 02:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would accept a merger if there were a reasonably comprehensive article about the case, but in its absence keep as you can hardly be a murder victim and ~~less~~ any more notable than she is. Guy, sometimes I wonder about your campaign to rid Wikipedia of things you consider beneath it. --Dhartung | Talk 02:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Dhartung. She was one of the victims of one of the most famous murders in Canadian history. That said, it would probably be preferable to redirect this article to one about the case, and its legacy, if one had been written. Resolute 04:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if we want Wikipedia to be international it's fitting that we have article's about murder victims who's cases were notable in their home country. This case is our(I'm in Canada) equivalent of what the James Bulger case was to Britian. Fighting for Justice 04:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in Canada as well, so am well aware of the legacy of Bernardo and Holmolka. That said, I do not believe that being a murder victim makes one independently notable, even one as famous as Mahaffy (or French). Especially when the article has very little to do with the individual herself, but rather focuses more on the case. I voted keep for the very reason you suggest, but ideally, much of the content of this article belongs in an article about the crime itself, its impact, and its legacy. Resolute 04:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where I agree with Guy, perhaps, is that a "biography" is not the best structure for an article about a murder victim. I have spoken before that overlapping/conflicting policies make it difficult to use a different structure. A biography is simple to write: a person is a self-contained topic. Things about a notable person are reasonably included and linked. A non-biography presents problems of defining what fits and what does not fit, and editors who wish to rid Wikipedia of "tabloid" material might do better creating a set of guidelines for creating such articles or transforming biographies into them. As it is, the crude club of AFD is ill-suited for reaching that end. In any case, Guy is apparently using AFD to argue for a merge, which is best handled on the Talk pages of the article. There is simply no policy precedent for distinguishing between "notability" and what he here calls "name recognition". --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the most famous victim of Canada's most famous serial killer is not notable? I don't think so. --Haemo 04:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. --MichaelLinnear 07:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm just realizing now that this article already went through an AFD this very year. Is this allowed? If it is kept again, will there be another AFD in 3 months? I'm not trying to be uncivil or anything, but could there be a couple of users who are making a coordinated effort in deleting this article permanently? I haven't come across another article that's been nominated for deletion twice in the same year. I hope I'm not ruffling any feathers with my comment. I'm only making an observation. Fighting for Justice 10:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original AfD was only open a couple hours before being speedy kept. It is, perhaps, better to let this debate run its course. Resolute 13:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the added comment that normally I am agreeance with JzG with regards to biographical subjects, but this particular subject is notable beyond the scope of WP:BLP and has a wealth of references available from highly reliable sources. Burntsauce 16:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a source, but it only covers her insomuch as listing her as someone the guy killed, and what the circumstances of her slaying were. If that is that is needed to be "significant coverage from reliable sources independant of the subject", then the pretty much anyone who has ever been murdered and had their story on television or in the paper is notable. i ^{(said) (did)} 01:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kristen French and details from Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo into a new article about the crimes. Although this recommendation is not formally allowed by the AfD process, it is probably the best way to deal with the article. This article (and Kristen French, which is not being considered for deletion) is not about the victim, it's primarily concerned with the crime. This way all the information about the crimes could be in one place and not be duplicated in four articles. In addition, the very recognizable names of the victims would redirect to a more appropriate article. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 13:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the interests of improving the group of articles, I think this might be a reasonable choice. I think the way of doing it that would show the intent most clearly is to keep this article, and then propose the necessary merges and page moves. I'm not sure what title you have in mind, though. DGG (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to Flyguy's proposal (with redirects, of course), but absent that this does need to be kept. Even a person who did nothing except die can be said to be independently notable, if they're still a household name fifteen years after their death as Mahaffy is. WP:BIO does include "Wide name recognition" as a criterion. This is akin to Laci Peterson, not to a victim of the VA Tech shooting. Merge if necessary; keep otherwise. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen French. Bearcat 05:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: per Flyguy469 and Bearcat, I think the information in the articles about Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy need to be merged into a new article, incorporating information from Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo. I propose Murders of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. With that done, we'd have to set up a number of redirects to that article from:

Murders of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, Murder of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, Murder of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy

Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French murders, et al

Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French

Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French

various mis-spellings of the names: Kristin, Kirsten, Mahaffey etc...

There are probably other issues to consider, but they escape me right now. Mind matrix 16:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat, but I'm opposed to a merger in such cases because it is so profoundly disrespectful to the victim as an individual. Given the thousands of articles mentioning her name in lexis-nexis, the article can surely be improved. Bucketsofg 18:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and if we're relying on a single source to write this article, I don't see how it possibly belongs in any encyclopedia including our own. RFerreira 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Guy's absolutely dead-on with this one. Of course, many Canadians will know about Mahaffy & French, but the integrity of an encyclopedic project is challenged by this kind of article, which would be better covered in an article on the Homolka/Bernardo crimes. It is nice, and I hope it becomes a more frequent pattern, to see an argument framed that effectively demolishes the mindless, intellectually facile "I found xx references on google" argument for establishing notability. WP is slowly (slowly, oh so slowly) growing up. Eusebeus 22:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"mindless intellectually facile" - yes, thank goodness this place is growing up! Maybe soon we'll get to the point where an argument can be made without insulting the other side, eh? ATren 23:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RFerreira. GreenJoe 04:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - While a Wikipedia biography on Leslie Mahaffy would/could be appropriate, this article is not. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 09:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known in Canada, and easily verifiable. - SimonP 12:02, 30 July 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. Sr 13 04:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Rooney[edit]

Author who appears to have created own unreferenced biography (violating WP:COI), fails WP:BIO. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Titanium Dragon 23:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Titanium Dragon. Only cite appears to be a friend's review, violating WP:OR. Bearian 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete if there are no links to it and no sources and no point not notable at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delighted eyes (talk • contribs) 04:13, 29 July 2007
Delete per nom. --Aarktica 01:25, 30 July 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} 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grey goo in fiction[edit]

Delete - yet another collection of loosely associated items, ironically about collections of strongly associated items. Otto4711 21:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely useless; I must say, I like Otto's bit about the irony :-) Nyttend 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 22:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia, with lots of WP:OR Corpx 02:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eric Drexler should be a pretty authoritative source. He says, of his report in the Institute of Physics journal Nanotechnology, that "Science fiction writers focused on this idea, and 'grey goo' became closely associated with nanotechnology, spreading a serious misconception about molecular manufacturing systems and diverting attention from more pressing concerns. This new paper shows why that focus is wrong." [9] So that's confimation of its general use, and that a list of specific, notable works would be encyclopedic. For individual items, WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR can be addressed by simple editing and sourcing. For example: BBC is one of many that says Prey by Michael Crichton is about grey goo [10] (see second last para). Canuckle 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is Michael Crichton's Prey notable enough to get a mention in the Grey goo article or a similar 'in fiction' article? Since we have a good source, place a brief and sourced paragraph in grey goo article, and then create a category for 'Grey goo in fiction' and include the works of these writers that are based on Grey goo. Then, delete the article. CaveatLector^Talk 06:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A category sounds like a good suggestion, although it too will need to be policed. 'Grey goo in fiction' is a topic that legitimately deserves more than jsut a throwaway, brief paragraph in the main article. The second sentence in the main article states that its usual use is in science fiction and yet the main article doesn't explore that use in any significant fashion. My advice would be for the nanotechnology project to use sourced prose to describe the use of goo in fiction, and common scientists' complaints about it. Any examples cited should require sources that explicitly say the work's use of grey goo is important. (No unsourced speculation that the 1950s Blob movie could be an example of the phenomenom). Other works could be categorized as described above. Canuckle 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, in agreement in substance with Canuckle, but the need to cut out the trivia and find cites may be daunting. Bearian 15:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't change the fact that this is a list of loosely associated topics and fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 16:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, totally useless list of loosely associated trivia. Burntsauce 17:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. J-stan ^Talk 20:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete/categorise as proposed by CaveatLector. I trust that I am not alone in finding the concept of 'grey goo' somewhat intractable! Given that we have an article the line of actions suggested seems the best way forward. Bridgeplayer 22:17, 31 July 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. Sr 13 04:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erebus (Band)[edit]

Non-notable band, unsourced. --Finngall ^talk 21:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original speedy-deleter. Being "the only progressive death metal band in Clarksville, TN" doesn't make a band worthy of inclusion IMO. No sources for this assertion, either. NawlinWiki 21:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, non notable band. No claims. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speedy had previously been declined due to assertion of notability per criteria 7 and 9 of WP:MUSIC. --Finngall ^talk 22:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they meet 7 (not verified) or 9 (agian, not verified). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key factor is, the assertion of notability, in this case WP:MUSIC #7 & #9, is enough to invalidate the speedy deletion of the article and force a fuller examination of the notability issues via AFD. And that fuller examination is exactly what is going on here - TexasAndroid 14:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Unfortunatley I do not see where in rule #7 does it state what city you must be from, for reference:

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city;

Although I am not sure how to "prove" this, I am working on going through my articles to cite that we have won the Battle of the Bands for City of Clarksville, TN.

This also helps us to establish rule # 9, again for reference;

9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.

Which would also give this band the right to have a page on wiki, which will be referenced fairly soon, just have to get the article out and look up the date and author.

What else can I do at this time to help keep this page. Thanks ChaseDCox 01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chase, you would need to find material from independent sources supporting the article such as reviews of the album, independent news reports about the band, etc. Winning the Clarksville battle of the bands is not considered to be a major music competition which is more like winning a Grammy or similar event. Similarly, a local scene has to have a wider reputation such as grunge in Seattle, soul in Detroit etc. 'Delete unless this is provided. Capitalistroadster 02:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but major is not defined as being any of those things, as well as not being specified that you have to be as large as Motown or Grunge, which is absurd that you expect something that large. I will have evidence that supports their significance in the community, and I then expect to have this matter dropped. ChaseDCox 03:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is it worth referencing that their music is in the Library of Congress? ChaseDCox 04:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A local battle of the bands does not qualify as a major music competition, and I have not seen evidence that Erebus has met any other WP:MUSIC criteria. The article has no sources other than a link to the Wikipedia article about the mythological figure Erebus. I also looked at the Library of Congress online catalog and did not see any listings for this band's recordings being in the collection there. --Metropolitan90 05:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No viable assertion of notability. "World famous all over Clarksville and Ft. Campbell" doesn't cut it. The article is poorly written, NPOV violating, and quotes another Wikipedia article at far too extensive a length. Sorry, Chase, they're just not notable. --Orange Mike 12:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It is not defined on this site as what a major competition is. It is also required to meet only one requirement from the WP:MUSIC, which they have. ChaseDCox 13:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Major" may be subject to discussion and the consensus of the community, but until there is even verified evidence that any competitions have been won, or any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC have been met, then arguing those points is not going to hold any water. In short, you need references that are independent of the band's own productions and publications to establish these things... until then I'll have to go with Delete also, since without them the article violates the Wikipedia policy of WP:VERIFY. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will just use a user page for this. If that is ok. So that I can take my time to edit everything. I will contact an admin when I am ready to have it looked over, thanks. Erebus Band 04:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will just use a user page for this. If that is ok. So that I can take my time to edit everything. I will contact an admin when I am ready to have it looked over. I obviously did not understand what it took to make a wiki page, but I am learning. If I could use my personal page to edit and update this article for the band erebus It would be greatly appreciated. THanks. ChaseDCox 20:03, 29 July 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. Sr 13 04:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cengiz Pehlevan[edit]

Non-notable academic, unsourced. Was nominated for speedy but declined. --Finngall ^talk 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a valid application of CSD A7, but he fails WP:PROF. Shalom ^Hello 22:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Just a graduate student at Brown, from the looks of it,so not notable as an academic But possible notability for having one first prize on the national college entrance examination in Turkey, and it seems to be documented. I haven't seen notability on that basis asserted before, and it would be worth a discussion. DGG (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a vanity puff-piece. Mr. Pehlevan looks to have a promising career, but right now he is just another grad student. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and Anetode. —David Eppstein 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A graduate student would have to demonstrate some unusual notability to meet WP:PROF. I don't feel that the college entrance examination qualifies. Espresso Addict 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, too bad that it could not be speedy deleted. Burntsauce 22:51, 27 July 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. Sr 13 04:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power Vector[edit]

Not really my area of expertise, but I can see no notability in this company. Regardless, currently reads (very poorly) an an ad. Emeraude 21:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as it stands at present, under ((db-corp)) (CSD A7) – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is not a notable corporation; reads like an advertisement. 69.158.57.45 21:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tivedshambo. --Aarktica 01:27, 30 July 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 redirect. I see only two people with reasonable arguments for keeping; the arguments of original research, excess trivia and WP:USEFUL being a poor reason for keeping are compelling. Neil ╦ 10:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral (Star Trek)[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Most of these articles are lists of characters who have held the respective ranks. While the characters have notability, the titles themselves do not. (I am not nominating Captain (Star Trek) for deletion, since the iconic nature of the series' leads, along with, for example, the real-world book about leadership modeled in Star Trek, may embue this particular rank with real-world significance. I dunno; it might be worth a separate AfD.) It makes little real-world difference when Geordi La Forge goes from lieutenant to lieutenant commander, or when Spock goes from lieutenant commander to commander. Additionally, most of the real-world information contained in these articles is a discussion of rank inconsistencies, e.g. lieutenant commander and whether/when O'Brien is enlisted -- much of it delves into original research. Although I realize that The Star Trek Encyclopedia is out-of-date and by no means exhaustive, I'm pretty certain that none of these ranks have even cursory entries in that text; similarly, characters who hold these ranks have entries in the startrek.com library, but not the ranks themselves (I searched for "lieutenant" and "lieutenant commander" and concluded that it's true of the others, too). I've spent a lot of time working on these articles, but I think I have a better understanding now of Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and original research, and these ranks individually don't seem to have the real-world significance to warrant separate articles. I'd suggest they be deleted and, if appropriate, redirected to Starfleet ranks and insignia, which devotes more time and attention to their real-world development (at least for the early series/movies; more eyes there would be appreciated)) -- considering, though, that at least one of these articles came under semi-protection (and I was one of the involved parties), I can see how such a move by myself might be antagonistic, so I'm bringing it up for discussion and consensus-reaching here. --EEMeltonIV 21:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that the suggest action is not deletion, but rather a redirect, I would suggest a discussion in a different place. Perhaps at WP:Star Trek? FrozenPurpleCube 21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources providing real world context. I don't like the idea of leaving a redirect because these aren't really reasonable search terms. Jay32183 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely delete all but the first. It might have potential depending on how it's handled. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Titanium Dragon 23:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one monkey dance. —SlamDiego_←T 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki all to the star trek wiki. Corpx 02:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid option if you're talking about Memory Alpha, as they have an incompatible license. FrozenPurpleCube 04:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didnt think of that. This one is GDFL Corpx 05:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reduce and merge all to a Rank in Star Trek article / list article. 70.51.8.90 05:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. This isn't a median for merge discussions. See ((merge)) -- Cat ^chi? 06:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I am fundamentally suggesting these be deleted, not merged -- I don't see anything in these articles that should be cut-and-pasted into the larger ranks article. I can appreciate Jay32183's point that these may not be likely search terms; I was thinking more along aesthetic lines of the various links to these ranks/lists, but some time with AWB to delete those would do just as well. --EEMeltonIV 09:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comments (should this fail to get tossed as a merge). I think all listed articles are useful. Lists of multiple characters that appeared with a certain rank insignia and being called is evidence of that rank. Most of these pages are breakaways from Starfleet ranks and insignia which was also been nominated for deletion several times (which have failed). Aside from the iconic Captain rank other ranks also had significance. For example the commander rank is among the most well known iconic rank out there. The individual flag officer ranks for example can be merged to one article.
  Star Trek is a part of culture and that is its real life significance. Hamlet is merely a cultural phenomenon as is Star Trek. Both are significant in their own way. Star Trek ranks are more like Yorick (Hamlet) (mere skull in the play, who doesn't know the skull in hamlet?), a symbol.
  -- Cat ^chi? 07:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  - WP:USEFUL is not a policy for inclusion. It would be useful for Wikipedia to tell how to change spark plugs or the best way to gut a fish, but I don't think we'll find those how-tos. "Lists of multiple characters that appeared with a certain rank insignia" sounds like the deleted List of Starfleet officers by rank -- that article and these rank lists are "useful" in that they possess certain information, but they aren't notable. "Evidence" of these ranks, meanwhile, is conveyed in the current Starfleet ranks and insignia, not to mention the various notable characters who have held the rank. The rank of Starfleet commander is not notable, but Commanders Spock and Benjamin Sisko are -- I'd challenge you to find a reliable source that offers commentary or discussion on the rank that isn't attached to a particular character, or that focuses primarily on the title rather than characters who carry it.
    As for this being breakaway material from the base article -- that doesn't particularly matter to me. You'll probably remember that Starfleet ranks and insignia went through a massive rewrite since the individual ranks were broken off to get rid of OR and its in-universe focus. I would oppose integrating much, if any, of the individual rank articles (back) into the ranks and insignia bit for much the same reasons I've nominated them for deletion: they are in-universe lists of trivia.
    I agree that Star Trek is "a cultural phenomenon" and is "significant." The ranks characters lug around, however, are not themselves significant. On my talk page, you suggested that my goal is to get "all star trek slowly deleted". To the contrary, my goal is to reduce the amount of non-notable material that lists plot summary and trivia so that what *does* remain has solid footing in WP:N. The Yorick : Hamlet :: Lieutenant Commander : Star Trek analogy is flawed. A cornerstone -- in fact, one of the things that lends Star Trek its significance -- of the franchise is how it's characters/people that matter most, not the number of pips on their collar. As an unintended result, that's why these ranks haven't added up to a ton of in-universe, and negligible out-of-universe, notability. --EEMeltonIV 09:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't WP:USEFUL, it is more of a citation useful. List of characters by rank is fine as you and I discussed earlier on. A good number of these articles are used for that. It is better to have such articles rather than unintelligible LONG lists at the bottom of pages for citation. In addition list of characters by rank meets WP:L and WP:N.
      Your definition of OR and the one in WP:OR is significantly different. You do not consider the show itself to be a credible source for information. You removed lots of information like that such as the parallel universe ranks. Or citations to the enterprise ranks. You have over 5000 edits on that article. You have removed lots of sourced material from the article 'slowly'. Not my idea of rewrite.
      A good number of the characters are notable simply because of the number of pips they wear, like the captain rank or the commander rank as well as others.
      You yourself said/implied Captain rank had an "iconic nature". "The Yorick : Hamlet :: Captain : Star Trek" works just as The Yorick : Hamlet :: Lieutenant Commander : Star Trek.
      If you don't mind I am bailing out of this discussion because I find any deletion discussion with you to be pointless.
      -- Cat ^chi? 11:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      - The show itself is a fine source of information; however, making generalizations about the entire fictional universe based on what is only seen and described for the principle characters is OR. It's fair to say that in some parallel universe, Riker wears a particular insignia; it is OR to state that in the parallel universe, everyone with Riker's rank wears that insignia. Please see WP:WAF. And please note that I used the phrase "iconic nature" to describe the characters; whether Kirk, Picard, etc. "transfer" notability to their rank, I'm not as sure of; it may be worth a later AfD. As for edit counts, whatever that's worth: on the ranks & insignia article, I have 165, which is slightly less than half of Husnock's, a little more than a third of yours, and a lot less than "5000". --EEMeltonIV 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        All "commanders" that appeared on the parallel universe wore that insignia. Similar case with the Enterprise ranks. If everyone with a specific insignia wears a specific insignia in a show the only logical conclusion is that the insignia are indeed representing the ranks in question. This is not OR. OR would be me inventing ranks/insignia. We know the pips they wear are ranks and this isn't rocket science. -- Cat ^chi? 15:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
        Various things quite different from your inventing ranks would be OR. A conversation in an elevator between you and one of the writers would be OR. OR can have very great objective merit, but it isn't permitted in Wikipedia. Maybe that gets your goat; sometime it gets mine; but that's the way that it is. —SlamDiego_←T 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We have some participants advocating actual deletion, and “merge” is a legitimate resolution of a nomination for deletion. Let's let this play-out, and accept any consensus that develops from it. —SlamDiego_←T 11:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real-world impact, little in the way of actual reliable sources that I can see, mostly treated in-universe style, and implausible redirects as titles/search terms. --Calton | Talk 14:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It does not seem to be in-universe to me and I learned from this article (fleet admiral. Martin-C 06:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect — I fail to see any significance or usefulness in these. When a tv show refers to the rank of a character and that rank is taken right from a real-world use, people know what it means, A Captain is a Captain; an Ensign is an Ensign. It might be different if the ranks were made-up words, but that sort of thing could be covered in a List of ranks in Star Trek. --Jack Merridew 11:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom; excessive trivia and much OR. Sandstein 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into original article: The texts of most of these articles were taken out of the main Starfleet ranks article about three years ago from what I can see so it shouldnt be a major deal to call it up in the edit history. Would also like to comment that EEMeltonIV's motiviations here are a little bit hazy; he has been involved in a major edit war on Fleet Captain (Star Trek) and has had serious personality clashes with this White Cat person who was the original inventor of most of this articles. I have to wonder why the sudden mass deletion campaign. -OberRanks 15:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - Peregrine Fisher 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a vote. Please include some kind of reasoning. Jay32183 20:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into original article: Starfleet ranks and insignia are culturally significant in and of themselves because they do parallel military ranks (particularly U.S. Navy), and because their use reveals much about the philosophy of the show, particularly through the eyes and pens of its creators, producers, and writers. In my opinion, this is true of any show with Star Trek's cultural significance that depicts rank, status, and/or a possible future for both military and space exploration. Additionally, it is my understanding that to be deleted as per Wikipedia:No original research, the entire article must consist solely of original research; otherwise, the piece goes to cleanup. The "Star Trek: Enterprise" subtopic, which contains precisely two unsourced statements, could be interpreted--very loosely--to contain original research, but for the fact that no point of view is espoused. It is certainly hard for a reasonable person to claim that a piece that simply lists and contextualizes specific fictional enlisted ranks espouses any particular point of view. At the same time, there is a clear and important subtext here, framed by Gene Roddenberry's statement that in his view all Starfleet crew members were astronauts, and therefore had to be officers, that some later writers and producers disagreed with him. Given Star Trek's 40-year history, that is hardly original fact. The point of all this is that the rank or status of fictional characters is often vital to the story, particularly when that story is presented in the context of a military, cultural, or space exploration organization--and that when the story itself bears significant cultural significance--as does any story that has run nearly a fifth of the history of its nation of origin--said rank or status is often key to understanding not just the characters' place in the story, but in the minds of its creators--and furthermore, the place of rank and status in the minds of those creators. P.F. Bruns 06:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If Starfleet ranks and insignia ever goes up for AfD, I may provide a link back here; I agree with much of what you wrote. Out of curiosity, what particular content on these individual articles do you think is worth holding onto (besides the observation that Roddenberry suggested that all TOS-era folks were officer-grade astronauts, which I'm surprised isn't in the catch-all article and that I'll drop in regardless of how the AfD works out)? --EEMeltonIV 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This sort of trivia belongs at Memory Alpha or the Star Trek Wikia site, not here. Burntsauce 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SlamDiego. J-stan ^Talk 20:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep per P.F. Bruns --Xiahou 21:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - P.F. Bruns input suggests a (re)merge, not a keep. If you think there's a reason to keep them separate, please articulate it. --EEMeltonIV 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - no, keep or merge as long as the information is still there. --Xiahou 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the lot of them to an article on Star Trek ranks. WP:FICT and all that. >Radiant< 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete: per nom. I agree with several editors above that someone who cares that much about which fictional characters held which fictional ranks so as to want a comparison chart will already have Memory Alpha bookmarked. Ravenswing 17:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too big a bundle to handle. Agree 100% with omitting Captain from the list, as the majority of plotlines involve the various captains. The x-Admirals should go, as they tend to be only scene setting, but the Ensign, Lieutenant commander and a few of the other ranks are held by repeating and significant characters. Ace of Risk 20:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and those repeating/significant characters should be covered -- but do the ranks themselves, divorced from particular characters, have notability? --EEMeltonIV 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rank-specific articles; Keep Starfleet enlisted ranks and insignia and Starfleet officer accession ranks. It's a merge issue whether the two overviews need to be separate from Starfleet ranks and insignia. Kayaker 21:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep & Cleanup. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys Gone Wild[edit]

Spam for non-notable product. No assertion of notability, yet speedy was declined. No coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. Valrith 21:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Substantial coverage in reliable sources including Tapei Times and Salon, for starters. Otto4711 21:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another source, for some critical response, SMU Daily. And here's the Tapei Times story in USA Today. Otto4711 21:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it reads like product placement that's not even based on a notable company, let alone porn. 69.158.57.45 21:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. Subject is quite notable in gay porn. Current state of the article shows a need for improvement, not deletion. CaveatLector^Talk 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is plenty notable Corpx 02:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. Girls Gone Wild article virtually identical. User Valrith consistently deletes mention of Guys Gone Wild within Girls Gone Wild article, despite products originating from same company. Merging sounds like a fair compromise. geoff43230
Delete. Doesn't warrant a separate article though some details from it rightly belong in Girls Gone Wild. Kayaker 21:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Sr 13 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop princess[edit]

Delete: Although this was once a large article, most of it was unsourced or original research and has been removed. The remaining stub is little more than a dictionary definition. (Contested PROD) – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Long article history, but as far as I can tell, there's no indication that it has any particular meaning beyond the unsourced dicdef given. I don't see any possibility of an encyclopedia article here. Previous article versions had lists of singers, but there's no reason they should be listed here rather than at List of solo female singers, or somesuch (with sources of course). --Fang Aili ^talk 21:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and I agree with both comments above me. 69.158.57.45 21:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to pop icon which this is a variant of. FrozenPurpleCube 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and User:Fang Aili's comment. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pop icon without prejudice. There likely is information available about the subject, since it's not an uncommon term. But, if anything, it should be a section in Pop icon and spun off into a separate article iff there are enough reliable sources and the section becomes large enough to warrant it. 17Drew 05:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Fang Aili /\n|)r0|v|€d@ {Post} 04:04, 30 July 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, but I think most will agree that a redirect to Sir John A. Macdonald#Trivia makes sense. Sandstein 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jamaica[edit]

The article is a single sentence that notes that a Prime Minister of Canada had a named private rail car. That sentence is already in the PM's trivia section. There is no other information and I think very little could be produced. The article has sat, nearly empty for almost a year now. JGGardiner 21:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Make sure the target article also has the external link. The rail car is not notable. Shalom ^Hello 22:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect ought to suffice--probably to John A. Macdonald. Mackensen (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but it should also be redirected to other articles on private railroad cars, or railroad cars owned by world leaders, if any. ---- DanTD 14:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be shown to outshine The Batmobile. --Aarktica 01:37, 30 July 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. Sr 13 04:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bambi Lashell[edit]

This is technically an orphaned page. This person has won a beauty contest held by a tanning salon/TV show and that TV show (Sunset Tan) is the only page linking to this one. I'm not sure that a swimsuit model has enough notability to have an entire encyclopedia page dedicated to her. A mention and external website link on the Sunset Tan page is fine, but a whole page dedicated to her? Seems excsssive and it's main editors seem to be working with an agenda for publicity-making & advertising . Uncle Cheech 20:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I fully agree that this page is promotional, rather than educational, in nature. This individual is not noteworthy, and information regarding her appearance in "Sunset Tan" is already documented on the show's page. I also have concerns that the photograph is not appropriate for all audiences. --Realdiamonds 01:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont think any of those awards carry any weight - No mentions on google news archives either Corpx 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominations and all above reasons.Sesquipedalian 17:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:BLP. --Aarktica 01:33, 30 July 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 by User:Jaranda. NawlinWiki 20:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amarillo Bible Church[edit]

NN Church Rackabello 20:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Sr 13 06:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balder in popular culture[edit]

