< July 25	July 27 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was tentatively delete. Simply put, notability was not established. Note that I discounted the Nature source since the person citing this subscription-only publication failed to establish what exactly was written there. Feel free to provide the pertinent excerpt on the talkpage for reconsideration (although it seems unlikely; if Nature termed it the best of its class, surely there'd be ample mention elsewhere. El_C 19:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tranche (software)[edit]

I tagged this for speedy deletion for notability, which was contested so I've brought it here. This is niche software apparently in development about which i know nothing and a Google search for "Tranche software" brings up very little. The talk page contains what may be useful background. --ROGER ^TALK 10:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absent independent reviews, Tranche still doesn't appear to meet any of the three web notability criteria. --ROGER ^TALK 18:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Google "Tranche". We're the 6th hit and rising. Tranche is one of the first big efforts for actually sharing large data sets. It did start in a relatively obscure field; however, it has had massive adoption and currently hosts several of the NCI and NIH sponsored data sets. Check out the user docs for examples at http://tranche.proteomecommons.org. Please realize that Tranche has been around for about a year. It is actively developed, but is far from "apparently in development". Go launch the Tranche tool http://tranche.proteomecommons.org. You'll see that it is far more than vaporware. I clearly think that it is fair to keep a wikipedia page on Tranche. It is real, and proper citations exist for it. If you disagree, I'll ask others to post here. I bet I can get several dozen fairly quickly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.27.110 (talk • contribs)
Comment. "If you disagree, I'll ask others to post here. I bet I can get several dozen fairly quickly." This is meatpuppeting, and is a bannable offence. Further, the major issue here is notability. If you want to keep the article without violating policy, the best thing you can do is add references to where this software is discussed or reviewed by third-party reliable sources, which I see there is already one there, maybe. Someguy1221 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking others to post to say "keep", is puppetting. Asking others who may know of references to make positive contributions to the encyclopedia is not. DGG (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Proteomics is a relatively new field largely defined by the software advancements made in the field. (See SEQUEST). The development of new software directly affects the advances in the field, and hence the history of the field is by large the history of its software. As the gentlement who responded to the last comment pointed out, there are references at the bottom. I just added a link to slides hosted on nih.gov, and there is an entry from the ASMS site. The software is notable as a bridge between researchers and large Proteomic software projects. As a testimony to the software's significance, beyond the federal funding, many research institutions host servers for the core Tranche network, which you can browse on the Google map of Tranche servers. I hope to see even more Proteomic (or, more broadly, Bioinformatic) tools in Wikipedia. Looking at the external link section of the Proteomics page will show the significance of the software tools to the science. --Bryan (hrunting5)
Comment: Sorry if the posts appeared to be meatpuppeting. Several people are excited about the project, and the "quick delete" on Wikipedia surprised us. Please don't take offense, I'll advise the folks affiliated with Tranche to carefully consider your warning. I think most people understand that there is no voting on Wikipedia. Jayson Andrew Falkner 01:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article is not nearly as well sourced as Linux or Emacs, but it is drastically better-sourced than Window Maker or Ratpoison. Iknowyourider (t c) 02:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't think notability has been established. The sources lead back to proteomic and are scarcely independent. Against that, the article is now in better shape and looks more encyclopedic. --ROGER ^TALK 06:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the brouhaha, notability has not been established. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Notability is not a particularly high barrier (which is all the more reason for not lowering it) and, if this software is as good as everyone claims, it will soon attract copious comment from reliable independent sources. Deleting the article is of course no bar to recreating it once the specific objections have been addressed. --ROGER ^TALK 09:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet the notability criterion based on the comments above and the references supplied. Roger--please note that CSD:A7 only applies to articles about people, groups, companies and web content; it is not a catch-all notability clause. And even for these cases, it can only be used when notability is not even asserted, not just when it appears non-notable. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. In this case, it didn't seem that notability had been asserted when I CSD'd it and also it seemed to me to be web content. (The guideline says that any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered ... as web content.) Also, absent independent reviews, Tranche still doesn't appear to meet any of the three web notability criteria.--ROGER ^TALK 15:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. This case is certainly not a clear-cut one. Owen× ☎ 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're cherry-picking your argument... WP:WEB talks about web *content* and says nothing about web programs or web software (which is a deficiency in that guideline)... i would argue that in the context and examples in WP:WEB, 'content' refers only to data and information, period, it says nothing about operational software... my personal belief is that glib and libertine interpretations of these so-called 'notable' guidelines by non-experts in the field have led to the mass destruction of many valuable Wiki pages about software which will never be recovered... let me quote the WP:GD here:

first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

using speedy delete is an end-run around this bit of tolerance and wisdom... my 2 cents, for what it's worth - 69.235.255.45 12:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying in your paragraph order:

WP:WEB talks about any web content. The any must therefore include download content. Plus, footnote #1 makes it clear that content includes product, it lists types. No cherry-picking there.
See Talk:Tranche (software) I did do the homework and found no independent sources to conform notability. If I'd found one, I'd have included it and removed the tags myself. I have no axe to grind on this either way.

--ROGER ^TALK 21:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're cherry-picking because you choose to see this important program as web content only and as downloadable content only! it's also an operational software program used by researchers around the world to distribute, share, and backup important research data using the internet much the same way as Wikipedia does! it's not just another bit of web content, it's not just another product, it's not just another computer program... it is kin to Wikipedia itself! - 76.195.146.40 18:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (i discovers the triple-quote! thanks, Rog =)[reply]

Comment: "Kin to Wikipedia itself" isn't really a valid argument against deletion, in my opinion. There's plenty of software out there that shares some of the ideals of the Wikipedia project, and which aren't necessarily notable enough to feature an article in Wikipedia. (I'd say that anything open-source falls into this category.) It's not a persuasive argument. Best, Iknowyourider (t c) 19:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note about cherry-picking The web-content stuff is irrelevant to this current discussion: it's one of the technical grounds for qualifying for Speedy Deletion. Which this isn't. --ROGER ^TALK 19:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey wait a second you're the one who keeps bringing up web content non-notability as grounds for deletion... see your comment at the top of page:

Absent independent reviews, Tranche still doesn't appear to meet any of the three web notability criteria. --[[User:Roger Davies]|Roger] 18:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

looks like a web content argument to me... that link points off to the guideline for web content notability criteria... again i say, Tranche is more than mere web content, it's an internet program - 76.195.146.40 12:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to determine a clear consensus. -- John Reaves 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
comment I have always assumed "web content" meant content distributed over the web, and was included in speedy as a criterion because so much of what was distributed only over the web was unquestionably not worth a WP article, and even a non-expert could decide. It doesn't include other computer software, most of which needs a little more careful and expert discussion than a speedy. DGG (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's an interesting one, isn't it? I brought it up here for review. Your 2¢/2p there would be appreciated. --ROGER ^TALK 05:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, please see my comment to Roger above about cherry-picking... if what you're talking about is just web content, i.e., just data, just information, then sure, a non-expert could decide... but Tranche is not just web content, it is an operational software system for doing important work on the web, just as Wikipedia is/does... in that case i think you need an expert, or at least you non-experts have proven to me that an expert is required to judge... an analogy: what happens if in the future we decide any "information" that is "common knowledge" among a populace is non-notable and non-encyclopedic because, well, everybody just knows it, learns it in school or from tv... then does that mean we should delete "The Battle of Gettysburg" or "The Challenger Disaster" or "Hurricane Katrina" from the Wikipedia just because it meets the criteria of being "common knowledge"??? but this reflects your attitude... oh, it's web content, it's distributed over the web, therefore it falls in the same category as any old blog crap... this is software, this is a program, this is a running system, it does something... and in this case it does something very important, related to cutting-edge biological research...

and it really gets me when you editors misinterpret guidelines for your own agendas... like the concept of "original research"... i read that to mean any old crap that any old person on the planet makes up... it is not intended to apply to recognized researchers in a field doing cutting-edge research!

this would not be important at all, or as galling to me, except for the fact that speedy deletion is swift and final... and goes against the spirit of Wikipedia when applied willy-nilly to articles about which the deleter knows nothing...

here's an excerpt from the WP:IAR article "Wikipedia:What 'Ignore all rules' means":

If you do what seems sensible, you will usually be right, and if not, mistakes are easy to correct. That's a good thing, because we all make them. No matter how bad the mistake, the old version remains in the revision history and can be painlessly restored. If we come to a disagreement as a result, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do. (emphases mine)

well... my understanding is, if you do speedy delete there is no recourse, there is no 'old version', there is no revision history, there is no discussion, there is no weighing, there is nothing to figure out, there is no consensus, there is nothing to restore or look back on or check or have a look-see to see what could make it better or turn it into a stub or nothing... you have hammered it out of existence...

i think i saw something in one of the 'guidelines' that says articles like this should be turned into stubs, with requests for fixing and enhancing, rather than delete out-of-hand just because you feel like it... i guess we'll never know how many valid articles have been deleted off of Wikipedia just for these reasons

my two cents - 76.195.146.40 00:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion is long enough already, so I'm going to keep my replies terse. Not intended to be curt; just concise.

Your point about the (in)applicability of speedy deletion isn't really relevant, as the article isn't currently up for speedy deletion. I believe we should focus on the current AfD process.
Speedy deletion is pretty swift, but it is not final. Although things like page history are hidden, an administrator can recover the article text. See also WP:USERFY and WP:DRV.
I think everyone would appreciate it if comments like "...rather than delete out-of-hand because you feel like it" or statements that others "misinterpret guidelines for their own agendas" were kept out of the discussion. That's not constructive. Assume good faith.
Not everyone is an expert in computer science, bioinformatics, and proteomics. That doesn't mean you get to talk down to them.

I understand that you care about this topic, dude, but I think you might find it helpful to chill out a little. If you have more reliable sources regarding Tranche that you can provide, and that will help assert its notability, please do so. Cheers, Iknowyourider (t c) 08:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're right, i agree... trying to chill... but i would defend any article of scientific interest the same way, regardless of my expertise... it's not talking down to someone if you point out they are acting out of their depths... i see the same discussions about notability in art here on Wikipedia... i'm just more squeeky wheel then eloquent editor at this point, and i apologize if i verbally berserk... i didn't know about hidden recover and WP:USERFY and WP:DRV... thank you for your kind direction... i just hate losing any information of value...

oh, and i keep bringing up web content, not speedy delete, because that's one of the reasons given as to why this article should be deleted... see Roger's comment at the top of this page about web notability criteria... the topic of speedy delete i'm harping on in whatever forum i find... but here i'll limit my comments from now on, it's just i've chosen this as battleground 1... thanks again - 76.195.146.40 12:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure why speedy deletion offends you so much. Have you read WP:CSD? It's pretty narrow in scope and really only applies to things that obviously shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. You also might want to watch Special:Newpages for a while for some insight into why we need speedy deletion. Cheers, Iknowyourider (t c) 16:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment and i apologize to any and all who find my remarks offensive - 76.195.146.40 12:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 02:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Too bad we don't have WP:SOFTWARE anymore, but I don't think WP:WEB strictly applies. In any case this fails WP:N at this time although it comes with a pretty strong pedigree. --Dhartung | Talk 03:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:N due to coverage here and here (Nature subscription required). JulesH 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you think that the sources amount the guideline's requirement of significant coverage?

Yes. Significant is difficult to define in this context, but due to the fact that both of these articles are from highly reputable sources and that they effectively describe this software as the best in its class, I feel that they mean the article is warranted. I also assume there is more coverage I have not looked at... I only looked at the first two pages of google results (for tranche proteomics) to find these articles, and there were many, many pages. JulesH 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Disagree that it's significant coverage. The Proteomics Journal is just a general roundup of available software, describing Tranche as "one approach" to "an existing need" and "the largest public repository etc". By way, "tranche proteomics" only gets seven Ghits with me (two of which are their YouTube promo). --ROGER ^TALK 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well referenced, multiple external links. Though not necessarily notable, it is verifiable. J-stan ^Talk 03:01, 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 result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Family Reunion[edit]

Non-notable. Reads more like a vanity page. Also, the article's content is suspect; there is no such organization called "United States of Family Services" according to Google. --Uthbrian (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I call WP:BOLLOCKS - on account that it redlinks to an agency whose only link to existence, according to Google, is in... guess what, this article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as vanity (spam) with serious notability issues to boot. wow. Pharmboy 01:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V and WP:N, probably a hoax anyway. Asserts notability, so hard to call it speedy eligible. --Dhartung | Talk 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. If the content of this article were verifiable, it would merit being merged into Family reunion rather than being a separate article. --Metropolitan90 04:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources supporting these (dubious) claims of notability. NawlinWiki 19:45, 27 July 2007 *(UTC)
Delete - not even clear if its asserting to be the "first" (i.e. original) vs. the "First" family, etc.Cander0000 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Vanity or hoax. Bearian 22:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete complete nonscence one paragraph and that does not make sence which is about some thing completely made up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Delighted eyes (talk • contribs) 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amish episode[edit]

WP:NOR. If this is a notable and known phenomenon in American and Canadian series then sources describing it would be easy to find, but when an article has statements like, Presumably, this is because the Amish represent an "exotic" culture, that usually means it's just original research. Saikokira 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure OR. --Eyrian 00:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. Loose connections all over. Title of article not clear on article's content, but that is easy to change - though, not enough to keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree original research. Pharmboy 01:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, WP:NFT, and WP:NEO. The use of technology rejectionists is a longstanding trope in speculative fiction but doesn't really have a name that I've heard of. --Dhartung | Talk 03:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 11:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, especially Dhartung. The title seems like the topic of a panel at a Con. Bearian 22:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. J-stan ^Talk 03:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete: Circumventing a block is inherently a disruptive edit (vandalism, WP:CSD#G3), and the original editor was blocked by another administrator as a sockpuppet of a blocked user. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AnimeLand[edit]

The article provides no reliable sources for ever expanding claims. For a show that has premiered yet, there's an astounding amount of trivia, even talking about its second season. It is just over-the-top enough that I suspect it may be a hoax, or at worst, original research. It also makes no claims about what network it will air on. Therefore, it is a television show that does not assert notability and cannot be verified. —C.Fred (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense. I found nothing on Google to corroborate the article's claims, and Cartoon Network's website has absolutely nothing on it. Complete and utter balls. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, the article is cohesive enough that it doesn't qualify as patent nonsense, so it's not eligible for speedy under G1. —C.Fred (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block creator; this article has been deleted once before and the creator is a sock of banned user Danny Daniel. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing the pattern for the sockpuppet accusations, and the article is not eligible for speedy under G4, since it wasn't deletion by AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then again, another admin blocked him as a sockpuppet, so the article is vandalism by definiton. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Capp glossary[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, specifically Wikipedia articles are not usage guides or slang and idiom guides. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep, or a British gent. Other gloassaries exist, but they are for words specific to the topic. Most if the words here are in common everyday use. This is the same as having a Calvin and Hobbes glossary and including translations like In the United States they refer to autumn as "fall". Saikokira 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a, uh, comic book's dialect dictionary. --Haemo 23:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename. It seems the article could be salvaged somehow, as Andy Capp is certainly notable, and the content adds context to the Comic itself. It is more than just a list in this context, and the article explains this and why the terms are important. As they are not "real" definitions, I can't buy the "wikipedia is not a dictionary" arguement, however, since purpose isn't to give 'real' definitions but to explain the words used. Change name to anything besides "glossary" though. Pharmboy 23:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We already have dozens of ~~Cockney~~Miscellaneous Britspeak-American dictionaries out there, this one doesn't need to exist. The tie to Andy Capp is especially shaky, seeing as he's not the only one who talks that way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is all this about cockney slang? Andy is a Georgie - quite different. --Bduke 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I'm a Yank, so what do I know about Brit slang? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Smythe heavily watered down the NE dialect. The strip had to appeal to a generic working class readership, so the majority of it is generic 1950s colloquial English. Gordonofcartoon 00:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:DICT is very clear about "slang, jargon, or usage guides". It's also probably original research in producing a novel synthesis of material from Andy Capp and dictionaries. Plus, as TenPoundHammer says, very little of it is unique to Andy Capp. Gordonofcartoon 00:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inferring definitions from the usage of words would be WP:OR Corpx 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TenPoundHammer. --Metropolitan90 04:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haemo - I'll defend genuinely encyclopedic glossary list articles to the death, since MoS explicitly recognizes them as valid, at WP:SAL, but cor blimey, this innit one of'm, mate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, I haven't seen Andy Capp in years. I enjoyed the article, and appreciate that the author has written it very well. However, I tend to agree that we shouldn't have an article about terms used in a particular comic strip. Part of the fun of Andy Capp was that, growing up, I had to figure out what the slang words meant by reading them in context. The same can be said of Snuffy Smith, the Appalachian counterpart to Mr. Capp (speaking of which, there used to be some mixup on the names of Andy Capp and Li'l Abner creator Al Capp). My point is that fans of the strip don't need the article; persons who are not fans won't read the article. Consider adding to the existing Andy Capp article for some of the more obscure terms. But no merge, by any means. Andy would be the first to say "'up it!" if Flo brought a bloomin' dictionary into his world. Mandsford 15:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Otto4711 16:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell, none of this seems to be truly specific to Andy Capp: it's mostly just common UK slang, and in some cases not even that (carry on? dustbin? shocking?). While this is clearly a good-faith contribution that the creator put a lot of effort into, the underlying thinking is just misguided. Think about it: the word "rad" was used on the sitcom Full House, but does that mean there should be a "Glossary of Full House"? No, because it's a common and widely-used slang term which is neither exclusive to Full House nor originated there, just as "dustbin" is far from exclusive to Andy Capp. If any of the included words are exclusive to Andy Capp (and I don't see any) they should be merged into the main article. Finally, extremely vague sourcing like "Andy Capp strips, 1957-1985." is not acceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICT, WP:N. J-stan ^Talk 03:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blast Arena Advance[edit]

Homebrew game, not even a slight hint of notability ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. None of the sources are any good, completely non-notable. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 02:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though I don't like to do so because I know the creator through IRC... but it doesn't meet notability guidelines --Darksun 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE and the analysis put forth by Corpx. --Aarktica 20:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

25 Must See Bollywood Movies[edit]

I was going to tag this as a speedy for obvious copyvio (the article it's copied from says Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited.) but the last time I tagged a list like this as CSD G12, the tag was removed by someone who said lists aren't copyrightable. Either way, it's a non-notable list. We shouldn't start creating articles about articles if they're NN. Saikokira 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Must See" is hardly encyclopedic. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, opinion piece as original research (this can't be 'objective') or infringing, and a list can't be copyrighted but any analysis or opinion with it, or the actual compilation itself can be. Pharmboy 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to make a copy of a list made by somebody else, when that's all there is to talk about it Corpx 02:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is only about somebody's favourite movies, and does not show any notability why this article should be kept. RaNdOm26 11:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree it is somebody's favourite films not encyclopedic and an opinion. Harlowraman 11:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete because of copyright violation and POV. Sadly, this is a boring list of titles with no explanation about why one "must see" any of these films. If we were to change one letter, it would be obvious why a list with the title of "25 Must See Hollywood Movies" would need to be deleted. As the article itself indicates, there are non-POV articles including List of highest-grossing Bollywood films and List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in overseas markets. Mandsford 15:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially nom, Pharmboy, Corpx, and Mandsford. Bearian 22:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete – this is, no doubt, a highly controversial article - and this closure, no doubt, highly controversial as a result. Many users have put forward many arguments, some with more basis than others, and so I wouldn't feel secure closing this as a "No Consensus". First off, the numbers: I've tried very hard not to tot up a tally of Keep v. Delete !votes, and I'm quite proud not to have; however, just for the record - I get the general feeling that it's neck and neck.

However, having scrutinised the debate, the comments and the !votes, I have come to the conclusion that the Wikipedians who have pushed for "Delete" have presented the more thorough argument: not only have they put forward several key policy points - the article is Original Research, it's a Content Fork, it doesn't adhere to a NPOV - they also make more sense: this does read like a college essay that somebody has transferred to Wikipedia; and, I must admit it is a little creepy. As a result of the overall more impressive, influential and more sensible argument put forward by those !voting "Delete", I'm deleting this article as a result of what I interpret to be the Consensus established and expressed in this debate. Anthøny 19:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film[edit]

First off, this article is filled with listcruft. Second, I don't think this is a discriminate and notable encyclopedic topic. Every type of human relationship possible has been exhibited in film and literature, and a list compiling examples for each one is unnecessary, and may give undue weight to the importance of that relationship in fiction. What's next? Mothers and daughters in film? Friendship in films? What's with the self-referential material that comprises the introduction? The bottom line is: this article is a POV fork, WP:SYN original research intended to prove positive the unerring importance of "intimate relationships" between men and boys. Disturbing, to say the least. Any factually accurate citations and conclusions it might possibly include are better discussed under the general friendship article. Why is it so important that it be between men and male children? General subject matter aside, why only positive relationships? VanTucky ^(talk) 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely reads like an essay, but I don't agree with the listcruft assessment. I think maybe, if someone could go through this with a fine-toothed comb you might be able to prune a good article out of it. Right now, though, it smacks of a well-sourced college essay that someone added to Wikipedia. --Haemo 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV OR etc. Also, this article would encourage a ((Negative friendships between men and boys in literature and film)). Wouldn't that be fun! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; disturbingly well-sourced but still indiscriminate and highly POV list which risks both violating WP:BEANS and inspiring press accounts such as this. Heather 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, the primary reason for the existence of this article is some kind of pedophile/NAMBLA sub-text. There are a few articles like this, such as Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films, which primarily exists as a guide for pedophiles to know what movies they might wan to watch. I'm probably just being cynical, I'm sure the edit histories of the editors of these types of articles will show they work on a whole range of articles, not just the pedophile-interest ones. I hope I don't offend any NAMBLA members. Saikokira 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The actual article talks about other friendships as well, not just men/boys --perhaps it should be retitled to show the broader subject. I think there is good material there, but it needs more careful organization. DGG (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that POV and OR are issues, and think nothing good can possibly come from it. Pharmboy 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicted keep - I looked at this article the other day and had the "NAMBLA flash" about it, but I feel that an examination of this sort of relationship does have some encyclopedic value assuming that it's based on reliable secondary sources. There is a danger of POV pushing here (although the NAMBLA talk in this discussion strikes me as more than a little gratuitous) but rather than deletion the concerns with this article should be thrashed out on the talk page. Otto4711 02:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not nominating this for deletion because it simply needs work. Several of the sections are decently written and most of it is properly sourced. The subject as a whole is not worthy of encyclopedic treatment in a separate article, as the article is patently original research in that it compiles sources and information to make a case for the importance of the subject. It's also a blatant POV fork. It's a slightly impressive effort, but it's still fundamentally not neutral and never could be by it's very scope and definition. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete At the risk of seeming WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm inclined to agree with nom. It's one of "those" articles where it has no glaring faults, but walks a fine line between relevance and irrelevance, while being neither abjectly harmful nor obviously useful...ultimately though, I think the higher standard should prevail. Maybe the user would care to userspace it. Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 09:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as well. I've had issues about this article since I first saw it linked to The Cider House Rules. It does read like a college essay, and the subject seems to be far too broad to be truly encyclopedic, and although it seems to be referenced, I have problems with the subjectivity of the subject matter, as I voiced on the talk page a while back. Who is to say what relationships are positive? Why is this academic? IS it academic? It may be construed as irrelevant and WP:OR. The creator of the article obviously is very passionate about this subject (and others: see Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) and other associated articles), but, you know. Squick. María (críticame) 14:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well I would say that, wouldn't I, having compiled the article. The NAMBLA references above are pretty insulting, but otherwise your comments are measured. 'Negative' friendships are well documented and I've contributed many of them and this article adds balance. It allows anyone searching the encyclopaedia to access learned papers etc. I created a new article as I couldn't see that it fits within other articles. I used the word 'positive' because otherwise I suspected it would be interpreted as dodgy. You won't find a single friendship referenced that is even remotely sexual. As for relevance, I don't how many of you specialise in this field. Single parent families are very common now and it is usually the adult male that is absent. A lack of a positive male role model is shown to contribute to many problems, but men are put off. They don't want to be the target of unjust comments like some on this page. Happy to work on it more, but please don't just delete it.Tony 14:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Tony[reply]
Comment Tony, it's not just that the article is vaguely creepy. If it is so innocuous, why does the intro work so hard to say it's not sexual, and then go on to stumble about quite blatantly advocating for the importance of non-familial adult male friends for boys? It's that, just like your above comments about modern familial relations and male role models, you are creating synthesis original research in compiling the article. Not only that, but the article is clearly a POV fork. The article's very topic of conversation, as defined by it's title and introduction, are POV. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit until its acceptable. The tone does suggest a hidden agenda, frankly--the reader does think, well, why is this particular example here? I don't think its OR, but a rhetorical strategy to show how many types of such friendships are acceptable, with the implication unstated. However, it is true that many types of such relationships are in fact acceptable in western societies, (and additional ones elsewhere) and like many other relationships of all sorts there is often or perhaps always some psychosexual component. So there is something to write about. An honest discussion--in the article--of possible use by different agendas might clear the air. I hold to the principle that there is nothing about which an objective article is impossible. DGG (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A "a rhetorical strategy to show how many types of such friendships are acceptable" is not a encyclopedic article on a topic, it's an original research essay topic. Wikipedia is a compilation of what other reliable sources say, and there are no reliable sources expressly and solely dealing with "positive relationships between men and boys in literature and film". There are sources dealing with both components separately, but none synthesizing the two. That's an original research subject, plain and simple. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and because the probable hidden agenda makes it improbable that neutrality will be consistently present. Golfcam 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced, and is a nice counterpoint to the plethora of Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in *** articles which presently festoon Wikipedia. If they aren't deletion fodder, then neither is this. It contains quite a bit of well-sourced information, and I'd be reluctant to destroy this much of anyone's hard work, no matter what the topic. Hermitian 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, articles with a specific point of view to counterpoint another point of view are called POV forks, and are expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NPOV can be violated when individual articles on a subject are balanced, but by their disproportionate number compared to those on similar topics give a particular subject undue emphasis within Wikipedia. This problem can be eliminated by decreasing the number of articles on the overrepresented subject, or increasing the number of articles on similar subjects, and does not imply that the individual articles themselves lack NPOV or are biased. Hermitian 00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So let me get this, you're saying Wikipedia needs more positive coverage of pedophilia? First off, the articles in Wikipedia on pedophilia are not biased against pedophilia. It so happens that you may feel this way, but 99% of reliable sources confirm the fact that pedophilia is a violation of both human ethics and laws on every level. This is what the sources say. But despite all that, "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument for keep.VanTucky ^(talk) 00:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pedophilia is simply the condition, on the part of an adult, of being sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Last I looked, feelings were neither crimes, nor violations of human ethics. Juxtoposing "pedophilia" with "child sexual abuse" in a plethora of article titles is about as POV as you can get. It's like associating "hair color" with "mortgage fraud." It's attempting to create an association in the mind of the reader while cleverly evading the obligation to support that association with facts. It's called "building your conclusions into your definitions," and is a typical tactic of those flogging the Sex Abuse Agenda, who must continually resort to flim-flam and anecdote, because they don't have facts on their side. Hermitian 00:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll just let that little rant on the woes of the poor, victimized pedophiles speak for itself. I don't want to continue this, as we're veering off into general discussion. If you have a beef with other articles, bring it up there. But other articles being biased is not a reason relevant to this article's deletion. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
      - You've just made my point for me. Whenever a balanced article on this sort of subject appears, it attracts vigilante editors who fume and spew and say "NAMBLA" in every other sentence, and talk about "pedophiles" with venom dripping from their fangs as they type. Of course, these people protect the negative and biased articles, which pander to popular misconception, and cleverly lie by innuendo, juxtoposition, and omission. That is why Wikipedia has endless "pedophilia and child sexual abuse in ..." articles, and all attempts to get even the sillier ones deleted fail. On any topic remotely related to any kind of relationship between legal adults and legal minors, Wikipedia has about the same accuracy as a "special episode" of Oprah. Hermitian 01:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all reasons stated above. --David Shankbone 00:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of original synthesis and a POV-fork to boot.-Wafulz 01:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and many of the other points raised above. --AliceJMarkham 06:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well-crafted, but nevertheless an effort to push POV through WP:SYN and manipulation of the list qualification conditions. From the article, "This article includes intimate relationships, but excludes relationships where there are any sexual feelings involved...." This doesn't work. Inclusion on this qualification would require reliable third-party sourcing that the relationship is positive and reliable third-party sourcing that the relationship is absent sexual connotation. Good luck with that. Likewise, the inclusion conditions exclude child sexual abuse "whether or not the relationship was seen to be positive" but the list includes other criminal relationships that are perceived as positive (Martin's Day, especially). And, needless to say, almost all of the prose passages, while well-sources, are simply unrelated content in an effort to reinforce the subtle POV attempts. Nothing in the "Research into adult/child relationships" mentions or relates to film and literature. There is nothing to salvage here. Serpent's Choice 14:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the proverbial road paved with good intentions. Tony, you've obviously researched your topic quite well, but I think you'd better save this one to your hard drive because it's going to be deleted. I would vote to delete for many of the reasons listed above. You are a scholar, but there is room for adding to your vocabulary; and as with many scholars, you fail to consider common sense. Intelligence, education and wisdom are different qualities, and the third is a combination of the first two, along with experience. You should be aware that society, with good reason, is extremely sensitive to "friendships between men and boys", second only to a friendship between a male adult and a female child. Vocabulary is more important in writing on a controversial subject, than on an unemotional subject. Perhaps in taking down the article and rewriting it, you should consider other literature and film about mentoring; review (Google book, for example) other writing about the subject; and not confine this to "men and boys". Good luck to you, and learn from the constructive criticism offered by all of the persons in this discussion. Mandsford 16:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not just because of the obvious bias of whoever wrote it, but because even if if it didn't have a hidden agenda and the fact that much of the article bears no relation whatsoever to the title, I cannot for the life of me fathom why this should be an article at all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't have an opinion on whether it should be kept or not. I don't think, though, that the bias of the first editor of an article should be a reason for deleting it. Biases are OK at Wikiversity, by the way. Perhaps that would be a more appropriate place for this, with links to Wikipedia anyway. A.Z. 19:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My reason for nominating this for deletion has nothing to do with the intentions of the author, I hardly know Tony on Wikipedia and to try and speak to his intentions would be inappropriate. The reason this should be deleted is because the subject as defined by the article's title and introduction is inherently biased, and no amount of different authorship could change that. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for explaining that. I still don't have an opinion on whether it should be kept or not. A.Z. 21:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was about to type delete, but I actually read the article. It's not just listcruft or an essay, but as of now it is very well sourced and written, useful for an encyclopedia. Perhaps it needs re-naming. I don't questions motives or agendas. Bearian 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly interesting, and useful, and I would like to be able to read it somewhere. The encyclopedic factor makes me wonder, though. Could you elaborate on its usefulness for an encyclopedia? A.Z. 22:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have also reviewed the article as changes have been made, and I still feel my nomination holds. It's still a POV fork, includes self-referential material (just like an essay) that seems disingenuous as to the article's intent, is comprised of sources solely dealing with either works of fiction or non-familial man-boy relationships, and none combining the two into a single encyclopedic subject worthy of such extensive coverage. So it's still WP:SYN. I also never said the article was listcruft, only that it included it. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps a consensus could be expedited here if the nom could substantiate some of the things he claims about the article. Why is it a POV fork and what POV is it a fork of? Why does he feel it is "disturbing," "disingenuous," and "blatant?" Why can't we just rename it to something less flame-baity and keep it? Hermitian 23:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, as this discussion stands the majority consensus is that it should be deleted. Not a single voice in support of keep has referred to any policies definitively supporting the retention of the the article, and several have expressed that they are conflicted about keeping the article because of its distasteful tone and content. There are a few dissenting voices, but they are in the minority on this. But disregarding that, I'd be happy to go into more detail. It is a POV fork because it represents only a positive viewpoint on non-familial relationships between adult men and male children. This does not encompass all viewpoints and facts on the subject, and as such is a violation of WP:NPOV. Second, a simple rename is not acceptable because this is synthesis original research, and even if it were inclusive of all viewpoints it would still be OR. No reliable, published sources actually speak significantly and solely on the depiction of non-familial relations between men and boys, either positively or negatively. There are plenty of sources about the relationships, about the development of adolescents (once referring to film, but not referring to adult-child relationships), and of course plenty of sources confirming that the instances of this particular depiction exist. But none of those go into encylopedic discussion about the topic specifically or prove that positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film is a notable and independent subject. The article takes sources that are peripherally related to one factor or another of the topic as a whole, and combines them to create an academic-style treatment. This is unacceptable, as Wikipedia only reports on topics that other people cover significantly, rather than using sources to create our own topics. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So change the title to something like "Cinematic Depictions of Male Mentoring Relationships." It seems to me you're trying to kill a mosquito with a sledgehammer here, and the pile-on talking about pedophiles and NAMBLA seems like the typical treatment anything suspected of "sending the wrong message" in the Great Culture War receives on Wikipedia, regardless of its factual accuracy. I'd also like to point out that consensus isn't a majority vote. Consensus is the lack of reasonable objections to the proposed plan. Hermitian 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would call no references to policy in support of keep unreasonable, though the attitudes of those in favor certainly have been reasoned. I did not bring up NAMBLA or pedophiles in my nomination, this was brought up by others and I will not speak for them. I think likening the article to a bad faith campaign by anyone is both uncivil and untrue. What did mention is that the content and self-referential material about child sex abuse in the introduction made me very uncomfortable, and certainly confuses the intentions and subject matter of the article (not the author). As to the rename, again I'll reiterate my point. The POV fork status is just adding insult to injury for this article. Fixing the POV treatment of the subject would not alter the fact that the subject is not covered by any reliable, published sources but has been created by combining sources. And as a side note, it wouldn't just have to be rename, but a complete rewrite of the article to make it NPOV. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine your POV fork argument vanishes if we put "Mentoring" or some similar term in the title, as such relationships are by definition positive, and the term is well defined and inclusive, and it can no longer be argued that only a subset of some larger topic is being selectively presented. I'd be surprised if no one we can use as a source has ever looked at the subject, and in any case, the arguments you are advancing never seem to get applied to the neverending series of "Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in <Some Obscure Topic>" articles which are certainly a canonical example of WP:SYN, listcruft, and original research. The article is well-written, well-sourced, and a quite comprehensive and well thought out treatment of its subject matter, and I think the bar for deletion needs to be at the "high" setting because of this. Hermitian 00:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the change. Now we see whether the argument will vanish. A.Z. 01:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has enough issues that we can go in circles repeating the same arguements until Godwin's Law finally ends it. If there were no taboo, the article wouldn't exist from a lack of interest. IMO, a consensus has been reached. That the content is controversial and hits a lot of nerves doesn't change this. Pharmboy 01:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again Herm, I'll ask you to keep complaints about other articles out of this discussion. I'm glad the article is no longer titled in a POV way. But this does not make the fact that none of its sources are about the depiction of this type of relationship in film and literature. There are sources about adolescent developement, and sources confirming that the films actually contain what the articles says they do. But none of the sources significantly or solely discuss the depiction of relationships between men and boys in fiction. It's not just about the number of sources and their reliability, it's that they do not treat the subject of the article. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, I would say that the article needs major rewriting, not deletion. A.Z. 01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No the article needs to be deleted if no reliable, published sources treat it. Not rewritten. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - What if this were called "List of movies that depict mentoring relationships between adults and children"? A.Z. 01:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not about the name, it's about the subject matter. If it was just a list of movies and books depicting mentoring relationships between adults and children, then it would be trivia and listcruft, and probably deleted swiftly. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What would differ it from the List of sexually active popes? A.Z. 01:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CONSENSUS All of this is fine, except I fail to see relevance. Again, I think we all can easily see how each other feels about the article, and no amount of further discussion is going to change anyone's mind about it. If there is no hope to learn, pursued or change your mind, then it isn't a discussion, it is just an arguement. Again, I feel a consensus has been reached and a small minority of very vocal individuals disagree, and any further debate will not produce a different outcome. Pharmboy 01:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep this article. You might familiarize yourself with the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as these are all considered to be fraudulent arguments by the community consensus. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have an opinion nor an argument, I only asked a question. A.Z. 01:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment If those who have used such an ingenious variety of arguments for deleting the article had spent the same effort in improving it, perhaps it would have served more to improve the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of us don't think the subject itself is worthy of an encyclopedia entry, that comment doesn't particular jibe with most of us, if I may speak for the Deleters. --David Shankbone 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You hit it on the head David. Forgive the vulgarity, but you can't polish a turd. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are just being offensive VanTucky. And you the one who aspires to Wiki standards by your comments above.Tony 23:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Tony[reply]