These lists are simply jumbles of loosely associated information. The notable elements of the lists are better suited by categories, which I have created at Category:Norse mythology in popular culture and Category:Norse mythology in art and literature. I am sure that some of these topics can be covered by a well sourced article that actually has meat and actually discusses the influence of whatever mythological figure is mentioned, but for now I feel that they should be deleted. CaveatLector^Talk 20:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator - the articles added subsequently to this nomination are not properly linked to this nomination. Please add the correct afd template to each, which is ((subst:afd1|Balder in popular culture)). Otto4711 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It seems like sort of useful, but only of you have a list of all the other Norse gods in popular culture. Delete not informative, thinking back on it. --Onceonthisisland 21:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not quite sure how they are useful... CaveatLector^Talk 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm Thinking back on it, Iguess it isn't really that useful. I change my mind (see above) --Onceonthisisland 21:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete, but consider redirection to Norse mythology in popular culture for each case seperately. dab (𒁳) 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for the same reasons other "in popular culture" articles are nuked -- they're indiscriminate lists of loosely associated topics. These articles have no use whatsoever. And this comment receives the most edit conflicts I've ever had -- three of 'em. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are frankly too many here to get any serious input on -- but I would definitely say that we could probably collect the entire shebang onto an improved page of Norse mythology in popular culture, which actually seems to be trying to be an encyclopedia article, and not a list of trivia. So, I guess I would be saying "trim and merge all". --Haemo 21:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these are all directories of loosely associated topics. They tell us nothing about the mythological figures, Norse mythology in general, the fictional or non-fictional items from which the references are drawn or the actual cultural impact that any of these figures have on the real world. Otto4711 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- so what, in your opinion, speaks against redirection to the main article? The only difference will be that the factoids will still be visible in the edit history. dab (𒁳) 23:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the heads up about the templates, Otto, they should all be fixed now. CaveatLector^Talk 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I dislike "in popular culture" sections on mythology articles because, pace the nominator, they "are simply jumbles of loosely associated information" with little feel for proportion or context. These "in popular culture" articles, on the other hand, have been very useful for keeping the main articles clear of this sort of trivia. For years I've been making edit summaries like: "reverted - put this into the popular culture subarticle". To now delete these honeypot subarticles feels like the second phase of a devious plot... I can't say I'll miss them. Some people will, though. Haukur 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argh no! Please, please don't do this -- if you have trivia which cannot be merged, it should be removed, not sent to a "honeypot" article. The concept of honeypot articles is something Wikipedia is not.--Haemo 00:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I would have placed it in separate afds because some of the editors have a different view depending on the article. However, delete all as they are trivia-filled with little or no sources.--JForget 00:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all and relist individually The articles of of different strengths. The general policy is unsettled, and the individual discussions seem to be coming to different conclusions, based on the individual articles. The defense for an articles is its individual significance, and this should be discussed. Most such related groups of variable strength articles have gotten unbundled here, o the advantage of discussions based on the content of the articles. Merging to one Norse mythology in [popular culture would seem to have too much material. DGG (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The individual discussions by and large are not coming to different conclusions. There may be the occasional pop culture article that makes it through AFD but for every one that survives several are deleted. If there are some that you believe rise above the usual poor level of such articles, you can certainly advocate for them individually here. Otto4711 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While i would also like these to be listed individually, I looked through them all and they all look like trivia to me (WP:5) Corpx 02:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, yet more indiscriminate lists of trivia. Resolute 04:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, do NOT relist This is a perfectly legitimate group nomination by the nom. Bulldog123 13:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, none of them satisfy our criteria for encyclopedicness. Punkmorten 18:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Odin -- I'd rather relist them individually, but at their present stage of development, the strongest of the batch seem to be Odin. There are major works of fiction using him as the central character in one form or another, and many where he appears in a less central but still culturally relevant role: .DGG (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really hate the tactic of nominating 14 separate articles in a group, with the most unlikable one ("Baldur" being misspelled) listed first. I can't assume good faith on that one. Caveat, I honestly do not believe that you looked at all 14 articles, and I believe that you simply grouped them together based on their title. I don't care how many people vote with you. This isn't a perfectly legitimate group nomination, it's a tactic. To your credit, Caveat, you say that you've created a category -- I'll assume you're telling the truth on that one -- but fourteen articles at a time? I'm calling you out. You're doing nothing more than nominating these because they have the words "in popular culture" in the title and they refer to Norse mythology. I haven't read the articles --- what's the point? So I'm not going to vote keep or delete, but at least I'm honest about it. Mandsford 01:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford 01:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- First of all, I'd appreciate it if you used a little civility if you have a problem with this nomination. Second, I put 'Balder' first because that article is first alphabetically, and if you'll notice all the other articles are also in alphabetical order. Thirdly, I went through EACH of these articles and assessed whether or not they should be deleted individually, and found that they were all almost the same article (they tend to all contain most of the same references). Lastly, there's no need to 'assume' that I'm telling the truth, you can look at the page histories of ALL of the articles in Category:Norse mythology in popular culture other than the '... in popular culture' articles and see who it was that added them into the category (i.e. me). Lastly, we are not voting. Wikipedia is not a democracy. These are not votes. This is a discussion. If you have problems in the future with the way I or anyone else nominates an article or a group of articles, please express those concerns in a civil manner rather than a tone such as this. CaveatLector^Talk 03:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Very well. I have a problem with this method of editing. However, your explanation is appreciated. Mandsford 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All All total junk/trivia articles. Biggspowd 02:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - nothing but unencyclopedic trivia. IPSOS (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, Loosely associated trivia. Crazysuit 05:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Wikle[edit]

Non-noteable, failed Reality TV contestants. Have done nothing since the programme to sustain noteability. Delete and redirect to Big Brother 5 (US) Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - his appearances on Big Brother, Battle of the Network Reality Stars, Real Gay and a host of the Logo original series "Round Trip Ticket" are sufficient to satisfy notability concerns. "Delete and redirect" is as I understand not an option under the GFDL. Otto4711 21:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the source already listed in the article, the following sources appear to be reliable: [11]; [12]; [13] (for factual confirmation of some material) so that aspect of the notability issue is also satisfied. Otto4711 21:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to add said sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, he's done more than just Big Brother per Otto4711. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711, SatyrTn and TenPoundHammer. not just another reality dude. Bearian 17:52, 27 July 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 redirect. Sr 13 06:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen O'Neil Ganci[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-noteable, failed Reality TV contestants. Have done nothing since the programme to sustain noteability. Delete and redirect to Big Brother 5 (US) Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 20:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS because only known for 1 event, and that's to appear on a reality show. Corpx 02:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per noms. Sesquipedalian 17:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. --Aarktica 01:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per Corpx. A-Supreme 04:22, 30 July 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. They were notable before and after the show. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adria Montgomery-Klein and Natalie Montgomery-Carroll[edit]

Non-noteable, failed Reality TV contestants. Have done nothing since the programme to sustain noteability. Delete and redirect to Big Brother 5 (US) Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 20:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsuccessful reality show contestants; redirect per nom. The other media exposure does not amount to much of significance IMO. Shalom ^Hello 23:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - Known only for 1 event, and that's to appear on a reality show. I dont think their awards carry much weight either. Corpx 02:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for their fitness career before Big Brother; seem to have achieved a degree of notability in the fitness subculture, which combined with the reality show appearance is just enough for me. Perhaps someone more familiar with the fitness/bodybuilding scene could comment on just how impressive their awards and pictorials really were. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to their notability before and since the reality show. Bearian 17:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the reasons for why this article was submitted for deletion... Adria and Natalie are both fitness professionals and have competed in many competitions. They're not just known for being on Big Brother 5. As evidence for this, the article actually contains quite a bit of information about twins other than their stint on a reality show. A-Supreme 20:48, 29 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ren (Middle-earth)[edit]

Pure fanfic, deriving in part from an old RPG and adding some more OR. The article is virtually a copy of Nazgûl, changing only a couple of sections. Not the first instance of creating such articles, as the RPG was quite famous but still is considered non-canon and fanfic, even not fanon. Súrendil 20:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:[reply]

Adûnaphel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ren the Unclean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uvatha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Akhorahil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And I hope the following won't even be created:

Dwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hoarmurath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ji Indur Dawndeath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete This basically duplication of the Nazgul article plus some OR. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR pretending to be canon, although I read the whole thing to find out if there was a Nazgul named Stimpy. Acroterion _(talk) 02:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual Nazgul are not notable, even in an in-world sense, because there is too little material for any of them individually DGG (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete None of these cite any "significant coverage from independent real world sources" Corpx 02:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nazgûl#Names, titles and terms. The bottom line is these names aren't from Tolkien himself, as Súrendil says. The Nazgûl article already mentions these names and their origin: they're from Iron Crown Enterprises, featured in their Middle-earth Role Playing game and Middle-earth Collectible Card Game (pre-film trilogy merchandise). Uthanc 14:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is on par with a Saturday Night Live commercial spoof. You cannot simply make up characters and plug them into Tolkien's world as if they are legitimate. Ryecatcher773 17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Uthanc. IronGargoyle 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then recreate as redirects to Nazgûl#Names, titles and terms per Uthanc to discourage recreation. No need to keep the original edit history as those edits are just an un-needed copying and expansion of material that was already present at Nazgûl. Carcharoth 21:06, 26 July 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 (article deleted by Nihiltres) — Caknuck 20:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brewing Time for Tea[edit]

Full of POV, OR and possibly advertising as well. What do you think guys? Rackabello 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Copyright violation from this page and probably several others on the same site. I think you marked it for AfD about the same time I marked it for speedy. Realkyhick 20:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I hit the button in Twinkle for AfD, and when the page reloaded I saw the G12 CSD. Thanks for catching the copyvio! Speedy Delete Rackabello 20:21, 25 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilpered[edit]

I never heard this word in use before, unsourced, probably violates WP:NEO Rackabello 20:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparent neologism. Blueboy 96 20:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, very obvious neologism, can't be verified, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (e/c) Neologism, and/or a disguised attack page at an IT person with the last name Wilper. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an attack. Acroterion _(talk) 02:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:NEO. --Boricuaeddie 02:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above and BLP policy. Bearian 17:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G11 and the snowball clause. Nihiltres^(t.l) 21:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gooer Remote Desktop Service[edit]

non-notable: This page reads like a press release, was written without regard for style guidelines, is an advertisement, and is about an utterly non-notable product. Ccreitz 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11, blatant spam. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SPAM Rackabello 20:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, definite G11, blatant advertising. Useight 20:27, 25 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronelio ramil[edit]

Apparently not notable. Zero hits on google for "Ronelio Ramil" or "Ramil Ronelio". Evil1987 19:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything on this guy either, and there's apparently no article on the Tagalog Wikipedia either (at least by this name). If someone turns up some sources, I'll reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Okay, this took a lot of sleuthing. I spent two years in the Philippines and I remember something about this. There was a show called Star Circle Quest and I remember everyone talking about whether Hero Angeles or Sandara Park would win. If you check that Star Circle Quest page, you'll see a picture of 10 people and below it is a list of 11 who made it into the "Magic Circle of 10", with the 11th being this Ronelio Ramil character. His name in the list actually links to Balut, which, by the way is not very tasty. The picture from the Star Circle Quest article can be found here: http://scquest.abs-cbn.com/teens/teens_news.htm. An official list of the 10 people in the "Magic Circle" can be found here: http://scquest.abs-cbn.com/teens/teens_profiles.htm. And those are official pictures from the website of the TV station that does the show. Ronelio Ramil isn't there. I also can't find anything anywhere about the "Technological Institute of Cogeo" from which he supposedly graduated. Therefore, I think that this guy either didn't make it very far in the show, was made up as a hoax (because of that link to Balut), or some random guy named Ronelio Ramil put himself in as a vanity thing. Sorry this post is so long, but I had to get that all out there. Useight 20:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just went through and looked at the contribs of 144.36.169.226 (talk · contribs), which inserted this guy's name into a bunch of different spots, occasionally with attempted links to questionable locations; one of them was to Masturbate-a-thon, for example. Most other activities are low-level vandalism. I've removed all references, as it certainly appears that someone's trying to mess us around with this. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. If he was that good, he should have made it in the top ten, and if he was better, he would have made it in the circle of five (where most of the finalist have made names of their own). I would compare this article to one created by an auditionee in American Idol who never even made it past the local auditions (much less even a short TV clip). --- Tito Pao 00:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per above. Good research Useight --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I can confirm to you that this guy isn't a participant of Star Circle Quest. --Howard the Duck 03:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Useight. --Aarktica 01:40, 30 July 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} 05:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online video game rental[edit]

I'm pretty sure that the project does not exist to provide free online price comparisons for commercial companies. Completely unencyclopaedic Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe you mean unencyclopedic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- yes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, possibly even a speedy G11 as spam. Seems to be nothing more than spam. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think it could stay if its formatted a little better to look like Comparison of Internet forum software (PHP) Corpx 02:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was searching for information about online game rentals and found it here at Wikipedia. Perhaps the prices could be removed, but what's wrong with a definition of this service that lists the alternatives? I'd feel differently if this page were spam for a particular service, but it is not spam. 20:38, 27 July 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.46.71 (talk • contribs)
Weak keep per Corpx, despite the WP:ILIKEIT argument by the anonymous editor. --Aarktica 01:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TPH. J-stan ^Talk 20:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete view without prejudice to the creation of an encyclopedic article. Actually, it is an interesting phenomenon and worthy of encyclopedic treatment. However, this is not it. At the moment it is simply a narrowly targeted list of commercial providers. However, if someone wishes to produce a sensible article then that's fine by me. Bridgeplayer 22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yasuni National Park. Sr 13 06:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reserva ecologica de Yasuni[edit]

Unreferenced article about Yasuni National Park in Ecuador. Suggest deletion and redirect to Yasuni National Park. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yasuni National Park. Nothing worth merging -- this article reads as if it were Babelfished from Spanish. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TenPoundHammer. Looks like the content of the article was lifted out of a brochure. --Aarktica 01:44, 30 July 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon shoulder(drinking game)[edit]

This is a non-notable drinking game. The links provided fail WP:RS. aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFT. Weregerbil 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NFT. Unfortunately this can't be speedied. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Nonsense: db-nonsense. Calling this original research is over-dignifying it. Hu 19:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Strong Delete per Hu, Ten Pound Hammer, and Weregerbil ~~tagged~~ untagged per Ten Pound Hammer, but this needs to go, unencyclopedic bullocks Rackabello 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't untag it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:42, 25 July 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 See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cmyblogs; this article is already included in that discussion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cmystudios[edit]

Delete per lack of "significant coverage from independent sources" - I couldn't find any reliable sources through google/google news Corpx 18:26, 25 July 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. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 01:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nanotechnology in fiction[edit]

Indiscriminate collection of trivia. Lacks any kind of useful or sourced analysis. --Eyrian 18:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, indiscriminate list, not at all useful or sourced, trivial, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article should be renamed along the lines of "Nanotechnology in Popular Culture", and a little elbow grease could drastically fix this list. Possible other sections may include Fictional Nanotechnology, and organization of Nano. into similar viens. Zidel333 18:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, renaming it "Nanotechnology in Popular Culture" would make everyone change their minds. It is a very thorough collection of references to nanotechnology, and it could benefit from cleanup. I can't bring myself to vote to keep, however, nor to delete. Nanotechnology, for the time being, is simply a plot device that ranks up there with magic powers. Mandsford 01:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 21:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per another trivia-filled collection. I guess I should monitor the in fiction articles as well.--JForget 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and so shall I. :) DGG (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so shall I. Start monitoring, and please make sure every one is carrying a hall pass. :) Mandsford 01:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivia WP:5 Corpx 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the encyclopedic content it does include. ~~Delete without prejudice to re-creation~~' ; much of the contents is not encyclopedic, but some of them are major themes in the works. Articles discussing the works of art written on a major theme or subject are closely related and not trivia. Fiction can be related by having the same author, or the same series, or the same subject, and all three of these are significant. But the items need more of a discussion for a valid article. By now there should be secondary works as well. But it would be just as well to start over. DGG (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion has been notified to the WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum. It may also concern other projects. DGG (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure what a "firm association" is compared to a loose association. I don't see this as trivia at all, its subject matter for fiction no different than ones used in time travel article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia collection. If some cultural impact is to be demonstrated, this can be done in prose, with references and in the main article. Bullet lists of simple trivia, on the other hand, has no place here. Punkmorten 00:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with revision The article itself would be useful, albeit in a different format. As it is, it is little more than a list of works containing mentions of nanotechnology. If someone was willing to turn it into an actual article containing a discussion of nanotechnology and its uses in fiction, it would serve much better. Gizzakk 16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although as it stands today is a terrible article. Needs to be either turned into a true list (in which case I agree it's merit is questionable), or needs to be renamed Nanotechnology in Popular Culture and include some verifiable third-pary sources, etc. My sense is that there is an article here waiting to come forward, and although the current version is of marginal value, the solution should be to turn this into a proper article, not delete it. Fairsing 01:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. i ^{(said) (did)} 10:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-encyclopedic trivia. IPSOS (talk) 23:12, 29 July 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. Sr 13 06:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Wiafe Danquah[edit]

NN, youth player Matthew_hk t c 17:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he does not meet WP:BIO, i.e. he has not played in a fully professional league, but restore the article in due course if and when he does. He's not even in the first team squad according to the NUFC official site. --Malcolmxl5 18:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable youth player. I am getting more and more concerned about the increasing number of such these "players" in the WP. --Angelo 00:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league. Number 5 7 08:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BIO. Punkmorten 18:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, per WP:CSD#G4. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Lee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This has already been deleted once but re-created. Non-noteable artist. I say delete and fully protect. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a G6 (repost of deleted material), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:47, 25 July 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. Sr 13 06:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick van Aanholt[edit]

NN, youth player Matthew_hk t c 17:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regrettably, as does not meet WP:BIO, i.e. he has not played in a fully professional league, but restore the article in due course if and when he does. I hesitated initially because the article said that he has played for the PSV first team. However, after searching the PSV website, I found that he played in a close season friendly against an amateur side, H.V.C.H., which is not enough to meet WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable youth player. --Angelo 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league. Number 5 7 08:03, 26 July 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. Sr 13 06:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hyun-kyu[edit]

NN youth player Matthew_hk t c 17:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regrettably as does not meet WP:BIO, i.e. played in a fully professional league, but restore in due course if and when he does. --Malcolmxl5 17:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable youth player. --Angelo 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 08:03, 26 July 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. Sr 13 06:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shot of 5[edit]

Hoax from a user with other hoaxes e.g. Agnus Serra; no refs, no ghits (on "A Hextuple Shot of 5 On Icarus") apart from WP. ←Ben^B4 16:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, obvious hoax, user has history of hoaxes and ~~should be warned if not already.~~ has been warned for both hoaxes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hoax. Where to begin? … Such a verse form is essentially impossible in classical Greek, which, like all inflected languages, lacks the necessary stock of monosyllabic words; the W. C. Williams poem quoted in the article doesn't exist; the article attributes the nonexistent "hextuple shot of 5" to Socrates in one place and to the nonexistent Amadoneus in another; and so forth, and so forth. If a citation of a policy is needed, I'll use WP:V. Deor 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Shot of 5 on Deletion:

This

Looks

Like

A

Hoax --Metropolitan90 05:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, at least it's a well-written hoax.... Spazure 05:26, 27 July 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 11:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yaviah[edit]

Non-notable reggaeton "artist". Only "reference" is a Myspace-like page that's certainly not a reliable source. Only information on the article is his singles and discography and a small paragraph about his life that's full of peacock terms. A Google search only shows their song's lyrics. I say delete. -- Boricuaeddie 16:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he's so non-notable, how come his song got banned by the government of the Dominican Republic? Kappa 17:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry. WP:MUSIC does not state that one of the criteria for inclusion is being banned from a country. --Boricuaeddie 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Kappa 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask you why? AfD is not a place for voting; it's a place for discussing. --Boricuaeddie 18:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't very impressed with the discussion, since getting banned means that someone noted him. Also I kinda wonder what the rest of this says about him [14]. Kappa 02:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC
Delete If you have an issue with a particular policy or guideline, feel free to make suggestions for improvement in the appropriate place. In the meantime, this artist does not pass the existing notability guidelines for music. Spazure 05:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability or coverage in reliable sources... Valrith
Delete I fully agree that this article should be deleted, the reasons stated above are more then enough to justify this being deleted. Deliciously Saucy 20:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and delete redirect. What is with the claims of GFDL demanding redirects be retained (elsewhere, too)? I need to see proof of that, as stated in policy. Otherwise, deletion will commence in a week or so (feel free to remind me). GFDL-related input may be provided here. El_C 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chata-hradna[edit]

A badly written article seems to describe either the village of Súľov-Hradná or the Súľov Rocks. Since we already have both articles, this one is completely redundant. Its content is already included in the articles mentioned above. The title is quite strange and that is why I propose deletion and not just replacement by a redirect. Tankred 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sul'ov rocks, which appears to be the same subject. By GFDL rules, a redirect may be necessary even if it would otherwise be implausible. Shalom ^Hello 23:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Shalom Dhaluza 00:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lito y Polaco[edit]

Non-notable reggaeton duo. Only "reference" is their Myspace page. Only information on the article is their singles and discography. They're not even together anymore. A Google search only shows their song's lyrics. I say delete. -- Boricuaeddie 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending the notability of Pina Records, the label on which they recorded five albums. We don't seem to have a set notability for record labels yet, but if that label is notable, these guys would pass criterion #5 of WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the deletion policy states that one of the criteria for deletion is "all attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed". I tried to expand, but all I found where the song's lyrics. Therefore, the articles fails WP:V. --Boricuaeddie 16:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's wrong with this [15] ? Kappa
    - What about it? --Boricuaeddie 17:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Does it not discuss the topic? Kappa 17:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it discusses them, but it cannot be used to verify the information on the article, such as where they were born, that they are the most violent duo, and who they worked with. --Boricuaeddie 17:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems to confirm they are Puerto Rican. Also something about "enorme fama en su tierra"... 18:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
        How would they know? They're in Miami :-) --Boricuaeddie 18:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Here it says that they achieved platinum records for Mundo Frio. Fuera de Serie was #3 on the Billboard Tropical chart and had been among the top 100 Latin albums for the last five weeks. here. See also this billboard.com link for billboard details on Fuera de Serie and this one for details on Mundo Frio. I think they more then merit an article here. --Pasajero 19:52, 29 July 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. Sr 13 06:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to accountants[edit]

This almost exactly translates to list of films featuring accountants and list of songs featuring some ambiguous reference to an accountant. There is no salvageable material in this in popular culture article. Bulldog123 16:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom -- is nothing but a list of trivial mentions, in violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless and for failing to mention The Crimson Permanent Assurance. the wub "?!" 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely falls under loosely associated list. It's also original research. Useight 17:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unacceptable trivia collection. --Eyrian 18:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. And it's a pointless article because you can probably make thousands of references to accountants in popular culture. --Onceonthisisland 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Intriguing idea. I think it could be salvaged. though definitely in poor shape. What's everybody got against accountants? A noble profession.--Mantanmoreland 21:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. Accountancy is indeed a noble profession, one that is ill-served by this terrible article. Otto4711 21:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure trivia - It'd be impossible to list every time an occupation is mentioned in a movie/tv/book Corpx 02:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The profession is notable. Random lists of trivia about it are not. Resolute 04:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this list indicates, there are just not that many films about accountants or the accounting profession. The work of an accountant is indispensible in society, but it doesn't lend itself to adventure any more than, say, the work of an actuary. Indeed, the few where I have seen a major character as an accountant aren't on here-- The Untouchables and, oddly enough, Kirstie Alley's character in the Look Who's Talking series. Mandsford 01:33, 28 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 16:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Y Fido[edit]

– (View AfD)

Non-notable reggaeton duo. Only "reference" is their Myspace page and the image on the article will likely be deleted soon. Only information on the article is their singles and albums. A Google search only shows their song's lyrics. I say delete. -- Boricuaeddie 16:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, no notability to be seen. I added their albums to the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I agree that they should all be deleted. --Boricuaeddie 16:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. -- MarcoTolo 22:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the article and I am trying to expand it more with reliable sources. Please give me time and a chance.Nosaints4life 17:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you added are not third-party, reliable sources, as one of them is theirs and the other, I doubt is neutral and reliable. --Boricuaeddie 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added Wild Dogz to this AfD; User:Ohconfucius had nominated that one separately, but I think it should be rolled into this one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHOULD NOT BE DELETED: The article shouldnt be deleted becasue i expanded it more with more information on their biography and I have a couple of sources, making the site reliable and true.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nosaints4life (talk • contribs).
- Please note; this user has participated twice in this discussion. --Boricuaeddie 23:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is one of the few reggaeton articles that makes sense and is in good format. It also has some information about the duo, unlike other articles.Truko9308 16:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the duo is not notable and the article provides no references. --Boricuaeddie 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Darn lazy deletionists. Kappa 07:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful, man. I've said again and again, it has no sources. --Boricuaeddie 15:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How about the Billboard Magazine article? It seems like their album's ranking so well on three of Billboard's charts would satisfy criteria 2 of WP:BAND. The pic in the article will probably have to be deleted over copyright issues (it looks like it's from the Billboard article), but that's a cleanup issue. I can see why this looks deletable. I can also see why it could be keepable. I'm kind of ambivalent. But I do think that the article satisfies the requirements. -- Ben 16:16, 29 July 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. Pascal.Tesson 23:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swissvale Borough Police Department Pennsylvania[edit]

Even formatted to its best, I don't think this article will reach the required notability status. A town of about 9,500 is not big enough to warrant an article about it's own police department, in my opinion. The information would be better off on the police force's own website, rather than using Wikipedia as a site. While I appreciate the authors motives, it's my opinion that he's made the same mistake that so many users make - making a good faith edit without understanding the criteria (through no fault of his own, of course! Hawker Typhoon 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Propaniac 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The police department can be appropriately covered in the locality's own article, with an external link being reasonable. An individual page is not especially warranted. FrozenPurpleCube 18:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (of police depts) Corpx 02:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. --Aarktica 22:44, 30 July 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. Sr 13 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic Anomaly (Error)[edit]

Original research (imho) beyond repair. Created by the same user that maintains the article about the band Systemic Anomaly (Band) (that is working on a "full length version of the song "Berserker" that will be posted on their myspace "upon its completion". Abu badali ^(talk) 15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dab Systemic Anomaly must go as well. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both The term exists, but in medicine. Original research, no references to support any other usage.--Sethacus 16:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Systemic bias or systemic error exists, but not "systemic anomaly." Shalom ^Hello 23:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matrix Reloaded, or just Delete as OR. I like how the stub notice gets its own heading though. Resolute 04:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uncommon term and incoherent explanation. (Not that it made much sense in Matrix Reloaded, either.) Hqb 08:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But needs sources ( and a part about the medical turm ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.21.127 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 26 July 2007

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

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

The result was redirect (already merged). Sr 13 07:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow Indoor Market[edit]

Non notable location Kijog 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. "one of the largest Markets in Cumbria" sounds notable, but its all uncited. If it was a very new article I would say Keep, but since it's existed in this state for so long I'm not going to. If someone was able to expand the article (or at least cite and stub it) then I would change to Keep.

Merge with Barrow-in-Furness per Iain99, below. —gorgan_almighty 16:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found out - it's basically a direct lift from [16], so there is a copyright issue as well. Being the largest (in the opinion of the local council) of the few markets a rural county like Cumbria has is not really notable in my opinion. I have been working on Barrow-in-Furness and it wasn't even mentioned there.Kijog 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed it to remove the copyvio, but now the article's so small it's in danger of vanishing. ~~Don't really know about the notability so neutral.~~ Iain99 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Barrow-in-Furness There are a some sources eg [17] and [18] (and also quite a lot of tourist information sites, which are probably less relible) - not really notable enough for its own article, but probably merits a sentence or two in the town's main article. Iain99 07:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is questionable and no reliable sourcing. Almost falls under WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. -- MarcoTolo 03:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iain99 has provided two good references for the market. Not notable enough to have its own article, but warrants a line or two in the Barrow-in-Furness article, (unless you think you can make a case for it being WP:TRIVIA). I don't see the connection to WP:NOT#DIRECTORY at all. —gorgan_almighty 09:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since half of the article is a schedule of when the market is open, the WP:NOT#DIRECTORY #3 seems to apply: ...generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc.. -- MarcoTolo 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Barrow-in-Furness. the wub "?!" 09:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - can be quite easily added to Barrow-in-Furness with a couple of refs. Don't think it merits its own article.Kijog 10:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Delete - have added what info there is to main Barrow article plus refs (not opening hours).Kijog 11:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

The information has been merged into Barrow-in-Furness by Kijog (see diff). We must now decide what to do with this article.