First off, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings Tony. But negative comments about contributions and articles are not forbidden under any policy in Wikipedia. Personal attacks, directed at and about a particular individual are strictly forbidden. But I did not call you, or your contributions in particular, a "turd", I called an article that. And there is no policy that even discourages me from being critical of articles. You are not the only contributor to the article I was critical of. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is exactly the sort of thing that has been expressed forbidden on Wikipedia from the start. It violates two of the three core polices. It violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as it is an essay which is looking for and promoting a positive relationship between men and boys, even with the recent name change; and it violates Wikipedia:No original research as it is an original essay created by the author, sustained by his own original research. The subject of the essay is Interpersonal relationship - which is already dealt with. Wiki is not the place for people's individual views and research - no matter how well done. If the author publishes a book on the subject, and it becomes notable, it may be quoted or used as a source in Interpersonal relationship, but even then it wouldn't warrant an article to itself. SilkTork 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read above that another user said this article was vaguely creepy. I got the same impression. I'm sure this was not Tony's attention. I know someone above also pointed out that the article went out of its way to show that these were stories about positive mentors not perverted old men. I think this is probably what kind of gives it that sort of creepy feeling. I would have to say I would not delete it yet, it is well written and sourced. I would suggest shorting it a bit. I think that maybe if all of us that are uncomfortable about certain aspects of the article could point out what they are that this could be a good article. I would say give Tony a little more time, I know it feels to have things that you have worked on brought up for deletion. Jmm6f488 00:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some user's feelings about the content are not the reason it should be deleted. Please read the above comments about the article's nature as synthesis original research. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI did, VanTucky you are right the whole need for this article is a little iffy. Maybe some of the content could be added to another article. Jmm6f488 00:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and thrash out on the talk page, per Otto and DGG. This is, at its core, a valid and encyclopedic topic. VanTucky is write that there is potential for POV and OR, but I'm not sure that this is overwhelming, or even particularly problematic with the article as it stands. It still needs a better title, but the existence of many of the sources, such as "Relationships with Non-Parental Adults and Child Behavior" or "Men and Child Protection: Developing New Kinds of Relationships Between Men and Children," I think clearly attest to the validity of this topic. --JayHenry 03:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several editors seem to have mistaken what I am saying. I am not saying that the article simply has original research in it. I am saying, that since not a single reliable source directly addresses the topic in entirety, that the subject itself is synthesis original research. It's about being a fundamentally unsuitable topic for discussion on Wikipedia, as it is not addressed by reliable sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I get what you are saying. Basically if the article could quote so and so's research paper Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film, etc and bring the topic together as a whole it would be exceptable. But as it stands now it seems to be just a loosely constructed category? If this is what you mean than I would agree it needs something to tie it together as a topic. Jmm6f488 08:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pretty much what I mean. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just another list of trivia in disguise and violates our five pillars. Burntsauce 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator, SqueakBox 18:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is an essay, at least borderline original research, clearly synthesis of other sources, and not an encyclopedia article or topic. And the potential that it's a gateway for inappropriate pedophillic content is disturbing. The combination of the issues makes it clear to me... Georgewilliamherbert 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't follow nominator's reasoning. VanTucky appears to be oblivious to the revilement of males as inherent sexual predators against young boys that has developed in western societies during the post WW2 period, conspicuously fronted by radical feminism. The sex abuse scandals involving the Catholic priesthood more or less at large, and other cases, may suggest that there really is something to these assertions that there is something very wrong with men. My point is not to discuss that issue, only to comment on the nominator's argument: "What's next? Mothers and daughters in film? Friendship in films? " The current subject is obviously not random and in the context of the vilification of men in general vis-à-vis boys, this article attempts to point to some sources for the perspective where these relationships are not predatory. This may of course be done in a POV or NPOV fashion. I don't see a problem with the article in that respect. The nominator also states: "What's with the self-referential material that comprises the introduction?" I do not understand what is meant by that. I see no problems with the introduction as such. Further the assertion that the article is "intended to prove positive the unerring importance of "intimate relationships" between men and boys" may or may not be true – I find no reason to try and guess Tony Sandel's motivation since we are judging the article on it's own merits, not based on the intents of its creator. __meco 19:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First off, you seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia is not here to prove any point, or bring awareness to any factor of any issue. A WP:POINT argument for keep is not acceptable under any circumstances. Your ranting assertion about how I am "oblivious to the revilement of males as inherent sexual predators against young boys that has developed in western societies during the post WW2 period, conspicuously fronted by radical feminism" is not a reason that this article should be kept per Wikipedia's policy. In fact, the idea that this article should stay to counteract any other idea is in direct opposition to Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view. Articles do not, or at least should not, exist to prove any point. They exist to be an encyclopedic resource recounting the facts about a subject as verified in reliable, published sources. And as no reliable sources directly cover "positive relationships between men and boys in film and literature", the topic as covered in the article is synthesis original research. By self-referential material, I meant the extensive phrases in which the article talks about itself. Phrases revolving around "This article is/is not..." are not encyclopedic content. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Conditioning Beads[edit]

Google turns up nothing on "Air conditioning beads". Possible hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Oli Filth 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't make much sense to boot. Pharmboy 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe a speedy as nonsense. Searching for the term only brings up something about beads of sweat. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Beads, tiny ones, made of something or other, that catch more beads, unless they shoot out at 80 mph. Then some stuff about refrigerant. Nonsense. Acroterion _(talk) 03:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This has all the features of a hoax. Dbrugler, who created the article on Thursday, no longer has a Useraccount. The article has zero sources. Finally, it's about a subject almost nobody would notice except for the person who created it and regularly comes back to the scene of the crime. My hats off to TenPound for spotting this one so quickly. Mandsford 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Christopher Johnson[edit]

Non-notable child snowboarder. Winning youth competitions does not make one notable. Oli Filth 23:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

((subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]))

delete agree. wikipedia already has too many child 'future stars' articles that also need deleting. Pharmboy 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dont delete I've heard of matt before and i dont think hes just a future child star he already has a career in snowboarding and though some people dont think thats important i think it should be here so people who want to read about him can. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnwhiles (talk • contribs).

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

please sign your comments, and dont write in front of another signature, so it appears I wrote your article. Pharmboy 00:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. How precisely have you heard of the subject's snowboarding prowess when there's not a single relevent Google hit? Single purpose account, both edits on this AfD...I smell WP:MEAT. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 00:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Career in snowboarding" does not equal "notable". Especially not without Reliable sources. Oli Filth 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of the sources are rather old and would not bear out the claims of sponsorship. Absence of Google hits corroborates the unverifiability. Further, I'm suspicious that his first win was the "Carol Games," given that his mother's name is Carol. I'm still assuming good faith, but I don't think there's a case for notability here under WP:BIO—certainly not any case backed up with reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I dont know much about this kid but i know theres a snowboarding competition called the carol games, its a rather small competition but its deffently possible that he won the 3 medals — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohioman779 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 27 July 2007 — Ohioman779 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DELETE/DONT DELETE??Matt is my boyfriends brother. I read everything written and im pretty sure its all true, but i dont think he wants somthing on wikipedia written about him that he hasnt seen.. especially that its written by someone he mostly likley doesnt know. even though the information is true, i think matt should be informed about what it says before its kept —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdobelle88 (talk • contribs). — Mdobelle88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't think he has any more say than anyone else about that, as long as the article isn't defamitory. Autobiographies aren't allowed, so anything that would ever be allowed would have to be written without his consent, again, as long as it wasn't false, etc. Pharmboy 02:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it gets a bit confusing due to an older skier named Matthew Johnson from Alaska, I'm not finding much in Google. I can't even find the companies that are supposedly sponsoring him. Trivia section is suggestive of a joke article. Fail to see Notability. - Fordan (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete g5 (created by blocked user), a7 (nonnotable), g10 (attack -- based on prior deleted edits). NawlinWiki 02:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom mcnee[edit]

Seems to be a hoax; Google turns up no hits at all for a boxer of this name at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even tho this "first openly homosexual boxer" went 0/0/3, you would think you could find something on Google for him. Hoax or he needs a new publicist. Pharmboy 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel insulting someones publicist is helping you may aswell rotate sunshine, buy this months RING MAGAZIne which he features in. and also you should tone down on the homophobia why highlight the fact he is openly homosexual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbfcnfkcmnsuxh (talk • contribs)

Selfrightousness isn't necessary as I am not a homophobe. It is a direct quote from the article, which looks quite fishy. So does the fact that someone can't be found on a search engine. Pharmboy 00:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Possibly a hoax. James Luftan 00:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and James Luftan. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 00:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Cbfcnfkcmnsuxh, who created this article, has been indefinitely blocked for his malicious contributions (i. e. removing the AfD tag three times from the article, even after repeated warnings; insulting me twice on my user talk page; and creating a hoax article). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, Ten Pound, I tried to warn him for getting snippy with you on your user page as well as trying to explain to him why his article was nominated for deletion several seconds before he was blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Luftan (talk • contribs)
Delete Per above, probably a hoax, made by now blocked user. i ^{(said) (did)} 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Probably a hoax. --Boricuaeddie 01:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Yaeger[edit]

nn Yeshivish 23:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither reference even mentions the subject, either. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He's not mentioned in the 1st source, but is listed in the 2nd, which is a list of NN players. Bearian 22:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO; name-dropping to feign notability leaves much to be desired. --Aarktica 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. CitiCat^♫ 02:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Zink[edit]

not noteable per WP:BIOTruest blue 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 04:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep and expand~~. Pro ball player, and has left the bench; needs to find sources. Anyone? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to delete. Looks like he's a prospect, little else. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTE. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zink hasn't pitched in the majors, but he did make the All-Star team for the Class AA Eastern League this season,[1] which is a reasonable assertion of notability for a minor-league player, and he HAS been the subject of a lot more media coverage than the average minor-league player, due to the fact that he throws a knuckleball (a dying pitch in today's game). I think a reasonable article could be created from various news profiles of him (Sacramento Bee, Rob Neyer at ESPN.com, Baseball Prospectus, Boston Globe, etc.), and I'd be willing to do this if the article is kept. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would remove my nomination per (Moo!)'s references. However article should enhance emphasis on the knuckleball aspect. Truest blue
~~Weak Delete~~Neutral Although there are signs of notability, I'd go with WP:BASEBALL's notability criteria of appearing in a game in the majors Corpx 02:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Corpx, you seem to only rely upon the WP:WPBB criterion of appearing in at least one MLB game for notability. But WP:WPBB specifically states that the WP:BIO criteria also apply? In particular, it seems to me that amateur and minor league players who have had reasonably extensive coverage in the popular press (WP:BIO criterion #1) and who have received notable awards and honors (WP:BIO criterion #3) are potentially sufficiently notable for WP articles. --Sanfranman59 17:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but I just cant justify keeping somebody who has not been past AAA Corpx 19:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with User:Hit bull, win steak's argument. --Sanfranman59 17:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Corpx -- this one's for you. I'm not a fan of the "play one game at the majors" standard. There are plenty of minor league prospects that warrant inclusion in Wikipedia even though they haven't pitched at the major league level. For example, there is a lot of talk about the Yankees bringing up a hard-throwing prospect named Joba Chamberlain, but he has yet to make the major league level. Does that mean he doesn't belong in Wikipedia? Absolutely not. He's been mentioned in the New York Times, Newsday, the Associated Press and several other major news outlets[2][3][4]. No one has nominated this kid for deletion despite not having pitched a single game at the Major League Level. Simply put, the standard shouldn't be as rigid as you make it out to be. Here, Zink has had significant press coverage because he throws a knuckleball, which is enough to establish notability. Chengwes 06:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joba's a different story. He absolutely lit it up at UNL and I'm sure he has plenty of awards to show for his contributions at the "highest amateur level". My reasoning if that if a prospect is that unmissable, then he'd be called up to the majors that much quicker and the guideline would apply Corpx 06:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But my stance is that if you've received coverage from "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" that warrants inclusion into Wikipedia. This kid seems to have met the standard in WP:BIO given the press about his knuckleball. Chengwes 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing that I have little understanding of the sport (or the stats listed in the article, for that matter), I think this article needs improvement to be worth keeping in the encyclopaedia. Remove the name-checking, and the article has little to lean on. --Aarktica 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESULT. CitiCat^♫ 02:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs played on the Nerve (1995-1998)[edit]

This article is... not an article. It's essentially archival material, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It may give us an idea of what was popular in a particular place in the mid-nineties, but if we're going to have that we might as well include peoples account books. Delete. (was prodded and de-prodded, sorry for the somewhat pointless debate) Mak (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Archival, non-notable per WP:NOTE, also violates WP:WWIN#INFO. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nearly everything is wrong about this article. It's a trivial list, with no encyclopedic merit, all loosely connected. --Haemo 23:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a directory (of songs played by a radio station) Corpx 02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the bleeding obvious. I might suggest a speedy per WP:SNOW just to save everyone the time. Resolute 04:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Let's hope that Wikipedia never gets so inclusive that it keeps an encylopedia article on the music played ten years ago on a radio station in Rochester, New York. Mandsford 16:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Weak keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Renner[edit]

nn journalist Bat ears 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, delete. Nonexistent refs, NN even per creator's own (unsubstantiated) descrip. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Google news only picking up articles by him, not about him Corpx 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Corpx. Article needs cites to verify the claims. Bearian 22:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - Notable, Notable Notable. Renner is well-known in the city (one of the towns 30 interesting persons), he's directed the [[Steven King¨¨ short story film All That You Love Will Be Carried Away which was honored as an official choice of the Montreal World Film Festival. The film was part of Steven King's Dollar Baby program for upcoming directors. Renner organized and ran the first two Dollar Baby Film Festivals, which were held in Steven King's hometown in Maine. He's also acted in film and TV (notably in the TV series Project Greenlight founded by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck and worked in film production, as well as writing screenplays. Besides this, as we all know, he's a respected journalist, and he wrote a book about one of the most well-known child murders in America. Even though it was in the late 1980s, the case is still being written about, and Renner is a huge celebrity in the Midwest of the U.S. He probably didn't make a big deal about it, because people in the midwest are humble. He's all over the TV, even recently, about this case. He's no normal reporter, though he's a good one. You can see him on the Cleveland Fox station, as well as all over YouTube. I can add some of that material tommorrow. I already sourced it. I also have other concerns that Renner is one of several being here unfairly targeted by VO. I've put those concerns here. Along with a debate between myself and Mr. Bat ears. BlueSapphires 13:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've created a Workshop space where I tossed most of the articles I found - totally unformatted. There is also an online Fox interview of Renner, and two other newstation interviews, with him as the Amby M. expert. You can either wait til Monday (when I can format them and rewrite) or format what I put in there and find the videos yourselves - ta! BlueSapphires 11:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Journalist is well noted in his field, has been the director of a film written by a well known author, is a notable author himself, and has won various awards. This article needs to be worked on, not deleted. Also, it should be taken into account that a lack of google hits does not certify non-notability. The circumstances of this AfD, per BlueSapphires, also disturb me a little bit. CaveatLector^Talk 18:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the inclusion and notability criteria. -Nard 22:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, meets WP:BIO as the subject is evidently notable within his field. RFerreira 02:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Renner is notable enough to meet inclusion criteria. As has been said, Google searches are not the last word in notability. The article could do with some fixing and perhaps a better assertion of notability by including more reliable sources, but that should have warranted a simple ((notability)) tag, not a full-on AfD. An attempt to fix an article should be made before considering deletion. --clpo13_(talk) 03:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, and rewrite Notable enough in my opinion, but the article is poorly put together and its links have to be updated. PKT 16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debated questions regarding the procreation and existence of certain Narnian creatures.[edit]

Original research. Corvus cornix 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, complete OR--Jac16888 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is more like a project/essay made without any sources.--JForget 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, unsourced essay/OR. Doesn't belong at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsalvagable original research. -WarthogDemon 22:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or totally rewrite. As I recall there is no discussion in the various stories about the reproductive mechanisms, and mating habits of the various creatures. Looks like all original research. If some actual research exists....please put it in? --Rocksanddirt 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider BJAODNing. Original research, no secondary sources provided. 17Drew 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did move it to my own, newly formed BJAODN... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the period in the title. It's Debated questions regarding the procreation and existence of certain Narnian creatures. not Debated questions regarding the procreation and existence of certain Narnian creatures In fact, the period in the title might actually make it BJAODN-quality. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Period added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure if it qualifies for BJAODNing, but it's unsalvageable OR. I've read the books and they never even allude to procreation of Narnian creatures. Besides, it would be unencyclopedic even if there was actually actually research. It should be moved to "Symbolism that Doesn't Exist Wiki". Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it seems like someone had a lot of time to think about this topic, and decided to write an unsourced list of their thoughts on the subject. --Haemo 23:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a bad essay, but essays are what Wikipedia is Not. Resolute 04:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and WP:DAFT. What a title! Grutness...wha? 05:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete toss a WP:SNOW at it! Spazure 07:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator removed the AfD tag and replaced it with the following. Administrative action on my part, I have no opinion on the AfD. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thr reason for this page's existence is for the archival of the clues and incosistencies regrrding who certain narnian species were brought to life and reproduce,Note:Please do not delete this page.

Reasoning isn't the same thing as making an argument, based on policy, for why it should be kept. There's lots of policies -- some even conflict. If you truly want it to be kept, you can likely find a good policy to support your stance. Spazure 02:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a debate unless someone cares enough to debate with you. Say, why did the castaways take all their belongings with them on a three hour tour? And was it the dog, or the farmer, whose name was Bingo? Mandsford 16:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, never thought about that before, dog or farmer? What's the castaways one about though?--Jac16888 16:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter was from a ballad authored by the American poet, Sherwood Charles Schwartz (1916- ), a poem which the 1960s philosopher R. Osbourne Denver (1935-2005) described as "the voluntarily memorized anthem for an entire generation of American schoolchildren". Mandsford 18:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo (song) "states based on proper usage of grammar, one can assume Bingo is referred to as the dog's name." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 09:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, unless someone can find discussion of this subject in some Lewis/Narnia journal. In that (unlikely) event, move to some less cumbersome title. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this article is someone's way of gathering information for a school exercise. In issue 42 of Australian Screen Education, the magazine proposes that Primary school and middle years teachers "encourage students to work in pairs or small groups to investigate mythological creatures and legendary tales to discover the basis for some Narnian creatures."^[1]

^ Evely, Christine. (September 22, 2006) Australian Screen Education. The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: the beginning of this epic film story opens with dark, frightening scenes of London being bombed during World War Two.(A Primary school and middle years teacher resource). Issue 42, page 66.