Redirect to Barrow-in-Furness. —gorgan_almighty 12:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above - they're cheap, and it will alert anyone who might want to recreate this article that the subject is already covered. Iain99 12:56, 27 July 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. Sr 13 07:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Rapper Alive[edit]

Non-notable, unreleased album (WP:NOT#CRYSTAL); likely a hoax. No references for "confirmed" track list (currently commented out of the article). Non-notable artist. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. Precious Roy 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 15:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that a similar article was speedied a few days ago. It was created by the same author. Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 16:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete There are quite a few reasons for delete. ~~Namely CSD A7 for speedy criteria~~, also fails WP:MUSIC --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK CSD A7 does not apply to an album, but it still fails WP:MUSIC anyways --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fairsing 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much to discuss. If the artist isn't notable, neither are the mixtapes. --Bongwarrior 08:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Starcraft. Sr 13 07:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunters (Starcraft map)[edit]

Gameguide, unsourced, in-universe with no possibility of notability The Clawed One 15:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Starcraft. I disagree with your gameguide rationale. Where exactly in the article does it come off as a guide to you? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because all it does is describe the map. The Clawed One 21:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and irrelevance. --Eyrian 18:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, it should be put back into the main Starcraft article, this subject is not big enough to have its own page. 69.158.57.45 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wiki is not a gameguide (although that guideline is in flux right now). A game article should not be describing every map. Corpx 02:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is indeed one of the most popular, there should be a mention of it, somewhere. Without more information, it should probably be merged into the Starcraft article, though Weak keep 69.12.143.197 07:34, 26 July 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. Sr 13 07:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Protestants[edit]

Where did the definition of Proto-Protestant come from? I can't find one online. The term proto-protestant appears to be a neologism as no clear definition can be found. The term is unknown in the trusted Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and I have the latest edition. The only cites on the page are ones I made to try and salvage the article, but in truth even some of MY corrections are original research, as well. With no agreed upon terminology, original research becomes mandatory. The term is used on the internet, but nobody seems to know what constitues a Proto-Protestant. It is used to describe everyone from St. Paul the Apostle all the way up to and including Jan Huss. Delete for WP:OR and WP:NEO. -- SECisek 14:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The one sourced paragraph begins "Almost as soon as the Reformation began, scholars began searching for historical antecedents for the new sects." That describes the article itself before SECisek tried to fix it. The article is a POV mess, and I suspect the term itself is a POV neologism used by Protestant apologists. Any useful information would be more suited to inclusion in Protestantism, mostly in either the existing Origins section or a section on apologetics. Anomie 16:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of reliable sources talking about this term (WP:NEO) Corpx 02:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If more sources can be found, merge with Protestantism. If not, burn with fire, per all of the above. --Boricuaeddie 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I added the reflist, found the interview cited, read it, and the expert refutes the entire point of the article. It smells of POV, NEO, and OR. Agree with the nom, Anomie and Boricuaeddie. Bearian 18:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete An article about the pre-Luther challenges to the Catholic church would be excellent, and I'm sure that there are books and encylopedia articles that speak to the origin of the Reformation. But this one appears to be based entirely on interview with Lori Anne Ferrell on PBS. Regardless of whether Ferrell is a red-link or a blue-link, that's not an article. Bearian's review of the interview shows that the lack of substance isn't the only problem. Some Baptists trace their denomination's origin back to "John the", which is no less inaccurate... sort of a protoprotoprotestant, perhaps. Mandsford 01:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "'Baptist' was his job, not his religious affiliation!" ;) Anomie 02:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baptism... it's not just a job, it's an adventure!Mandsford 14:44, 28 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McLaughlin (footballer)[edit]

Youth footballer, not yet a professional player Matthew_hk t c 14:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't played in a fully professional league and I don't believe caps at U16 or U17 level make someone notable. Number 5 7 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not meet WP:BIO, i.e. played in a fully professional league, but restore in due course if and when he does. --Malcolmxl5 17:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above reasonings. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still playing at youth level -- Ban Ray 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youth players are absolutely non-notable unless they appeared in the first team in a competitive match. This is not the case. --Angelo 00:04, 26 July 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 — Caknuck 04:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Vlasak Nolen[edit]

Orphaned article previously proposed for deletion on grounds of subject failing to meet notability per WP:MUSIC - upgraded to AFD after creator (presumably) contested PROD by removing template. Gordonofcartoon 13:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Winning a prize is good, being mentioned in a Financial Times review is good, but we don't yet see the extensive third-party coverage, the concert tours, the two or more records with major labels, etc. The article is premature. EdJohnston 14:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She had to win a New England regional competition to audition for the Met, and performed with them ~~for a while~~ after the national competion. Meets win or place major competion. I believe the list of opera companies qualifies for "performed music for a work of media that is notable". Horrorshowj 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has won a major music competition with the Metropolitan Opera and placed in two other competitions for Opera Singers, the George London Foundation Competition and the Sullivan Foundation Competition. She has also had several reviews in the New York Times, Financial Times, Opera News and the Wall Street Journal among others. She has recently recorded an opera, Ariane et Barbe-Bleue with the BBC Symphony under the Telarc Record Label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divattu (talk • contribs) 28 July, 2007 — Divattu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete I nominated this article for WP:PROD because I too agree it's premature. I looked at all the reviews, but they were of the productions – not her specifically. She was mentioned in them, but was not the subject of them, and there's a difference. Also, the creator of the article, Divattu, is either Nolen or someone close to her with a clear COI. The article can be recreated if/when WP:MUSIC is met. - KrakatoaKatie 19:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KrakatoaKatie. --Aarktica 23:14, 30 July 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. Sr 13 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of basilisks in fantasy fiction and games[edit]

Trivia grab-bag, with little to no context. The only cited material is already located in the main article. Eyrian 13:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contingent delete, if the entry in the article in chief on basilisk is extended with at least some of this data. Parts are redundant (e.g. basilisks exist in Baldur's Gate because basilisks are a standard D&D monster. References to sources such as the Monster Manual or individual works of fiction should be sufficient. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT (mainly for actually finding enough material to put in a list), but it is utter trivia per nom, so Delete Bulldog123 16:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as well as the redirect page Basilisks in fantasy fiction and games. I moved it, but I don't think it's encyclopedic.--Zxcvbnm 23:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia list/WP:5 Corpx 02:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Main article contains sufficient mention and seealso. The remaining items here do not even appear to need listing on a Basilisk (disambiguation) page.Canuckle 17:19, 26 July 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. No prejudice to re-creation when/if he does play a full professional game. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 01:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Lough[edit]

I tried to prod but realized it had been prod'd before. So taking here as a matter of form. This guy just made his pro debut last week and is mostly a benchwarmer according to article. With no notable pro accomplishments to his name, I suggest this article be deleted until something notable can be said about him other than his ability to keep the bench warm. Postcard Cathy 13:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems he's played at least one pro game. Per consensus, that seems to be all you need for notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete friendly games not count. Matthew_hk t c 17:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs to have played in a fully professional league to meet WP:BIO but do restore the article in due course if and when he does. --Malcolmxl5 17:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the guy never played in a competitive match. --Angelo 00:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if he really is #43. ArtVandelay13 07:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is because..... you like that number? Postcard Cathy 21:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played in a fully professional league. Number 5 7 08:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Matthew_hk's experience in this area and Malcolmxl5. --Aarktica 23:25, 30 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Televinylcommunicatorium[edit]

Mildly amusing hoax. -- RHaworth 13:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, and possible consign to WP:BJAODN. Speedy per A7 and lack of WP:VPedro | Chat 15:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Get it over with. -- SECisek 15:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Someone may want to nominate the accompanying images for deletion as well. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN as mildly amusing hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN with emphasis on B as mildly amusing at best. Iain99 21:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Per Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, I have contacted the author of this article, suggesting that he move it to Uncyclopedia. —gorgan_almighty 09:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not BJAODN, do not feed the trolls. Burntsauce 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course, but I like that there's a site for "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense". Excellent article about a Televinylcommunicatorium, and far better than a lot of the articles that are intended to be taken seriously. Very good illustrations. As such, I cannot join in Floccinaucinihilipilification. However, I'll gladly treat the author to a Baldock beer. Mandsford 02:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, because that's an awesome anagram and this is an awesome article. Unless it's true, then it's super-awesome! :D - J.

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 after improvements. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager)[edit]

Article is solely a wholly unreferenced plot summary and makes no claims to notability.

Original ((unreferenced)) and ((notability)) tags remained for 23 days before article was redirected ("+ redirection of non-notable, unreferenced television episode;") to List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes#Season 4: (1997-1998). ScorpSt (talk · contribs) reverted: "Undid revision 146348203 by Pd THOR (talk) Edits were not discussed and not keeping with precedent", further removing the maintenance tags.

Replaced tags, adding a ((prod)); all tags removed by 67.135.49.29 (talk · contribs) w/o comment. Added this ((afd)) and replaced maintenance tags. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: The article has changed substantially since the nomination (including a speedy delete to erase copyvio). --Eyrian 19:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Question - Not that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an excuse, but is there something about this particular article that distinguishes it from the hundreds of other articles on episodes of the various Star Trek incarnations that requires its deletion? Otto4711 13:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Star Trek episodes are generally notable, and I see no reason why this is an exception. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this notable? There's no reason to assume the conference of notability to all things Star Trek, and I see no reason why this article is an exception to WP:N/WP:RS. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per ample precedent. Episode articles for broadcast television shows seem to be accepted by the community. It's not just a substub, and a merge would bog down the target. I personally would like to see more context and information other than just plot summaries in these types of articles, but that's just me. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Episode articles for broadcast television shows are acceptable iff they fall under the guidelines and policies for all articles, they are not special or exempt any more any any articles are. WP:EPISODE recommends tagging, merging, and redirecting, all of which were done. That guideline further recommends to "Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research."; not only is the majority of this article unverifiable, it is solely a plot summary with no reliable sources for real world context. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the majority of this article unverified or unverifiable? Those are wholly different creatures. It has a link to an official website that can verify the plot description as well as the episode rating - that may not be a lot but that is verified information. Have you attempted to look for sources, or are you just decrying it as unverifiable? A google search turns up quite a few hits, in fact. There are essays on Trek and religion that reference this episode. Take a peek. Besides - I never cited WP:EPISODE, I cited ample precedent on the subject. Episode articles survive AfD debates on a regular basis - the community has no will to delete these sort of things. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the factual information in the article (to include the plot retelling) is in all likelihood verifiable, and probably to reliable second- or third-party sources. However, there is no "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance" in the article. You mentioned essays about "Trek and religion", and if they're focused on this episode that would be quite pertinent, but are they reliable sources? This article is bare facts and a retelling of its story, which doesn't make it notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by pd_THOR (talk • contribs) 11:09, 25 July 2007.

Incorrect. It contains substantial real-world content, including air date, creative staff, and critical commentary (the rating). All of these are verified (the production staff can be taken from the primary source) --Eyrian 15:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again (see above), you're right. All of the current factual information in the article is likely verifiable. While not being in the article currently, these alone do not warrant the article's deletion. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... it contains substantial, verified real-world content? That seems to be a reason to keep it. --Eyrian 16:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not contain verified "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance"; consisting only of verified plot retelling & production details. That seems like a reason to merge/redirect it--barring that, deleting it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has sourced analysis: The rating. Shallow, but extant. It's quite sufficient for notability. --Eyrian 17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; every television program and their constituent episodes receive ratings, that doesn't confer notability unless there was something particularly notable about the rating itself (eg. highest rating of the series, of the night it was broadcast, etc.) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, distributed and syndicated by major television outlets. --Eyrian 15:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ... but that doesn't automatically confer notability. A great uncountable number of things are distributed and syndicated by major television outlets: WP:OTHERSTUFF. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand your reference to WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm not making reference to any other article. Simply saying that selective distribution by a major outlet seems to be a sufficient case for notability in most examples (WP:MUSIC, for instance). --Eyrian 16:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to OTHERSTUFF generically, in that "other stuff" is distributed and syndicated, but that doesn't mean that because this article is, it is equally notable. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is good discussion about the episode in the "notes" section, so it is not limited to a plot summary. Yes, some of the content in the notes section needs sourcing, but I have little doubt that it could be sourced, so see no reason to delete here. JulesH 16:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into the LOE. Nothing in the notes is cited, thus it needs to be or get removed. Everything should be cited. Even then, nothing says it couldn't be listed on the LOE page as well. There is not enough real world content to justify the expanded plot, which takes up more of the article than anything else (which should not happen). Plots are for context, not meant to act as a "standalone". Nothing screams "i'm notable" either. Got a Neilsen rating, ok...what does the show average? AfD was probably the wrong way to go anyway. A "Proposed merger" tag should have been placed so that all the concerns could be discussed on the relevant talk page with an explaination of why it should be merged. Star Trek being notable doesn't make the episodes themselves notable. This wasn't split from an overly long article, so the idea of "inherited notability" isn't even close. Yes, we know Wiki isn't a paper encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean we put everything in the world on here. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. Try a merge proposal with all the requisite reason as to why the information does not warrant its own page at the moment. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a consensus that episodes of notable TV shows merit articles. A merge into the list of episodes is impractical. Clarityfiend 18:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the consensus that all episodes of notable TV shows merit articles regardless of individual notability? WP:EPISODE doesn't provide this same. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Arent pretty much all the TV series notable? I would say pretty much the opposite, looking at the number of episode pages deleted here recently Corpx 22:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It just needs to be reworked, that's all. Ravenmasterq 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It needs to feel less like a review, and perhaps incorporate some of the outside sources to become more than just a synopsis.Ravenmasterq 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Zidel333 18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait... why? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are you so set on having it deleted? Virtually all notable TV shows on Wikipedia have seperate articles for each and every seperate episode to date. If there is proof that is a copy paste of another website, I, myself, as well as a good friend of mine, From Andoria with Love, who is the 2nd largest contributor on Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki will rewrote it. He knows his stuff, and will be a great help. All it needs is to a complete rewrite, that is not good enough a reason for it to be deleted. Zidel333 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not dead-set on deleting the article, but as it is now it doesn't have any reliable, notable real-world context. The issue is not that the article can/needs to be re-written (although in light of the copyvio issue, it does) the issue is that the article is not notable. At Memory Alpha we have a completely different set of standards for inclusion, and they don't really apply here at all. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I never said Wikipedia was run like Memory Alpha, I say it only to emphasize that he is a near expert on the subject (as close as one can get in terms of Star Trek knowledge anyway). This is Deletion review is disgraceful as it flies in the face of all logic and reason. Zidel333 01:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon review, this is taken word for word from the Star Trek website. Change my Keep to Speedy Delete.Ravenmasterq 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give the link that it's copied from? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he's right - [19]. Looks like it has to go as a speedy now. Striking my above keep !vote. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the plot summary was a copyvio at one point, it no longer is one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources indicating real world context, fails WP:N. Note: There is no consensus to make articles for every episode of a notable series. WP:EPISODE says the opposite in fact. All of the keeps are contradicting policy and guidelines as if it were the policy and guideline. Jay32183 23:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V Giggy _U^CP 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge into List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes. I'm like Star Trek: Voyager as much as the next person (well, unless the next person doesn't like it :D), but I don't agree with the notion that the notability of a television show automatically sprinkles some kind of magical notability over its episodes and characters. The redirect can always be undone if/when reliable and independent sources can be found to expand the article to include information beyond plot and basic production details. Extraordinary Machine 01:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EPISODE and WP:N. No independent sources giving significant coverage to this episode. Fan sites do not count. There are a lot of these articles about episodes which fail these guidelines. I wouldn't mind a transwiki to a star trek wiki somewhere Corpx 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless there is a reason why this episode is singled out for deletion, but the episode preceding it, the episode proceeding it and everything in between is not. The reasons I see stated above for deletion, regarding the insignificance and so forth should apply to all Star Trek episodes from all seasons, not just this one episode from this one season from this one series. --Gvsualan 03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on the nominator's motives, but I think WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies here. If I were to guess, I'd say that they're next. Corpx 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that there are categories for each series of episodes (Category:Star Trek: Voyager episodes, et al.), with nearly 600 pages for each episode (some for example almost 4 years old), plus countless pages on individual (and sometimes insignificant characters) exists means that this entire scenario has been a unadministered disaster from the get-go. It seems someone certainly has opened a can of worms for themselves, now haven't they...--Gvsualan 04:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience, plenty of episodes have been deleted lately, because they fail the set criteria in WP:EPISODE and WP:N Corpx 04:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I first heard that this episode was up for deletion, at first I thought there had been a grave misunderstanding considering that every episode of basically every major TV show has an article or will have an article on here. Now I see it's not a misunderstanding, but rather a joke. As pointed out above, "Concerning Flight" (the episode preceding this one) isn't up for deletion, nor is "Waking Moments" (the episode that follows it). Are you telling me you want to delete the other 700+ Star Trek episode pages you have on the site? All this page needs is some sprucing up, which Zidel333 has already offered to do and I will be glad to offer her any assistance I can. (It's been years since I've seen the episode... fortunately, I have access to the DVDs if needed.) --From Andoria with Love 04:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that other articles violate policy is no reason to keep this one, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The nominator is under no obligation to nominate every article of the same type for deletion to get a page deleted, WP:ALLORNOTHING. Jay32183 05:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I declare Ignore all rules. This Policy throwing to and fro is replacing meaningful discussion and debate at the matter on hand; nothing new is being said. Give me until Saturday 23:59 EST to fix the article to satisfy The Heymann Standard. Then at 24:00 EST we can resume this conversation. Zidel333 05:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jay32183: Oh, of course, silly me. It's still a joke. ;) Anyway, I've added a brief summary (making it about the same length and containing about the same amount of info as many of the other episode pages), which, of course, can always be expanded/improved upon. So keep the page and work on it. Sillies. :P --From Andoria with Love 05:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Zidel333: I concur! Down with the rules! Voyager episodes have rights just like any other Star Trek episode! This is discrimination! Rise up my brothers and sisters! Together, we will bring the man down! --From Andoria with Love 05:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content isnt the problem at this AFD. If you can establish "significant coverage from independent sources, this episode is deemed notable. (WP:N) Corpx 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a summary and Zidel has volunteered to expand that summary. There are your sources, and I'm sure more will come along. :D And work on your contractions, man! :P --From Andoria with Love 05:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Memory Alpha is a tertiary source that should not be referenced to add content here per WP:OR. The sources you're looking for must be reliable Corpx 05:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having actually seen the episode, I can verify that the Memory Alpha page is accurate. Thus, I can confirm that it is reliable, in this case. By the way, if you would like to take the time, you can check it over with the episode's transcript, which you can find here. Aside from some spelling errors and possible mis-association of dialogue (which is rare), the transcript presents accurate dialogue. (It was taken from official DVD subtitles/closed-captions.) You can also check out the summary at StarTrek.com. If that's not good enough, then I suggest buying a copy of the Star Trek: Voyager Companion, which features a detailed summary of the episode. --From Andoria with Love 05:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha is not a reliable secondary source. There is nothing that can be done to make this article satisfy the requirements for inclusion. Most individual episode articles should be deleted because no one has any reliable secondary sources to provide more than just plot. Jay32183 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to that exact policy, as pointed out to me by Renegade54, "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The community of Memory Alpha are authoritative resources on this subject. By the arguments presented here, though, the episode has to be summarized on an authoritative web page otherwise that summary isn't reliable. So basically what you're saying here is there is no such thing as a reliable source, nor can one exist. How, exactly, does that work, Jay, my main man? ;) --From Andoria with Love 21:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, another one: "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." We have that. --From Andoria with Love 21:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No wiki meets the requirements for reliable sources on Wikipedia, including Wikipedia. Also, you need secondary sources for notability. Memory Alpha, like all wikis, is a tertiary source. You also need more than plot. Jay32183 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikis are tertiary sources, per WP:OR and can be edited by anyone. Just like forums/most blogs, they're not notable Corpx 01:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per our founder[20], SqueakBox 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem before you use that as a valid reason for deletion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I really don't like this tendency I keep coming across for some users to essentially say "If Jimbo said it, it must be true". Extraordinary Machine 21:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm disappointed to see that Jimbo has apparently changed his views since the early days of Wikipedia, when he said "I agree with this one completely" with regard to this:

Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap.

- (Source, at meta; yeah, it's not a diff by Jimbo, but it was 2002, and if Jimbo was misrepresented back then he would have known. Apparently the original source is one of the mailing lists.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if we go with the Jimbo-Said-It view, then you might find this interesting More: I hadn't noticed this had been linked already. But it doesn contradict the previous post, at least on whether or not Jimbo can be cited as a ruling. i ^{(said) (did)} 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My citation of the earlier Jimbo quote was in response to the citation of the recent diff, and lamenting that Jimbo seems to have changed his opinion on this issue. That said, I agree that "Jimbo said it" isn't sufficient justification for anything. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur. Jimbo != consensus. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That does not mean Jimbo should be ignored though. No one has done anything to address the concern that the article has no reliable secondary sources independent from the topic. Because of that, deletion is the only option, and there really is nothing to discuss. Jay32183 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Affiliated sources are acceptable for establishing information. Notability is established by independent distribution of the subject matter. What's the problem? --Eyrian 22:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
        There are no reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. There is no valid argument to keep any article under that condition. Deletion is the only option. Please read WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT. Notability on "Mortal Coil" has not been established. Jay32183 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Please see my strong keep reasoning below to see reliable sources indicating the notability of Star Trek: Voyager episodes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing[edit]

Upon further further review, with the new synopsis and a bit of expanded information, Keep it for now.Ravenmasterq 21:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Jay32183: Ah, yes, but according to WP:WTF, WP:N can be ignored in the case that WP:FIP and WP:RIA are followed. Also, according to WP:MIB, WP:NOR can be used only when WP:ST is WP:CGI is implemented, which clearly is not the case here, especially since WP:DEP and WP:TNR clearly show that WP:FA and WP:GQ were followed, to the letter, as per the policy presented at WP:PPO. Granted, WP:LL states that WP:WB and WP:UPN must be followed in the event that WP:QA cannot be met, but that's okay because WP:TM says we can turn to WP:FYI in this matter and ignore WP:TAOBBATED completely. Oh, and don't forget, when in doubt, WP:STFU. --From Andoria with Love 17:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen, and I've seen plenty. Anyway, can we end this discussion and remove the deletion template from the article now, or do others need to sound off like a broken record and keep quoting abbreviated policies that have nothing to do with anything anymore? --From Andoria with Love 15:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "WP:WTF, WP:N can be ignored in the case" - An essay should be used as reason to over-ride a guideline? Corpx 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Um, I think he/she is mocking all the abbreviations used in this AfD. WP:WTF. --Phirazo 16:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I guess my saracasm detector is off today. :) Corpx 16:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You mean there's actually a policy link at WP:WTF? WTF???!!! :P --From Andoria with Love 17:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I showed you all those policy pages so that you'd know that you have not presented a valid argument to keep, and you actually cannot make one. The reasoning behind your "keep" is not a sound argument and should be ignored by the closing admin. You should familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and guidelines if you wish to contribute to AFD's with meaningful arguments. Jay32183 01:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What you say is true, Jay, but the point about excessive use of acronyms and Wikipedia jargon is an important one. You probably should read WP:WTF, actually, and remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Supposedly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:WTF has no impact on this article. The deletion arguments are all based on policy and guideline and all the keep arguments are specifically listed in the arguments to avoid essay. When you're drawing false conclusions you need to be ignored, which is why deletion is the only reasonable result for this AFD. People who don't get that don't understand what Wikipedia is. If we don't have enough reliable secondary sources to warrant a stand alone article for "Mortal Coil", then we do not have an article on "Mortal Coil". That's not a bureaucratic statement, it is the only logical conclusion. Jay32183 17:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right that WP:WTF has no impact on the article Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager). However, it does have a direct impact on the manner in which this deletion debate is being conducted. The constant recourse to jargon and pointers to innumberable Byzantine policies does not help the discussion. Yes, deletion should be based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines; however, it should be possible to explain those policies and guidelines in a manner which isn't condescending and exclusionary to editors who spend more time working on articles than participating in deletion debates.
        
        As for your actual argument (which is a reasonable one), reliable secondary sources have recently been added to the article. Therefore, logically, you should change your !vote to keep. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The article still makes no attempt to establish real world significance using reliable secondary sources. The sources added are meaningless. You need more than just plot. Jay32183 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You must have missed the section titled "Theme", which is sourced to a cultural-studies text and is not about the plot. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't miss it. I actually am including the theme section when I say that no attempt to establish real world significance is made in the article. Jay32183 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, then your definition of "real-world significance" is different from mine. I would think that a non-trivial discussion in a book published by Routledge would constitute "real-world significance". It's a reliable source, independent of the subject, providing significant coverage of the subject. What part of WP:N does this source not fulfill? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If our definitions are different, then yours is wrong. The theme of a work of fiction is part of the fiction. You need discussion of the development (writing, directing, casting, set building) and critical analysis. What you put into the theme section just repeats what happened in the plot, it doesn't have the analysis of television critics. Even if the authors weren't involved, they didn't say anything about this episode fits into the real world. Jay32183 01:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Jay, the theme of a work of fiction is part of the fiction, but it's not a part that is equal to the plot. It takes analysis to describe a work's theme, and that analysis is itself an element of the "real world" — that is, the world of criticism. Now, the analysis from Star Trek: The Human Frontier isn't particularly deep, but I fail to see how it is not critical analysis. It uses this episode as part of a larger discussion of how religion is treated in Star Trek: Voyager, and draws a contrast with another episode. That's an act of critical analysis, which is part of the real world. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The theme could have analysis, but there isn't any in this article. The potential for this article hasn't even been demonstrated, so waiting to delete the article is hurting Wikipedia. The article could actually improve without meeting the criteria for inclusion. The basic criterion for inclusion is being the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. That has not been met, and probably won't be. Jay32183 03:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your choice of words is suspect, and actually funny. Hurting Wikipedia ?!?! How is listening to Wikipedians chime in, and debate the topic at hand hurting Wikipedia?? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so there is time and more importantly space, and besides, consenus has not truly been reached. Zidel333 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Jay, you are not the sole arbiter of what constitute "reliable secondary sources independent of the topic". Neither am I. I think that the sources I've found are reliable and sufficiently independent (since "licensed material" ≠ "advertising"). You disagree. Clearly, neither of us is going to convince the other. How about we wait and see whether other Wikipedians think that notability has been established or not? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This completely fails WP:PLOT. Wikipedia is not Memory Alpha. There isn't any demonstration that this episode is notable in the real world, and just being an episode of Star Trek doesn't make it notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). As for the all or nothing argument in relation to other Star Trek: Voyager episodes, if an episode of that show has real-world, attributable context, then it should stay. Otherwise it should be deleted. --Phirazo 22:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I have lost all faith in humanity. I hope you all are happy. Zidel333 00:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To LOE page. The sources are not notability-asserting. i ^{(said) (did)} 06:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Reliable secondary sources on the subject of Star Trek: Voyager episodes do exist: here's one, and here's another. I don't happen to own these books, but I'm sure someone who does could add the relevant citations. These sources meet WP:RS: they are both written by "authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", and their publishers (Pocket Books and Virgin Books, respectively) have "established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further source found: If for some reason the episode guides are not considered sufficient, see also Star Trek: The Human Frontier, which discusses this episode specifically on pp. 148-149. I've added a citation to this scholarly book to the article, which should absolutely satisfy any notability concern. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — An episode of Star Trek: Voyager, which is a notable television series, thus this episode is inherently notable. The episode itself (a primary source) is reliable and indeed also verifiable. Josiah also points out above that multiple secondary sources can be added to the article. There's no deadline and remember that Wikipedia is not paper. Matthew 08:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Josiah Rowe: I've already pointed out the Voyager Companion, but the people we're trying to convince are so desperately searching for a valid reason to delete the page (and have yet to find one, as you can see) and are so busy spouting asinine wiki acronyms that they apparently overlooked it or ignored it entirely. No bother, though; there's no consensus on this matter and the majority have asked for it to be kept, so unless Wikipedia has become a dictatorship or communist regime, they have to abide by what the community and keep the page. Of course, I'm sure there's an acronymous wiki policy supposedly proving me wrong. --From Andoria with Love 14:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Being an episode of a notable television series does not make the episode inherently notable. And being well-referenced (now, which it was not initially) != to notability; both are requirements. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I quote from the top of the page "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its author(s)". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you intended to link to a policy that states notability is not inherited, not an essay that states a person's opinion. Could you please link me to this policy, though :)? Matthew 16:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I appreciate the benefit, but I didn't. The opinion is mine if you'd like to place a claim to it, I just link to where others have made the same argument to be succinct. To make my point though is to say that WP:INHERITED is not a criteria or viability for notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay then. So you clearly admit that it's your opinion that notability is not inherited, whereas I disagree and believe it is inherited. Matthew 18:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Welcome to the discussion. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It is actually a fact that notability is not inherited and it is completely meaningless that WP:ATA is an essay. WP:ATA is not being presented as an argument for deletion, but as a counter-argument towards your "keep". Presenting the argument that an article should be kept because of inherited notability contradicts WP:N, and you should never make it again. Learn to present a sound argument before trying to tell people they're wrong. Jay32183 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A sound argument like the one I've presented, and you've rejected as "meaningless"? You may want to consider this essay, which is just as authoritative (or non-authoritative) as WP:ATA. Learn to treat others with respect before trying to hit them over the head with Wikipedia jargon. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reiteration. The secondary sources are excellent; the article is now a well-cited plot summary that makes no claims to notability. The reference to Star Trek: The Human Frontier only sources that note, not any claim to notability. I can't read the book, and I won't make any claims to content based on the incredibly short snippets aforelinked; but it appears to me that the author is simply referencing the article, just as the Wikipedia article "Talaxian" does. What the article needs written into it is: "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." The article does not give any of those, only notes of interest from within the plot summary and production details. Now, if I am wrong, and Star Trek: The Human Frontier analyzes "Mortal Coil" specifically and makes real-world connections to its content instead of simply referencing or reiterating it, then that analysis and context should be written into the article (more substantially than a note, it should warrant in that case).
I tried to remember specific episodes in Star Trek off the top of my head that I knew would be notable and came up with "Threshold", "The Best of Both Worlds", "Spock's Brain", and "The City on the Edge of Forever". All of these episodes either do or could meet WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT#PLOT, and either do or could make great Wikipedia articles. This episode article as it stands is not one of those. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you mean to say "the author is simply referencing the episode" rather than "referencing the article". Based on the bits of Star Trek: The Human Frontier I was able to read its discussion of "Mortal Coil" by using Amazon's "Search Inside This Book" feature, I could see that the references are part of a thematic discussion of the treatment of religion in Star Trek: Voyager. I have expanded the note into a "theme" section, which in my judgment provides real-world context and sourced analysis.
  I think that some users may be misinterpreting what "real-world content" means in this sort of context. By my understanding, the existence of non-trivial citations in reliable sources is itself an indicator of notability, sufficient to provide real-world relevance for any topic. It's true that the sources are books about Star Trek — but that's where you'd expect to find discussion of a Star Trek episode. Similarly, in an article about a particular train, you would expect to find citations from works on trains. If works on the subject discuss the subject, why is there a need to find sources from outside the subject area? Such sources are, of course, welcome, but my reading of WP:N doesn't indicate that they're required. See WP:N#Notability requires objective evidence: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strongly disagree with using <show> guide books as sources to proclaim notability. This would mean that every single thing mentioned in those books are notable. I posted my concerns at [talk page] and got some responses. This would mean that every unit and every map in a game guide would be notable. Corpx 18:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I strongly disagree with the comparison with units and maps of video game levels. A television episode is usually a stand-alone work, comparable to a short story or novella, and can be individually analyzed by its themes and content, as well as for its effect on the culture-at-large. I'm not aware of how individual levels/units of a video game could be treated individually in the way that a television episode can. Television episodes are regularly reviewed individually; levels of a video game, to my knowledge, are not.
      If an episode guide has 2–4 pages on each episode of a television series, and includes more than a plot synopsis and cast list, why shouldn't it be treated as a source indicating notability of those episodes? The central question of notability is whether reliable sources have something worthwhile to say on the subject. Once these sources have been found, why is notability even in question? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree that the mere existence of non-trivial citations in reliable sources is itself an indicator of notability, because that could be all it's doing, referencing the episode. If, for example, a book on the possible future applications of nanotechnology were debunking the use of nanotech to reanimate life, that book might make references such as "this is a surprisingly common usage of nanotech in fiction ranging from "Mortal Coil" an episode of Star Trek: Voyager to Michael Crichton's Prey ". This doesn't mean the episode is notable, but only that these works of fiction make inappropriate use of nanotechnology. Similarly, a book written about Don J. Peon who was a prolific set designer, if it mentioned among all the work he had done that he had worked on "Mortal Coil", an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, that would be referencing the episode in a real-world context, but it certainly doesn't mean the episode was notable. These other works (be they books, news articles, or encyclopedia entries) are referencing the episode, but not discussing it itself.
    The problematic difference here is probably in the differences between referencing something in a real-world context, and further analyzing and discussing it. Star Trek: The Human Frontier discusses what happens in "Mortal Coil" in the discussion and analysis of religion in Star Trek, but not the episode itself, the references to the episode are only to mention what happened in the plot so as to further the discussion of religion. This (to probably include the whole chapter and/or book) would be excellent for Religion in Star Trek, but to use it in the article for "Mortal Coil" is only to say that "Michéle Barrett in the book Star Trek: The Human Frontier, discusses the plot of this episode in her examination of religion in Star Trek." And just because the plot of the episode can be used as the reference in the discussion of another topic, does not make the plot of the episode itself notable. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see the distinction you're drawing, but I don't think it's one that's supported by established guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability defines "significant coverage" thus:""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." There's no exclusion for "mere references" in the course of another discussion. The discussion in Star Trek: The Human Frontier seems to me to be precisely the sort of thing WP:N is looking for: it addresses the subject in detail, no original research is needed to extract the content, and the discussion is more than trivial. (The Don J. Peon example you mention probably would be "trivial" in this context; I'm not sure about the nanotechnology example.)
      
      As a matter of fact, this sort of passing-but-significant reference is exactly the sort of thing which should be used to indicate notability: is the work in question part of a larger cultural discussion? Is it used as a touchstone for examinations of other topics? If reliable sources discuss the work in any significant detail, I say that the work meets WP:N. The nature of that discussion isn't really relevant. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right on that point, there is no distinction made between the two by policy or guidelines; and I guess that gets back to those derisive opinions of mine that Matthew pointed out above. At this juncture, I'm only making sure all points are covered and that my *ick* opinions are made on the subject. Thanks to your excellent work however, in the state the article is now, I wouldn't have tagged the article with anything in the first place. Is it notable now? Eh. I am leaning toward ambivalency now, but not acceptance. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second arbitrary break[edit]

Keep I am a pretty strong deletionist, but even I think this is going to far. Episodes of popular shows are usually notable, episodes of marginal shows are not. People tend to view written works of fiction from a hundred years ago a great work of art worthy of great study, and a modern work of unwritten fiction a worthless piece of junk unworthy of attention by cultured people. There is no reason why a television episode cannot have as much coverage as a book. Jon513 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Episodes of major shows are notable and present the only space for legitimate cross-links to be made. These types of pages offer significant value to Wikipedia. TV shows are important cultural phenomena and Wikipedia is an appropriate place to document them. Tfine80 22:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and Redirect to Voyager LOE. This clearly fails the criteria spelled out at WP:EPISODE and makes no attempt to assert out-of-universe notability or importance. Fan-driven enthusiasm for individual episode articles is not grounds for overturning policy consensus. Eusebeus 02:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong storng keep. Unless Wikipedia has changed its policy to ban episode articles (good God, what's next?) this article has every reason to exist. And it is about a primary source. If there is original research or uncited claims, etc. then delete content as necessary. 23skidoo 02:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia policy on notability requires secondary sources. Episode articles can meet the requirements, see Abyssinia, Henry or Homer's Phobia, but this one does not. Jay32183 03:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it does: the Star Trek Voyager Companion or Star Trek: The Human Frontier. Both of these are reliable secondary sources, published by major publishers. "Real-world content" is not limited to newspapers. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current article addresses, in my eyes, all of the nominator's concerns. When an AfD on a television episode causes so much disagreement, perhaps we as a community need to look at our collective interpretation of policy. Maxa megalon 2000 04:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has now been fully sourced and meets notability. If anything, this AfD was a kick in th rear, but it got the article fixed (Not that AfD should be abused for this in the future). No longer meets any deletion criteria. --Edokter (Talk) 09:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defined "abused"; what you are refering to is the The Heymann Standard. Personally, I don't think debating the article at hand as abusing the system, isn't that why the system is in place? Zidel333 13:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new list of season 4 article. _{I know this is an AFD, but a merge should address all of the concerns about the article.}Most articles for episodes can easily be merged to a list while keeping the list at a reasonable length and keeping the same content. A new list template might need to be designed to contain the same information as the current infobox. I figure that having the information in a list will make it easier to cite, and to keep the article out of universe, and at the same time, a list is not a plot summary; a season is also more notable, and can have additional information, such as the reception of the season. G.A.S 11:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm putting this here to get to every one at once. First, real world context does not mean the source of the information comes from outside the show, it means the information is about the real world. In fact, a primary source can provide real world context, DVD commentary about the production for instance. There are secondary sources but they aren't being used to say anything. The Paul Ruditis book is being used to source the plot and an aspect of the fiction, the name of a fictional character. With the Star Trek: The Human Frontier, the article only says the episode is discussed with no analysis included. From the plot we get "Neelix's religious faith is challenged and ends up changing" and from the book we get "This episode deals with religious faith and how it can change." That says the exact same thing twice, that isn't an analysis. That book could contain analysis, but this article does not. With that in mind, not one valid "keep" argument has been raised. We have, in fact, already reached a consensus to delete the article. There are deletion arguments based on WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, and WP:EPISODE, while the keep arguments come straight out of WP:ATA. It is completely irrelevant that "Arguments to Avoid" is an essay rather than a policy or guideline, because it isn't being used as the delete argument. It is being used to refute keep arguments that get made so often that it became necessary to catalog them. It becomes tiresome to have to explain to the same person multiple times that there are plenty of "useful" things that get deleted because it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, dictionary definitions for example. So please, stop presenting invalid and unsound arguments, and stop being offended that articles get deleted. If you want to contribute to a Star Trek fan page then contribute to one, don't turn Wikipedia into one. Jay32183 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jay, please stop presenting your opinions as if they were fact. Let the closing admin determine whether the arguments being presented are valid or not. I happen to feel that the concerns of WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:WAF and WP:EPISODE have all been met; and so (more or less) does Pd THOR, who nominated the article for deletion. You disagree. That's fine. But please stop trying to use your interpretation of policy to bully those you disagree with. And stop using WP:ATA to WP:BASH your opponents. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Under no circumstances will I allow anyone to think that they may present an argument specifically listed at WP:ATA with any merit. WP:BASH is absolute nonsense created and supported by people who do not know how to present arguments and have no clue that vote counting is not a part of consensus. Your opinion does not matter because it is supported by things that are factually incorrect. By definition, you cannot present a sound argument using factually incorrect information. There is no analysis in the article, there is no real world context in the article. Both of those are facts, not opinions. It's not that I disagree, it's that you're wrong. Jay32183 19:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, this is a simple disagreement on interpretation of policy. It's your opinion that the section titled "Theme" does not constitute analysis. It's your opinion that the sources used in the article are insufficient for "real-world context". It's your opinion that WP:BASH is "absolute nonsense" (in fact, it has status precisely equal to WP:ATA). These are not facts in any objective sense. If we are to have civil discourse, you must recognize that your views are only opinions, and other interpretations may also be valid and accepted by the Wikipedia community. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have not once presented factually correct information during the discussion. This isn't a difference in interpretation of policy because the policy is not subjective. You are changing the definitions of analysis and notability to suit your needs. You haven't shown that "Mortal Coil" is the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. If you think you have then you do not know what the word "subject" means. There is no analysis in the article because no conclusions are drawn. Having an outside source repeat the plot is not analysis. WP:BASH is utter nonsense because it is mostly based on the idea that vote counting can be used to determine consensus, which is factually wrong and admins are supposed to avoid when closing AFD's, WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. I have been assuming bad faith disruption on your part for quite sometime, since after reading all of the relevant policies, which you claim you have, delete is the only logical conclusion. You are trying to disrupt the AFD process with a convoluted and disguised "I like Star Trek" argument. Jay32183 22:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, thanks for admitting that you were assuming bad faith. At least that's honest. (And, for the record, this is not about "I like Star Trek". It's about my belief that Star Trek episodes, like episodes of a handful of other television series, have attained sufficient coverage in the culture-at-large that individual episodes are notable. Everything I've said here has been my honest opinion and interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am not trying to disrupt anything.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Jay, all I've read from you in this AfD is opinion being presented as fact, invalid arguments, and now blatant accusations that Josiah is disrupting the AfD. Why, because he's disagreeing with you? I disagree with you, too... am I disrupting the AfD? If so, I am very sorry, I didn't know I was violating WP:BLAH, WP:SH!T, or any other stupid acronymous wiki policy you happen to pull out of yer arse. :P Seriously, though, it's obvious from the valid arguments presented above that the article can be kept, so please... stop disrupting the AfD. (Doesn't feel good, does it?) --From Andoria with Love 23:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You are actually the worst. Josiah Rowe is at least trying to follow policy. The way you have been presenting you argument it seems you would like to completely disregard policy and do whatever you want. You're trying to use WP:IAR as a free pass without knowing it, but WP:IAR is not a free pass. Josiah Rowe's arguments have been valid, but not sound. Your arguments have not been valid. For an argument to be valid, it needs proper logical form. To be sound all parts of the valid argument must be true. To properly contribute to a discussion you must use sound arguments. You are at the point in your Wikipedia career where you should start familiarizing yourself with policies and guidelines, especially if you wish to participate in discussions rather than just Wikignoming. Just so you know, I don't care if you think I'm a jerk. You are free to think that. But don't think you can use that to nullify what I've said. Jay32183 02:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I suspect it might be possible for this article, and many others like it, to one day stand alone. Ethan Phillips's reaction, while just a sentence, gives me the impression that this was more than the average episode, and that there might be additional real-world information to be found. Right now, however, that's just my speculation, and unless we can actually find that additional content, just merge or redirect until then. -- Ned Scott 22:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We should also look at how we organize articles. Another way to look at this is, we might have notable information, and there's more than one place to put that info. We also have character articles and such where much of this information could live. -- Ned Scott 23:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May I enter that I am not a Star Trek fan, I've seen about half an episode and it wasn't this one. I know little of Star Trek except for what I've learnt through popular culture, which reflects Star Trek in most mediums. How many Family Guy, Simpsons or South Park have used our shared culture of television, Star Trek foremost among them for gags... how many episodes of Star Trek, like X-Files after it and Buffy have become cultural artifacts of an era like any book or film? Certainly, the article should be improved as should any other, but notability of an individual episode of a culturally noteworthy show is as great as it needs to be to survive. And I don't like Star Trek. I kind of hate it. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is referenced, and gives commentary, which is far more than a simple plot summary. Voyager was a popular show, so each episode is notable.(Black Dalek 09:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Third arbitary section break[edit]

Keep for now, from a high profile series (even if I hate it) so episode is notable. Without wanting to be deluged by loads of acronym links leading to convoluted policy (if you want to cite policy in response to this, please either pull out the relevant quotes or summarise it), opinions presented as law and everything else, I'm not sure it's a terribly good idea to decide the big questions of episode notability on a one by one basis. The result could be series where some episodes have articles and others don't purely because of whether or not AfDs have run and how the debate has gone (and yes I am aware of that citing the existance of other stuff isn't the best form in deletion debates but this isn't really an "other crap exists" as "this ain't going to solve it) which isn't the best for the encyclopedia overall. Timrollpickering 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From Wikipedia:Notability: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Being from a high profile series doesn't mean anything in determining inclusion for Wikipedia. Jay32183 17:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Le sigh. I give up. I've already presented my case and can only use so much sarcasm to prove my point. I have now been accused of ~~gnoming~~ trolling, so I will stop now. But some people here take their time on this site way to seriously and far too literally. I can understand building this encyclopedia being important, but have a little fun in your work and don't live so much by the rules that they blind you to the facts and hinder your intelligence. I know this isn't a majority vote but rather a consensus (as it should be), but hopefully the administrator who makes the final decision will use a little more common sense than has been shown from the people hoping to have this page deleted. It's a valid article and valid and sound arguments have been made to keep it, but some appear to want to ignore them in a desperate bid to get this thing turfed. If this does get deleted, though, don't forget to nominate the 28,247 other episode pages of various series currently up at Wikipedia, including the 704 Star Trek episode pages. Honestly, if you didn't want pages for individual episodes, ya'll should have thought about that back when people started creating them. Anyway, have fun, live long and prosper, and all that jazz. And don't bother replying to this because I won't bother to check back. Seacrest, out. --From Andoria with Love 18:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Due to the amount of references, not just a plot summary anymore. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A lot of work has been done to bring this article up to "standard". Can we bury this argument now? Astronaut 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we now going to go through the same argument for every episode for every show? - The "deletionists" wanting to delete them all ASAP, while the "inclusionists" hurriedly update under-threat episodes to make them more notable. Astronaut 01:46, 1 August 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} 05:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oni in popular culture[edit]

Delete - another directory of loosely associated topics. The listed items have nothing in common past a reference of greater or lesser triviality to these creature. Tells us nothign about the creatures, the fiction from which the reference is drawn, their relation to each other or the real world. Oppose merging the trivia into any other article. Otto4711 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mixed original research and trivia. --Eyrian 13:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, albeit weakly. Yes, this needs a more analytic treatment. References should be sought (and for those who read the relevant language, might easily be found) for interesting and valuable assertions in the article, like the assertion that oni figure in the Japanese version of hide and seek. Most of the entries here are quite easily verified just by looking; the claim that they are original research is simply wrong.
Because oni figure quite prominently in many well known entertainments, and most English speakers like myself are first exposed to the concept through them, outright deletion of this data would leave a large gap in our coverage. In the worst case scenario, move to a subpage of the talk page for discussion of which appearances are considered worthy of mention. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somewhere in this list there is an encyclopedia article trying to get out. Prune the right parts, expand the right parts, and it will appear. It shouldn't be merged to Oni, as it is discussing something different: how Oni are portrayed in modern popular media. JulesH 16:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite or categorize. per Otto's reasons. In regards to what else has been said, I really do not see how the article discusses anything, really. If there is research out there talking about the Oni in popular culture, find it and cite it. Otherwise, this really is just a heap of trivia. CaveatLector^Talk 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 22:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another list of pure trivia (WP:5). USERFY if anyone wants to save it and work on it. Corpx 02:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite--trim some, and expand the parts worth keeping. Exactly what part of NOT DIR is thought to apply. works on these same theme are tightly connected. WP:NOT has no specific mention of articles such as these. DGG (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Making references to oni does not make work of fiction tightly connected. Jay32183 03:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain the tight connection between, to choose two examples off the list, A series of the cartoon series Jackie Chan Adventures involves finding nine oni masks, each containing a powerful Demon General with power over his own deadly tribe of Shadowkahn (Shadow Warriors). and Japanese historical fantasy light novel Utsunomiko. the central characters who have ESP are called Oni. WP:NOT makes no specific mention of List of things that Popes have expelled into handkerchiefs either but presumably such an article would not withstand scrutiny... Otto4711 04:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - agreed that not all the examples are important. I can;'t judge these two--if Utsunomiko is important, then the fact that the central characters are oni is important. It is easy to invent ridiculous imaginary examples. That doesn't prove anything about articles that are not patently ridiculous--all it proves is that it is possible to write a bad article. DGG (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you take any two items from the list, there is no tight connection. Trimming it down does not make it comply with WP:NOT#DIR. The idea behind WP:NOT#DIR is that you shouldn't talk about unrelated things as if they're related. Jay32183 00:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total trivia fork, worthless. Biggspowd 02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia. -- Hoary 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The most notable examples could be mentioned in a small section of the Oni (folklore) article. It isn't large and there don't appear to be many significant references here anyway. Magiclite 07:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic trivia. IPSOS (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Flea (musician) — Caknuck 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Bebop Balzary[edit]

Apart from the silly name, completely non-notable. We are told about her father, her mother, her half-sister, her godafther, but nothing about her. Which is hardly surprising - she's only 2. Emeraude 12:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flea (musician). Propaniac 12:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and DO NOT redirect to Flea (musician)...notability is not inherited. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why I don't think she should have her own article; non-notable subjects are given redirects to the appropriate subject all the time. It's plausible that someone would hear the name (especially because it's so weird) but not know that she's Flea's daughter, and changing it to a redirect also tells a newcomer, checking to find out if Wikipedia has any coverage of the subject, that she has already been addressed in some fashion and may deter that person from starting a new, unneeded article. Propaniac 16:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion, there needs to be a better reason that "her name is weird" to validate a redirect. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite not being notable, she is undeniably more famous than the vast majority of two-year-olds due to her famous parentage, and it's not out of the realm of reason that someone may type her name into a search engine. You seem to be thinking of a redirect as something other than a tool for navigation, which is certainly how I think of it. But whatever, I really don't give a fig and I'm not going to continue to defend the obvious and fundamental merit of the redirect, which has been employed hundreds of times in AFDs similar to this one. Propaniac 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And may I suggest you consult a dictionary in order to better understand the word "especially," which is not a synonym for "solely." Propaniac 18:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok first of all, you need to get off your high horse, and quit talking down to me. Don't you dare try to tell me to go consult a dictionary. Who the hell are you to try to insult me? Second of all, I never said anything about using the words especially and solely as synonyms. You pointed out 2 reasons to keep (redirect) the article. 1) because she has a weird name, and 2) because she is Flea's daughter. Since it's apparant we both agree that #2 is not a valid reason (since notability is not inherited), the only other option left to argue is #1, which I said having a weird name is also not a valid reason to keep/redirect the article. You can easily discuss this in a civil manner without resorting to personal insults of someone's intelligence, which will fall under WP:NPA, which is official policy. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is absolutely not the same thing as a keep in terms of bestowing notability. We agree she's not notable enough for an article; I don't know why you think I "agreed" that this meant the name did not deserve a redirect, which was my own suggestion (based on precedent) and so it's nonsensical to say that I was putting forth the single reason that her name was strange. I apologize for misinterpreting the claim that I only put forward one reason, to mean that I had only put forward one reason, instead of what you apparently meant, which is that I had put forward two reasons but you had decided that we both agreed one of them (the more important one) was not worth acknowledging. (I also apologize for the lateness of my reply, as I was on a trip.) Propaniac 13:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flea (musician) - the precedent I've seen involves kids like Suri Cruise or Brangelina's, whose name slips my mind. In those cases we redirect. This one might be a reasonable redirect, but the chances of someone seeing her name outside of the context of her parents is probably going to be a bit remote. Even so, a redirect is cheap. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flea (musician) as it's a plausible search term, and she already gets a sentence in that article, which contains all the information in this one. Iain99 21:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to father's article, as is routinely done for other celebrity children. Good grief, now we're supposed to have notability standards for redirects? Talk about instruction creep. --Dhartung | Talk 02:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect - There is already a 1 line mention in the other article, which is sufficient Corpx 02:09, 26 July 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. Sr 13 07:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Or Alive(album)[edit]

The artist and his label were speedily deleted because the person and company, respectively, do not establish notability. There's no provision to speedily delete an album. Prod tag was removed by original editor. Album is by an artist for whom no notability has been asserted, and it asserts no notability about the album itself. —C.Fred (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Album of a speediable musician. Speedy delete if anybody's feeling bold. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd have no objections to it being speedied. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Meets CSD A7 criteria. In addition, does not pass WP:MUSIC. Hasn't even released an album yet. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not speedy - no opinion on the article, but please note that albums and songs are NOT within CSD A7, only groups and individuals. ←Ben^B4 16:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:IAR, if nothing else. Fails the spirit of A7, and is borderline on G11 (advertisement). The works of a non-notable artist are non-notable themselves, and this article makes no claim of notability. Resolute 04:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. —Kurykh 23:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Closer broadcasters[edit]

per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (which specificly says Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide) and Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. These lists change constantly, and can never become encyclopedic.

Precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcasters for 24 (TV series), result: The result was Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY.