The result was speedy delete as nonsense/test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17Drew (talk • contribs)

Tyflo[edit]

I have no idea... --Ouzo 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. Speedy delete G1 (patent nonsense), so tagged (not by me). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Ohnoitsjamie, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Killoren Bensimon[edit]

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Simple being married to a fashion photographer does not always mean notability. -WarthogDemon 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was boldly redirected to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince per this discussion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Blood Prince (character)[edit]

This page duplicates the plot of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and the fictional biography of the character Severus Snape, to whom it refers. In previous discussions on the talk page, Potter fans defended the article on the grounds that some readers would prefer not to have the knowledge of Snape's identity "spoiled." But Wikipedia is not censored. Both the Snape article and the book article disclose this information anyway—as does this article. Also, there are not very many links to this article in the main namespace, so this is not a very likely entry point for the typical reader. Marc Shepherd 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - duplicate. ←Ben^B4 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, duplicate repeated redundancy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince article and/or maybe merge with the minor character list article.--JForget 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy redirect totally redundant. The spoiler argument is bogus as a reason for two article. That's a new id concept , spoiler-branch. Ingenious way of dealing with the problem, but worse than either alternative. No. DGG (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as suggested above. Does this name also need to be protected as the redirect in some way? As far as the comment that a redirect might be a spoiler, the novel has been published for at least two years, and the movie is well into pre-production. --Rocksanddirt 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene rowan[edit]

Claims to be a Medal of Honor winner, but there is no such person in a Google search for '"Eugene rowan" "medal of honor"'. The supposed sources are no help, and in fact, one of them is word for word from this, so it's a copyvio as well, but let's kill it instead of just deleting it as a copyvio. It's a hoax. Corvus cornix 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio, hoax or not. Nom has clearly outlined the page's erroneous ways. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as hoax, doesn't meet speedy since it's not copyvio. Good catch, Bart133. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. It's not actually a copyvio. The source you mentioned is actually an obvious copy and paste job of the page source. Notice the square brackets appearing where there's a link on the article. Looks like the author of the page is trying to provide "reliable sources". Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and warn editor. Total hoax, and falsely claiming to be a MOH recipient is actually a crime under US law. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, guys. According to this, hoaxes do not fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion here is not possible. --Boricuaeddie 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not notable among other reasons (the quotes section serves no purpose whatsover). Do not warn the editor as per above, he did nothing wrong, however, you may want to check that he is aware of Wikipedia's policies.James Luftan 23:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC) — James Luftan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Boricuaeddie 00:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- Creating a hoax is most certainly "something wrong". Corvus cornix 01:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes corpus, it certainly is, but I was saying that perhaps the editor is new....Wait.. There is a tiny misunderstanding. By warn I thought that Bullzeye meant block; I figured that that was a little harsh, I thought that maybe it should be explained to him. On second thught, I agree with you whole heartedly, especially after learning that claiming to be a MOH recipient is against the law. James Luftan 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The one source that the article has is very thin, and not even independent---It's from freewebs! James Luftan 02:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've taken the liberty of erasing the text of the article, since it can't be speedily deleted. For anyone who thinks that's extreme, anyone has the right to restore this garbage by clicking on the history portion. Only a few of our World War II veterans remain. Note to hoaxster, don't try a stunt like this again. 67.87.119.55 and 69.119.145.179 and Robertmorrone could be identified if anyone wants to push the point with the ISP. However, I think you're a bored kid (probably helped by some friends) who simply made a dumb mistake. Be careful in the future. Mandsford 16:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. I am not sure if blanking it before closing the AfD is proper. Bearian 22:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, anyone can put that crap back if they want to. It's not gone forever.... yet. Mandsford 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no content and the surname has no capital. I mean, really. McLarenJAB 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Harik[edit]

The article is about a director of Google, failing WP:BLP by lacking entirely in reliable sources about the subject. If this person were an executive-level employee there may be something there, but corporate directors are a dime a dozen. Delete, as Wikipedia is WP:NOT a personal webhost. Burntsauce 22:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Related discussion(s): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Stein

Weak keep He has the status of "Distinguished Engineer", product manager for an important group of projects, and has an impressive background. At a company like Google this may well be significant, and I'd like to hear from the experts. DGG (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As is, it's nearly worthless and entirely sourceless. Recreation with proper adherence to WP:NOTE and WP:CITE, (however unlikely) is always on the table. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete. Sounds like he might be borderline notable, but at the very least the article needs sourcing. Xihr 00:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah i'd delete this any day of the week. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Xihr. Bearian 22:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except spelled right. Xihr 02:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freakshow (Britney Spears Song)[edit]

This article is nearly identical to Get Back (Britney Spears song), which has also been nominated for deletion. Both articles claim it as the first new Britney Spears single and both have the same gossip-oriented-website sources. Not sure which song is which or what is being released but it seems way too soon for all this speculation. Suggest merging to album article until a definitive statement is released by the record company. - eo 22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to album until next single is confirmed. No need to be so premature in creating articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Make a special section in the album page. Because there is to little information for a seperate page but it is notewhorty because we know there was a video shot, so there is a first single on the way very soon and in a clip on x17 from the set you hear the single say freakshow. So I say merge.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs)

Delete. Given that there's been no reliable reports of a song titled "Freakshow" appearing on Spears's next album, a redirect is (at this point) useless and may mislead readers into believing that there will be a song under that title on the album. Leaving a redirect would perpetuate misinformation that arose from speculation. Extraordinary Machine 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Aarktica 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynnanne Zager[edit]

Created with posible conflict of interest from the creator. Prodded with suspicions of self-praise spam; prod was removed by the false claim new information was added. -WarthogDemon 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, article is a direct lift from this entry on Lostpedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't delete this entry. It is a valid entry. Thank you. sgwoolf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgwoolf (talk • contribs). — Sgwoolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Only it seems to be spamish and how has been proven to be lifted from a separate website. -WarthogDemon 22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, nothing but self-referential spam, doesn't meet WP:NOTE...squish. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as she may be famous in the industry, but without cites the article can be deleted. Bearian 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was 12-sided delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons popular culture references[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unacceptable trivia collection, completely skirting the important controversies the game has sparked over the years. Eyrian 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as with all other 'X in pop culture' indiscriminate lists. CaveatLector^Talk 22:03, 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 22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Isn't this the 2nd AfD for this article? Am surprised it passed first time. Canuckle 22:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, Here is the first AFD. Otto4711 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Info - That links is just a redirect to the 2nd one. Where is the original discussion? Turlo Lomon 11:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above as trivia-filled article.--JForget 22:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reasonable article showing the role of the subject in contemporary culture. Important in the world, further sourcing not impossible. "Violate the pillars" is in fact a new argument, perhaps in reflection of the fact that these articles do not violate any specific policy in wikipedia. Many have been suggested in the various proposals, none of them actually talk about this. They do not violate the pillars any more than the policies, and I would like a specific argument about why the violate V as a pillar for example, when there is no provision in V as a policy for removing the article. DGG (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while "violate the pillars" may be a new argument, Wikipedia articles are not directories of loosely associated topics is an old favorite. The things captured on this list tell us nothing about D&D, nothing about the fiction from which the references are drawn, nothing about how any of it is related to each other and nothing about the world in general. I mean really, we get it, "Dungeons and Dragons" is often used by lazy scriptwriters as an easy way to establish a character's nerd cred. Find a magazine article that says so, put a line in a D&D article with a footnote and be done with it. A ginormous list of every time someone rolls a d20 on TV is worthless. Otto4711 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. --Haemo 00:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Popular culture references" lists, even within articles, really never add anything to the topic. Just non-contextual trivia. ~ JohnnyMrNinja
Delete per WP:5 and the relationship between this and D&D is extremely "loose" (WPNOT) Corpx 02:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm an old player and DM; I used to write for TSR, as did many of my friends (my attorney gets a credit line in the Dungeon Masters Guide); I find the way that D&D players are mischaracterized interesting. But as has been said, there is nothing encyclopedic about this kind of article; it adds nothing to the sum of human learning.
Keep - This article, and other 'in popular culture' articles, serve to identify how a phenomenon is perceived or used, how pervasive it is over time, and how perception of it may change over time. Much as a proper dictionary uses citations to show how words are actually used, lists of popular culture references provide living context to a topic, whether D&D, a film, or a comic catch phrase. At most, merge this into the main article.Lizard sf 16:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As far as In popular culture articles go, this is poor. Literally, just a mention of D&D is enough to get added to this list. Saikokira 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge -- Though the latter is the lesser of the two options, since the parent article is already quite large. I notice that this article has been worked on by a lot of different contributors over nearly two years. The nominator himself speaks of a cultural impact, describing controversies over the last several years that have not been included...is editing a better solution than deletion, if that's the problem? For the most part, the cultural references to this nearly 35 year old game, played by millions over that stretch of time, are negative. Given the cult like following of "D & D", and the rite of passage that is associated with giving the game up, BTW, I don't get the 2nd nomination part. Clerical error? Just curious. Mandsford 23:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat refed now, just needs more. - Peregrine Fisher 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please see WP:PSTS, which states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." Emphasis not mine. María (críticame) 16:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Indiscriminate laundry list of mostly trivial references. Someone was seen playing D&D in a TV show once... someone said they liked D&D in something else. So what? Crazysuit 04:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced (meaning reliable, third-party sources that attests to D&D's impact of PC, not just a source that verifies that the pop culture reference exists) list of trivial and encyclopedic indiscriminate information. No one is claiming that D&D is not a pop culture phenomenon and loved by dorks world-wide, but this article is just a laundry list (as Crazysuit puts it) of any time D&D is mentioned anywhere -- this does not a good article make. I am also very much against merging it. María (críticame) 15:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the topic's notability fails to be established by listing passing mentions of Dungeons & Dragons in various media. There is no encyclopedic real-world context offered here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Howes[edit]

Non-notable person. Although he may have been a CEO in the past, this in itself does not make someone notable. Oli Filth 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete. Merely throwing down "related" links and calling them references doesn't make the subject meet WP:NOTE. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Looked through google news and most of the articles just quote him from his official position. Then again, there are lots of these entries there. Just not sure Corpx 02:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pro CEO in the past and a current Partner of a sports/media firm that holds over 500MM in equity. He is a partial owner of two major league franchises, two major league stadiums and multiple media outputs. Definitley wikipedia worthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.193.220.204 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 27 July 2007.
Keep after checking some of the GNews results, it looks like he is being quoted because his positions make him notable. DGG (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely if you look through sltrib.com and desnews.com (both are mainstay SLC newspapers)it seems that he is not only a large part of the sporting community but a large part of the community period. User:MEEETOO (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DGG and Corpx. --Aarktica 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems important enough to have on wikipedia. He is in the public eye a lot according to Google News and he is a partial owner of two fairly well known sporting teams. --Hawk-eye 16:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In addition to the references on Salt Lake City-area news websites, internet searches show his profile is high enough to begin to warrant mentions in national magazines like Sports Illustrated (here) and Inc. (here) Kayaker 22:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cockatrice in modern fantasy fiction and games[edit]

Trivia collection of references, some of which aren't even about cockatrices ("In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, there was also a basilisk; but the creatures were very different."). Eyrian 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Does it even need to be said at this point? CaveatLector^Talk 22:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh...squash, and quickly, I'd list the reasons but it's self-explanatory. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-contextual trivia. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this one is easy. Punkmorten 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~because they didn't mention Gemstone IV. Er.. I mean.. list of loosely associated topics, or whatever the current argument against pop culture lists is. Spazure 07:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)~~ fails WP:NOT#DIR, and WP:NOTE too. Spazure 05:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is there an impression that it is non-encyclopedic? A encyclopedia collects information on topics of interest. This is a type of character, used in different games and fantasy because it is assumed to have a certain basic set of characteristics that will be meaning to the people playing/reading the material. How it is used is encyclopedic. How it is used wrong is also valid content: the two items on Potter simply need to be combined--minor editing problem.

Comment: I am not sure how to interpret the above argument--does it mean, I dislike the article, and I therefore want it removed, and I don't care what argument may be used--appropriate or otherwise.? AGF, that must not be the meaning intended, because who would actually !vote in an AfD for the express reason of dontlikeit. DGG (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to me (which I can't tell for sure), actually, I like lists -- they're amusing. Nonetheless, WP:ILIKEIT isn't a good enough reason to keep something, and I know that there's a current policy against "in popular culture" lists in general (note: not every single one, in fact I helped fight for one just last week.. but in general) -- I'm just too new to understand and/or remember the specific policy, but I know somebody else will inevitably cite it before the close of this AfD. Once I know what it is, I'll change my statement to be more specific. Spazure 02:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 05:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cockatrice and then delete. Mandsford 23:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If content is merged then the history cannot be deleted for GFDL concerns. Jay32183 01:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse[edit]

Unacceptable trivia collection (WP:FIVE), adding nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. Eyrian 21:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps create a category for 'Christian mythology in art and literature' and then ~~delete~~. CaveatLector^Talk 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This restatement of the pillars has ever been marked as official policy. Nor perhaps should it be, for it incorporates many matters from guidelines and other less-than-pillar matters. Technically, I think its present status is an essay. The official statement of the policy seems to be the one presently on meta at [5] and the generally authoritative opinion about the overall principles is Jimbo's at [User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles]. Neither of them mentions that this sort of articles are to be rejected.

The provision of the so-called policy page referred to is probably that "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection". That is 'not the same as saying that it can not contain some elements that in some way in some persons eyes seem to be trivia. To delete it under that provision requires showing that

it is a correct statement of policy
that it applies to all articles that contain lists of trivia, not merely to the overall nature of the encyclopedia
that this article contains only trivia--for if not, its just an editing question.DGG (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your interpretation of the "essay". To me, a "trivia collection" is any article that solely contains trivial information. Corpx 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo's thoughts on WP:5/trivia collection - link Corpx 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, concur with CaveatLector. Far too long to integrate, far too detailed to simply squish. Create the category and save the article, as it does seem to have value. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I have no intention of getting drawn into an argument over what the five pillars do or don't say or how to interpret the Holy Rood of Jimbo Wales. For me, the ever-reliable Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics will suffice. This grab-bag listing of every time the FHOTA are depicted or some variation on the FHOTA is alluded to or Satan says "horsemen" in the South Park movie does nothing to illuminate the FHOTA, tells us nothing about the fiction from which the FHOTA references are drawn, nothing about any relationship between the various items or the real world. Otto4711 23:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, I'll stick to policy. There are many types of articles I'd omit from WP entirely if I were running it, but I'm not running it--so I don't nominate them if they pass the rules, for the rules represent the consensus of us all.

I call attention to the interesting fact that as the discussion has progressed, first it was alleged that the articles didn't meet one policy, and when that couldn't be proven, then another, and after none of them could be shown finally the basic foundations. Now it is admitted that those don't give a basis either, so we're back to IDONTLIKEIT, the negation of all rational arguments. For articles IDONTLIKE, I ignore, and leave other people in peace. DGG (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bullshit, or should I say horseshit (of the apocalypse). Different editors can and do cite different policy reasons in the course of AFDs and that one policy argument is raised after another doesn't mean that the first one hasn't been proven. You're certainly free to claim until the cows come home that the arguments raised and accepted in one AFD of these articles after another is nothing more than "dontlikeit" but it doesn't become any more true the 20th time you claim it than it was the first time. Clearly, these articles don't pass the rules. You may not like how the rules are being applied to them, and that's too bad for you. Otto4711 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-contextual trivia. This list doesn't really add anything to any particular topics, nor is it very interesting, or referenced at all. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per #3 of DGG "that this article contains only trivia" Corpx 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you've got to show 1 and 2 first. and if you did, or for those who may assume it, then: Ibanez's novel isnt trivial--nor Discworld, nor Piers Anthony, to mention some where the reference is central-- nor Tombstone, nor Chavez, not Notre Dame, to mention important places where the reference must be known to establish the meaning. I'm sure many of the ones in fields i dont know about are significant too. deletion is the wrong way to edit. The mentions above of things which should be cut are not reason to delete the whole, for this or any other article. DGG (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it doesn't have a policy tag on that page, I would hope that everyone follows it. I have no problems basing my arguments on that one "essay" Corpx 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed post-categorization suggestion to keep on the possibility that this can be rewritten into a detailed article with good sources that does not list trivia in this manner. For those interested in helping populate this category, I created it at Category:Christian mythology in art and literature. CaveatLector^Talk 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize how many songs/movies/books/tv-shows/paintings reference Jesus, God, angels, Satan, demons, Heaven, Hell, sin, etc? Such a category would not be helpful to anyone. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct that that would be an indiscriminate list. A selected one of significant references would be much smaller, and that's what this is, a discriminating list. You've nicely elucidated the difference I intended to show by my examples above. DGG (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as discriminating as List of titles with "Darker" in them (which was deleted, by the way). And what part, honestly, is useful? Someone who is genuinely interested in the Four Horsemen will not really gain much by reading this. 'In the fifth season of Scrubs, episode 508 "My Big Bird", Dr. Cox refers to Turk, Carla, J.D. and Elliot as "The Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse".' The only person I can see who would get an actual benefit from this list is one of the actual Horsemen, because it'd be really cool to show their friends. If this were made into an actual contextual article, it'd still be OR, unless there are verifiable sources on the impact of the Four Horsemen on popular culture. It's WP:Trivia and WP:Listcruft, toss it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't as good as, In the fifth series of the American Big Brother reality TV show, four of the players made an alliance and called themselves The Four Horsemen. Crazysuit 04:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article, however, needs to be trimmed way down. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse have been a cultural phenomenon since the Book of Revelation was written back in the First Century A.D. Eyrian, I notice that you have nominated NINETEEN articles for today, all having to do with "...in popular culture" or an equivalent. I don't recall any other Wikipedia Administrator taking such an active role in nominating articles for deletion. There are 185 nominations to consider, and you and one other person seem to be responsible for nearly 20 percent of that unusually high number. Unlike the articles about a non-notable person, school or business, the "pop culture" articles generally require a lot more time to review. Thus, I don't understand why so many are nominated every day. I think that, whether we vote "delete" or "keep", all of us are getting a little tired of this. I know that the logical comeback is that I don't have to participate at all, or the old incivility argument, but this is really getting tiresome. Mandsford 00:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate many because these lists are self-propagating. If they are left alone, people think they are acceptable, and they multiply. They need to be eliminated at a stroke, to prevent trivia from creeping back into the encyclopedia. I don't see why they take that long to review. No more than 3-5 minutes to read. And it takes little more than reading them to understand their triviality. --Eyrian 00:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"If they are left alone, people think they are acceptable". Interesting. Are there any pop culture articles that you don't believe should be nominated? Do you believe that you can stamp out all such articles? Is there an admonition to editors to not create an a pop culture article. The second part is that you say your are trying "to prevent trivia from creeping back into the encylopedia". Was there a time when the so-called trivia had been eliminated? Was that before Wikipedia started encouraging anyone to edit? :I think that the nominations are "multiplying". I see no pressing reason for these to be nominated in bunches every day. The result is the creation of bunches of long debates, and a closing administrator has to wade through each long debate in order to reach a decision. From what I understand, most of these people are volunteers who are in it because they enjoy it. There is no reason to increase their workload, since you can nominate the same number of articles over a longer period. Mandsford 13:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that I chose my terminology very carefully; I said lists, not articles. It's these worthless lists of trivia that need to be excised. In fact, there are articles that I haven't nominated. Because they're cited analyses, not pointless lists of brief appearances. As for workload... if people don't want to work on Wikipedia, they don't have to. The work will have to be done sooner or later. And doing it faster means there's less of it to be done. --Eyrian 15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)--Eyrian 15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per the well-expressed nomination & Otto. Eusebeus 02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly loosely associated trivia based on meaningless mentions of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Crazysuit 04:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are dozens of articles of this style in Wikipedia. How can just this one be slated for destruction? Songs, movies, books, fictional characters - why not the 4 Horsemen? --Chiba13 12:27, 1 August 2007

Not only is other stuff exists not a valid argument, but you might want to page through the AfD histories of the last month... CaveatLector^Talk 20:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete though a judicious selection of the items in the article could belong in Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I'm not suggesting it be fully incorporated into the main article (like it was 500+ edits ago but that highlights be extracted and integrated into the main article, preferably in the form of a narrative rather than a list. I agree with Chiba13 that these lists of (mostly pop) cultural references seem randomly targeted. Kayaker 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaz Wylie[edit]

I do not see how this fictional character asserts any notability, other than the fact that it is part of Bad Girls. Reliable sources are nonexistent in this article. Since it has some context, it might be disputed that I put a speedy tag on it, so I'm listing it here to gather true consensus for deletion. (→O - R L Y?) 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per WP:NOTE and nom. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage of this character from independent sources. Corpx 02:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:FICT. --Aarktica 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete, G1 --Eyrian 21:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yoyomanswingwong[edit]

Delete: Obviously a hoax, verging on CSD G1 (Contested PROD) – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedied, A7. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Stein[edit]

Wikipedia is not a hosting service for resumes or personal homepages. An engineering manager for Google, I'm sure the perks are nice there, but this article grossly fails WP:BLP lacking entirely in reliable sources about the subject. There are millions of engineering managers for notable companies, but that notability is not inherited. Burntsauce 21:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. I agree with nom and, after all, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google™. —Travis ^talk 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 per nom. Not at all a notable person, fails WP:BLP. Make sure that someone on the commons nukes the pic too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^One 16:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaids in popular culture[edit]

Unacceptable trivia collection, per WP:FIVE. The most important ones are already contained in the quite-adequate section in the main article. Eyrian 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment "The most important ones are already contained in the quite-adequate section in the main article." ??!?!?! There IS NO section in the main article about it. None. Nothing. Except a link to the in popular culture article. Bad faith nomination for sure here, as the person didn;t even look at the article. DreamGuy 22:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid#Legend and myth. --Eyrian 23:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, the WP:TRIVIA article says nothing about deleting real info, it just says it shouldn't be in list format. Just because you're too lazy to edit it, it's not a justification to delete the whole article. DreamGuy 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on dreaming there Dreamguy, we delete plenty of "real info" every day. Real things happen all the time, that doesn't make them automatically notable or worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Burntsauce 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is pretty good, as far as an in popular culture article goes. Where does Five pillars ban "In popular culture" articles? Are you saying this article is unencylopedic or NPOV? Besides, at least this one isn't a huge, bulleted list. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet points don't really make the difference, it's just a bunch of single-issue paragraphs. The first pillar of Wikipedia includes "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection". --Eyrian 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And by your definition of trivia (versus format) no article on Wikipedia would be kept, you'd delete them all. The topic here is jhust as encyclopedic as any other topic. Go actually read policies before putting things up for deletion. DreamGuy 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you, I read the article and the appropriate policies. The list would be the same with or without some trivial formatting convention. It's just a trivial list, regardless of whether the paragraphs start with little boxes or not. --Eyrian 23:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep - If you think there's too much trivia, EDIT THE ARTICLE. Deleting it and having people just push the trivia onto the main article wastes everyone's time, as it'll just have to get deleted in the future, or get spun off into a new article again. Popular culture is a topic that can have solid, encyclopedic information, and much of the content is very salvageable. All we have here are pup culture article haters who don;t think ahead far enough to realize that these were spun off for a very important reason. DreamGuy 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very important comment, the reasons you give here are not a valid reason for speedy keeping. Speedy keeps are used when procedure is not followed correctly or in cases of obvious bad faith. You should assume the good faith of the article's nominator as well as those voting delete, and you should, at the very least, watch your tone, as it is extremely uncivil, and comes off as merely angry and (to be honest) immature. Not a single one of the editors nominating these articles or those voting delete 'hate' pop culture or pop culture articles if they are done well and are not huge lists of complete crap. There was no important reason to spin these articles off (WP:FORK?). The reason why most of these articles were created was because the trivia and/or 'pop culture' sections in articles were becoming bloated lists of indiscriminate information. CaveatLector^Talk 05:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page cited is an essay, incorporating material from various levels of acceptance in WP. It is perhaps being cited because none of the actual policy pages on WP provide for the deletion of this sort of article. .If there's material too unimportant for an article edit the article. one argument for deletion does not fit all--personally, I don't think much of proposals for deletion which do not show some awareness of the specific contents of the page. We do not delete on the basis of page title alone.DGG (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask you, DGG, to give an example on this discussion page of a specific paragraph or piece of information contained within the article that is actually useful, verifiable, and relevant to the subject at hand (the subject being Mermaids. CaveatLector^Talk

Keep Gain consensus to change the essay to a policy if you want to kill ALL trivia articles, but frankly, it's not policy yet and I doubt it ever will be. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. What an odd idea for an article. I mean, what are mermaids other than in popular culture? Perhaps this should be Mermaids in an era when no sane adult could seriously believe that mermaids really exist, but that would be a bit unwieldy. Most "XYZ in popular culture" articles are crap compilations of teenage obsessions; this one too isn't crap-free, but it's actually pretty good as they go. By all means remove its more trivial content ~~but let it live on~~. (Time/energy permitting, I'll add a note on Zemlinsky's Seejungfrau: a fine piece of music.) -- Hoary 00:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC) .... altered Hoary 02:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (note new vote below).[reply]
Delete, cultural impact isn't shown by writing down every time something appeared somewhere. Punkmorten 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a list. Its just not bulleted. Listing every time ________ something has appeared in TV/Movies/Radio/books is trivial information, so delete per WP:FIVE Corpx 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Change to Keep and rename(RE: comments below) -- I wonder why more people want to keep this list than do in the usual In popular culture articles? I think it's just because it isn't bulleted (as Corpx mentioned), so it might give the impression it's a more substantial article. It isn't, it's just a list of loosely associated topics (from Fantasy Island to Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie to Bewitched) stuck together just because they all featured a mermaid. At some point. Saikokira 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've cut a lot of NN stuff, junk, trivia etc. You may still hate the article (or insist that it's no more than a list), but anyway it's shorter. -- Hoary 03:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's an improvement, possibly the way to go would be to rename it Cultural depictions of mermaids and concentrate on examples that are specifically notable for their depiction of mermaids. I've changed to my recommendation to keep on that basis.Saikokira 04:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I'd been thinking of Mermaids in the arts myself, not least because such works as Die Seejungfrau have hardly been "popular". -- Hoary 05:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per every other in popular culture article deleted recently. Listcruft, trivia, indiscriminate information, and original research. Resolute 04:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, really? I discriminated, and deleted a pile of "information". The result is still a mess, of course, but then a high percentage of WP articles are messes. -- Hoary 05:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. And while your effort is commendable, it doesn't change the fact that this is nothing more than a trivia section acting as an article Wikipedia is not a collection of loosely associated topics. Resolute 13:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then perhaps we disagree on what's trivia. I don't see a history of artistic representations of this or that imagined phenomenon as inherently trivial, though I'd concede that trivia remains in this article (and that it's shoddily sourced). I wondered what kind of articles you might like, and a bit of sleuthing on your user page took me to 1988-89 Calgary Flames season. The first one fifth or so of it looks like an article, but the rest looks like a series of neatly formatted trivia to me. Now, I realize that my finding adult men running around after balls occasionally ridiculous but mostly soporific may be most abnormal; still, you might ask yourself whether such material as Jim Peplinski 24 79 13 25 38 241 20 1 6 7 75 Theoren Fleury 14 36 14 20 34 46 22 5 6 11 24 Mark Hunter 22 66 22 8 30 194 10 2 2 4 23 Jamie Macoun 34 72 8 19 27 76 22 3 6 9 30 etc etc etc is so very much more deserving than an as-yet poorly arranged series of fairly coherently written paragraphs on mermaid appearances. -- Hoary 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm not going to waste my time defending an article on a different topic that is unrelated to this one. The problem with this article is that a random listing of things that happen to mention or include mermaids is hardly a "history of artistic representations" of mermaids. Show me some reliable sources that discuss mermaids in popular culture, and I'll listen. Resolute 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, Mermaid itself does. I'd looked at that too quickly. See my revised vote/suggestion below. -- Hoary 02:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list of information and I would ike to add a plea for sanity that should come through in my comments in this discussion. CaveatLector^Talk 05:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's me that's being accused of insanity, that's perfectly fine. Perhaps it's insanity that causes me to wonder about the continuation of the charge that this list is "an indiscriminate list of information" so soon after (i) I discriminated among what I saw and deleted half of it, (ii) I announced this (above, 03:49, 27 July 2007), (iii) this act of discriminating deletion persuaded User:Saikokira to change his or her vote from delete to keep (above, 04:11, 27 July 2007); (iv) Saikokira and I have thought of new titles that are likely to keep at bay would-be adders of Finalfantasy-Dragonballquest-Starwarstrek-cruft. -- Hoary 06:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sanity comment was really directed at the entire discussion in general. Although it's apparent you've worked hard in this case to discriminate among the information, it's still rather loosely associated. Some of this article actually looks like it might move into a well sourced discussion of the portrayal of mermaids in art ('pop' or not); however, it's going to be rather difficult to surpass the Mermaid#Legend and myth section that is already in the main article, and if new, well sourced, information can be added, it should probably go there. CaveatLector^Talk 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, Mermaid#Legend and myth certainly is a lot better than the article up for deletion. What's to be done? (I'm now too sleepy to comment further.) -- Hoary 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CaveatLector 15:54, 27 July; but first dump the content into Talk:Mermaid (whose readers may well want no part of it). -- Hoary 02:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not fixed, per PunkMortem. The problem with this article is that there is no point, and no one is really editing it. I could find it acceptable if it were a bare (not annotated) list of blue links. Theoretically, if this were actually an article about Mermaids, and their depiction and importance in popular culture, I might support that, but I think the main article Mermaid already deals with these issues in a good way, without particularly emphasizing modern popular culture (as I have seen nothing to indicate that the modern pop culture idea of a Mermaid is any different). This article is just a cruft-magnet now, and full of cruft. If someone is willing to fix it up, I'd be willing to change my opinion. Mango juice^talk 14:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mergemaid Mandsford 00:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing encyclopedic here. IPSOS (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and continuing with bold editing processes to make it stronger. Otto1970 00:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete triviacruft. GlassFET 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It should be cut down and probably merged with the Mermaid article. Having an article of it all by itself, it doesn't meet the criteria. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (Hoary 02:49 July 28)/(CaveatLector 15:54 July 27). Kayaker 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keyrock[edit]

Non-notable character. Corvus cornix 21:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources. I'd say merge... but where? --Eyrian 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unsourced article about someone's D&D character. --Finngall ^talk 21:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Oli Filth 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirected to United States Senate#Members and elections. El_C 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Senator-elect[edit]

Not really new information. The 2006 list is out-of-date. What's the point? The information about their rights/powers/franking/etc. can be merged to United States Senate#Members and elections.—Markles 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom - I dont see any need for a term like this Corpx 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, --CapitalR 14:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Senate. List will constantly be out of date. CaveatLector^Talk 22:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate#Members and elections, per nom. Redundant. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would suggest against a redirect directly to the US Senate on the ground that this term can possibly be used to refer to members-elect of other senatorial bodies. CaveatLector^Talk 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with CaveatLector. Change my nomination above to: redirect to Senate.—Markles 18:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Bullzeye. Bearian 22:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Mandsford 00:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shuang Wen[edit]

This is an unsourced orphan biography of a living journalist. It has been tagged as orphan since November last year. Edits since the article's creation in July, 2005 have nearly all been tagging, wikifying and the like. I tagged it for proposed deletion on 17 July. The tag was removed on 22 July but no further edits were made.

And so we're here.

I suggest that we either source this article or delete it. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete there is no provision to delete for the absence of sources. What I think is intended, is that there are no sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject, which seems perfectly true, and is a good reason to delete, unless they can be found. Ic an find nothing on Google News, and nothing that seems relevant on Google, but it's a commonly found name.DGG (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I don't care about "notability", a weak and vague idea that has somehow gotten a grip on a lot of editors who should really know better. What matters here is verifiability, which is solid policy. Without sources we simply don't have a Wikipedia article that conforms to Wikipedia's most basic policies. To claim that we can delete an article because it doesn't pass some idiotic "notability" test but we cannot delete an unverifiable article is to stand Wikipedia policy on its head. --Tony Sidaway 23:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles about minor Chinese journalists writing magazines in Chinese are utterly unverifiable (IMO barely escaping ((db-nocontext))) and unexpandable if the page author doesn't bother to provide the name in Chinese and the journalist is not widely noted in English sources. Impossible to guess how Shuang Wen writes her name, so instead I tried looking for the magazine. Came up with nothing useful for a few variations of literal translations of "Hotfoot" in Chinese on Google, as well as searching on the English title but restricting to Chinese pages. cab 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 02:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Corpx. Bearian 22:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO _{(and dare I say WP:BLP...)} --Aarktica 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Fork of Church Street bombing. El_C 18:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1983 Church street bombing[edit]

Okay, no one else seems to want to do anything about this ridiculous article. I speedy deleted it once, now I want to make sure we all agree that it's not fit to be here Deb 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as non-notable, not sure if it meets any speedy candidates. Full of spammy links and whatnot. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see we already have Church Street bombing, so not only is this page a wreck, it's redundant too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does it actually say "more info to follow soon" at the foot of this article? Maybe move it to someones sandbox. I'm all for wikis being a work-in-progress, but this one is really bad. Burntsauce 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Church Street bombing, the much better article on this very notable historical event. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this useless and extremly messy duplicated article.--JForget 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect Unsalvageably ~~NPOV~~ POV. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) ~~22:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)~~ 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Church Street bombing. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to get this POV screed (most of which isn't even about the actual event) out of the edit history and then redirect to the much better article. And we should keep an eye on that article for the insertion of POV material. Iain99 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect the title to Church Street bombing. Bearcat 04:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't even bother with a redirect. If you know it was the "1983 Church Street bombing", then you know it was the Church Street bombing. This rambling commentary, with illustrations, does not belong in an encylopedia. Mandsford 00:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you might not know that we have an article at that title... Bearcat 01:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would I know that we have an article called "1983 Church Street bombing". However, if we search for "Church Street" both articles would turn up. The only difference between the two titles is that one of them requires guessing the year that it happened. Mandsford 13:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to Ring a Ring O'Roses[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cultural references to Ring a Ring O'Roses

List of occurrences of a popular nursery rhyme. Trivia collection, unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 20:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete I guess authors are trying toname it is many ways as possible those trivia-filled articles.--JForget 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In what way does Five Pillars ban In Popular Culture articles? --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First pillar says that "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection". --Eyrian 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Isn't Five Pillars more of an overview of policy than actual policy? The trivia link points to a page in the Manual of Style, which encourages rewrites, not wholesale deletion. Besides you give no proof that this is "trivia" other than "it is a In popular culture... article, and they all have to go". --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 01:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either On the one hand, it's better that they are here in than in the article, remove them from here and they might creep back in. I also feel that in some ways, cataloguing the salient cultural references of a piece such of this can be benefit those that are attempting to comprehend the the cultural relevance of the work. Ring a Ring O'Rosies is evoked up in many mediums.. is enough to say just that without describing what the references are? It is this question which led me to start this article rather than remove all the references willy-nilly from the article itself. This being said, most of the stuff here is trivial by it's nature and may not have a place in an encyclopedia. All other "cultural references to" articles that populate wikipedia should likewise be deleted, though. leontes 22:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:5 and not a trivia collection. If dont see any notability for this song in popular culture. Corpx 02:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. Trivial list of indiscriminate information. Resolute 04:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the article about the nursery rhyme. Mandsford 00:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and IPSOS. --Aarktica 20:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. —Kurykh 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim eyermann[edit]

Non-notable sax player; autobiography (he has details on the bottom on how to get in contact with him). The Evil Spartan 20:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It isn't an autobiography. As TenPoundHammer said, he died on May 1, 2007. The article was written on July 25, 2007. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The article doesn't really claim notability, but per his All Music Guide profile, he was the band leader of East Coast Offering, and had an album that made Billboard 's Top Jazz Albums charts. He seems to have played with many notables as well. Also, that e-mail wouldn't be a good way to contact him, seeing as he died on May 1, 2007. His death seems to have gotten some coverage, so this may just pass WP:MUSIC -- but it'd need a major rewrite first. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per TenPoundHammer. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems notable, but the article is basically identical to his AMG bio, with only a few words changed here and there. As such, needs a complete rewrite. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the notability thing, he was nominated for a Grammy Award twice[6]. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also: I'm busy for the next couple of days, but I'm willing to work on this article in the future, if it's kept. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this Corpx 02:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grammy nominations and newer sources, but rewrite to avoid copyright issues from AMG bio. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that anybody can be nominated for a grammy. I could nominate my mother for one. It's the people who make it past the first round who are notable (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Lee_Nysted_Experience). The Evil Spartan 18:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per MastCell and TenPoundHammer. Probably should have been speedied per the alleged WP:COPYVIO by way of AMG. --Aarktica 20:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Kiraly[edit]

Unsourced article on a singer who has yet to release a record. Original author has a history of posting unsourced material, copyvios and images of dubious copyright status. Article has already been speedied three times--speedy tag this time was removed without explanation by an anon IP who is probably the original author based on contribution history. I vote Delete and salt (with a dash of paprika given subject's Hungarian ethnicity). --Finngall ^talk 20:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like an article written only to prove that she exists. → Hot Dog Wolf 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Singer has not released an album yet. Definitely not notable. TheCatalyst31 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it fails the music and biography guidelines. If she ever does something notable, something that garners coverage of multiple, non-trivial sources we can create an article then. Burntsauce 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until subject becomes notable. She hasn't yet released her debut album, according to the article. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. --SkyWalker 10:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn by nominator; see below. Non-admin close. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pulford[edit]

Contested prod. This article is about a non-notable youth sports team. It cites no sources, and the ip address contesting the prod claimed that "it was written by the coaches and players themselves", a clear conflict of interest. Since Pulford is also apparently a town of some sort, we may also be able to keep the article, but write about the town instead of the youth team. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the best thing for this article would be to replace the writeup on the non-notable youth team with a stub about the village itself. If that's the consensus here, I'd be glad to whip up the entry on the town; I've found several sources with just a quick look around. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 21:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm happy to wait for a day or so to see Tony's efforts. --Malcolmxl5 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

already started to clean up the article on Pulford - you are all correct it is a small village on the outskirts of Chester and its history goes back to the Norman Conquest of England (and probably before). I have also cleaned up the article on the Football team by removing the fairly obvious opinion of the writer.
Speedy keep. Towns are notable. But remove the part about the non-notable youth team. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since this does appear to be an actual town, then we can obviously keep the article. I withdraw my nomination. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inforape[edit]

Non notable neologism. Seems to be all original research. Cites never mention the term "Inforape". Submitted due to discussion on talk page after marked as speedy. Improbcat 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, uncited neologism. --Eyrian 20:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, for reasons I noted above. Improbcat 20:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being out of the loop is no reason to attack a valid article Djamur0 20:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note why this is a valid article. Improbcat 20:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Term is used in games and irc rooms often, sources that cannot be cited because, for the most part they do not keep logs. Rhynri 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what sort of sheltered world you live in, but inforape is an every day word to me and most other people who explore pages outside of the boundaries of wikipedia. I have friends that use the word inforape, their friends use the word inforape, I talk to people who i have never met before that use the word inforape and anyone that does not know the meaning of inforape (it's almost hard not to find one) should be able to go the the faithful search of wikipedia and discover this term. We are merely providing people with the public service wikipedia stands for

[7]

there is one of the first results on google for inforape.Djamur0 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not built on hearsay. --Eyrian 20:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And in which case it's just a dicdef, and doesn't belong here anyway. Delete as dicdef, complete lack of sources, so fails WP:V as well. RGTraynor 20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hardly from a site built on inforape Djamur0 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honest and serious curiosity here, what did you mean by this comment? Could you rephrase it as I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that wikipedia is full of inforape? Improbcat 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, please refrain from personal attacks, you repeated snide remarks are not appreciated.

Secondly the link you provide defines inforape as such :"Inforape is the gathering of personal information, by government agencies, for the express purpose of building a dossier on law-abiding citizens.", which has nothing to do with the inforape article created here. In addition, the article's cites never mention the term "inforape" and as such are note relevant to an article about the term/concept "inforape".