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

/ edg ☺ ★ 12:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. per WP:NOT and per extensive precedents including the one linked in the nom and similar deletions for shows like Desperate Housewives, Smallville and others. Otto4711 12:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT#DIR. Number 5 7 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The times of broadcast makes it a violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE, but I think that can be fixed. I think this information complements the main articles and shows the international appeal of the show(s) Corpx 02:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just the times. The broadcasters change frequently. You'd be left with a list of countries, the show's name in each language, and little flags. As for "international appeal", this can be said about most shows in international syndication, e.g. 24, listed above, deleted yesterday. / edg ☺ ★ 02:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. Good grief. --Aarktica 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC) _{(Nods in disbelief...)}[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete(A7) by User:Philippe. Non-admin closure. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 05:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nola Marino[edit]

General Criteria for deletion (11) advertising to promote a political candidate. Article Criteria (7) Unremarkable, people, groups companies and web content - An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. This article does not provide any information to substantiate that the subject matter meets Wikipedia’s notability (people) guidelines. If so please provide cite references. Sikimmuni 11:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Propaniac 12:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. A warning to the author is in order, who appears to be POV pushing beyond just creating this article. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with ((db-bio)) --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:40, 26 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agnus Serra[edit]

Delete: Non-notable individual; no references or links; 2 ghits (including wikipedia) Time and again 11:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 11:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ~~Google hits are not a useful source for a Greek philosopher.~~ They're not so great for hoaxes, either. Espresso Addict 11:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hoax. So is the article Shot of 5 authored by the same user. Get rid of both, along with the entry the user added to the Serra disambig page. Deor 11:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block creator for disruptive hoaxing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is clearly a hoax. Even those not familiar with the history of philosophy might notice that a Latin-style name has been given to a supposedly Greek philosopher. And it's not even good Latin. It's more like quasi-Latin. Postmodern Beatnik 15:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hoax. While we're at it, the same author's Shot of 5 reads (and reeks) like a hoax, too. --Targeman 15:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Anarchia 20:07, 25 July 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. Sr 13 07:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Wright[edit]

Non-notable, vanity, possibly qualifies for speedy Anthony Hit me up... 10:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CAT A7 - non notable. The "silver award" from the National Advancement group appears nowhere on their site that I could see, and that's about the only push to notability in the article. Fails Google test and no listing on amazon.com as an author. Pedro | Chat 11:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seen better on facebook, this is not a notable person.--Drappel 18:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately not a speedy since asserts notability (albeit in POV tones). Fails WP:BIO. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 02:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of transcriptions of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach[edit]

Listcruft, utterly irrelevant. The compositions are relevant, not their transcriptions. Lilac Soul 10:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't see why transcriptions are irrelevant. Plenty of CDs out there with titles like "Bach transcriptions" (see e.g. this Google Search) suggest otherwise. Grover cleveland 11:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are not trivial transcriptions, because they are by well known composers, including Mozart and Liszt. Beorhtric 11:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Transcriptions are important, as any musicologist will tell you, and offer radically different interpretations of the music. It's not like photocopying the music in a Kenkos. This is a list which needs greatly expanding rather than deleting. There are hundreds of transcriptions of Bach for a start. Nick mallory 12:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs MAJOR cleanup and sourcing, but there's no reason to delete it. As said above, the transcriptions in Bach's case are VERY relevant -- hell, one of them is the opening piece in Fantasia, after all. I could go on about why, but I'm sure others will say it better than me. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs some form of organization (chronological? genre of transcribed work?), but the data are interesting as a kind of historical mirror of how Bach's music has been heard over time. Opus33 14:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Did anyone actually look at this list before assuming it's notable. It's a bullet-style format of ambiguous and utterly uninformative sentences. "Busoni also transcribed many of Bach's organ works for the piano." Maybe a list of people who did the transcriptions, or at least, an ARTICLE about transcriptions. This is total listcruft per nom. Bulldog123 16:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, and as I said, the concept itself IS notable, it just needs to be majorly cleaned up, not deleted because the start of it happened to be a mess. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Cleanup and Expand JS Bach was a prolific composer, certainly notable and he still is an inspiration to many. Article needs work, I agree but has a lot of promise Rackabello 20:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs revision, but the list will be useful. Matthias Röder 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming proper references can be provided to show it's not original research and is verifiable I agree with the sentiment that individual transcriptions have important individual properties that can make them useful for study outside of simply studying the composer. That being said, I notice the list doesn't provide any references to show why any of these particular transcriptions are notable, nor any references to show that the list as a whole is a notable topic. So my keep recommendation is contingent on the article being mostly properly referenced in the relatively near future. If no changes occur in the article over the next few months I would be inclined to change my recommendation to deletion. Dugwiki 23:22, 26 July 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. —Kurykh 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Northcutt[edit]

non-noteworthy person, little information in article, any interview links should be merged with darwin award category, lack of verifiable biographical details, page was created by wendy northcutt herself Vitas77 06:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, this is an encyclopedia not a collection of everything as friday put it..

hopefully he will abide by his own logic, cited in his many many deletions and not by biased by his friendship with wendy northcutt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.18.209 (talk)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With interviews in major news outlets, a notable website and books, this seems to satisfy WP:BIO requirements. However, the fact that it's been edited by the article subject raises WP:COI concerns. The article requires substantial cleanup and rewriting, but it should be kept and improved. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author/editor of numerous books published by a significant publishing house, and with coverage from several independent sources this passes WP:BIO. It wasn't actually created by Wendy herself, though she has made significant edits, not all of which are NPOV - but that's reason for cleaning up the article, not deleting it. And what on earth does 67.55.18.209 mean by "hopefully he will abide by his own logic...not by biased by his friendship" - is someone trying to make a WP:POINT? Iain99 22:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you look through the contribution history of the IP, it looks like the person made an appeal for contact from Ms. Northcutt directly by email [21], and then followed that with a request for CSD [22]. This suggests a WP:COI, and given the wording of the nomination, this suggests that the nomination was not made in the interest of encyclopedia building. I suggest Speedy Keep and close by admin (especially in light of the subject's notability clearly being established). Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 00:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Darwin Awards. No evidence of notability beyond the website/books, and the substantive amterial about her (unlike the "klutz" quote) is pretty thin. --Dhartung | Talk 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article discusses an author with published works readily available at countless general interest bookstores around the world, not to mention a Web site that was pioneering and remains significant in the realm of online humor. This nomination drips with animus and flies in the face of facts that are far from secret or undocumented. The article could surely benefit from some work, but the Web work and the published literature of the subject each establish a level of cultural impact placing her unambiguously in the scope of Wikipedia. To suggest otherwise simply strains credibility. Demonweed 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per citations provided asserting notability. --Aarktica 23:32, 30 July 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. Sr 13 07:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Göteröd[edit]

Contested PROD. While most inhabited places are notable, this community of 30 summer houses just fails WP:N. See also this essay.We have no other information on it than given in the article (which is little); Google knows it only via Wiki mirrors. Unclear even whether it's in fact a separate place or just 30 houses within a larger settlement. Not even worth merging to Tanum Municipality.

This article was created on a large number of Wikipedias recently, and apparently repeatedly. See the deletion log of Italian and French Wikipedia, just as an example. Therefore, my recommendation is: Delete, and possibly even salt the earth. --B. Wolterding 10:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am uncertain from the article whether it is a town, or whether it is a residential area. If its a town, then it certainly is a keep. DGG (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. Appears to be a development/neighborhood within a larger community. I agree with DGG, if this is indeed a seperate settlement it should be kept, but for now all signs point in other directions. Will alter my suggestion if new info comes to light. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is something smaller than a village, just a few summertime residences used by people living in urban areas (sommarstugeområde in Swedish). Also note the contributor of the article claims to be born in 1996 and most likely is the producer of all the articles on other Wikipedias. Personally, I think we could think of this as a multi-wiki, good faith test by one of our youngest contributors. / Mats Halldin (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete, a place where people don't and have never lived, only vacated, doesn't fall under the good "every place is notable" policy. Punkmorten 00:40, 27 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep K Datta-Ray[edit]

Article is written entirely by the subject of the article, subject is not notable and seems to be adding links to personal blog all over the place. Orpheus 10:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 11:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject lacks notability, and spams articles that have anything to do with him. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This contributor has obviously not understood Wikipedia. / Mats Halldin (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unfortunately contributor seems to make his own rules, and pays no attention to how Wikipedia works, Modernist 20:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability as a writer, whatever he may think of himself, and certainly none as an academic. DGG (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject/author seems to be pushing his own agenda instead of trying to contribute constructively. There are 44 hits on Google for "Deep K Datta-Ray" -wiki. I'm more notable than this guy. • Maurog • 09:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, if we're going to use the google test, I'm more notable than him too, by a mile -- and I certainly don't merit a wiki article, so neither does he. Spazure 06:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, total conflict of interest to boot. Burntsauce 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author (and subject) of the article recently removed this AfD from the log of articles for deletion. Orpheus 09:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author (and subject) of the article has also tried removing the AfD tag on the article a couple times. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:13, 30 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Fieldhouse[edit]

Not notable, Does not pass WP:BIO. Has not been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. ExtraDry 10:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 10:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the nomination. Google returned a number of reliable and independent sources. Artist is a notable Australian artist. Nicko (Talk•Contribs)Review my progress! 11:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just goolge the name and it is evident that Simon Fieldhouse is an important Australian artist. It should be noted that ExtraDry, who has nominated this article for deletion has nominated other articles that I have edited for deletion, has been removing my comments from talkpages and has listed me as a sockpuppet. I'm not sure this has much to do with Fieldhouse or his notability but more to do with a disgruntled editor. Tallum 12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sigh, Comments were removed per WP:FORUM and see Jonathan Bonnitcha for the other article & AFD. ExtraDry 12:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is another nomination by the editor who also placed speedies all the Austrialian Vice-chancellors.DGG (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So? Any user is allowed to speedy articles and AFD them. I dont like this wikistalking though. ExtraDry 07:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His main notability is the book he cowrote with Australian judge Roddy Meagher. [23] I don't know whether that makes him notable enough. There is also an Olympic rower of the same name. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Capitalistroadster is referring to Roderick Meagher.Tallum 23:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The unusual nature of this artist's work has made him notable amd his involvement with Roddy Meagher and the National Trust has added to his notability considerably. Mitchplusone 05:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I wouldn't call him an 'important' Australian artist but there is (just barely) sufficient here for notability. Euryalus 11:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, not the most famous artist in the gallery, but notable enough for mind. Lankiveil 13:34, 29 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bonnitcha[edit]

Not notable, Does not pass WP:BIO. Has not been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Also created by possible sockpuppet. ExtraDry 10:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 10:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is a Rhodes Scholar but I don't think that on it own is notable. Nicko (Talk•Contribs)Review my progress! 11:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a wiki catergory for Rhodes Scholars so that in itself would suggest that this is a notable person. The sources are clearly independent of the subject - the University of Sydney and Yachting New South Wales. The article needs work but given the activities, to date, of Jonathan Bonnitcha he is notable - we may just need to wait a little longer for a published biography as he is only 26. It should be noted that ExtraDry, who has nominated this article for deletion, has already nominated this article for speedy deletion (which was removed by another editor), nominated other articles that I have edited for deletion, and has listed me as a sockpuppet. I'm not sure this has much to do with Bonnitcha or his notability. Tallum 12:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only other article that i have nominated for deletion and that Tallum has edited is Simon Fieldhouse. It should be noted that Tallum only edit to that article is after i proded it for WP:SD, unless he is admitting to being a sockpuppet. ExtraDry 12:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed a reference link to Simon Fieldhouse on the Notable Old Newingtonians Union list and this is my contact to this article. Having done this ExtraDry nominated the article for deletion. Tallum 12:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I still fail to see where any wrong has been done. ExtraDry 12:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and no suggestion otherwise in the article which is little more than highlights from a CV. Being a Rhodes Scholar is NOT notable (there were more than 80 awards in 2006 alone), though many of them subsequently go on to be notable, hence the category. Emeraude 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete also dont think being a Rhodes scholar gives notability. No independent sources talking about this person Corpx 02:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. His main claim to fame at this stage is not as a Rhodes Scholar but as a windsurfer who has represented Australia in various national competitions as indicated by Google News Archive. [24]. Capitalistroadster 02:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though being a Rhodes scholar alone does not give notability, almost all of them do have notable careers. 80 world wide is a small number of highly distinctive awards, not a large number. At this point, notability is as an athlete. DGG (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to athletic achievements Corpx 02:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Rhodes Scholarship is arguably the most notable scholarship in the world. It is certainly eqaual to an Olympic Gold medal and Wikipedia is keen to document the careers of Olympians. Upgrade the article but under no circumstances delete based on the grumblings of a disgruntled editor who most recently called for the deletion of two Australian Vice-Chancellors. Waterdanks 12:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your point being, No policys were broken. But you are coming close to breaking if not broken already WP:NPA & WP:AGF ExtraDry 13:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt is interesting to see the comparison of the Rhodes scholarship with the Olympic medals - how may Olympians go on to make their mark in other fields whereas so many Rhodes recipients have major careers post Oxford. We should be listing more Rhodes scholars rather than less.Mitchplusone 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm with the socks....meets the WP:BIO part of playing a sport at the highest level with the windsurfing. The Rhodes scholarship is just icing - Peripitus (Talk) 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - The sporting achievements are notable, being a Rhodes Scholar is not (the Rhodes Scholarship itself is notable but that doesn't mean everyone who wins one is also notable). I have therefore rearranged the article to put the sports first (being the important point) and the education second. Euryalus 11:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, precedent seems to be that competing in the Olympics equates to notability. I disagree with this, but it seems to apply. This, plus the Rhodes Scholarship, pushes this over the line in my view. Lankiveil 13:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as an Olympian he does pass WP:BIO.Ga rr ie 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has had not completed in any olympics. Just been squad selected. ExtraDry 02:22, 30 July 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. —Kurykh 23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masa (restaurant)[edit]

Delete. I just don't think this is noteable, failing WP:NOTE. It includes petty infomation about the head chef's best marathon times and other recreational activities. It was used to film a scene from Ugly Betty and a website put it in it's top 50 places to eat once. Hardly note-worthy. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I haven't been to New York for years, but I've heard of this restaurant. It is easily noteworthy. Beorhtric 11:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't been to New York at all and I've never heard of it! So what? This is, according to the article, a very small restaurant that has been reviewed in the NY Times. Newspaper reviews of restaurants do not confer notability - thousands and thousands of restaurants are reviewed every year, in what are basically promo pieces. A review is not the same as being 'news', and judging by the article, if the chef's non-restaurant activities are removed, there's little left to say about this one.. Emeraude 12:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article. It was featured on the did you know section of the main wiki page, it is consistently rated as one of the top restaurants in the world and the chef is also one of the best in the world. And Emeraude, your not having heard of it is not a criteria to keep or delete. Postcard Cathy 13:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree. Neither is Beorhtric's having heard of it. Get the point? Emeraude 13:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't get the point. The fact that someone who hasn't been in NYC for years has heard of the restaurant means that it is notable, as far as I am concerned. BTW Steve, I just looked at the list of articles you contributed to - I literally haven't heard of about 98% of the topics you have written about. Would you see it as a legit reason for me to say they should be deleted because I haven't heard of it? NO yeah I am answering for you. Just because any wiki editor hasn't heard of something is not a legit reason to delete something. You look at each article and rate the topic on it's own merits - whether you have heard of it or not. Cathy

I couldn't agree more with your last point. But please read more carefully what I wrote. The fact that Beorhtric has heard of it does not make it notable, any more than the fact that I haven't makes it non-notable. I was being sarcastic. I have nowhere suggested that this article should be deleted because I haven't heard of it - that would be ridiculous. What I did was to point out that just because someone HAS heard of it is, in itself, no reason to keep it! There are hundreds of things I've heard of that are completely non-notable, but I'm not suggesting that any of them deserve articles because I have heard of them. My substantive argument was that the restaurant was non-notable; it seems that in the course of debate other users have provided evidence of notability. So, I've still never heard of it apart from here, but I'm accepting it's notable. However, this has change of view has nothing to do with the fact that Beorhtric has heard of it. Emeraude 09:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am laughing all the way to the bathroom because it is making me pee. The evidence was there all along. You either missed it or chose to ignore it.

Strong Keep True, the restaurant has been reviewed by The New York Times, but it has also been recognized and reported on by multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources, and this article distinguishes this one restaurant from the "thousands and thousands of restaurants [that] are reviewed every year". This article clearly establishes notability under the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Alansohn 13:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if you know anything about the NY Times reviewers - no matter what they review - they are extremely picky! To get such a good review from them is almost as rare as the Michelin stars!

Are you saying it has Michelin stars? Why is this not mentioned in the article? Emeraude 16:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd argue that receiving two stars in the Michelin Guide (even though I have issue with some of their methods and ratings overall) is clear evidence of notability. JavaTenor 18:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep w/Re-Write The restaurant itself seems notable enough for inclusion, but the article is somewhat spammy. Pats Sox Princess 22:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This version was the one that made it on to the Did you know? section (minus the added Ugly Betty comment). My question to you: Would htey put a spammy article there?

Keep Small but high profile Manhattan restaurant. Written about by multiple secondary sources and the T+L endorsement is very significant. --Oakshade 16:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The restaurant is unique and notable due to its unusual business practices (no menu, extremely difficult to get a table, etc.) and its presence in a world-famous building. The Times article in the references section isn't a conventional review so much as a profile of the restaurant and the chef -- the independent press coverage that WP:N looks for. Needs some work, but that's not a reason to delete. Slic e NYC (Talk) 21:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per other comments, the restaurant is worthy of encyclopedic coverage and WP:NOTE is easily satisfied here. RFerreira 01:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that a re-write may be appropriate, but Chef Masa's contribution to US cuisine is notable, and some reference to his work and career should be part of Wikipedia.

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. —Kurykh 23:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Spungeon[edit]

According to the article, he is the fictional persona that hosted a Tennessee cable television show called "The Todd Spungeon Show". 650l2520 09:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to verify notability, does not appear to have received third party coverage. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N - no notability established Corpx 02:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to satisfy WP:BIO. --Aarktica 23:34, 30 July 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 by Violetriga as nonsense (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stephens[edit]

What on earth is this "article" meant to be. List cruft in the extreme. This one should really be a no brainer unless I have missed something!. It is just a list of unformatted Stephens. 09:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinalewis (talk • contribs)

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 11:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The International Theatre of War[edit]

WP:BAND. Signed to an idie label but has yet to record an album. 650l2520 08:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of available sources. --Tikiwont 12:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They have not yet produced any singles or albums. Shalom ^Hello 23:10, 25 July 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. Pascal.Tesson 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gooch[edit]

No real assertion of notability. Just one of many people that has worked on Linux and there doesn't include any justification for this person having an article. Currently a substub, I can't see how this can be expanded into a decent biographical article. violet/riga (t) 08:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Linux as a whole is a major work that is part of the enduring record of its field, and Gooch's contributions to it are widespread. But none of them are particularly important, as far as I can see. Devfs was a major user-visible feature, but it was replaced fairly quickly. Other contributions are minor: obscure features, or small performance improvements. No reliable independent sources that I can find with a brief search. JulesH 16:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on google scholar hits Corpx 02:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC) _{—An external link was removed from the preceding comment in order to avoid a strange spam blacklist rule. —gorgan_almighty 14:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete. The google hits are not very convincing, and the article itself is a complete and total WP:BLP violation with absolutely nothing in the way of non-trivial reliable sources, just a personal homepage. Burntsauce 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability of DevFS is WP:NOTINHERITED by it's author, and there's no other assertion of notability here. —gorgan_almighty 14:26, 30 July 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 copyvio. Natalie 22:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal High[edit]

Slang term in marijuana culture. 650l2520 08:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article rambles on about cannabis in general, and fails to clearly define its subject. (Don't edit while high, folks. And what exactly is a "neurical termolisis"?) Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun. Whoa dude, this is some good shit - I can see five templates on the top of the page! No kiddin'! No serious bro, you shouldn't smoke and write. --Targeman 16:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, like destroy your ego, man! I can see six now, it's like, totally copyvio http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_basics.shtml Merkinsmum 17:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer - Man, this shit ain't dank. ←Ben^B4 17:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude I smoked some good shit last night and when I listened to Phish I totally heard a secret message. It was Bummer Racky! You totally gotta SPEEDY DELETE that Terminal High cuz itsa COPYVIO Rackabello 20:37, 25 July 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. —Kurykh 23:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley M. "Pat" Pattillo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wesley M. "Pat" Pattillo

Doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability's requirement of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." 650l2520 07:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Delete Everything found through google news about these people are from press releases, which are not enough to establish notability Corpx 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Corpx. Insufficient independent press coverage. Uranometria 00:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete These are essentially vanity entries, but well-written. Ironically, serious but uninformed efforts to improve the two articles by obviously involved individuals have brought attention to them. I'd rather see the deletion of a bunch of the poorly written, poorly sourced entries on porn actors who are considered notable because they made a film or two, but one case is not relevant to the other. -Jmh123 01:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I don't see any reliable sources for these articles, for example press coverage in independent media. It is possible that press articles might be found by a diligent search, but when notability is not open-and-shut, I don't think it is up to the AfD reviewers to go out and find the coverage. EdJohnston 02:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article smacks of WP:COPYVIO of the G12 sort; it looks like it was lifted and reworded from the bio of the subject at the NCC website. --Aarktica 23:42, 30 July 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. Sr 13 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Malchicks[edit]

British band without an album released yet, unreferenced except for official/promo websites. Fails WP:MUSIC. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 07:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Useight 07:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, fails WP:MUSIC. I see very little to indicate they're developing any notability as yet. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. They haven't done anything yet. --Bongwarrior 08:19, 28 July 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. the wub "?!" 16:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs[edit]

Delete. A pointless list that could grow to thousands WWGB 07:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list of internal links. Also hard to source and hard to maintain. Useight 07:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list that couldn't be a usefull category, and therefore is listcruft. Also Per Useight. Pedro | Chat 08:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible BLP issues, practically unlimited scope, no sources for many of the people listed... need I continue? Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Unreferenced BLP shitpile waiting to happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Recreation of deleted material. Corpx 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and unmanageable list. NawlinWiki 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Reasons above. --Targeman 16:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SNOW it. Bulldog123 16:10, 25 July 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. Sr 13 07:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu and guru nanak[edit]

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of Sikhism or Hinduism can salvage this article, but to this lay observer it appears to be a bit of a dead-end; all of the information presented herein seems available in more readable form in other articles, and I don't know that this title is one worth redirecting anywhere. JavaTenor 07:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above two subjects are mentioned in Vishnu and Guru Nanak articles. This article is thus redundant in nature. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - its appalling that this has to even go through a debate. Sarvagnya 10:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant article. Metamagician3000 12:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced redundant article. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps should have been speedied under WP:CSD#G1 as Patent nonsense. Abecedare 03:46, 29 July 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. —Kurykh 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7 Block Music Group[edit]

NN label, fails to establish notability Lugnuts 07:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article. A google search shows up absolutely no hits at all. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT for things made-up in school one day.... No WP:RS, fails WP:MUSIC - MarcoTolo 22:48, 25 July 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. —Kurykh 19:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. 25[edit]

NN person, fails to establish notability Lugnuts 07:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 07:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is very short and fails to establish notability. Hydrogen Iodide 07:26, 25 July 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 Deleted by [[User:Philippe|Philippe)) per WP:CSD#A7. Resolute 04:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bankroll Records, Inc[edit]

NN label, fails to establish notability Lugnuts 07:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article. Moreover, a google search shows up no hits at all for this article. Fails notability guidelines as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7 No notability asserted whatsoever. Exactly ONE Yahoo hit. Blueboy 96 20:48, 25 July 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. —Kurykh 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK Pre-Order Top 100 Albums[edit]

Contested prod. Zero Ghits Can anyone confirm that this is real? 650l2520 07:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a good thirty minutes trying every which way, including ending up on various Radio station websites I can't see this exists. Could be a hoax, could be made up on a schoolday but certainly isn't verifiable via the net at least. Pedro | Chat 14:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found references to an HMV pre-order chart and to an Amazon pre-order chart but nothing that signifies any 'official' status or notability. --Malcolmxl5 18:35, 25 July 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 This article was borderline speediable under CSD A7. — Caknuck 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O&C Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/O&C Records

NN label, fails to establish notability Lugnuts 07:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentA legitimate record label. Notable in KC Missouri.

Comment but how is it notable? Lugnuts 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V issues as well. Its possible that O&C might be notable in the future, but as of right now its not. Rackabello 20:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rackabello. --Aarktica 23:53, 30 July 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 — Caknuck 03:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Madeleine (restaurant chain)[edit]

Non-notable restaurant chain. No non-trivial secondary sources found to confirm notability. --ROGER ^TALK 05:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 07:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a chain of 60+ restaurants, and a brief perusal of the Google News Archive Search turned up a number of articles (most behind premium subscription services, sadly, but I think notability is demonstrated anyway): Dallas Morning News, Washington Post, Washington Post again, among a number of others. JavaTenor 14:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the links but I saw those earlier. They do not really establish national notability. WP:CORP talks about significant indepth coverage. The Washington Post articles are both from 1994 and are essentially local news. The Dallas Post is more recent but again is local news as La Madeleine corporate HQ is in its area. --ROGER ^TALK 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Per WP:OSTRICH. This is one of the largest 200 chains of restaurants in the United States. If you spend three seconds looking for sources you'll find dozens of them easily. According to Nexis, there are over a thousand.

La Madeleine: from humble beginnings this bakery-cafe and bistro takes on the competition with French savoir faire
Bakery-Cafe Chain La Madeleine Sees Chance for First Expansion in Five Years
Investor group acquires La Madeleine bakery-cafes
Those are three, still available online, that I found in literally several seconds. Suggest withdrawal. This restaurant chain is blatantly notable. --JayHenry 15:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did look and for rather longer than three seconds. The vast bulk of the articles are rehashings of press releases, syndicated fillers and trivial local items. All-in-all, the depth of coverage is not very substantial and large does not automatically mean notable. However, if you added some of the material you've found into the article, I'm sure you'd improve it no end. --ROGER ^TALK 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above links establishing notability Corpx 16:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zidel333 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced about notability, more sources are likely needed. Rackabello 20:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the creator of this page, so perhaps my vote doesn't count, but here are my thoughts on the subject. I know it's not much at the moment. It definitely needs expansion and addition of sources. But I feel it deserves an article. This chain of restaurants is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. La Madeleine is a well known and reputable chain in its area that's starting to spread across the U.S., yet so many one-location burger bars scattered across America are included, perhaps because of an interesting history or location. A glance at, for example, Category:Restaurants in the United States shows that over 100 restaurants have articles, many of them a full page long or longer, yet the majority aren't even chains. Consider Nickerson Farms. This restaurant doesnt even exist anymore, and yet it still has an entry. La Madeleine serves high quality food with authentic decor, drawing many people, and so has gained a reputation, with more than 60 locations! The number of locations should itself be a reason for inclusion. Its owner is Louis Le Duff, founder of La Brioche Dorée, one of the largest bakery café chains in Europe. It's received attention from a major local newspaper, the Dallas Morning News; perhaps not anything like the New York Times, but still press attention. Non-notable? I disagree. Please, keep this article. La Madeleine deserves a place here. --BackToThePast 16:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conmment Sure, but this is the classic WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. The WP:CORP guidelines are very clear about what is notable: significant indepth coverage in reliable independent sources. It doesn't fulfil that. --ROGER ^TALK

Delete: I don't usually !vote in when I've nominated, but I will here to !cancel out the page creator's !vote. --ROGER ^TALK 03:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A restaurant chain with 60 franchises across a wide area (Dallas-Fort Worth to Washington DC) is notable. I don't know how long this one has been in existence, but a growing corporation is just as worthy of an article as your favorite TV show. Save it to your hard drive, just in case the "businesses are boring" mood prevails, and keep working on it. Mandsford 02:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an encyclopedia we're trying to build not a collection of personal favorites.--ROGER ^TALK 03:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response You're right, this is an encylopedia we're all trying to build-- and everyone has a right to suggest what to add and what to subract. I understand that your personal preferences, about what you think an encylopedia should be, are different than mine. Please, let's all try to stay civil here. Both the nominator (Roger) and the author (Back To) have a right to voice their opinions. Please note that this is not entirely a vote (or at least, it should not be). Generally, one assumes that the nominator would vote delete, and that the author would vote to keep, and the opinions of both persons are equally worthy of consideration as the opinions of everyone else. Mandsford 14:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I see the AfD process as essentially win/win. Either a questionable article is improved to a point where it's no longer questionable (win) or it gets deleted (win). It's not even slightly personal. --ROGER ^TALK 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Not even slightly personal? Roger, we are humans! Wikipedia is a world-wide collaboration, involving hundreds of thousands of people. Living, thinking, people, not mindless drones inputting data. Deletion or addition of articles will have an effect on one or many people. It is personal.