Thirdly, I am not saying(and never have said) the term doesn't exist, or that nobody uses it. What I am saying is that the term is a Neologism, and wikipedia has policies on neologisms and more specifically policies regarding articles on neologisms. And as such the article doesn't belong on wikipedia.

Fourthly the very fact that the references cited do not contain the term the article is about make this article appear to be Original Research, more particularly the part of that definition stating "applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". And as such the article doesn't belong on wikipedia.

Fifthly, whether or not I have heard the term before has no bearing on this discussion or not. I hear the phrase "My Bad" on a near-daily basis, and it doesn't have a wikipedia article. Even if the term is in common usage, it is not proper for inclusion in wikipedia until it has been written about by independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the palce to promote the use of the term, or information about the term. Wikipedia is the place to write about things which are already notable. Improbcat 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources; games, IRC and blogs aren't reliable sources, and thus can't be used to verify articles. If you can come up with cites that do fit the reliable sources guidelines, then we'll see. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it... I didn't want to cause a problem. I've created many a wikipedia page, including laying down the initial layout for the Genesis of Aquarion page, which has grown rather large, under different aliases, including Tyrian, and just my ip... I appreciate dj's support, as caustic as it may be. Would a collection of 100 screenshots (of in game uses - irc uses), or perhaps a list of 100 random persons supporting its legitimacy be sufficient to have the article reinstated? I wish to point out the first occurences of "pwn" outside of games/irc/forum posts (generally not searchable) occur many years after the word gained popularity..., and it's references are very recent, despite overwhelming use. Rhynri 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, almost certainly. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and our specific job is not to highlight things before they receive widespread, mainstream notoriety. RGTraynor 23:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you clarify your 'No, Almost certainly?' It's rather out of context... Thanks! Rhynri 01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've never heard of it and I get around on the web. Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor is it for things made up in school one day. —Travis ^talk 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To satisfy my own curiosity, I [Googled "inforape", there were 31 hits, and of them:

five were related to the inforape blog noted above, which uses a different and unrelated definition of the term inforape.
fourteen were porn or porn linkspam
ten were domain info for various inforape.FOO domains, all of which were parked domains
one was a trainer name on a pokemon site
one was incomprehensible on google and the link wouldn't come up.

-Improbcat 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Online Dictionary term. --Rocksanddirt 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" from WP:NEO Corpx 02:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Whitman in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection, composed of bare-mention references. Gives no further understanding of Whitman or his influence. Eyrian 20:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete as a pure trivia list, just like all the other "in popular culture" lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per TenPoundHammer. --Malcolmxl5 20:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - It is only a list of facts and nothing more. WP:TRIVIA → Hot Dog Wolf 20:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO; it seems that any cultural reference to Whitman, whether it be the man or his works, is fair game in this unsourced list of indiscriminate info. It's also riddled with OR and POV, and although it may be cleaned up, it's still unencyclopedic trivia. María (críticame) 20:48, 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 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What else I have to say like in previous AFD's, same flaws as the others.--JForget 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't think much of arguments that don't discuss the particular article-they amount to saying delete this article because all such articles should be deleted, without giving any specific reason why this article falls within the class. To delete the article it is necessary to show that all of the contents are so totally trivial that none of it can be rescued by editing, and that the article can not be used as a base for a better article on the subject. The nom and some of the comments do at least show they know what the article is about. I suggest the closing admin regard "all such" arguments as if they were made by bots. DGG (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd ask the closing admin to treat this as the an assumption of bad faith that it is. I, myself, use the 'all such...' argument because I tired of repeating myself of the various reasons why these lists should be deleted, since they are almost always for the same reasons. What can I or any other editor possibly do in this case? Perhaps those who wish to keep the articles should cite something from them or make some argument as to how they can be turned into good articles (I have done this very thing with several of them) CaveatLector^Talk 06:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of the weaker "...in popular culture" trivia lists I've seen, which is not encouraging. Most of the references are passing references, and the few that might be notable (the play; the plot device in Dead Poet's Society; the Ginsberg reference; the Bernstein "Songfest" reference, whose link is to an unrelated article) are not worthy of a separate article. (The play doesn't even have an entry of its own in Wikipedia, which suggests it's non-notable; the mention of it here is even less so.) To top it off, only one of the items is sourced, and it is a preposterous entry about a non-notable band that took his name. So what? (The reference for that is to MySpace, which is a pretty good indication of the total uselessness of this article; the only reference on the page is a MySpace link.) Delete this; find some sources for some of the more relevant stuff and add it to the main Walt Whitman article. Horologium t-c 23:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to see how lines somebody reciting lines from his works is in any makes the case for a popular culture article Corpx 02:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unstructured trivia, and not worth structuring. Golfcam 23:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Say what you will about Dungeons & Dragons, Cockatrices, the Four Horsemen, mermaids, Ring a Ring O'Roses, Vikings, the seven deadly sins, the Spear of Destiny, Judas Iscariot, pufferfish, comets, Isis, rayguns, Gehenna, the infinite monkey theorem, marionettes, tarot cards, incest, the Son of Sam, airships, Ambrose Bierce, Ludwig Van Beethoven, Johannes Brahms, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, The Four Seasons, Goldberg variations, Für Elise, Mozart's Requiem or Wyverns in popular culture. I agree with the nominator on this one. It doesn't add anything to Walt Whitman's achievements. Author is too young to remember that the ABC television series Room 222 was set at "Walt Whitman High School". Mandsford 00:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vikings in popular culture[edit]

Laundry-list of references without any kind of context or analysis. Eyrian 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

keep and cleanup. these lists are the raw material for good articles so to speak. Prune them, redirect them, but keep the stuff in edit history for future use. dab (𒁳) 20:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. These lists tend to cause other editors to emulate them, while distracting those trying to create an articles based on sourced analysis (which would have little in common with this kind of list). --Eyrian 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per WP:TRIVIA. No sources, OR, nothing but a list of disjointed references. Corvus cornix 21:14, 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 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rape and pillage then delete what's left. ←Ben^B4 22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Eyrian's reply means delete, without prejudice to re-creation of a sourced article? DGG (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never prejudiced toward the creation of sourced articles. Let me state this clearly: I would love for all the articles on Wikipedia to have "cultural impact" sections. However, I think that such sections need to consist of independently sourced analysis, not random appearances in fiction. --Eyrian 00:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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 00:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a list of loosely associated articles. Just being about the Vykes is too loose, imo Corpx 02:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. Resolute 04:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all such lists. Golfcam 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this particular list. To an extent, there is something to be said about the loving depiction of these murderers, thieves and rapists as heroes in popular culture. I don't think anybody would have wanted to meet up with a real Viking. However, this list goes too many different ways-- literature, epic films, sports teams (the Oakland Raiders might be Vikings? Only to the extent that they both started in Minneapolis). An intelligent essay about the difference between fictional Vikings and the real thing would be a good article. Mandsford 00:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial original research. And I would welcome someone with a good heart to go through Category:Representations of people in popular culture and nominate other such trivia lists. When these trivia lists are part of an article we do our best to get rid of them. They are even worse when set up as stand alone articles. 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was Speedy deletion (A7 by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs)) —David Eppstein 20:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel M. Bolt[edit]

University of Wisconsin Associate Professor. No third party sources or claims of notability. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G12, copyright infringement of cited source. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 20:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dattebayo fansubs[edit]

Non-notable fansubbing group. No reliable sources, so they fail the notability guideline WP:ORG. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:WEB and WP:ORG because it only describes the services of that organization/site, not its impact or significance. There are no independent sources which describe any achievements, impact on fansubbing, or historical significance, so therefore it is not suitable for a encyclopedia. Website or organization articles should not be written just to let readers know they exist. → Hot Dog Wolf 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This article has some potential, even if it's merged to fansubbing, because DB is actually one of the largest and most well known fan sub sites out there at the moment. CaveatLector^Talk 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of sources attesting to its notability. I dont think potential is enough to keep it when it doesnt establish notability Corpx 02:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.--Squilibob 07:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fansubbing groups, no matter how big, not really notable. Doceirias 08:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no verifiable, reliable sources to assert its notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While well-known to the fansubbing world (well, at least the ones that enjoy Naruto/Bleach fansubs in multiple languages), I agree largely with Sephiroth BCR.--十八 21:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOTION TO CLOSE A previous debate can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dattebayo which ended with delete. Not only that, but the page was deleted three times in the past, only to survive as a redirect to Naruto--十八 21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources to establish notability. Even though they continue to fansub Bleach and Naruto even if they did claimed to have been arrested at Otakon 2007. --Farix (Talk) 21:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. For the record, I was a fansubber from the pre-digital days and would vote the same on an article about the group I was with. Snarfies 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bearian 23:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt it should not redirect to Naruto (as they seem to be big on Bleach fansubbing as well). Or delete and redirect to fansubbing 132.205.44.5 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While they are big and known in the fansubbing specially as they do Naruto and Bleach both popular teenage animes. This makes the article questionable to be deleted or not. I haven't investigated but according to their website they was supposedly at Otakon. Maybe there are sources that could be used and if so that in my opinion would grant the article a keep status. However if it is going to be deleted than no redirect is needed as 'dattebayo' already redirects and 'dattebayo fansubs' isn't directly linked to Naruto other than in name. Lord Metroid 22:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 03:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia E. Burch[edit]

Assistant Professor at University of Wisconsin. No third party sources, or claims of notability. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't list any significant scholarly accomplishments that would pass WP:PROF and I didn't find them myself in a cursory search. ~~Could be speedy delete A7.~~ —David Eppstein 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No longer eligible for speedy deletion after DGG's edits, but I still don't see enough to change my !vote. —David Eppstein 04:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've found that she is Principal Investigator, for a grant on District-School Collaboration Study (January 1999-January 2002). from the John D. and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, for $1.3 Million., and Co-Principal Investigator, for a Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. grant of a half-million. I think this shows a considerable degree of acceptance in the profession. I've added the information to the article. DGG (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professor with publications list [8] that only seems to include 5 items that have been published so far. I don't see the grant makes so much difference to whether the subject currently meets WP:PROF or not? Espresso Addict 00:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Fails WP:PROF. I agree that being a lead investigator on a grant is not grounds for asserting notability in and of itself (smacks of inherited notability). Eusebeus 11:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per information discovered by DGG. --Aarktica 20:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about grants. lead investigator on a grant is normally the guy whose idea it is, and to whom the grant is awarded based on a peer review of his prior research. Federal grant in the US at least are always technically to the institution, as being the fiscally responsible party, but in practice they are to a person, almost always the director of the laboratory group. Large grants are large because they include support of other investigators; when they get to over $1 million or so, generally postdoctoral fellows as well as graduate students (though this varies from field to field). A grant by itself is not enough--the sort of grant to beginners of $20 or $30 thousand dollars for expenses is routine, not a sign of distinction or accepted reputation. I dont want to suggest a fixed amount for drawing the line, because it will depend on field. Another factor is time--a career investigator award in the US of 5 years or more goes to a very senior person indeed. All in all I said a week keep only, because I think this is the sort of grant where she's more the administrator than anything else. DGG (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deletion (A7, by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs)) —David Eppstein 20:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric M. Camburn[edit]

University of Wisconsin assistant professor. Although his career is promising, this article lacks third party sources and has not established notability. Fails WP:PROF. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G12 for copyright infringement of the cited source. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven deadly sins in popular culture[edit]

Unacceptable trivia collection (WP:FIVE), often only referring to a single sin. A popular cultural metaphor that has any understanding buried under a torrent of irrelevance. Eyrian 19:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many similar articles include a "Subject X in pop culture" section, and Seven Deadly Sins could definitely use one because of the amount it is used. The section is so large it cannot be included in the main article, so needs to be kept as a separate article. Definitely clean it up and weed out some of the more vague and unreferenced entries (i.e. "'Seven' by Megadeth is a metal song mentions these sins as well." [sic]), but don't delete it. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 19:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Kill it now for the same reasons that the other "in popular culture" articles are dying -- they're hard to verify; they're pure trivia; they're indiscriminate; they're lists of loosely associated topics; and so forth. I don't know why anyone would vote for "Keep". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ditto what TPH said, with a side of WP:OR for comparisons such as: "Pulp Fiction, (1994) - Subtle, underlying theme." Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulp Fiction in popular culture. María (críticame) 20:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TRIVIA, I'm also thinking those images are fair use violations. Corvus cornix 21:16, 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 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 10 lb hammer and all other 'x in popular culture' debacles. CaveatLector^Talk 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure trivia! (WP:5) Corpx 02:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only created this article in order to clean up the main Seven Deadly Sins page (which is still in an absolute mess). This stuff should have been deleted then, but there were too many voices on the main page arguing for it to be kept, so a consensus was reached moving the article to here. There is absolutely no reason for it to exist, and it should really have been removed long before now.--Malvorean 02:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per creator. This article has had other editors so it can't be speedied under that criteria. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- But the classical references should be mentioned in the main article (and they're not "in popular culture " anyway). Saikokira 03:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facts can be covered appropriately by lists, topics cannot. Golfcam 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - great idea, useful by itself, but the article needs major revision and editing. Bearian 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge The Seven Deadly Sins are frequently referred to in fiction and this is a well-written article. However, if the original author (Malvorean) wants to delete it, that's his/her choice. Since there was only one original source for the Seven Deadly Sins, a merger would be appropriate, although I think it should be limited to those works where the seven sins are woven into the plot. Mandsford 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say only a very small amount of it needs to be merged into the main article, as well. --Merlinme 10:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard R. Halverson[edit]

Assistant Professor at University of Wisconsin. No third party sources or claims of notability. Fails WP:PROF. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 19:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professor, around 10 papers in peer-reviewed journals & a couple of book chapters according to his CV [9] -- not yet evidence that he passes WP:PROF. The only possibility is the CAREER award, but it looks like that's basically just a fellowship for promising beginning researchers. Willing to change my mind if anyone can show exceptional significance for the award. Espresso Addict 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He has a few papers with high cite counts already, but he's middle author on them, so it's unclear to me how much credit to give to him for them. —David Eppstein 04:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to his NSF grant, but it needs a rewrite. Bearian 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NSF grant winners are not automatically notable - no assertion of activity that satisfies the criteria at WP:PROF. Eusebeus 11:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Eusebeus. --Aarktica 20:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. This is not an article - it's just a list of loosely associated facts (ie, trivia). The best way to gauge if it's a list of trivia? See how many of its entries falls into the format of "In x, y appears".-Wafulz 14:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spear of Destiny in popular culture[edit]

Collection of trivia, rarely using more than the name. Eyrian 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Well written, but full of loosely associated and unrelated topics with little in common except for the spear of destiny. → Hot Dog Wolf 20:13, 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 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize notable and verifiable articles that contain a major reference or influence of the story of the Holy Lance and then delete the article. (Best to put the list in userspace after the deletion so this can be done). CaveatLector^Talk 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup the more tangential references. How do "In Popular Culture" articles violate Five pillars? Be more specific. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" Bearcat 04:51, 28 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 00:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia collection, WP:5 Corpx 02:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting information, however trivial, means too much to some of you to support. Bcarlson33 02:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Umm, could you comment on the content of this article, and how you feel it meets policy? Resolute 04:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Emperor's comments below sum up why I feel it meets policy - although I'm sure you've noted that I don't exactly subscribe to the policy of deleting information. Cheers, Bcarlson33 15:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I had, but "Keep, because I don't like deleting things" is not a valid AfD argument. Resolute 23:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup There are quite a few notable outtings of the SoD. This just needs to be policed with a solid criteria and trivial mentions rooted out, references sought, etc. (Emperor 02:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- But the evidence that that just doesn't happen with these "articles" is overwhelming. Golfcam 23:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have seen entries of the "in popular culture" that are waste bins for any passing trivial mention which deserve to be deleted. That isn't to say that every "in popular culture" entry should go - they all have to be judged on their own merits. The key is to establishing a solid remit and policing it. The lead makes it clear that it is for prominent roles and this needs to be pursued. I'd like to see the number of items trimmed down and the items expanded on, as is done for the film Constantine. There are other non-trivial appearances of the Spear (the one that brought me here being The Spear which is all about it). Other mentions appear to be trivial - he Hellboy bit is a clear example, as it stands it suggests we see the spear in a cabinet in passing. Set dressing is clearly trivial and (as I've done on other similar entries) I'd move it to the talk page. If someone can expand it to show it's importance to the film (I am pretty sure it is trivial in the film) then it can go back in, with references because if it is not a trivial mention it should be in a review or overview. I think compared to a lot of i.p.c. entries this one is in good enough shape to be cleaned up and made into a solid entry looking at non-trivial parts the SoD has played in media. (Emperor 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete trivia, collection of loosely associated topics, etc, etc, etc. Resolute 04:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facts can be covered appropriately by lists, topics cannot. Golfcam 23:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total trivia list. Biggspowd 02:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as per Emperor. I admit that I wasn't acquainted with the name "Spear of Destiny", but this, like the Holy Grail or the Ark of the Covenant, is a Biblical reference that is a recurring theme in adventure books and movies. People have been buying into this for centuries. Mandsford 01:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Emperor and Mandsford. There's definitely the potential for a good article here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as per Emperor, Mandsford and Josiah Rowe. It's presence and affect in popular culture is not trivial and use of examples would be a relevant way to express this.Number36 00:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not as bad as some, but still mostly trivia. Crazysuit 04:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another collection of loosely associated things passed off as an article. Otto4711 13:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judas Iscariot in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection, amounting to little more than "Judas's name is often used to symbolize treachery". Eyrian 19:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, loosely associated topics, trivia, unreferenced, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Betray for 30 pieces of silver - then delete. ←Ben^B4 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and, unlike a lot of pop culture articles, I see no ability to categorize what it contains. Best to leave a brief discussion of how Judas has become an archetype or trope of sorts on the Judas Iscariot page. CaveatLector^Talk 22:32, 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 00:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia, WP:5 Corpx 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facts can be covered appropriately by lists, topics cannot. Golfcam 23:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles with "in popular culture" in the title; Wikipedia does not need lists of every individual time Topic X was mentioned in a song lyric. Particularly notable examples, if any exist, can go directly into Judas Iscariot, but most are just unencyclopedic trivia. Bearcat 04:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article looks very much like a list. It can be re-worked as a list and kept in my opinion.Biophys 06:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm all in favor of anyone trying to salvage a list, but I agree with the others that this is pretty much a collection of occasions where the name of Judas was mentioned. I think a list called Benedict Arnold in popular culture (playing the red or blue game here) would be equally weak. Judas Iscariot never has been celebrated. The author missed the most famous depiction, the guy left holding the bag in Da Vinci's The Last Supper Mandsford 01:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimber W. Malmgren[edit]

Associate professor at University of Wisconsin. Unreferenced, no claims of notability, fails WP:PROF. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 19:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does have a few papers in conjunction with other researchers, but doesn't appear to have made a large impact on her field at this time. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete 14 publication on Google Scholar. These articles show the problems with COI--the person who inserted them is a PR guy at the School. I've tried to explain to him previously two times on his page that articles need to show accomplishments with references, not vague statements like this. When these were nom. earlier today, I left a third statement. I even sent him an email, which he acknowledged. But he hasn't done anything. COI can lead to unsatisfactory articles in many ways, such as omitting what important stuff there might be. As 14 articles is at best borderline, Im not inspired to look further. DGG (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Associate professor, no awards, 20 or so papers from her CV [10], a few moderately cited per Google Scholar, doesn't quite seem enough to meet WP:PROF. Happy to change my mind if someone uncovers anything relevant, but with so many up at once there isn't much time to dig around... Espresso Addict 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF. Edison 18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I know, WP:WAX, but her case seems noticably weaker than that of Mitchell J. Nathan, a professor of the same rank in a similar research area at the same institution also up for AfD: fewer pubs (20 vs 30), many fewer citations (11 for the best vs 95), no grant mentioned. I didn't think Nathan's case showed anything exceptional that would make it noteworthy and the same goes double here. —David Eppstein 07:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above. Bearian 23:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pufferfish in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection, consisting of a bunch of bare-name uses. Adds no understanding to the topic. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, nothing but trivial mentions of pufferfish. They look cool but that's about it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRIVIA. Pufferfish are scary looking and can kill you if you eat it. That's all I need to know. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 19:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. → Hot Dog Wolf 20:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill another one of the demons trying to escape 'pop culture' section hell. CaveatLector^Talk 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, trivia only.--JForget 22:37, 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 00:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia collection, WP:5 Corpx 02:04, 27 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 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facts can be covered appropriately by lists, topics cannot. Golfcam 23:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles with "in popular culture" in the title; Wikipedia does not need lists of every individual time Topic X was mentioned in a song lyric. Particularly notable examples, if any exist, can go directly into pufferfish, but most are just unencyclopedic trivia. Bearcat 04:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it opens the door for a separate article about every different depiction of a fish or animal in cartoons. For some reason, there's currently an aquarium full of cartoons about undersea creatures, from Finding Nemo to Spongebob. Contrary to the author's assertion, pufferfish are among the least popular of fish to become toons. Mandsford 01:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. SilkTork 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell J. Nathan[edit]

University of Wisconsin associate professor, already tagged for notability. No references or third party sources. Fails WP:PROF. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he's notable. The poorly written article doesnt show it , but apparently he has writtten over 30 publications, most in good peer reviewed journals, according to Google Scholar. The one most cited [11] has been cited 95 times. That's a very considerable amount in this subject. GHe is furthermore principle investigator in a large NSF/NIH/USDE project, which also shows a considerable amount of public recognition. I think he's over the bar. DGG (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Associate professor, no major awards, Google Scholar is only finding around 20 articles that look to be in peer-reviewed journals; though the top-cited one seems fairly heavily referenced the rest not so much -- not sure he quite meets WP:PROF at this time. Prepared to change my mind if anyone unearths anything new. Espresso Addict 06:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per DGG's finding that at least one of his published works is widely cited (who would have thought that math heads need reading comprehension ability to do algebra problems?) and per PI in NSF research project. Offsetting this is his own institutioin's failure to promote him, so far, to full professor. Edison 18:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. PI for a funded project is good but unexceptional, which I think also describes his publication record. —David Eppstein 07:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per DGG, except that per his findings subject fails WP:PROF, as explicated by David above. Eusebeus 11:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per David Eppstein. --Aarktica 20:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DGG. Kayaker 23:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comets in popular culture[edit]

Spot-the-reference trivia collection. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Proposer has not provided any basis for deletion. Nothing in the "Five Pillars of Wikipedia" has any bearing upon the deletion proposal. RandomCritic 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It includes a prohibition on trivia collections. I argue that that is precisely what this article is. --Eyrian 20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not include a prohibition on trivia collections It says that Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. And so it should not be--it can, however, contain information on culturally significant trivia. Similarly, WP is not a list, but it does contain lists. DGG (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is laughably fallacious. Ah, so as long as it's only individual articles that violate, and not the entire encyclopedia, it's alright? No, no, it's ok for this article to just be a primary source document, as long as it's not all articles. It's alright for this article to be a soapbox, as long as it's not all articles. These things obviously apply to individual articles. --Eyrian 13:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete - trivia at its most trivial --Orange Mike 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree completely with Orange Mike. This article is full of other awesome references just like this one: "In the movie TMNT Halley's Comet is mentioned by Michelangelo. In reply to Donatello's explaining of how the monsters are coming to New York, Michelangelo says: 'Oh, so it's like Halley's Comet, only monsters come out?'" WP:NOT#INFO, unsourced, unencyclopedic listcruft. María (críticame) 20:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also full of references and discussion of material like Brin's Heart of the Comet which is not in the least trivial, and is certainly primarily on the subject, and the motion picture Deep Impact, which is not quite as important but certainly relevant, and so on. I'd say it's about 50:50. DGG (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Brin reference is best placed on the Heart of the Comet page as a backward reference to Hailey's comet. And for a reference to Deep Impact (film), we need only place a link to extinction level event on the comet page and then add a brief and sourced section on the E.L.E. page about how and why the possibility of an E.L.E. has inspired science fiction writers. We do not require huge lists to have the relevant information contained on the Wiki CaveatLector^Talk 06:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is not one verifiable third party reference in the entire article that establishes the subject matter's importance in popular culture; it's instead a long, tedious list of mostly trivial mentions of comets. Why you can continuously attempt to argue that this information, and others like it, is encyclopedic is beyond me. María (críticame) 12:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, violates WP:TRIVIA, no references, OR. Corvus cornix 21:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Detonate with a deletion bomb, lest it strike the Earth and destroy all life. (OK, so the vote on Judas is making me have a bit of fun...) CaveatLector^Talk 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and trivia collection.--JForget 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Burn with fire~~ Delete- per all of the above. These "X in pop culture" lists are starting to get on my nerves. --Boricuaeddie 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and it produces the inspiration for comments whose role in the debate is to demonstrate the cute things that one can say, rather than discuss based on on the contents of the article and WP policy. DGG (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? Please excuse me, but my limited ability to communicate in English does not permit me to understand the meaning of your message. --Boricuaeddie 02:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll summarize. He's assuming bad faith and becoming angry that some editors' annoyance with the commonality of these 'pop culture' articles is causing them to use satire. CaveatLector^Talk 06:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I apologize if it made you angry. I still think it should be deleted.--Boricuaeddie 15:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivia collection, WP:5 Corpx 02:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facts can be covered appropriately by lists, topics cannot. Golfcam 23:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I have no doubt that there will be more nominations of outer space things in pop culture, comets are an event as much as they are an astronomical body. This article does need some heavy editing, but it doesn't need to be tossed out. Mandsford 01:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, loosely associated trivia. Crazysuit 04:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sr 13 08:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allan R. Odden[edit]

University of Wisconsin professor. No claims of notability, or third party sources. Fails WP:PROF. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full professor at major university and director of a major research institute. Many publications, including a very widely used textbook used at what seems to be most of major colleges of education--I listed 4. The incompetently written article doesn't bother to show them, but google helps. The textbook meets WP:PROF. DGG (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Co-director of research institute, full professor, lots of consultancy work, CV shows masses of peer-reviewed publications [12], textbook with good publisher gone through 4 editions. Clearly meets my understanding of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 04:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To add to what DGG and Espresso Addict mention: Interviewed on National Public Radio, September 12, 1999. "Expert Urges Trenton to Spend $350 Million on Poor Schools, New York Times, January 17, 1998 — the expert is Odden and the lede sentence of the article calls him "nationally prominent expert on school financing". The Christian Science Monitor (in an otherwise trivial mention, one of a number of newspaper articles briefly quoting him) calls him an "expert on teacher pay", July 11, 2000. Similarly, the Philly Inquirer calls him "a nationally known school finance expert", June 6, 2000. Is this the same as the Allan Robert Odden whose engagement and wedding were announced in the New York Times (March 6 and May 30, 1966)? Seems like there's plenty of reliable secondary source material to turn this into a real article. —David Eppstein 05:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily satisfies WP:PROF on the basis of reputation as "nationally known expert" in popular press, full professorship at major university, co-head of research institute, widely used textbook, and publications in reputable refereed journals. Edison 18:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above contra nom. Bearian
Please keep the article. Allen Oddens is an important contributor to public school operations in the United States. His books and articles are leading sources of ideas for leaders in the field. He has served as an expert witness during court cases.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejohns5513@aol.com (talk • contribs) 20:33, 29 July 2007

The result was delete; copyvio. Sr 13 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhana Puntambekar[edit]

Associate professor at Unversity of Wisconsin, already tagged for notability. Unreferenced, fails WP:PROF. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 19:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete The article is almost entirely a copyright violation from her website at the school. [13], and has been so marked. This sort of contribution from an administrator at a respectable institution is not tolerable. Lazy COI. The author has been notified appropriately. DGG (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norman L. Webb[edit]

University of Wisconsin professor. Unreferenced, already tagged for notability, fails WP:PROF. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep not exactly a professor, a senior research scientist, apparently the administrator of three of their major projects, and probably notable accordingly. Further references needed--I have not yet checked publications. DGG (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't find many peer-reviewed publications, his work seems to be published mainly in government monographs, and their citation nos are therefore hard to compare with research papers. There are also several book authorships, but all relatively low-cited. I don't think he meets WP:PROF but he might well meet other guidelines. Espresso Addict 06:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete What has he done? Why should any reader care about this article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability per the standard at WP:PROF. Eusebeus 17:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on article, internet search, and AfD comments from DGG and Espresso Addict. Kayaker 23:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 00:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martha W. Alibali[edit]

University of Wisconsin professor. Fails WP:PROF. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:PROF by exceeding the "average college instructor/professor" on the basis of numerous publications in major refereed journals, publishing a scholarly book through Prentice Hall, receiving a research recognition award from the American Psychological Association, and being a tenured professor at a major university. Edison 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The APA Fellow award is the most significant-looking accomplishment listed in the article, but from a web search I found that they elect 150 fellows annually, large enough that I don't think we can rely on it alone for notability. However, I also found a mainstream media article on her research (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal, Oct 22, 2005, also reprinted a month later in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram) and a related article in Science News (Jan 15, 2005). And she has several highly cited papers in Google scholar. That's enough, I think. —David Eppstein 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full professor at major university, book from reputable publisher, minor award (Robert L. Fantz Memorial), and several reasonably highly cited papers. Espresso Addict 23:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, contra nom. Bearian 23:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Subject meers WP:PROF. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M. Elizabeth Graue[edit]

University of Wisconsin professor. Unreferenced, fails WP:PROF. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has two references which show the subject is a full professor at a major university, and has numerous articles in refereed journals and two scholarly books to her credit, which satisfies the test of WP:PROF which says "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor."The "average college instructor/professor" who would have fewer publications and lack tenure. Edison 19:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Full professor, with 3 books to her name, albeit with what look like relatively minor publishers; Google Scholar reveals reasonable citation levels for two of them. One of her journal publications is also reasonably well cited. I can't unearth her CV, but Google Scholar (which usually seems to underestimate) came up with around 35 publications. I think the highly cited book/article probably just about swing meeting WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 04:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep She seems to have about 16 papers. the most cited have been cited 23, 16, and 11 times in Journal articles, according to Web of science--which is incomplete in this subject. Her books have been cited by journal articles 41 and 25 times. I do not really know the standards in this subject all that well, so I'm just reporting the information. I think it's borderline; given that it's a very good university, I've given her the benefit of the doubt and said Weak Keep. Full professor even at Wisconsin is not automatically notable, just almost always.

DGG (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per WP:CSD#G12, or copyvio. Editing a copyvio makes it a derivative work of a copyvio, which still makes it a copyvio under law. —Kurykh 18:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Goldrick-Rab[edit]

University of Wisconsin assistant professor, fails WP:PROF. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 19:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently accomplished to pass WP:PROF yet, I think. —David Eppstein 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also appears to be cut and pasted from the faculty bio page. Don't know if that qualifies for speedy. Eliz81^(talk)^(contribs) 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, WP:CSD G12. But if I thought the article were worth keeping, I'd try to reword to avoid the copyright violation instead of just deleting. —David Eppstein 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio & notability. I see little in the bio to make it worth working on to keep. Not enough papers--google Scholar only shows 6 peer-reviewed papers, none yet widely cited, which is not enough. May be notable some day, but not yet. DGG (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professor with PhD in 2004 would need something special to meet WP:PROF; having reviewed her CV, there seems no evidence of that here. Espresso Addict 04:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to awards and research. Bearian 23:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to badger the nominator, but I can't figure out if there's one overeager Wisconsin student who's submitting articles about all the professors there, or if it's just Wisconsin Day at the AfD forum. Are there non-notable professor articles for any other school? Mandsford 02:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all of Wisconsin, it's the Wisconsin School of Education. And it is not a student. It's the PR person at the School, who inserted a large number of somewhat dubiously sourced and written articles for people in that school, the more and the less notable alike. Two or three of us posted at the time, reminding him of our policies, and asking him to get them into shape. He ignored it; not surprisingly, they were listed for deletion. I wrote again, and I sent an email, telling him that if was going to do this against COI policy, he should at least do it right. He thanked me for the update, and did nothing. A few of us rescued the articles for the really notable ones. The worst have been speedied, as have the ones that were blatant copyvio. The debatable ones are here.

This is not typical. Other school PR people and Department Managers have done similarly at first, but when one writes to them, and explains, they understand and co-operate. They let the ones that are not notable by our standards be painlessly deleted. They fix the articles for the notable ones, removing any copyvio, making sure there are references, and changing the language to fit what they must regard as our peculiar style. COI does not prevent the writing of a good article, if there is careful attention from the uninvolved. Good professionals from outside can help build good content, and will let us teach them how. DGG (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fox's Pizza Den[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fox's Pizza Den

~~Long-term unsourced, even after a month of concern --Eyrian 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn, the article has been sourced. --Eyrian 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's apparent from a Google search (100,000 hits) that this pizza corporation has branches in multiple states of the USA. I'm not sure what else to say about it, but that alone might be sufficient to make it notable per WP:CORP. Shalom ^Hello 19:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The google test doesn't hold. Also, what part of WP:CORP? --Eyrian 19:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I would think that a chain operating in 28 states would be at least somewhat notable just by the number of locations. A Google search isn't very fruitful yet (mostly directories and such), but there's gotta be something. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A popular and significant chain.Kinston eagle 20:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finally found a noteworthy award for Jim Fox. Gimme a large pizza, pepperoni, onions, heavy on the references. Clarityfiend 20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn - now referenced. No objections. Will ^(talk) 23:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of the Gorgon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Also nominated:

Not a single item in these pages is sourced, hence it is a CRYSTAL violation. I know that the titular character will appear in the episodes, but the criteria is verifiability, not truth. Also, please don't vote "keep" because it will exist, because the argument is flawed as we don't know the titles of any of the episodes yet. Will ^(talk) 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Sarah Jane Adventures stories, at least until we get more infomation --OZ OO (What?) 21:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rise in opposition to Will's request. I do not believe that deletion is proper for several reasons which I will outline:

All relevant information pertaining to these articles HAS been sourced and are currently displayed in the articles. When I typed up the episode pages, I did so section by section. As you know, typing up new article pages is VERY time consuming. I did created a section for "Novelization" and "References." These sections were not complete at the time when I went to lunch. When I got back another user had deleted these sections. When Will saw the pages, the reference sections were already gone. So it was never intended to be the final edit, and thus it was not a "crystal" violation.
These articles are considered "future television episodes" and are marked as such to give the reader notice that the articles or sections contain information about a scheduled upcoming television episode and it "may contain non-definitive information based on commercials, a website or interviews" and the "information may change as the date of broadcast approaches." This is consistent with EVERY Doctor Who related upcoming episode page and I followed the same procedure with these articles.
Four out of five titles have been announced concerning Series 1 of The Sarah Jane Aventures. Before anyone nominates a page for deletion, it is common courtesy that they discusss the matter on the article's discussion page first. Had Will done so, he would have known that the titles have been revealed AND novelations of three of those stories are due out in November 2007 by Penguin Books. (Deej30 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep due to the points made above I see no reason these articals should be deleted, since these titles are now known, (DWM) and there is some information on the different stories, then these articals should continue to exist as long as any arguable information is refferenced. Wiggstar69 23:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to The Railway Children. El_C 19:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Railway Children[edit]

I'm not going to try to ascertain whether this article is original research, but it sure looks like original research. Delete unless sources can be cited. Shalom ^Hello 18:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN neologism and OR unless plenty of sources provided. I just searched the UK NewsBank newspaper archive (weeding out Nesbit's The Railway Children) and found no references at all to this claimed usage. Gordonofcartoon 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Railway Children. Corvus cornix 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. That too. Gordonofcartoon 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Redirect to The Railway Children (rolling back to original version of the page). Which reminds me, if a page is created as a redirect, and an article is written in its stead that qualifies for deletion, when is it ok to just roll it back to the original, and when for AfD? Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to a redirect is just an editing question. Probably better to simply change again than to rollback. But mention on the talk page first. DGG (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Haithcock[edit]

Requesting this be deleted as the subject is not notable, and the article fails WP:BLP for completely lacking reliable sources of a non-trivial nature anyhow. Burntsauce 18:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I would imagine that being alderman of a city doesn't automatically make one notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--if sourced. This is Chicago, where I think Alderman often have a major political role, but still of course not automatically notable--, but significant controversies are mentioned which should be sourceable. DGG (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for the same reason DGG supplied. — Moe ε 19:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article fails WP:BLP, which parts do you suggest we "weak keep"?? Burntsauce 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I don't week keep, I weak keep. No, it doesn't fail BLP. You're wild interpretation of BLP has gotten the better of you yet again. From BLP:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles

Emphasis mine. Something not having sources does not automatically label it contentious and thus deletable. I said weak keep per the same reason DGG, it needs more references. I already explained to you in full what BLP is on your talk page when you went around blanking articles of non-contentious material, so don't go wikilawyering BLP to everyone when you can't even accuratly cite it. — Moe ε 01:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can place undue emphasis anywhere you'd like, but this article still fails WP:BLP policy and should be deleted. Burntsauce 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per DGG and Moe. Bearian 23:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with DGG's reasoning in this situation. Accusing a politician of 'being in the pocket of developers and special interests' is a pretty broad charge that has been leveled against a large majority of politicians. There are no specifics listed detailing any particular project that was somehow widely opposed by the public at large and was approved by Ms. Haithcock. If you went to a random article for a member of Congress and added 'Congressman X is widely viewed as beholden to special interests', how much would you wager that that comment would be reverted in a hurry as an unsourced POV statement. That statement should be removed from this article under the same grounds. And without that paragraph, what do you have? An individual who was appointed to a city council seat who seems to have had an unremarkable two terms in office.Montco 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence of notability and fails living policy due to lack of reliable sourcing. RFerreira 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if this is the second nom, where is the first AfD? Darrenhusted 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Political history of x country are valid subjects and titles, but this one effectively abuses this academic term and should be started from scratch, with those encyclopedic aims in mind. There needs be a limit as to how tolerant we ought be of such stubs. El_C 19:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political history of the United States[edit]