I see AfD as not completely win/win (but of course it's always a win for the nominator). For one, it's a loss for the author of any work to see it deleted. The whole process seems to me like elite users running around trying to scare the author/s into improving it, rather than putting recommendations on the talk page or stepping in themselves. AfD should, in my opinion, be a last resort, not the first thing to do when one comes across an article they consider sub-standard or out of place. --BackToThePast 18:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We see things very differently then. The advantage of AfD is that it takes the personal component out of things. I don't have time to improve every article that seems lacking to me so AfD is a good alternative. Other people get involved, often turn up all sorts of useful things, and frequently convert a prime candidate for deletion into a good start article. This really isn't about elitism and I'm truly sorry if you feel that way about it. --ROGER ^TALK 19:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, Mandsford, my thoughts exactly. It was founded in February 1983 [25]. Here's some additional information: [26]. I'll do that. With work this article may live... --BackToThePast 04:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not here to argue for the sake of argument. If you get the article up to meeting the basic requirements and reflecting a 20-year 60-restaurant chain, I'll withdraw the nomination. There's nothing to stop you editing during the AfD process. --ROGER ^TALK 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BackToThePast, Roger's comment sounds like a good idea. As he says, nothing to stop you from editing (and, in fact, improving an article while deletion is being debated can be a factor in whether it stays or goes). Looking at this as the history of a successful business enterprise, and not about what's on the menu, the questions that come up are the standard who-what-when-where and how that any good article follows. We know some of the when--founded in February 1983, and it appears to have started in Texas before spreading eastward. Is it publicly-owned (i.e., are shares of stock sold to investors)? Who founded it? What sets it apart from other chain restaurants, such as Applebee's or Cracker Barrell? You might not be able to answer all of those at once, but do some googling and find out what you can. This can be win/win for everyone. Mandsford 18:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Roger Davies; Wikipedia:Don't be an ostrich definitely applies here. RFerreira 01:32, 30 July 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 to Acting President of the United States. Will delete (no redirect) in, say, a week. El_C 19:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan transfer of power[edit]

To maintain consistency in policy, since both Bush transfer of powers are being considered for deletion. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 05:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Primarily, this was the first invocation of the provision. As the article makes clear, there was an aspect of precedent as arguably the intended use was for extended periods of incapacity. Additionally, this was for an extended procedure, not an examination. I don't think that consistency of policy means consistent treatment of all elements in a related topic. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been thinking about this issue, and the ones for Bush. I'm wondering if it might be better to mention this in either the article on the 25th Amendment or the president's article??? FrozenPurpleCube 05:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move relevant material per FrozenPurpleCube suggestion. Realkyhick 07:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per FrozenPurpleCube's suggestion. The invocation/revocation letters aren't really necessary, nothing noteworthy happened during the "transition", and the bulk of this article can be summed up in a few lines in Ronald Reagan under his presidency. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Already covered by Acting President of the United States. Bush transfer of power should also be AfD'd. — RJH (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Acting President of the United States. --Philip Stevens 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Multimerge, source texts go to wikisource, remaining content goes to Acting President of the United States Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Acting President of the United States and/or Ronald Reagan. Fairsing 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. Significant, but not significant enough for it's own article. Mandsford 02:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not really notable out of context; merge into Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or Acting President of the United States. Jared (t) 13:52, 28 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shila Yazdani[edit]

Non-notable dentist which fails WP:BIO. Page was written by User:Shilay which suggests a possible WP:COI issue. No legitimate secondary sources that assert notability. 155 unique google hits, none of which give any information that sets her above any of a million or so other dentists - nearly all of which are directory entries. Trusilver 05:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only assertion of real notability is that she was a guest on a TV show once. Well, so have I been. --Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable tooth fixer upper. Realkyhick 07:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Extract~~ Delete per Dhartung. (And so have I.) --ROGER ^TALK 07:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 07:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 11:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability claimed as dentist, single appearance on a talk show isn't sufficient for notability. The huge photo doesn't help. Espresso Addict 11:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already stated. A very unspecial young dentist. (I've not been on TV, but was once on radio.) Emeraude 12:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Number 5 7 14:41, 25 July 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. Claim of reliable sources having been obtained remain uncontested. El_C 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Training hypothesis[edit]

Non notable neologism. As far as I can tell it is used once in paper by a notable person, no evidence that it was ever used again. Daniel J. Leivick 17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bearian 20:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dozens of specific references in titles from even just Google Scholar, some as "on the job training hypothesis, which should be used as a redirect. Even the inadequate article refers to three different authors. A notable concept in the theory of intelligence. why judge a concept non-notable or a neologism in unfamiliar fields without at least checking google?. (Agreed--there is no direct way of doing a specific search for this is google). I've added some of the refs. DGG (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 05:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm unconvinced this is an important approach but the article is now reasonably well-referenced. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, and Google Scholar search. Giggy _U^CP 08:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References have been sought and found, and for once in a lifetime we have a human resources or business management article written in a reasonable approximation of plain English. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:50, 25 July 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. Pascal.Tesson 15:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Mens[edit]

NN band from Belgium. top Google hits are their website and Wikipedia. Already tagged for lack of references and notability. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, no sources Rackabello 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC, if on no other basis than having 2 or more albums on a major label. I added an external link to the article pointing to De Mens' entry in The Belgian Pop & Rock Archives which gives an english-language history, at least up to 2001. - Fordan (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 04:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:MUSIC per 6 albums released, judging by the link above. A discography section in the article would be helpful however. --B. Wolterding 15:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Six albums definitely meets WP:MUSIC, so that takes care of notability. Adding sources would be good. EdJohnston 03:22, 1 August 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: As nobody is now recommending deletion, what to do with the article is now an editorial decision. I will move it to Pennsylvania Route 19 (1920s), and remove all references to PA 39 and the disambiguation link from PA 39 pending verification (or lack thereof). What happens after that is not a matter for AFD. --NE2 21:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Route 39 (1920s)[edit]

This article lacks any verifiable sources; after searching maps from the time period of its suggested existence, there was nothing found. Son 04:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Son, I don't see this route in any of these maps. And the article is too short to contain any information about this route. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 05:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It existed for a year or two, between the numbering of the U.S. Routes in 1926 or 1927 and the renumbering in 1928. A map from exactly the right time is needed for verification, but in the meantime there is definite circumstancial evidence: the presence of the spurs 139 to 639. I'll continue to look for verification. --NE2 05:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the owner of [27] to see if he can confirm. --NE2 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pennsylvania Route 39, even if it did exist, doesn't appear there is enough info at present to warrant a separate article, should be merged into the history of Pennsylvania Route 39. --Holderca1 10:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It most definitely should not, since the two routes have nothing to do with each other. That would be like merging London, England with London, Ontario. --NE2 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are saying that the two routes coexisted? Also that is a terrible analogy, if I had said merge Pennsylvania Route 39 with Illinois Route 39, than you would have a point with that. --Holderca1 11:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently this road is by now known by another number (or by none at all). The current road's former number is probably not notable itself, so my suggestion would be to merge it to whatever Pennsylvania Route it currently is. If the road isn't notable today, I don't see that it having a number for two years in the 1920s makes it notable. --Huon 15:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my comment, the content should be merged to PA 39 as well as the road it is currently (if any at all), and the link should be redirected to whatever it is now. The content should appear on the PA 39 article for two reasons, first, the article title is Pennsylvania Route 39, which is a highway designation, any route that has had designation should appear on that article as a history of the designation if nothing else. Also, for the end user, who would ever type in "Pennsylvania Route 39 (1920s)"? No one would, they are much likely to type in "Pennsylvania Route 39", the relevant history should be on that article, if there is suffient info to create a separate article, than by all means, just add ((main)) to its mention in the PA 39 article. --Holderca1 15:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However, there is little verifiable information on this other PA 39. If we can't find any reliable sources, then it should be deleted, as it would be taken out of the PA 39 article for not having any citations. --Son 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Holdercat if proof it really existed can be found by the end of the AFD period, else delete. Information about defunct routes can be useful, as in research about a person or business which 1920's documents state was located on the route. Edison 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: move to Pennsylvania Route 19 (1920s), which is shown on many maps.[28][29][30][31] (Interesting historical note: [32] shows it as part of Pennsylvania Route 5 (1920s) - maybe it could be a section of that article.) Then whether to include the short-lived PA 39 renumbering is a question of the content of the article rather than the existence of the article. --NE2 17:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a question, according to [33], the PA 19 to which you are referring to in the maps existed from 1926 until 1930. I don't know how reliable that is, but it would be hard for PA 39 to have been previously PA 19 during the 1920s if PA 19 existed until 1930. Also, what source did you use to create this article in the first place? --Holderca1 17:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have found that pahighways is often imprecise with dates; the routes that overlapped U.S. Routes appear to be gone from most maps by 1929. It appears that at least some of them were removed in early 1928: [34] The main source I used was [35], which is of course not a reliable source (so I didn't cite it). --NE2 18:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will only support a merge with another article if sources can prove it existed. If a source can prove that PA 39 (1920s) existed, then cite it, and merge with PA 39 under the history section. Already mentioned in the history of the road is that the Route 39 number was used as a Legislative Route in southwest Central Pennsylvania. This article for deletion says it was at one time PA 19 (1920s). Could it be merged into that? I believe it can, as long as sources can be found that proves this is the case. --Son 19:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - PA 19 (1920s) currently redirects; it would be moved there, and if no sources for PA 39 can be found then that part would be removed. --NE2 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either Pennsylvania Route 19 (1920s) or Pennsylvania Route 5 (1920s). -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, I agree with JA10. Merge. As the nominator of this article for deletion, this should mean that this AfD is dead. --Son 20:23, 25 July 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 to Middle-earth calendar. Marasmusine 12:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yule (Middle-earth)[edit]

Fictional holiday with no real world significance. I looked through google & google news and found trivia & unrelated mentions to this holiday Corpx 04:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per WP:FICT. There are the occasional SCA-type "Shire Yule" parties, but these aren't really Tolkien things. --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and Lithe to Middle-earth calendar or something. This is a current guideline for minor Middle-earth related articles, see WP:Me S and WT:Me. Súrendil 09:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above comment. Lra drama 13:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:Me S. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Middle-earth calendar" pass the same notability guidelines? I cant find anything about it from reliable sources. Corpx 16:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter should be a comprehensive article including info about all month names, seasons etc. etc. etc. Virtually it should be a synopsis of Appendix D to The Lord of the Rings (the ultimately reliable source) introducing some info from The History of Middle-earth series and etymology. Some day it will be expanded... Súrendil 16:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Middle-earth calendar. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:25, 29 July 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. —Kurykh 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GIK Music[edit]

Actually, I am neutral on this, but it was nominated for Speedy Delete, which I do not believe in. I think all articles deserve a consensus before they're deleted, so I replaced the Speedy tag with an AfD one. So, order in the court! Tom Danson 04:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It wasn't a speedy tag, it was a prod (which no one had even attempted to contest, I might add). This article has no references, and it's about an album that has not been released; pure speculation. Fails WP:V and WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. The article can be re-created if and when the album is actually released. Closenplay 12:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources. I was unable to verify existence, let alone the "confirmed tracks". --Huon 15:15, 25 July 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. —Kurykh 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EdTech Bloggerati[edit]

obscure neologism, 1 hit on google; was prodded, now moved to afd NeilN 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, protologism searching for a constituency, trying to be blawgs. --Dhartung | Talk 05:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You'll not find that constituency here. Realkyhick 07:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO on lack of sources about the term Corpx 16:36, 25 July 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. —Kurykh 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shuu Takumi[edit]

This subject does not assert or meet notability requirements.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 04:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, game over. Realkyhick 07:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't meet any keep criteria in its current state. I'd be willing to change my opinion if significant changes and updates were made to the article to bring it into line with WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:12, 26 July 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. —Kurykh 19:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polybiography[edit]

Doesn't seem to be used in the sense given in the article (as history term); rather seems to be a (rarely) used term dealing with medical ultrasonography (149 Google hits). Neutrality^talk 04:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as protologism. I think the sonography angle is just coincidence -- the author is deliberately inventing a term for what he sees as a unique variant of oral history. It is proposed in the context of the history of medical sonography. But it does not seem to have spread much beyond this limited project.--Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO. Realkyhick 07:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Also, the only cite is a dead link. Bearian 18:14, 27 July 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 G12 - copyright violation. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Hiccup[edit]

Assertion of ability made, but not sure if it quite meets WP:BAND. -WarthogDemon 04:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 06:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, copyvio of http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gnfoxq9jldse and http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/june/02/yehey/life/20060602lif2.html . These sources demonstrate notability if anyone wants to recreate it. Kappa 06:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G12 (Copyright Violation). Useight 07:57, 25 July 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. —Kurykh 23:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protagonist nation[edit]

This doesn't seem to be a very common term (56 Google hits); dictionary definition in any case... Neutrality^talk 04:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Those google listings merely use the term and don't really give "significant coverage" to the term. Also fails WP:NEO in the same aspect Corpx 06:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dicdef, and I find it hard to believe it would ever be anything more. JulesH 07:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. --Aarktica 23:55, 30 July 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. Sandstein 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable addresses[edit]

WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. Potentially huge and indiscriinmate list "defined as those addresses that have their own Wikipedia article." This will have to include every single museum, hotel, art gallery, skyscraper, theater, cineplex, studio, office building, etc, etc, etc, in the world that has a Wikipedia article. At first I thought this was intended to only list Wikipedia articles that are addresses, ie 221B Baker Street and 10 Downing Street, but after clarifying this point on the talk page, it appears to be any location in the world that has an address (which is most of them). As such, this is completely indiscriminate and loosely associated (and a little bit pointless). Masaruemoto 03:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See previous discussion under original name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous addresses. FrozenPurpleCube 04:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I was just attempting to get that AFD to appear in a box on the right. Anyway, I wanted to address the previous AFD; no disrespect to the previous nominator, but their argument for deletion was quite weak, so based on that, the outcome was unsurprising. One of the previous arguments for keeping this mentioned that this was no different to List of famous streets, but that list itself was recently deleted. Masaruemoto 04:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And you will note that the nomination for List of famous streets was WP:NOR. Clearly that is not being claimed here and so that deletion has no relevance to this one. Cburnett 04:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly unmaintainable, indiscriminate. Resolute 03:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has existed since Nov 2006 and it sure has bloated since then...all the way up to 6 entries! Masuremoto, you went from a talk page discussion WHERE YOU DID NOT REPLY TO MY COMMENTS to nominating for deletion? Holy crap dude! Your misunderstanding on this article takes my breath away. Every museum, hotel, art gallery, hotel (I guess there are that many that you listed it twice), skyscraper, theater, cineplex, studio, office building, etc. are all NOT KNOWN by their address. None of them are known by their address, but people know 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. People know 221B Baker Street. YOUR ENTIRE DELETION NOMINATION IS ENTIRELY BASED ON A STRAW MAN. Cburnett 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now It appears be nothing more than a navigational device for articles already in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it does appear to refer only to addresses that are famous, rather than all famous places. bd2412 T 05:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't possible to create a list based on "famous" criteria, as some of my own afd nominations today are showing. Saikokira 05:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's clearly indiscriminate information, whether it's a few examples or a thousand. Crazysuit 05:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete -- WP:NOT#IINFO, and highly subjective criteria if this is only meant to list famous addresses. Famous in whose opinion? Saikokira 05:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Famous is no where in the article. Cburnett 23:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try reading the comments, BD2412 suggested these were "famous". You obviously intended this list to be famous addresses though, because you named it List of famous addresses when you first created it. Saikokira 02:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd just like to point out that only two of the entries on the list, those mentioned by the nominator, are actually articles on the addresses, and one of them is about the building named after the address. The rest are redirects to articles about buildings or articles about television series named after addresses. Maxa megalon 2000 05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original research involved in determining if an address is notable. I don't think an encyclopedia should be setting the bar for which address are notable Corpx 06:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you ever read Wikipedia:Notability? As a community, notability is set for many things. Deleting an article because you disagree with the community is making a point. Cburnett 23:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure how the nominator drew his conclusion that the criteria would allow "any location in the world that has an address", clearly this isn't supported by reading the list or its talk page. I don't think determining notability of something is OR, really. We have an objective definition of notable, and applying it here makes sense. JulesH 07:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marginally useful in certain circumstances. Sjc 09:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long it is restricted to addresses with wikipedia pages Recurring dreams 10:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an internal linkfarm. Also, contrary to the stated premise of the list, the article is not capturing articles on fictional addresses. Surfside 6 is about the show, not the address. 77 Sunset Strip is about the show, not the address. Otto4711 14:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rules ar: "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." THis appears to be a "structured list".
Delete, apparently everything necessary for inclusion is a redirect (which, in the case of the White House, even was a double redirect). Now redirects are cheap, and in theory I could find out the addresses for more-or-less famous buildings - say, the Élysée Palace, whose address is conveniently mentioned in the article's first line - create the redirects and include them? The fictional addresses are even worse, with only the 221B Baker Street article even discussing the address itself. Per WP:LIST, this one fails all three purposes of lists, and the Wikipedia self-referential inclusion criterion is useless. That it's unsourced doesn't help. --Huon 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and the above. The fact that none of the articles linked to are about the address but rather what is at the address is key - it's not the address that is notable, but the building that resides there. That someone decided these particular buildings have memorable and easily recognizable addresses is both subjective as well as being loosely associated. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a list of loosely associated topic. Wouldn't even make it as a category, probably, per WP:OVERCAT#Non-defining or trivial characteristic. (It's not so characteristic for the White House that they have an address, right?) If somebody does not know what "10 Downing Street" is, they'd better use the full text search. --B. Wolterding 15:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is verythe definition of an "indiscriminate collection of information". VanTucky ^(talk) 20:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which definition is that? This isn't a FAQ nor news reports nor a phone book. It's nowhere near any of those. You say it's the VERY DEFINITION but the given examples are nowhere near this article. Cburnett 23:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criteria here do not seem likely to take in notable addresses. Looking at ~~List of tallest buildings in New York City~~ List of tallest buildings in Boston, for example, it appears that buildings which are not particularly famous such as ~~1585 Broadway~~ 125 High Street would qualify for listing simply because they aren't known by any name other than their address. --Metropolitan90 06:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Better example replaced 1585 Broadway. --Metropolitan90 13:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. While the actual contents of the article are not too odious, it's still a very vague and subjective criteria for inclusion, as outlined above. Lankiveil 09:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete indiscriminate, linkfarm, subjective User101010 03:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unclear and subjective inclusion criterion, and indiscriminate. If this really did list every notable address it would run into thousands. There are hundreds of notable addresses in Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by city alone, since every location with an article is notable. Magiclite 07:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being far too subjective to manage, bordering on indiscriminate. RFerreira 01:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While such a list potentially could be a viable topic for Wikipedia, the failure to provide any verification to the article since the first AfD on 3 November 2006 makes it unlikely that this article will ever meet Wikipedia's article standards policies. Also, per criteria for inclusion in lists, lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. Eight months have passed since AfD#1 and such a membership criteria has not been formulated, making it unlikely that it ever will. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 09:24, 30 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fudgie Frottage[edit]

Does not establish notability Michael Johnson 03:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "does not establish notability?" Fudgie is a performer who is very well known in the LGBT community. He has also appeared on television shows and in films, as are listed on the page. There are newspaper and magazine articles backing up his credibility and notability.

Why is he any different from drag queen performer: Peaches Christ, who is listed on wikipedia? I can make Fudgie's info more like drag performer Lady Bunny's by including a bio for Lu Read and having the current bio be for Fudgie the way Kiki & Herb have a fictional bio and list their real names. I am willing to cooperate with wikipedia standards. --Dr.feel.goo 06:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, though it is true the san francisco chronicle article interviews Lu Read and does not actually print his stage name, and eros-zine interviews Fudgie in character, how can you refute the photographs? The two are wearing the same outfit in one. Also there are too many similarities in each article to think the two are different people. Certainly not every Lady Bunny press article mentions her real name!

JulesH, I will rewrite the entry to include more about Lu Read.--Dr.feel.goo 17:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Since the article has been improved enough for me to do an about face, I think it would not be inappropriate for someone to contact the other editors supporting deletion, and ask them to reevaluate the article. I would do it myself, but I am pressed for time. But if someone else wants to do so, you have my support. - Crockspot 16:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - NN, lead seems like nonesense. - Crockspot 06:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep from delete. It is so much better now. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You gotta be kidding. WP:BOLLOCKS. Realkyhick 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Keep my vote at delete, but change reason to lack of notability. I still don't see what sets this, uh, "performer" apart from others of this genre. Realkyhick 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct in the assumption (not actually stated explicitly by either source or the article) that Fudgie Frottage is the stage name of Lu Read? If so, rename to Lu Read and rewrite from an out-of-universe perspective. We have two in-depth sources to establish notability, so this clearly is a notable act. It's just the current article doesn't really make that clear. JulesH 08:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I love the first two characters of the page: == Non notable, nonsense, bollocks, by the way. Giggy _U^CP 08:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Keep, sufficiently improved to assert notability. Giggy _U^CP 01:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dumb hoax that includes some nasty libellous stuff about real people. (Update: The libellous stuff has now been marked as "fictional", but that only makes it very slightly less egregious IMHO. Downgraded from speedy, but notability still borderline at best.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Andrew Lenahan. Rather nonsensical, contains some stuff that could be BLP violations, and appears to be substantially lifted from the second source and might even qualify for a copyvio speedy. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not see Lu Read mentioned in the Fudgie article, nor did I see Fudgie mentioned in the Read article. MySpace is not a reliable or independent source. Fails WP:OR, WP:BIO. Edison 17:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per refs recently added. The article is still light on bio section which should indicate that Lu is (presumably) biologically female, and that Fudgie is just a male character, since only the male pronouns are used. That Lu is a gender ambiguous name does not help. Please help out the clueless and easily bewildered. Edison 05:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Fudgie is a prolific and well known performer and producer in the San Francisco underground for well over a decade even though the un-wikified article does a poor job in expressing that. Please note according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Which apparently was never attempted with any prompts tags or discussion.
Keep - article now appears to assert notability. - Philippe | Talk 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has been improved, and I actually understand who this person is now. I would still like to see it better sourced. I got a dozen google news archive hits, I'll post a link on the talk page. Use it. - Crockspot 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the work done on the article, I would now vote Keep. There still needs to be a lot more work done, especially on sources. It is also starting to read like a promo piece and the POV language needs to be cleaned up. --Michael Johnson 00:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Philippe. I also did some cleanup on it. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is greatly improved and well sourced now, notability more than asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References found. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:33, 28 July 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 to delete even after discounting some of the WP:ILIKEIT votes . Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones in popular culture[edit]

Yet another very trivial pop culture list. RobJ1981 03:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another trivial list of indiscriminate topics. Resolute 04:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply having a storm appear doesn't merit mention. This article can be reduced to "Storms sometimes appear in media, frequently as a source of danger". --Eyrian 04:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial list of indiscriminate topics. Oysterguitarist 04:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete via the same rationale of Eyrian. You could probably do the same for basically every natural phenomenon, and it would end up as the same list of trivia. --Haemo 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this useful and interesting collection that underscores the importance of tropical storms to society. In most of the books, films, and other media mentioned, the storm is not merely mentioned, but is either the focus of the story, or a pivitol event. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Although not as bad as some IPC articles I've seen here recently, still trivia. Crazysuit 05:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not a believer in that these trivial items show importance of the topic in question. Trivia collection, WP:5 Corpx 06:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the guys who don't like these articles seem to think its pretty good--carefully limited to major items, divided into good groupings, shows what can be done with a list. This would seem the obvious place to collect this information. Analysis of some objections

"can be reduced to "Storms sometimes appear in media, frequently as a source of danger" -- and s could every WP article be reduced to a trivial statement if you want to ridicule it: Katrina, just another hurricane. Yes, they kill people.
"trivial list of indiscriminate topics" -- seems to use trivial as a synonym for list , and indiscriminate for topics, since every list discussed has been so-called. what distinguishes trivial and indiscriminate is whether the list deals with significant movies and books and so forth, and it does.
"yet another trivial pop culture list" shows nicely the inability to tell one from another, possibly because some of the !voters are not actually examining them.
"I'm not a believer" an interesting refinement on IDONTLIKEIT. Personally, I'll judge by logic, based on the actual articles and the policy, not what I personally like or believe.

DGG (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a list of fictional hurricanes/tropical storms, with a brief blurb about where they appeared. Although this is marginally more encyclopedic than "any mention of a hurricane ever", it's certainly not an article about "hurricanes in popular culture". In fact, none of the material in this article discusses the topic at all; it's just a laundry list of examples -- something Wikipedia is not. As I explained above, exactly the same encyclopedic merit could be retained from the one-line mentioned -- since the rest of the article adds nothing to the subject. Apparently, hurricanes have shown up in a number of different TV programs, music, and films -- however, there are no reliable sources that discuss the topic of "...in Popular Culture" at all. Instead, we're left with a list of examples of dubious merit, and left to synthesize some sort of understanding about hurricanes in popular culture from it. --Haemo 07:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To put it in perspective, if I made an article called Israeli crimes against Palestinians, and then filled it with a list of examples of Israelis committing crimes against Palestinians, my article would be summarily deleted -- because, although it is apparent that such a thing happens, the article contained no sources which explained why the topic was notable, or added any sort of encyclopedic merit. This is pretty much the same thing. --Haemo 07:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More culturecruft. Oh, goody. Realkyhick 07:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Not a trivia-fest like many "popular culture" pages. JulesH 08:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really is though. "Hurricane Eve: Hit Miami, Florida on the premiere episode of Invasion." That's not trivia(l)? Bulldog123 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Would like to see an introductory, cited paragraph about the role of tropical storms in popular culture though. And that is entirely doable. Recurring dreams 10:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trivia fest. Beorhtric 11:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am curious as to what exactly would lead someone reading this AFD to conclude that "the guys who don't like these articles seem to think its pretty good." I mean, one person said that it's not as bad as other similar articles but how one goes from that to the above conclusion is more than a little mystifying. Regardless, as with so many other articles of this ilk, this one is a directory of loosely associated topics. This list does not increase our understanding of tropical cyclones, the fiction from which the references are drawn, how the listed items relate to each other, or the real world. Otto4711 12:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though I added info to the article, I don't agree in its place in an encyclopedia. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon re-reading it after a lot of work was done on it, I think it would be better renamed, but I don't think it should be deleted. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Cultural depictions of tropical cyclones. Generally agree with DGG. I suspect that the "popular culture" label is disliked partially because it is often misread as recent and fannish. The single most important fictional tropical cyclone I know of, the one appearing in Joseph Conrad's Typhoon, is only alluded to here: mostly because Conrad has an academic reputation and is no longer perceived as pure entertainment, a flaw of the "popular culture" label. Our article on tropical cyclone is quite long already, and a fork of this material is justified. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Limit trivia in wikipedia, don't fork it. There could be a good article on this. However, this isn't it; not even close. Impossible to bring up to par without complete re-write Bulldog123 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a contrapositive to that statement - it must be possible to "bring up to par" with a complete rewrite. Ergo, mend it, don't end it. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If deleted, I'm sure the closing admin would be glad to WP:USERFY the content to somebody's talk page. 19:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The article obviously needs work but it does have some coverage of a motif that is definitely there, can be discussed in a broader sense, and is verifiable. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 22:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic, too indiscriminate. It's triviacruft. -- Mikeblas 22:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is just originally researched unencyclopedic trivia with no place in an encyclopedia. Indiscriminate collection of loosely associated topics with very limited sourcing, and none of the three sources given are particularly reliable. --Core desat 00:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Rename if necessary per Smerdis of Tlön. Definitely improvable and is not just any list. This isn't so much about popular culture. As Smerdis of Tlön mentioned this also includes non-trivial works. – Chacor 00:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and and move to Cultural depictions of tropical cyclones Per above.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must be becoming an elitist; what does popular culture have to do with an encyclopedia? These titles just rub me wrong. This is plain, silly trivia and should be stamped out with prejudice. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eyrian and Haemo. I was notified about this because I had contributed to the article... my recollection is that it has been up for deletion before and I was probably making a good-faith effort to improve. But that was almost two years ago and if it isn't encyclopedic now I don't think it's ever will be. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC) P. S. Since when are "completely idiosyncratic non-topics" encyclopedic? The the deletion policy used to list "completely idiosyncratic non-topic" as an example of material that should be deleted. Does anyone know when and why it was removed? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose the article were rewritten across thematic lines instead of simply divided by media? There seem to be three basic kinds of uses for tropical cyclones in fiction: as the "nature" element in a man-vs.-nature story (as in Typhoon, where the captain shows his resolve by going into the storm), as a MacGuffin driving the characters to act (which was the basis for the Golden Girls/Empty Nest/Nurses crossover, or in the stories where evildoers opportunistically engaging in nefarious deeds under cover of the storm), or as a backstory putting the characters in place for the story to unfold (The Tempest, Gilligan's Island). Would that be an acceptable arrangement for an article? bd2412 T 20:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I like to call "leading original research". Because, instead of actually providing a sourced analysis, one takes individually acceptable steps to try and fool the reader into thinking that analysis has occurred. But it still doesn't solve the problem of no citations. --Eyrian 20:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Ok, suppose I find (or someone finds) a source describing the use of tropical cyclones in fiction? bd2412 T 22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep for various reasons I will give. (1) The National Hurricane Center seems to consider this a matter with enough interest to place in its FAQ. Which, I'd like to point out, could provide a source for several items in this list. If the NHC does it, why can't Wikipedia? (2) This is intended to prevent this the section mentioned in the tropical cyclone article from becoming bloated. (3) Just because something needs cleanup or references is not well written does not mean that it should be deleted. For example, the article List of Atlantic hurricane seasons has no references, but that does not mean it should not be in Wikipedia. Using the other problem, List of New England hurricanes needs a lot of work (for example, sometimes it uses tables and other times a bulleted list) but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Basically, just because an article has problem and needs attention (which this one does) does not mean that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. (4)Other articles, such as Tyrannosaurus, Dinosaurs, and penguins have similar "issues" as this one. If the arguement that "X in popular culture"="trivia" is taken to its conclusion, we reach the point where it is forbidden to mention the thagomizer in the Stegosaurus article because "Thagomozer is popular culture, therefore, thagimizer is trivia and should be deleted" even though that is important in science. The same applies here, for example, the novel storm (although strictly speaking an extratropical cyclone) was influential enough to contribute to the idea of naming tropical cyclones.[36]. (5) Just because some mentions of tropical cyclones in popular culture are minor does not mean that all mentions are minor. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for finding the NOAA site, I've added it as a reference for the article and quoted it's salient passage therein. I'll look to further source and build the article from it. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It is a good reference of how fictional tropical cyclones can enter our culture and many fictional elements have mentions, or even articles, on here. CrazyC83 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 22:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename It's a good article with a terrible name. #1, it's about hurricanes (tropical cyclones start in the Pacific, hurricanes in the Atlantic, including the Gulf of Mexico), and #2, it's not about the influence of hurricanes or cyclones on pop culture, it's a list of novels, films and TV episodes where a severe storm was the subject. To that end, it's worthwhile. As with violent crimes, people worldwide would rather watch a severe storm rather than to be caught up in one. Never use the words "in popular culture" if you can at all avoid it. It's the Wikipedia equivalent of saying Candyman three times. Mandsford 02:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tropical cyclone" is a general name for the phenomena, although they have localized names as well. Everyking 03:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and impove whilst updating some of the infomation. For example there was a programme called superstorm on BBC 1 earlier in the year which had a few Fictional Cyclones Jason Rees 16:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the simple reason that it is the Summary style-expansion of Tropical cyclone#Tropical cyclones in popular culture. This article can't be merged there due to the size of the Tropical cyclone article, and the information needs to be somewhere. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - shows the importance of tropical cyclones to popular culture, and it certainly could be improved. The current state of an article is no reason to delete it if it could be improved to be encyclopedic, and this is certainly moving in the right direction. bob rulz 02:57, 31 July 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. Sr 13 07:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boy and his Dog films[edit]

WP:NOT loosely associated topics and WP:NOT#IINFO. I thought this might be a list of sequels to the 1970s post-apocalyptic film A Boy and His Dog that I didn't know existed. Unfortunately, it's any film featuring a boy... and a dog. Masaruemoto 03:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced cruft Rackabello 06:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, subject to original research. Realkyhick 07:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add sources, pictures, and more text to introduce the genre or create an article on Boy and his Dog films and merge list into that article. I started making some improvements already and hopefully others will continue to do so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very crufty article that is trivial. Sources and more text wont help this out. Sourcing isn't the issue here. RobJ1981 20:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whats next? List of Man and his Wife films? T Rex | talk 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Delete There's an entire Wikipedia listing for this under "Category: Films about dogs", which tend to be movies about dogs that have young male owners. A person looking at Lassie or Old Yeller or Bingo will find the category more readily than they would find this article, which, essentially, is a duplicate of an existing list. Mandsford 02:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

São Paulo plane crash[edit]

This page (and the similarly named Sao Paulo Plane Crash) was created as a redirect to TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054 soon after the accident. Since it is an overly generic title (it's not the only airplane accident in that city), I temporarily changed it into a disambiguation page (with the intention of deleting it later). Now that some time has passed since the accident, there's no need anymore to keep a page with such a generic title just to help redirect people to the relevant article. The proposed deletion was contested, so I'm adding it to AfD to get more opinions. cesarb 03:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serves the purpose of a disambiguation page, and you were correct in making it into one. Keep as such. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, perfectly acceptable per WP:DAB. --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above two keeps. I didn't know there was a previous crash. Useful disambiguation page. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all of the above keeps. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 07:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acceptable dab page, if both crashes are referred to by that name Recurring dreams 10:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this disambig page. --Targeman 16:11, 25 July 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. Article contains insufficient text for such claims as a genocide of minorities in Bangladesh on 2 February 1992 → note that that passage is the entire one-sentence article. Permission to recreate is granted but only with greater depth; i.e. not only sentence (plural), but entire paragraphs. El_C 18:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Mallya massacre[edit]

Delete:There is no evidence in formal academic literature that a massacre actually took place. There may be a few complaints of homicide, but the use of the word Massacre seems subject to POV. -- Arman Aziz 02:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What if we rename it to something less extreme, like Mallya Incident or something??? Corpx 05:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I would accept non-academic sources including major newspapers, but I can't find any mentioning this. --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per above comments - There's no reliable sources that talk about this "massacre" Corpx 06:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources about this. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 07:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you guys did a search beyonfd the internet, you will find sources for it in

~~Life is not ours: the Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission, April 1994[37]~~-no mention of Mallya massacre.
~~Unlawful Killings and Torture in the CHT: Amnesty International,1986~~-reference older than the incident!
Jana Samhati Samiti Report -Is this reference verifiable?-Arman Aziz 03:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Charge of Genocide: Organizing Committee Chittagong Hill Tracts Campaign, 1986~~-reference older than the incident!

These incidents happened before the internet took off in Bangladesh Taprobanus 15:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of them refer to this as "Mallya massacre" ? Corpx 16:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also, how on earth would a 1986 publication serve as a reference for a 1992 incident? --Ragib 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per corpx.

Comments: - The amnestry report (first item on the list) referenced by Taprobanus does not talk about any massacre in Mallay. It does discuss a 1992 incident in Logang where 12 people were killed (based on official record). Perhaps we should delete this article and encourage the interested editors to wirte a broader article on Human rights in Chittagong Hill Tracts where all these different incidents may be mentioned in the context of the dispute over the land rights. The activities of Shanti bahini, the terrorist group of the tribal people, should be appropriately covered, too.-Arman Aziz 01:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Chittagong Hill Tracts#History. Hardly any content to warrant a separate article at this time. utcursch | talk 09:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence in Chittagong Hill Tracts#History per Utcursch. I strongly feel it is ok to delete the stand-alone article now.-Arman Aziz 07:27, 30 July 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. Sr 13 07:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous performers of musicals[edit]

List of loosely associated topics, anyone who has ever performed in a musical can be included, which will run into thousands of performers. Includes many people not even specifically known as being musical performers such as Denzel Washington, Hugh Jackman, John Lithgow, and others. Also subjective criterion (famous in whose opinion?). Saikokira 01:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; criteria for entry is too loose/subjective. Iotha 02:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. Far too subjective, far too loosely associated, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps the answer lies in Category:Performers in Musicals? By the way, I will correct the nominator, Hugh Jackman is actually very well known to be a musical performer. See: The Boy Next Door.

CaveatLector^Talk 02:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that isn't what I said. I stated that he isn't specifically known as being a musical performer, which is correct. Most people know him primarily as a film actor (X-Men, etc). Saikokira 03:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just another side note, Wikipedia categorization (or listing for that matter) should not be about what 'most people know' but rather about what is factual. Most Americans know Hugh Jackman through X-Men, but that does not mean he cannot be listed or categorized underneath something he is equally, if not more famous, for in other countries or sections of society. CaveatLector^Talk 10:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very subjective. Oysterguitarist 02:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too general, indiscriminate.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 02:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on this particular one, since it seems to be maintained very loosely. Better as a category. Lists vary--not all of them should be kept. DGG (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of the existing and far superior Category:Musical theatre actors and its extensive subcategorization scheme. Otto4711 21:23, 25 July 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. Sr 13 07:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tame Head (magic)[edit]

delete - the very existence of this subject appears dubious, and notability has certainly not beeh established. It might merit a minor mention as an alternative term for magic or voodoo in some other article, but probably not even that. GlassFET 16:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, possible G11 speedy. Seems to serve mainly as a vehicle for some spamlinks. And I doubt the notablity too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I suspect it springs entirely from the movie Ngau wan gong tau - literal trans. Bewitch Tame Head (see IMDb) as this is the sole context I can find for the terms appearing together. Gordonofcartoon 18:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: confirmed. I just tracked the text down to a Singapore cinema chain official blog here. I can't read Chinese, but I'd bet it's a translation of the About Gong Tau page at the official movie promo site www.gongtau.com. Gordonofcartoon 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom et al. Reeks of WP:MADEUP. EyeSerene^TALK 20:14, 25 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Jardine[edit]

Straightforward nn-bio but another editor claims to see an assertion of notability somewhere in the article. -- RHaworth 01:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per nom. This does not belong on Wikipedia. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are loads of Emma Jardines in this world. One of them a member of a string orchestra, another of them a metaphysics author. (At least from what I've seen in Google) However, having search for Emma Jardine AND the names of the two singles claimed by the article, nothing showed up, not even a forum topic. This implies that the article is a hoax.--Kylohk 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no sources are found. Incidentally, the claim of a single charting (albeit no country specified), even only as high as #24, is an assertion of passing WP:MUSIC criterion 2. But if it's not real it's certainly not a pass. --Dhartung | Talk 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no source can be found to support the claim about the single. Google doesn't seem to find it, but the evidence may still be out there.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 03:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is almost certainly a hoax. Look at this contribution to Die Hard by the original author of this article. Oli Filth 07:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't even establish what nationality she is. --ROGER ^TALK 07:22, 25 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous families[edit]

List of loosely associated topics. A list that includes the Simpsons, the Bush family, the Osbournes, and Wyatt Earp's family has no encyclopedic value. Yes, they're all "famous families" but this is a bit like having a List of famous sons and putting Bart Simpson and George W. Bush on it. "Famous" is a subjective criteria as well. Categories already exists at Category:Business families and Category:Families by nationality and they make more sense than this list. Saikokira 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the term 'famous' is too subjective to be encyclopedic. I mean, I wouldn't list Wyatt Earp's family up there. Pats Sox Princess 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- proper and whole coverage would be impossible, too many people would be left out, would become controversial. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too subjective, not sufficiently encyclopedic. Iotha 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The inclusion criterion is too wide, making the list unmaintainable. Had they been more precise, like "List of important commercial families", or something, it would have been a different story.--Kylohk 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now maybe a list of "famous crime families" "famous television families" or "famous political families" would be appropriate, but I think this is just asking for trouble as the inclusion standard is just too low. FrozenPurpleCube 02:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too much WP:OR in deciding inclusion. I dont think TV families would survive either per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Single Dads (2nd nomination) Corpx 05:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it looked anything like the Category:Fictional families but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible to do it right. Especially since when you consider that families such as the Brady Bunch, the Cosbys, and the Simpsons have been identified as "America's favorite TV families" in numerous published works. Or even internationally [38]. I think you might be presupposing too quickly. FrozenPurpleCube 14:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think categories generally follow a looser definition of "list of loosely associated topics". A list, to me, would be a violation of that. That article certainly gives (minor) credence to something like TV families, but I don't think it'd support just a list of them. Just my $.02 Corpx 15:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my suggestion that it look better than the category. Personally, I think that category is less useful than a constructed list would be. FrozenPurpleCube 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impossible to cover fully. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 07:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and as list of internal links. Useight 08:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, the criteria for inclusion is not strict or definite enough Recurring dreams 10:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball this. --Targeman 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft gone mad ... this article would run to hundreds of printed pages if only 5% complete. Blueboy 96 20:44, 25 July 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. Sr 13 07:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Avery Set[edit]

Marked for speedy deletion, but arguably asserts notability. Has a couple of sources, but I don't think they're enough to establish that this band meets WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki 01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable band. Iotha 02:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Moreover, this group has not had a charted hit on any national music chart whatsover. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just go ahead and delete it. I wasn't familiar with the intricacies of the 'notability' policy.

Potency 20:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Not notable, does not need stand alone page. Deliciously Saucy 11:34, 29 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Vital Chapter[edit]

~~Blatant advertising for a~~ non-notable album per WP:MUSIC. I would have suggested a merge to The Panda Band but there is quite literally nothing to merge. (Note: edits to article within an hour of nomination have removed the blatant advertising aspect, but I still argue it should be deleted or merged per the notability criterion as it's really just two tracklists of an album which charted nowhere). Orderinchaos 01:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 01:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep barely notable, but seems to have some following. Iotha 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs trimming, but consensus has stated before that if a band is notable, so are their albums. This band seems to be notable, so the album should stay. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - The album is notable in that it was released in both Australia and the United States - has recieved significant airplay in both Australia and the US but also in the UK Dan arndt 02:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Band is notable for having won awards in their field. This gives their album some notability per WP:MUSIC, especially independent coverage has been found such as[39].--Kylohk 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a blog post. Orderinchaos 02:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have added other independent reviews to justify Dan arndt 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a blog post to me. There may be a community, but it's still like reporting news, I guess. But still, the Australia music online review is sufficient anyways.--Kylohk 02:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howabout the fact that the album has received international airplay in Australia, the US and the UK - just because it didn't chart on the mainstream charts does not make it not notable Dan arndt 03:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence that it did? Orderinchaos 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few references for a start Dan arndt 03:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WUOG 90.5fm - Athens, Georgia
WRUR 88.5fm - Boulder, Colarado

Delete I can't find any information about this band on any national charts, the sources are flimsy at best, and while the WAMI Awards are notable, I don't think any band necessarily gets notability by association with them. Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to The Panda Band There'd be nothing lost in this going into the main band article. —Moondyne 04:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Moondyne. Most arguments on this page are for the notability of the *band*, which is not in dispute, but not for the notability of *this album*. Critical fact - the album has not been a success in any market - no charting positions. One component song's low placing on the Triple J Hottest 100, a statistically unsound survey which does not release its figures or methodology and is based on phone-in and web votes which are easy to stack for low-placed entries, does not accord it notability of any kind. What is here is sufficient to be merged into the Panda Band article however (hence I disagree with the nom that there is "quite literally nothing to merge"). The external links may also need revising as few or none meet Wikipedia's policy on external links. Zivko85 05:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TPH. Album by a notable band is always notable. Long term consensus. Giggy _U^CP 08:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concur that album is from a notable band - is an international release & should be kept 202.71.164.41 10:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC) · 202.71.164.41 (contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep international release. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC) · This vote may have been canvassed - see diff at [40][reply]
Delete And wikipedia wonders why it is insulted? With stuff like this, we are resigned to being a second-rate encyclopedia. Delete per notability. Twenty Years 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iff band is notable than their albums are notable 202.14.152.15 03:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC) · 202.14.152.15 (contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep. The band has had success in both Australia and the US, and this album was nominated the Most Popular Album award at the 2007 WAMi's. --James 03:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User Dan_arndt has engaged in widespread and indiscriminate canvassing for this AfD on the "keep" side - even my talk page was not immune, as I once changed the category on the article. Zivko85 06:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my defence I think if you check you will find that if you check my contributions you will clearly find I have not breached the requirements of WP:CANVASS as any posts have been 'limited', 'neutral' & "nonpartisan'. I have simply placed messages on those individuals who have made contributions to the article on This Vital Chapter or The Panda Band (with the exception of 'bots') and hadn't already made comment asking they they give their views on whether the article be deleted or not. I have not solicited thier support for it's retention as they need to make up their own minds on the matter. Dan arndt 07:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In accordance with the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music) 'If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.'Dan arndt 07:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is not canvassing? "Am happy to see if I can help you out with the above - get it into some form that maybe acceptable - would appreciate if you could assist by supporting the retention of the following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QStik Records and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Vital Chapter". That reads to me, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". This also - "Thanks for the support - appreciated, Could you also make comment regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QStik Records as well?" My suggestion - focus on getting *these* articles into some form that may be acceptable first, then we just might not be here at all. Zivko85 08:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and on re-reading, "then albums may have" is the key word. Zivko85 08:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: what the hell? Albums produced by a notable band are certainly notable themselves. RaNdOm26 09:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, album by a notable band. Why are we even discussing this? Lankiveil 13:31, 29 July 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. Sr 13 07:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Entrepreneurs[edit]

Redundant to Category:Businesspeople and all its subcategories. There are thousands of entrepreneurs with articles on Wikipedia so this list will be unmaintainable, but it appears to be only listing the most well-known ones, and "famous" is subjective and original research. Saikokira 01:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unmanageable and subjective list. NawlinWiki 01:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list is too subjective to be considered encyclopedic. Pats Sox Princess 01:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki. Iotha 01:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable list and how would you determine who would go on? Oysterguitarist 02:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too general.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 03:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep as edited, the guys there seem actually to be famous. That the article could be edited poorly is not a reason for deletion, at least when its being edited well. DGG (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a subjective list. - 52 Pickup 11:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absurdly subjective.--Mantanmoreland 21:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, far too subjective and open to interpretation for any type of encyclopedic coverage. Burntsauce 22:51, 27 July 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. —Kurykh 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catlow (band)[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC - no WP:RS, and only one album. Leuko 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; non-notable. Iotha
Delete, no sources to claim notability, almost an A7 candidate. I added their album to the list here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Oysterguitarist 02:23, 25 July 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. Sr 13 07:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands which permit recordings of their performances[edit]

List of loosely associated topics, as a list, this is a trivial intersection and makes more sense as a category, which is why Category:Taper-friendly musicians and Category:Taper-friendly musical groups already exist. Saikokira 00:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; in this case, there's no need for the list when a category will do quite well. The criteria for inclusion is not necessarily indiscriminate, but too unspecific for the list to be a useful resource (imho). Gracenotes^T § 04:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Loosely associated topics. The references are also iffy to me since they seem user submitted Corpx 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loosely associated topics. Oysterguitarist 06:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the meaning of "loosely asssociated" in this particular case--there is one very specific characteristic used as the criterion, which gives a very specific association. DGG (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant list of Loosely associated topics. Oysterguitarist 07:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A trival intersection. And apparently unsourced. 17Drew 05:30, 29 July 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} 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QStik Records[edit]

Not notable per WP:N or WP:MUSIC, no independent sources available per WP:RS. The West Australian article is about WAM in general. Of the listed bands, only Fourth Floor Collapse is notable, and there is no evidence anywhere that they were associated with this label (Edit: confirmed they were not associated). Orderinchaos 01:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 01:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not entirely sure if there is such a thing as a non-notable record company - by definition they exist to fulfil a need. Category:Australian record labels must surely include just about every one in existence. —Moondyne 02:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was meaning specifically against Wikipedia's guidelines. For comparison's sake, Firestarter Music is of about the same size and prominence within Perth, has three highly notable bands on board, but has no article as it itself is not notable. Orderinchaos 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realised that. They're guidelines only. —Moondyne 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article creator and nominator have discussed the notability issue briefly at Talk:QStik Records. —Moondyne 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are enough to indicate notability for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note: Ref to West Australian doesn't include "stik" or "phantom" anywhere in the text. It's about Sonicbids and WA Music. It only supports the statement "Adam Scott (manager of The Panda Band)" - ie is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. The second reference is a directory listing.Ga rr ie 05:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phantom_Records. The links are give only trivial support to this subject. More third-party coverage is needed to establish enough notability for a separate article. -- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 03:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that the article is notable for the following reasons:
- The record label has assisted in identifying, promoting a number of Western Australian bands nationally and internationally - notably The Panda Band.
- Bands on the QStik label (New Rules For Boats, Rollerskates, Faith In Plastics, The Panda Band) have recieved national and international airplay.
- Bands on the QStik label have won a number of awards, including WAM Song of the Year & West Australian Music Industry Awards.
- The founder of QStik Records, Adam Scott, was nominated for a 'Golden WAMI' for his contribution to the Western Australian music industry and QStik Records nominated for 'Best WA Record label' at the 2007 West Australian Music Industry Awards.

Dan arndt 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at worst Merge to Phantom Records. Clearly non-notable small label with a number of small bands, which is unverifiable from any measure of independent sources per WP:N WP:V WP:RS. The Panda Band's manager was instrumental in forming the label, so it is a tautology to say it "identified and promoted" the band, as it was in effect an arm of the band. The other three bands listed are barely or not notable and to say that far-band community radio represents "national and international airplay" is stretching it (having worked at a community radio station myself, I can say we played just about anything we were sent, and about 300 dedicated listeners cared.) Until these bands are on PMFM like Little Birdy, John Butler Trio, Jebediah, Karnivool, Birds of Tokyo, Eskimo Joe, The Waifs, Nathan Gaunt and however many other Perth bands *can* meet this standard, the label can't even claim to have local market penetration, let alone vague claims of international. Zivko85 05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added comment I have checked independent sources and not *one* confirms the label's notability, beyond WAMI itself, which alone would not be sufficient. The label fails my Factiva test of notability - not a *single* result in any newspaper anywhere in the world, even small ones. The fact that every article down to supplements from the West Australian (the main newspaper of record in its home state with an extensive gig guide) is in there back to 1996, and the Sunday Times to 2001, is really not convincing me this article should be here. Widening the search to just "QStik" or "Q Stik" brings up companies that make Bluetooth compatible equipment in the UK and an Eastern States band with no relation to the label (believe it or not, there is a band called A-Q-Stik.) Compare this to John Butler Trio - I can find a reference to them in December 1999, long before they became the famous band they are today. Zivko85 06:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The international airplay relates to The Panda Band who have had airplay on Xfm London, BB 6 radio and various FM stations around the US such as:

- WUOG 90.5fm - Athens, Georgia
- WRUR 88.5fm - Boulder, Colarado
Delete Once again, we wonder why wikipedia is mocked, once again - another half baked article. Fails WP:N and yes. Thank you. Twenty Years 13:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reporting a blatant attempt of canvassing on this AfD which I have become aware of. There are numerous others in recent days, but these two are the most obvious:

[41] "Am happy to see if I can help you out with the above - get it into some form that maybe acceptable - would appreciate if you could assist by supporting the retention of the following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QStik Records and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Vital Chapter".
[42] "Thanks for the support - appreciated, Could you also make comment regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QStik Records as well?"
Zivko85 08:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- In my defense - firstly you will note my comments regarding support for the article was deleted, upon realising that I was breaching the requirements regarding canvassing (as I was not aware of the requirements). Secondly the other comment is only seeking the user provides feedback not that the user supports the retention - as that is clearly up to that user. This form of cnavassing is acceptable as it is limited & unbiais Dan arndt 09:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searching through news archives and google shows that there is very little written about them. Clearly fails to have sufficient reliable sources. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and particularly the line "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." in the general notability guidelines - Peripitus (Talk) 22:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I feel that they should be notable, but I just can't find the required WP:RS on them. Lankiveil 13:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete non notable label. DanielT5 03:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable label. Keb25 11:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete view - we have had the benefit of a useful talk page discussion. The pivotal point to me is that if the label was notable it would have been written up in a significant, reliable source and this is not in evidence. Bridgeplayer 22:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. Pascal.Tesson 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funky Winkerbean's Homecoming[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Funky Winkerbean's Homecoming

NN musical. I could find no evidence that this has been performed anywhere but in high schools. — MusicMaker 5376 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Funky Winkerbean. Iotha 01:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, even the fansites have scant information. --Dhartung | Talk 02:50, 26 July 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,kinda reliable isn't reliable, and the keep votes are too weak and admit that they can't find solid links to notabilty. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koffin Kats[edit]

This article was tagged for AfD but the listing not completed. I'm going to go ahead and complete the nomination because while I feel there are some assertions about the band made in the article, none of them get it over the hill. The band fails the criteria in WP:MUSIC. —C.Fred (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete the koffin kats entry, it is valid and true and useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erica Blue (talk • contribs) 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep.

I signed up for an account just to post my thoughts here
The band was/is signed to a nationally distributed label (Hairball 8)
They are not indie
They are small label, but are on the national stage
They tour nationally and have a supra-regional presence
I think these facts alone should make them meet any reasonable minimum set of critera
- An interview I did with the singer

Tearaway 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really decide, since I don't know enough about them -- but they get a lot of GHits and some kinda reliable sources talk about them and their albums:
Maybe someone more familiar can figure out the long and short of this? --Haemo 01:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got bored and added some sources to the article itself. I didn't cite them in the article or anything, but if it gets kept I'll clean them up and put some inline citations. spazure (contribs) 09:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice. I agree with the nom that this band is borderline, but falls on the wrong side of WP:MUSIC. Despite the two albums their label is pretty obscure and the sources above do not really meet "in depth coverage" or "multiple, reliable sources". If they eventually make it big the article can be recreated. On the other hand, this is a niche genre, and maybe we shouldn't be too rigid in applying WP:DEL#Reasons for deletion... EyeSerene^TALK 20:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is some coverage kicking around, such as this PDF of a Detroit News story, that indicate they met the national tour part of WP:MUSIC, but I'm not entirely sure if HairBall8 is a notable enough record label to assert the band's notability. Weak delete unless someone turns up more independent coverage. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep WP:MUSIC is a guideline, not set in stone. If they almost meet multiple criteria, but don't pass any individual one 100%, we should decide based on its merits, not a rigid interpretation of policy. Spazure 07:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I absolutely agree with that, but notability here is resting on multiple extremely weak claims. Even taken together it's a stretch to pass this as notable. EyeSerene^TALK 10:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. After doing some looking, I can't find real solid links to back notability but I've never much liked strict adherence to WP:MUSIC... We have more important things to be doing than removing indie acts. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. - BalthCat 06:47, 29 July 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} 05:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuakeAID[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I'm having difficulty seeing how this organization is or was notable. It's claim to fame appears to be not being listed on a number of prominent charity directories. The "Corporate relations and history" section is essentially an attack page based on original research, and exclusively cites press releases from the organization's parent company, the links to which are, unsurprisingly, no longer valid. The "Wikipedia controversy" is original research (a point on which Jimbo agrees). The "QuakeAID.com dispute with WIPO" section is based entirely on primary sources, and seems, though I lack any expertiese in this area, to be a fairly unnotable IP dispute. I looked for sources on Google and elsewhere, and couldn't find any reputable secondary sources establishing any notability here. The previous AfD, from January 2005, seemed to be mostly concerned with the article as self-promotion, a concern addressed perhaps too far in the other direction during and after the discussion. Maxa megalon 2000 00:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might not be popular around here, but this organization is notable for opposing Wikipedia. The controversy is very far from "original research"--just google WikipediaClassAction.org--there are 1,690 hits. Jimbo and others might not like this fact, but we can't just scrub every anti-Wikipedia group off Wikipedia, especially when the group is as notable as these people are. Qworty 01:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's true that this organization has had controversy with Wikipedia and the Intellectual Property Organization. But those incidents don't seem to be widely reported by reliable sources like newspapers, at least when I searched for "QuakeAID" -wikipedia. This implies limited notability for the organization. (Especially there is no evidence of any notable achievements or longevity per WP:CORP).--Kylohk 01:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 90% of this article is original research and synthesis of primary documents in some cases with dodgy weasel words and POV language. They have some mentions in the media but no real notability as demonstrated by depth of coverage in independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 02:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any good content with the relevant Wikipedia history article and redirect. This organization is notable only because Wikipedia is notable, and it has received no significant sole coverage outside its association with Wikipedia. Notability is not inherited. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence of notability via a google search (not the best method, but meh...). By the way, nominator: WP:JIMBOSAID - Jimbo said we shouldn't be quoting what he said in arguments ;) Giggy _U^CP 08:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I actually decided to nominate it before I read that, and just figured a second opinion couldn't hurt. --Maxa megalon 2000 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, primarily on notability and BLP grounds. The largely redundant Greg Lloyd Smith article should probably go as well. --CBD 16:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete: once the OR is removed, there would not be much left, and notability is a bit iffy too. Shame though - it's the first article I've seen whose claim to notability is that it is notable for being non-notable. EyeSerene^TALK 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The original controversy was notable. Yes, some of the detail should be cut & the wording tightened. The fact that this seems to have been a fake charity makes it notable, and there seem to be sufficient sources. But I would reorient the article around the parent company , BAOU, Inc. Agreed, this is borderline. I do not know how others interpret it, but I interpret NPOV and COI as it applies to articles about things related to wikipedia, to mean that if in doubt, or when a subject is of borderline notability, we include articles on those critical of us. Perhaps NPOV/COI are not the right words--a more general term is editorial honesty. DGG (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG, you've hit on the head why this should be merged and redirected. As you said, it was the controversy that is notable. If it was the controversy that was notable, and not the organization in particular for any reason, it should be a part of a relevant history of Wikipedia article. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep It is an integral part of Wikipedia history[43], so the information should be reserved for those that are interested about the past. We should preserve history, not delete and hide it! -- Talamus 18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda Lisanti[edit]

No cites does not read like a Wiki article at all. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, turns up a few reliable Google hits for reports of her death. I would think that if several sources reported on just her death, then maybe she's notable for something. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete she may be notable for something but there are no sources. Oysterguitarist 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It reads like nothing more than a family history. We've recently had a huge problem with people coming to Wikipedia to post their family-history summaries. An article that is of interest only to one family has not established notability for its subject. Qworty 00:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; reads like a family history; the article states she helped create Lisanti Foods. Googling this establishment yields not enough results to easily justify having an article on it's (co?)creator. Iotha 01:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like Lisanti Foods's greatest claim to fame was being one of the largest suppliers of Sbarro's, and "one of the largest" Italian food suppliers. Too little information from WP:RS for a reasonable article on the company let alone the founder. --Dhartung | Talk 02:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATT and WP:NOTE. This is basically an obituary, lacks sourcing, and even makes the case itself that the company is not notable. EyeSerene^TALK 19:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an bituary. And if Lisanti Foods doesn't have an article, that implies that her notability level is not article-worthy. --RandomOrca2 03:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 01:34, 30 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Hikino[edit]

Fails WP:PROF. Claim to notability doesn't really extend beyond being quoted in a single article. fuzzy510 00:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:PROF, WP:N, and WP:BIO. This is an A7 candidate for no assertion of notability Rackabello 00:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, but boy, I sure wish we could keep it around to show all of those editors who think a person is notable just for being a professor. Qworty 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A7, being a profeser does not make you notable. Oysterguitarist 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His books have been reviewed in The New Republic and Business History Review, and one has 1451 citations on Google scholar. That's significant enough coverage that I'd like to see a full AfD, not speedy, so that there is time for clearer evidence of notability (if it exists) to be dug up. —David Eppstein 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a speedy, since he asserts notability. I've removed the tag. Please learn, once and for all, that speedy a7 cannot be used for an article on the person where notability or importance is suggested. WP:CSD. if it is asserted that someone wrote a significant book or article, it asserts notability. speedies are for incontestably non notable, and there are plenty of them--I've been deleting them all day. Those who don't like this --or any other-- policy are welcome to try to change it, but in the meantime everyone is expected to follow it. DGG (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've begun referencing the article and adding some new information (not much yet, but some). I think there's enough information out there to expand the article further, and therefore don't think it should be deleted. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, DGG's and Nihonjoe's edits convince me. @pple 10:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the edits, a publication history that certainly passes WP:V. RGTraynor 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, DGG and Nihonjoe have edited the article enough to help this article pass WP:V, and by association, WP:PROF. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, he's an important contributor to some of the central economic policy debates of our day. --Christofurio 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lacks content and could do with a copyedit, but these are not AfD criteria. The article establishes notability and meets WP:ATT EyeSerene^TALK 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is clearly established via his many published works by various publishing houses. (Mind meal 01:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Which universe is he in? What's his avatar? What superpowers does he have? Does he run on PS2 or on Wii? What's that -- you say he's real? Um, keep. -- Hoary 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and others, not sure how anyone could have come to the conclusion this was even remotely close to speedy deletion material. RFerreira 01:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Aerospace Museum of California after merge. This is not ignoring consensus, but rather this merge and redirect occurred during the discussion. —Kurykh 19:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California Aerospace Academy[edit]

Announcement for a new school which hasn't educated a single pupil yet ("We are currently enrolling 7th and 8th grade students"). No indications of notability, the reference which gives the impression of citing an independent reliable source leads to an empty website of a local newspaper (with 5 Google hits for its name). High on a tree 00:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, possible A7 speedy candidate. Just not a notable school, at least not yet. Possibly a case of WP:CRYSTAL too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and look like WP:CRYSTAL. Oysterguitarist 00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No assertion of notability, a good ol example of jumping the gun. If this were on any organization other than a school it would definitely be an A7 candidate. Per WP policy (saving for obvious attack or nonsense pages) articles on schools can never be speedily deleted, because of the controversy that typically surrounds their deletion, some community members argue that all schools are inherently notable, which is not an opinion I agree with. Rackabello 00:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. My crystal ball shows impending oblivion for this article. Realkyhick 00:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete--We need to get rid of this thing fast, before all of the prospective teachers and prospective students of this prospective school start creating prospective articles about themselves. Qworty 00:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this meets any speedy candidates, save for maybe a G11. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School articles do not qualify under speedy deletion criteria, possibly with the exception of CSD G10 for blatant attack pages. Rackabello 03:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could cite WP:CRYSTAL but it's already been don... damn. Definitely NN too ;) EyeSerene^TALK 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (With Reservation). First, as the original author of the page I want to say a few things. I respect Wikipedia's mission and policies. And after reviewing the notability criteria, and the WP:CRYSTAL guidelines, I do not have an argument against either of these. BUT, I want to state for the record, that all those who posted that it should have a speedy delete, should review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, as they do not seem to apply in this instance, and I think proposing such a thing does not give enough chance for someone to bring up legitimate arguments against the deletion. Also, as a teacher in the Grant district, I am hoping to encourage the students to be bold, and post Wikipedia articles about their school. I think it is an excellent way for them to learn about wikis, and about citing sources, and NPOV and all the other things wikipedia stands for. But when I see people in a mob trying to delete articles so quickly, I would hate to encourage a 10 year old to be bold about writing about their school and have their page deleted under their nose. I think the Wikipedia community should consider this issue with education, especially with kids, and see if it is willing to make exceptions to its notability policy for students posting about their own school. Since I'm not a student, I don't apply to my proposed suggestion, and that is why I too agreed with current deletion. --Pordaria 23:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (substance copied from Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Exception_to_Notability_for_Student_Editors_.28kids.29.3F_Or_not.3F) Encourage the kids to write about ANYTHING but their schools - go to the library, research some notable scientific or historical fact, and create a reliably-sourced WP article on that. Or just contribute by editing. UnitedStatesian 01:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does the article qualify for a speedy now that its author has voted for deletion? Qworty 02:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting "Catch 22" of my argument isn't it? Even though I voted to remove the article, I think my original point about allowing time for people to vote is still reasonable. I don't like seeing "lynch" mobs on these things :-) Also, I think that people should have time to post to my question on the discussion page about notability policy. At this point, I don't think that the consensus or majority will be for my suggestion, but I think it is fair to let others have input in the issue on both forums before doing a speedy deletion. --Pordaria 02:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not a speedy, if there are others who will speak for the article. I will--I'd like to see some discussion of what are the factors in whether a school that is not yet open can be notable. Perhaps there are already sufficient third party stories, since it does seem to be a little unusual and might well become notable. If not, then no prejudice against re-creation after it has gotten some notability. DGG (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as for students writing about their own schools, most of us try to encourage them to learn how to contribute usefully, and get experience on other articles first, and then ask help in rounding up sufficient information to show notability. If it's explained, they understand--many young teen agers are valued contributors here. DGG (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other forum where I posted about the general topic of notability for schools, someone gave me the excellent idea of having students post to the MySchool wiki on Wikia first, so they can learn about wiki editing. I have moved the article from Wikipedia to that wiki. I still think it is good to allow a few more days of discussion, but because a more suitable home for the page has been found, I don't mind a speedy deletion. I think the fact that a speedy deletion was not done, allowed for good discussion about this topic, and coming up with a "win win" solution. --Pordaria 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I founded that wiki and have been waiting for people to notice it. Please feel free to copy any school articles to that wiki, where there are no notability requirements for schools. -- But|seriously|folks 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you really mean to say feel free to transwiki in accordanace with GFDL. Dhaluza 10:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aerospace Museum of California. It is relevant in that context. Dhaluza 01:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 04:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Dhaluza until it enrolls and becomes a real school. Chris 05:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, merge is complete.

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. —Kurykh 19:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balthasar Gerards Kommando[edit]

Seems to pretty well fail WP:MUSIC. Most all (tenuous) claims to notability are based on things that the band's members did while they weren't in this one particular band. fuzzy510 00:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, fails WP:MUSIC Rackabello 00:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC . Oysterguitarist 00:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough at all. Realkyhick 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete! BGK was an important international band of the 1980s hardcore punk era. I used to play them nearly every week on my radio show in Greensboro NC, and they were from Holland. The problem with "notability" and "documentation" is that HARDLY ANYONE WAS DOCUMENTING the early punk/hardcore scene, and if they were, it was in cut-and-paste zines (and I don't mean the kind you do by "right-clicking"). You won't find those zines online anywhere, no matter where you look, but they were the lifeblood of a vibrant music and cultural scene. Years later, punks who are still active in bands talk about BGK for their tight, raging music and right-on politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.203.195 (talk) 19:36, July 26, 2007
- Comment - Please remember that verifiability is one of the corner-stones of Wikipedia. If they were truly that important, some reliable source could probably be found to show this. --Pekaje 22:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in response - If that is the standard, then there's basically no point in allowing any articles about any outsider or fringe culture, which by definition is marginalized and poorly documented. That doesn't mean that the producers of such culture are not influential--it just means that not many people outside the culture grasps that influence. An article about a punk band shouldn't be held to the same sorts of standards as an article about HIV research or the Iraq War. But if you're looking for verifiability of their influence and importance, I think the fact that their entire catalog is being re-released by the seminal US political punk label Alternative Tentacles should be some evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.203.195 (talk) 19:05, July 27, 2007
Delete - Could not find evidence of notability. In fact, I have a hard time even spotting any claim to notability in the article. --Pekaje 22:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, ironically, Wikipedia's own article on hardcore punk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore_punk (sorry I don't know how to link in this lingo), mentions BGK as one of several "notable bands from that era in Europe"...I don't know if you consider that too self-referential, but they passed the "notability" muster for that article at least... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.1.34 (talk) 01:38, July 29, 2007
  - Comment - Actually, it just means that nobody has questioned that phrase in that article. But Wikipedia itself is (like all other open wikis) generally not considered to be a reliable source. See this. --Pekaje 14:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Well, if y'all have your minds set on it, I don't suppose there's anything I can say to change your mind. Like I said, punk rock came from an outsider culture that existed before the internet, spread by homemade fanzines of which there is almost no record online. But I will tell you that I posted a call for help to a punk discussion board and got a few links after about two hours, one of which is a critics' list of the 100 best punk songs of all time...BGK was number 19: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/27/042514.php

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. —Kurykh 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham Bentzion Isaacson[edit]

Not notable as either a rabbi or in South African history as the article seems to claim. There have been hundreds of better known rabbis in South Africa, and there are still many there, but most, like this one, would not deserve "biographies" on Wikipedia that merely seem to be preludes to their obituaries. Violation of WP:NN, WP:BIO, and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. IZAK 06:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 06:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. IZAK 06:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO. EyeSerene^TALK 19:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak keep if the importance of his anti apartheid sermons alluded to can be demonstrated. But the person who did not become chief rabbi is not automatically notable. DGG (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- His sermons and fame in South Africa were totally off the radar. He was outside the country much of his professional life and then he spent it in the shadows. IZAK 06:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Yeshivish 19:15, 27 July 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. Sr 13 07:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Schiowitz[edit]

Although he may be a nice young man with an impressive resume, nevertheless merely being a highly-qualified lecturer in a prestigious Jewish day school simply does not result in what Wikipedia would deem to be notability. Thus this biographical essay/ad violates WP:NN, WP:BIO, as well as WP:NOT#USER. IZAK 07:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. IZAK 07:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he's got some good claims but still not enough to pass WP:NOTE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per TenPoundHammer. Notability is borderline, but I don't think he really meets the criteria of "in-depth coverage" in reliable sources, or his book is "a significant or well-known work". EyeSerene^TALK 19:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Teacher in an eminent school, but that and one published book, even with the review, is not enough by our usual standards. He does not inherit notability from either his eminent teacher or the extremely eminent scholar whose work is the subject of his book. DGG (talk) 04:40, 26 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Wiener[edit]

This is a one line stub about a staff member of a Jewish day school who does not meet any semblance of biographical notability on Wikipedia. Violates WP:NN, WP:BIO, and WP:NOT#USER. IZAK 07:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. IZAK 07:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent sources. Nothing verifiable besides existence. --Huon 10:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO. Where are all these coming from? ;) EyeSerene^TALK 19:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:RS. Any reason this wasn't prod'ed as a CSD A7 in the first place? -- MarcoTolo 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete pending further sourcing./ It asserts notability, so it wasnt a speedy, and if it had been prodded the tag would have been removed, so it's here. this is an important yeshiva high school in a region of many orthodox Jews, and the position is I think equivalent to Dean of Students/spiritual director. That's not enough to show notability, and there is no evidence presented that he is notable even within his profession and denomination. ("staff member" is a little unfair--agreed he's not head of he school, but neither is he the janitor.)DGG (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does saying someone is "esteemed" without any further elaboration count as an assertion of notability? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I've just always thought that valid claims of WP:N required an actual statement of what made the individual/group/institution notable - "Bob Jones was an important <blank>" without support seems to me to fall in the same category as "Jim Smith is a <blank>". Of course, the establishment of notability is based on WP:RS: I guess I'm asking the more basic question "Does a simple adjective serve to indicate an assertion of notability?" Thoughts? (and again, I'm not try to WP:WIKILAWYER, just re-examining my viewpoint). -- MarcoTolo 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Yeshivish 19:18, 27 July 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 per author (WP:CSD#G7)(non-admin close) Haemo 06:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline of AdventureQuest[edit]

Violates WP:NOT, offers no context. Unsourced Rackabello 05:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Speedy Delete G7, tagged Rackabello 06:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. JPG-GR 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G7, author of page blanked it leaving only tag. [44] --_Hdt83 ^Chat 06:08, 25 July 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 A7. Natalie 03:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shane orton[edit]

Either non-notable or non-existent; I can't find anything about this person. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 02:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Youth county cricket club? Non-notable. The Rhymesmith 02:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 (non-notable person). The fact that there's nothing about him online just proves that he's not notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:58, 25 July 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 deleted by Fang Aili per WP:CSD#A7. Resolute 04:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emnat[edit]

Article fails to assert notability of subject as required to pass WP:BAND. Speedy tag removed twice, so moved to AFD. aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 01:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Iotha 02:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an A7, utterly non-notable band. No sources to be seen regarding their notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Gah. Never edit when half asleep. Non-notable band, yeah. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:00, 25 July 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. Sr 13 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Feldman[edit]

This young fellow is one of thousands such people that were sent all over the world by the Chabad movement. Nothing special here. While most of the personalities in Category:Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis are older well-known rabbis, this youngster is certainly not notable enough by Wikipedia's standards. This article, violates WP:NN, WP:BIO, and WP:NOT#USER. (By the way, see the "External link" in the article of this dude on TV -- see Yossi Feldman appearance on national television -- a clip from YouTube that will have you laughing I am sure. And he doesn't even identify himself!) IZAK 10:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 10:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. IZAK 10:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another member of his profession. Beorhtric 11:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a talmid chochom, the dean of a Rabbinical college, and a community rabbi. Yehoishophot Oliver 14:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And that passes WP:BIO how ... ? RGTraynor 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per the WP:BIO criteria. EyeSerene^TALK 19:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete At least to me, nobody is "just another" anything. Nor does it matter how many rabbis Chabad has, each one has to be judges individually., In this case, there does not seem to be any references for notability. It's asserted he heads the rabbinical college of Sydney, but the only reference seems to be an unrelated YouTube video--and a group picture. Personally, I find it unlikely that a 39 year old rabbi, however brilliant, is the dean of an important Rabbinnical college, but perhaps there is some evidence. DGG (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. No reliable evidence of notability and the infobox is about twenty times longer than the article. ;-) RFerreira 02:08, 30 July 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dovid Eliezrie[edit]

Yet another run of the mill Chabad rabbi, one of thousands sent out to spread the "gospel" of their movement, nothing unique (see Shluchim or Shlichim today) and not anywhere as notable as some of the senior rabbis in Category:Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis. This so-called biography fails Wikipedia's standards and thus violates WP:NN, WP:BIO, WP:NOT#USER. IZAK 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep The article definitely needs a lot of work and sources, but he is notable. He's one of the most prominent Chabad representatives and spokesmen, frequently published in the press, someone the press turn to for comment when something strange happens in Lubavitch. If IZAK thinks he's "yet another run of the mill Chabad rabbi", with "nothing unique" about him, then he displays his ignorance of the subject. Zsero 17:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be happy to be enlightened, then. Unfortunately, of the quite scanty 94 Google hits on this fellow [45], all the press references involved blogs, websites, a couple smalltown weeklies, and a single mention of his name in the Forward. Until there are actual sources which are about Reb Eliezrie, instead of passing website quotes from him on other issues, this violates WP:V and WP:BIO, and ~~I'm advocating Delete.~~ Ravenswing 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. There seems to have been a rash of these lately. He may be notable, but this is not established by the article... which is all we can really go by. EyeSerene^TALK 19:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the amount of media mentions, This person has demonstrable wide name recognition. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this google news search, this website and this google search for details. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a well-known writer and spokesperson, as is immediately clear from a google search, on which there are NOT 94 ghits, as was spuriously claimed, but 540!! Ravenswing (perhaps unwittingly) refers to a search for "Dovid Eliezrie" -Wikipedia, which is bound to turn up less sites than a search for "Dovid Eliezrie", for which there are, as I said, 540 ghits. And the fact that the article doesn't reflect that yet is simply because it's a STUB! Get it? It's not yet had a chance to be developed. As for what one can "go by", after a cursory examination of sites on google, you'll see that his notability is confirmed enough that you can leave the stub, and then it can be developed. I for one have no interest in developing a stub that is going to be deleted in 5 days time because 5 days earlier it was a stub. Yehoishophot Oliver 04:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Far from "spurious," unless you believe that it is somehow spurious to remove Wikipedia and Wiki mirrors from a Google search, or "unwitting" to provide a link to the actual search I performed, as opposed to making something up. As it happens, quite aside from ignoring WP:AGF, you also failed to review those links, because if you trail to the end of your "540" search (and 540 Google hits is in of itself scanty; I get 1600, myself, and have a few more publications in print than Mr. Eliezrie seems to have), only 79 unique hits show up [46] with no more media references than before. And that is the rub; it isn't that we're picking on a poor innocent stub, it is that we neither believe the subject is notable, nor that he passes WP:V, nor that the stub can never be expanded through reliable sources. I would be happy to change my stance should you or anyone else provide such sources, and it is my overwhelming experience in AfD debates that an article which cannot be provided with such sources within five days wasn't notable enough to be provided within fifty. Ravenswing 06:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps it would be useful to add some of these references to the actual article? If they exist, add the most important, so we can all judge if they are significant. It's just as easy as protesting here. Id he supporters won;t improve the article, what is anyone else to think? DGG (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uh, I apologise, Ravenswing, I see now what you mean now about the mirror wiki sites. I'm still learning the technical ropes here. Sorry. Yehoishophot Oliver 10:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A more appropriate Google search is this one. The number of results goes up to 1,110 - but what's important is that most of the notable sources are under "David," not "Dovid." This page contains more than enough evidence to substantiate the notability of this article. --XDanielx 11:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still not sold on the fellow's notability -- for one thing, the media links aren't about him -- but a number of op-ed pieces in the Jerusalem Post is enough to take me off the Delete list. Should the article be renamed "David" if that's the name by which he's more familiar? Ravenswing 13:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure about the naming; perhaps another editor will be able to clarify. I agree that reporting in a newspaper doesn't really satisfy notability guidelines, but I think his fairly wide array of articles justify a weak keep. Unlike most other reporters, Eliezrie's articles are more like publicized essays. Commonly journalists will "ask the experts" and summarize the findings, whereas Eliezrie in general produces more original work -- and the media groups he writes for seem to accept him as an academic authority. I realize that those media groups aren't the most prestigious, but I think it suffices for a weak keep. --XDanielx 04:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Can't have an article for every rabbi... Number 5 7 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IZAK. The amount of articles that he authored doesn't impress me - they are written by him, not about him. Getting articles published in the Jerusalem Post just doesn't cut it for notability.--DLand ^TALK 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many of his articles tie into his own knowledge and personal experiences. See for examples this article, which in a short piece uses the words "I" and "we" 24 times. Many of them have an argumentative focus, and the arguments seem to come from his own knowledge or experience rather than a "consult the experts" section. So many (most? all?) of them are not only written by him, but also about him, or at least his ideas. I think the distinction between a common journalist and and essayist who publishes columns in media publications is an important one. --XDanielx 08:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete writing a few op-ed pieces is not independent and notable coverage. I agree with IZAK. Jon513 13:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It pains me to 'delete' a Rabbi, but WP is not a directory. With God's help, this rabbi will do great things and warrant an article on his merits. --Shuki 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have until fairly recently shared the sentiments expressed by Shuki here, however, we cannot lose perspective, and only highly notable rabbis should be worthy of biographies, otherwise Wikipedia will be flooded with pointless articles about any and all "village and town" rabbis who ever walked the face of the Earth. IZAK 22:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Since Wikipedia is driven by policies and common sense rather than precedent, the slippery slope argument doesn't bear much weight. --XDanielx 19:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable as explained by Zsero, PinchasC, Yehoishophot Oliver and XDanielx. Chocolatepizza 03:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Yeshivish 06:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Slippery slopes and Google tests aside, there's simply not enough sourceable material to write a proper article here. Sidatio 19:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existing article doesn't rise to the standards demonstrated by his peers in Category:Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis, and googling for his name under various spellings doesn't (at least yet) identify enough reliable sources to be able to imagine that the article can improve enough to establish WP:N per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Kayaker 22:02, 1 August 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. Sr 13 02:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% ProLife PAC[edit]

Contested speedy. Non notable political action group. Article provides no third party references. A search on "100% ProLife" returns 21 unique GHits, the majority of which are not about the group and none of which are reliable sources Nuttah68 20:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established per WP:ORG, and unsourced (per WP:ATT). An advocacy group with possibly notable members, but the group itself seems to be NN. Googling "100% ProLife PAC" only gives 3 hits: one to WP, one to the group's site & one to a political endorsement. EyeSerene^TALK 20:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional tone (WP:NOT a soapbox). Fails notability per WP:ORG, WP:RS. -- MarcoTolo 22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the speedy as it asserted importance, but the article seems to have no 3rd party documentation, and I too can find no additional sources. DGG (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Subject is WP:NN, and article has no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 19:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Maxa megalon 2000 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gasser[edit]

Mark Gasser may indeed be a notable musician. However, I have been unable to verify most of the facts given in this article with reliable sources, and the main author(s) has ignored repeated requests for citations leading me to believe that this article is mostly original research. Given that 'the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth' I am bringing it to AfD. Delete unless citations to reliable sources are provided.-- Jeremy (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had a look - I think several points are established (eg by the Independent article) and others are not. I would favour the article being pruned to reflect this. (The main author seems to be editing from an i.p. at the au University at which Mark Gasser lectures.) -- roundhouse0 12:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Independent article is mostly about the music played at a particular concert and, other than mentioning that he is the performer, barely mentions Mark Gasser. The other reviews are much the same. The university web page provides basic biographical information, but should be treated as a primary source as such pages are usually written by the person that they are about. I am unconvinced that Mark Gasser has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as per Wikipedia:Notability). —Jeremy (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. Not primarily an educator, but there is a significant part of the article devoted to his pedagogy. —David Eppstein 17:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep afd is not an tool to mark for improvement. it is for deletions. your argument is that it needs citation, so mark it with citation requireds and if they don't improve it in 6 months, then afd it. --Buridan 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated this article not to mark it for improvement but because I (and others) have previously marked it for improvement but to no avail. I therefore decided to seek out reliable sources myself and I have been unable to find them. Because of this I think that this article fails the key test of verifiability and is therefore a candidate for deletion. —Jeremy (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Went through the links provided by the author and sorted them. This may be a borderline case of notability, since Gasser appears to be notable in a professional music circle. I suggest stubbifying the article, "pruning" it as Roundhouse0 put it. —AldeBaer 03:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably the main author - I will leave it up to you guys with what you want to do with it. However he is certainly well known within the profession and is one of very few people to have performed the Stevenson Passacaglia on DSCH this is mentioned in the new Stevenson biography "Ronald Stevenson - A Symposium" by Martin Anderson which was just released under Toccata Press. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobbyfred (talk • contribs) 03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please feel free to prune this down if needed - this may be the best option. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobbyfred (talk • contribs) 03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The link to Carnegie Hall verifies he's notable. Joke - A tourist visiting New York City asks a passerby, "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" The New Yorker responds, "Practice, practice, practice!" Bearian 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
great joke! I have now added proper references and hope that we can take this off the items for deletion list. I have removed a lot of the sections which were not needed and added more citation. When can we take it off the list if you all agree to this as the way forward? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.77.2.131 (talk) 01:15, 28 July 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.

Terry Gooderham and Maxine Arnold[edit]

Stacey Queripel[edit]

Chesa Boudin[edit]

Harry Barham[edit]

Criticism of Pokémon[edit]

Morgan the Escapist[edit]

Reaction Snowboards[edit]

Wrest[edit]

Professional Wrestling Federation[edit]

PWF Texas Panhandle Championship[edit]

40-40-40 club[edit]

Hampton Towne Centre[edit]

Vale Community[edit]

Sarah Kunstler[edit]

Goof Ball[edit]

Donald B. Cole[edit]

Leslie Mahaffy[edit]

Alistair Rooney[edit]

Grey goo in fiction[edit]

Erebus (Band)[edit]

Cengiz Pehlevan[edit]

Power Vector[edit]

Admiral (Star Trek)[edit]

Guys Gone Wild[edit]

Pop princess[edit]

The Jamaica[edit]

Bambi Lashell[edit]

Amarillo Bible Church[edit]

Balder in popular culture[edit]

Will Wikle[edit]

Karen O'Neil Ganci[edit]

Adria Montgomery-Klein and Natalie Montgomery-Carroll[edit]

Ren (Middle-earth)[edit]

Brewing Time for Tea[edit]

Wilpered[edit]

Gooer Remote Desktop Service[edit]

Ronelio ramil[edit]

Online video game rental[edit]

Reserva ecologica de Yasuni[edit]

Lemon shoulder(drinking game)[edit]

Cmystudios[edit]

Nanotechnology in fiction[edit]

Frank Wiafe Danquah[edit]

Trip Lee[edit]

Patrick van Aanholt[edit]

Kim Hyun-kyu[edit]

Shot of 5[edit]

Yaviah[edit]

Chata-hradna[edit]

Lito y Polaco[edit]

Cultural references to accountants[edit]

Alexis Y Fido[edit]

Swissvale Borough Police Department Pennsylvania[edit]

Systemic Anomaly (Error)[edit]

Barrow Indoor Market[edit]

Section break[edit]

The Best Rapper Alive[edit]

The Hunters (Starcraft map)[edit]

Proto-Protestants[edit]

Patrick McLaughlin (footballer)[edit]

Laura Vlasak Nolen[edit]

List of basilisks in fantasy fiction and games[edit]

Darren Lough[edit]

Televinylcommunicatorium[edit]

Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager)[edit]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing[edit]

Second arbitrary break[edit]

Third arbitary section break[edit]

Oni in popular culture[edit]

Sunny Bebop Balzary[edit]

Dead Or Alive(album)[edit]

List of The Closer broadcasters[edit]

Nola Marino[edit]

Agnus Serra[edit]

Jason Wright[edit]

List of transcriptions of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach[edit]

Wendy Northcutt[edit]

Göteröd[edit]

Deep K Datta-Ray[edit]

Simon Fieldhouse[edit]