This is ~~three~~ four templates on a single page; and has been that way since May 2006. What purpose does it serve? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A3 (no content), seeing as it's been in this stage for so long. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of the United States; otherwise delete for lack of content. See also Wikipedia:Avoid template creep. Shalom ^Hello 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmm, this may be an abandoned article, but there's little doubt in my mind that content could be added to it. I think deletion is premature, as it would be far better to have a valid article here than to have nothing. Instead, I think this page needs to get the attention the subject deserves. FrozenPurpleCube 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A redlink may actually get that attention; I came across this largely by chance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or it may get no attention at all. There are other tools in the box besides deletion, for example, requesting expansion or seeking to get a wikiproject involved. FrozenPurpleCube 21:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The ((expand)) tag's been there for six months. If someone thinks, now or later, that other methods will do something, the templates included are ((American_political_eras)), ((USPresidentialElections)),((USSenElections)), and ((US_house_elections)). I promise not to G4 immediately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first one is not the standard periodization, but some of the articles for that are missing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but without prejudice to recreation. If someone wants to write a history of political movements in the United States, or a list of societal changes that have influenced political history (e.g. World Wars I and II, the Civil War, the civil rights movement, the New Deal, and the Global War on Terror), that would make a good article. As it is, though, it's just a page of templates without context. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although, come to think of it, it might be hard to distill this down to just one article. Category:Political history of the United States contains a number of articles, each with their own perspective. Some of them, like History of the United States Congress, offer a broad perspective, while Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy is a comparatively minor event. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't suggest this should be one article, but rather a summary one that links off to things like Jacksonian Democracy or the Progressive Movement. FrozenPurpleCube 21:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ugh! Let someone else do it with, you know, some prose. ←Ben^B4 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment taking a look at the above comments, I'd like people to check the history section of this page Politics of the United States and tell me if they'd consider it appropriate as a basis for this article? FrozenPurpleCube 04:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There seem to be two history sections, right next to each other, both needing major work. I think User:Pmanderson/Eras would make a good outline; but I haven't put it into article space because of the redlink. Keep me posted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate later if someone wants to actually create an actual article. That could be done from the history sections of Politics of the United States and in that case the name should be "History of Politics in the United States" rather than "Political history of ..." which is a different subject. A "Political history" article, if needed, would focus on changes in the overall history of the U.S. as it has been affected by politics (and that may overlap so much with the main U.S. history article that it wouldn't be worth doing). A "History of politics" article would focus on how politics has itself changed, partly because of nonpolitical factors such as changes in technology, demographics, the economy, social change, etc. Two topics, related but separate, and neither addressed in this page which is not even an article. Noroton 16:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and rename Come on, this is simply a navigation page for the articles about United States elections. People click on a particular election, then come back to this nexus to go to the next election. No different than an index in the back of a book. Say that you want to read about Truman/Dewey in 1948, then about Kennedy/Nixon in 1960. This is helpful. Why some misguided soul called this "Political history of the United States" is beyond me. What a pretentious title, but it's more efficient than typing in "Presidential election of _____" every time you want to read about a particular campaign. How many votes are being made simply because of the dumb name for the article? Mandsford 02:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 03:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisanthi Avgerou[edit]

Professor that doesn't fulfil the requirements of notability for academics Nyttend 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/informationSystems/staff/academicStaff.htm, she is the author of two texts published by the Oxford University Press which in itself suggests notability per WP:PROF. Also, a search of Google scholar shows some 141 results. Bigdaddy1981 18:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not my area of expertise, but I'd be inclined to give this article the benefit of the doubt, at least for the time being: the LSE is one of Britain's leading universities, and and the bar to being called professor in the UK is significantly higher than in the US (see here) so I suspect it's more likely than not that she'd be regarded as a significant expert and/or an important figure. Iain99 19:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources and lack of info to pass WP:PROF. Corpx 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Keep Looks like I should've done a little more than a google news check for an academic. Corpx 03:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I see an article on someone who seems to be notable, but where there isn't enough information, I look for myself rather than !vote to delete. (or at least I use the information from those who have already commented). Turns out she has written or co-written not two but seven books, some of which look like widely used textbook--and one of which is a major reference work! I haven't checked the citation to the papers yet, but the books are sufficient for WP:PROF. It would be odd indeed for a department at LSE of all places to appoint someone as head whom is not very widely respected in the profession, which is the basis behind WP:PROF and WP:N in general. DGG (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on all those books DGG found, I'd like to withdraw the nomination. Nyttend 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isis in modern culture[edit]

Trivia collection, adding nothing to an understanding of modern perceptions. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. --Eyrian 17:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Seems like it could have additional explaination of uses that isis has in modern culture. Needs work, not deletion. --Rocksanddirt 18:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC). Also it seems to be a piece taken from the general isis article likely to make that one more consice. While it has been around since Nov of 2006, there have only been a few (less than 50) edits to it. --Rocksanddirt 18:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete just like all other IPC lists. Too hard to maintain, too frivolous (so Dylan cut a song called Isis... big whoop). Needs to be killed like all other "popular culture" lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep need fuller discussion,but that is just an editing problem.DGG (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is a mish-mash of actual decent information that belongs in a variety of other articles but not bunged together in a separate article. The section on modern-day Isis worshippers should be sourced and in Isis, the stuff on the TV show and its comic book adaptation should be in The Secret of Isis, the DC Comics stuff should be in Isis (DC Comics) and so on. In the case of the fictional characters, it looks like most of it already is. And of course, the trivial "ooh, he said 'Isis!'" garbage like Isis was the name of Bud Bundy's blow-up doll on the sit-com "Married... with Children." and Lost Our Lisa, an episode of the television series The Simpsons, was based on the viewing of the "Orb of Isis" by Lisa. should be removed entirely. Otto4711 18:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:TRIVIA, OR, no references. In particular, I would question the claim that Isis worship is spreading amongst pagans. Corvus cornix 21:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scrap and rewrite. Isis is actually quite an influential aspect of mythology and I am once again certain that there is scholarship out there that discusses it, and that a really well written article (and NOT a list of indiscriminate references) can be written. In any case, the most relevant of these references can be put into a category Category:Egyptian mythology in popular culture or Category:Egyptian mythology in art and literature. CaveatLector^Talk 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could have been prod'ed. Slower but less acrimonious. Doesn't even link to Isis (disambiguation) which is actually a better resource than this article. Canuckle 23:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure both prod and AfD take 5 days. --Eyrian 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Prod is more contentious, since anybody can remove the prod tag for any, all or no reasons whatsoever, and then you just have to come to AfD anyway. Corvus cornix 01:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not just an editing problem, these articles do in general form a broader problem. They are trivia collections. 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 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you thing paragraphs are better, just go right ahead and change it into paragraphs so we can judge. Nothing wrong with improving an article during Afd. DGG (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivia collection, WP:5 Corpx 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia, collection of loosely associated topics. Resolute 04:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject adequately covered by Isis and Isis (disambiguation). Addhoc 15:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody cares if Al Bundy's cat is named Isis, and shows about Isis (like the Saturday morning CBS show of the 1970s) have their own article. Mandsford 02:10, 29 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 17:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete, A7 --Eyrian 17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Soldier (Graphic Novel)[edit]

"A fictional comic-book vigilante created by Jonas Liston". Article created by Jliston. No evidence of notability. -- RHaworth 17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete, A1 --Eyrian 17:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banana cake[edit]

Very short article, A1 --Ouzo 17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A1, so tagged. No context. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny chu[edit]

Nonnotable model, no independent sources (just one website, which appears to be her own listing on an Asian models compilation site). NawlinWiki 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Well Know Model

- jenny chu model has 272,000 Google hits
- Employed to model at 15 shows
- Employed to dance at 19 shows - including some of the most famous is America
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JJGD (talk • contribs) (article author)

- Comment I see that the author has added sources since my nom. That does not, however, give him the right to edit my nomination. I've restored it. If you want to contest what I said, do it in your own comment, not by editing mine. NawlinWiki 18:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Well Known Model Thatperson 18:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn pinup - I note that the bulk of the 'references' are pages on her own website. The remainder cannot said to be non-trivial. Bigdaddy1981 18:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these multiple references to the model's own website have been removed by an editor. We scarecely have nontrivial remainders though - babes.net and the like don't really cut it. Bigdaddy1981 22:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N not established through third party sources. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 02:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Corpx. Bearian 23:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Hartpence[edit]

The article is about a non-notable Nintendo employee. Andy Hartpence is also the real name of NOA_ANDY. The NOA_ANDY article got deleted in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NOA_ANDY. FunPika 17:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pharmboy 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Sorry Andy, you're a nice guy. But you're not really notable. ASHTONZANECKI 17:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per ASHTONZANECKI. --REALiTY 17:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non notable and as being an attack page a lot of its history. Nyttend 17:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete & Redirect to The Neutral Zone (Star Trek: The Next Generation). Cbrown1023 talk 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomed Incident[edit]

Delete - article is based on a single sentence of a single episode of a TV series along with a non-canon novel. There do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the notability of this fictional incident either within the Star Trek universe or the real world. Note on the talk page there was a discussion from 2004 regarding the article but I'm unclear if that was an actual AFD (or whatever AFD was called at the time) or not. Otto4711 17:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent, reliable sources. --Eyrian 17:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect either to Romulans or Star Trek: The Lost Era (series of which novel centering on this event is a part) with appropriate ((Memoryalpha|Tomed Incident)) link. --EEMeltonIV 18:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 01:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EEMeltonIV — it's not inconceivable that some fanboy watching "The Neutral Zone" could hear that line about the "Tomed Incident" and wonder what it was about. Wikipedia is not the right place to find that information, but there's no harm in us pointing said fanboy to the place which is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per Otto4711 and Josiah Rowe. Kayaker 23:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was Reverted to its original redirect to Cantaloupe (a redirect from 2003!). The band article would have been subject to speedy deletion for failing to assert notability. NawlinWiki 17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockmelon[edit]

As nicely presented it as it is, the page for band Rockmelon does not seem to satisfy the Wikipedia:notability guidelines. The only source is MySpace. I requested that the editors assert notability if possible a few hours ago, but as they have twiced removed the notability tag, I presume they are unable. Moonriddengirl 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, and behavior seems to indicate there won't be any. --Eyrian 17:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability, per WINADFEBTEE (Wipipedia is not a directory for every band that ever existed...) Pharmboy 17:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 03:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Guitar (magazine)[edit]

Notability, only links to its own website, website is mainly google ads, spam Pharmboy 17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep This mag is in every major US bookstore it has been around since 1990 and won a "Maggie Award as the Best New Consumer Magazine of [that] year."[14] In addition to advertizing, the mag website has contents from back issues, articles on acoustic guitarists of all sorts and things I don't think you could find anywhere else. -MrFizyx 17:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
- there are some indpendent reviews of this mag online though I admit most don't meet my understanding of the the standards in WP:RS (e.g. see [15][16])
- The mag is cited as a resources or its articles are quoted in numerous publications (e.g. see google books)
- It is probably the most widely read title by String Letter Publishing. I don't know where to look up independent stats, AG itslef claims 64,000 readers.[17]
- Their web site is the first hit in google for the generic search on "acousitic guitar" (without quotes!).
-MrFizyx 19:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then I am confused why this magazine has Google ads on their own website and, well, LOOKS spammy. Even the article doesn't say much except to link. I would withdraw based on your arguements *if* someone could put some meat on this bone. Pharmboy 20:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Their webmaster may not have the best of tastes, but the fact that someone uses google ads to help pay the bills is hardly cause for deletion (hasn't amazon.com at times done this?) Nor should things be deleted just for being stubby. In anycase, I've had a go at it and posted a "decent" article. It still leans to heavily on the AG web site as a source, but since I'm not willing to do any more rigorous research perhaps that will do. BTW I like your username, but I was hoping your were a pharmacist or something rather than someone dealing in tanning beds. Regards, -MrFizyx 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW DELETE REQUEST I was trying to remove my objection while you were posting. Long story short: due to your turning it into a real article and my agreeing with you now, I say we have a consensus to keep the article. As the original person who made the delete request, I would ask an admin to come to the same conclusion. Pharmboy 23:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think even a non-admin could close this. I agree though that its well and good for process that we leave it to someone else. -MrFizyx 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My thinking too. Even tho I started this, it is now "owned" by everyone. Pharmboy 00:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all. Sr 13 08:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stroller Safety[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide Darksun 16:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding:

Stroller history
The History of Strollers (duplicate of Stroller history)

Delete, pure how-to. --Eyrian 16:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The first sentence makes it clear it is a how to. Pharmboy 16:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stroller Safety Yep, it's a howto. And its taken from an existing site (no copyvio- it's GFDL), so why does it need to be on another site? Merge one of the two other articles with Baby transport Lurker (said · done) 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, worthless how-to article. Burntsauce 17:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, almost reads like a copyvio from a book or pamphlet. Not needed; how-to article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, user is copying her own review articles verbatim from stroller.com. See articles I've added to this nom, above.NawlinWiki 18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See if any of the content of the Stroller history article could be merged into the Baby transport article. Darksun 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT a how-to guide. Dina 18:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be more of a how-to guide and an essay than an encyclopedia article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be time for an invocation of WP:SNOW. --Eyrian 19:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stroller safety - pure how-to guide - but wait on stroller history for the moment (at least until the AfD runs its course) as if the author could supply some sources and rewrite a bit to make it sound more encyclopaedic it could make a useful article. Iain99 19:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook WP:NOT a how-to guide case. This is not what an encyclopedia is for. --Wingsandsword 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first article and one (but only one) of the two other articles nominated, since the latter two are identical. There is an article (entitled Baby transport) about the modern day strollers. There is not an article about the historical development of an item that nearly everyone has pushed, or had once been transported in. I think that the closing administrator will notice that nobody voted "Delete all". However, two identical articles can't exist. I would vote to delete the second article with the name "The history of strollers", and make a link to "Stroller history". Mandsford 02:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 03:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Development of political parties in the United States[edit]

Duplicate of part of Party system; in addition, the "some theorists" who have argued that 1994 was a new party system are a minority of the small number who speak of the Fifth Party System at all (a few dozen papers out of the thousands written on realigning elections on the United States). I would put in a redirect; but most people who want this title won't want to go there. This is distinct from the long essay which used to fill this space; but no service to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to serve as a general page linking to the specific ones referred to (in that theoretical review) . possibly should be retitled accordingly. DGG (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note ((American political eras)) (transcluded below), which serves that purpose; but a rename to Party System (disambiguation), followed by deleting the redirect, might be worthwhile.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I agree that it should be renamed as a disambig page instead, I thought the template would be enough but I am not against the disam page (just rename it).--JForget 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Political eras of the United States
First Party System Second Party System Third Party System Fourth Party System Fifth Party System Sixth Party System
See also: Cyclical theory · Political realignment · Psephology

Delete I think the template does the job Corpx 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. The Template:American political eras contains all the wisdom there is to be had in this area. The template appears at the bottom of Party system, an article which *does* explain the thinking of the authors who came up with the artificial-sounding division into different eras, while this article just states that the eras exist, as though they fell from the sky. 16:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Corpx. Kayaker 23:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was redirect to Grammelot. Pascal.Tesson 16:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cirquish[edit]

Non-notable form of gibberish used in Cirque du Soleil. Article is only two paragraphs long, both of which are almost word-for-word copies of two of the paragraphs of the only acceptable source cited. PROD tag removed by anon without comment. --Miskwito 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not notable. One source is not enough, and Urban Dictionary does not count. Shalom ^Hello 18:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cirque du Soleil and mention in Grammelot, which is the generic term for this type of language. Urban Dictionary is definitely out, but I also found here and here. Gordonofcartoon 20:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - Minor notability is there Corpx 01:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Several news articles which are about the Cirque du Soleil mention Cirquish in passing, but I don't immediately see any that demonstrate any real notability or importance of it--it's always just a side-note when talking about the circus itself. The exception is the non-Urban Dictionary source given in the article, which the article comes very very close to plagiarizing. --Miskwito 16:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. It's associated with a specific act (rather like Stanley Unwin and his "Unwinese") but is not separately notable, except as an example of the generic Grammelot to which such languages belong. Gordonofcartoon 16:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Grammelot, which already discusses Cirquish. I don't think this article can be kept so long as the sourcing is so weak and there is a possibility of copyvio. I wouldn't oppose the merge to Cirque du Soleil recommended by Gordonofcartoon. His two newspaper references should be added to whichever article this is merged to. EdJohnston 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EdJohnston and Gordonofcartoon. Kayaker 23:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge per EdJohnston, otherwise Delete as cruft. J-stan ^Talk 14:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Objecting to an AfD based on semantics alone is absurd. —Kurykh 00:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Day[edit]

Nonnotable neologism with no reliable sources confirming its notability. `'Míkka 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for lack of content and reliable sources, without prejudice to recreation. Shalom ^Hello 18:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bigdaddy1981 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as I have heard of it in New Mexico, but cites are needed. Bearian 23:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: on the grounds that it the grounds cited for Afd are invalid and deleting on them would set bad president. UFO day is a festival, not a term or phrase. Therefore it cannot be a neologism. If you wish it to be delete, then the terms of the Afd must be changed. - perfectblue 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete all. The artist wasn't even close to notability (has been speedied three times) and the deleted article makes it plain how NN these songs/albums are. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 21:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's Perfect (Bo Johnson album[edit]

Non-notable, unreleased album. The artist, Bo Johnson, was speedily deleted as non-notable, but albums and songs aren't speedily deletable like people (and the articles aren't quite, IMHO, blatant advertising). However, they cite no sources and contain a lot of speculative information, so they fail WP:MUSIC's notability guidelines. The nominator strongly favors deleting all of this article and the articles listed below. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination also includes the following article:

If consensus is to delete, the closing admin should also delete the article-turned-redirect:

—C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all. If the singer isn't notable, then neither are the songs or album. That should be a speedy candidate for song/album articles in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, songs can't be speedied under A7. The only avenues to speedy it right now would be that it's shameless promotion/advertising (G11) or that the poster was creating the articles to deliberately disrupt (vandalize) Wikipedia (G3). I'm assuming good faith here, though I did leave a message on the OP's talk page requesting sources, since the volume of articles created at once was almost disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that in general, "song/album by nn, deleted artist" should be a speedy candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's for discussion at that policy page. I think the feeling there is generally against adding new criteria. I'm not sure of the resolution of the question of the relative notability of the artist and the work in general--possibly an otherwise non-notable artist might have one good album.DGG (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nom withdrawn; articles relisted individually. Sr 13 08:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas A. Romberg[edit]

Original nominator withdrawing nomination for this article. From the original group, I have created new pages for the individual professors that appear to not meet WP:PROF criteria. Other articles were appropriately tagged and removed from AfD discussion. I've made every attempt to go above this deletion process fairly, efficiently, and with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, but clearly the group nomination was a mistake. If you have any other issues with my nominations relating to these professor articles, please feel free to leave me a message on my talkpage. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this page, ~~as well as a rash of others by the same creator,~~ for deletion under WP:PROF. Every single professor from University of Wisconsin is not immediately notable, and these are orphaned and unsourced and some even potentially cut and paste. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 16:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm also adding these pages to the proposed deletion. Hopefully haven't missed any.~~

Sara Goldrick-Rab

M. Elizabeth Graue

Martha W. Alibali

Norman L. Webb

Thomas A. Romberg

Sadhana Puntambekar

Allan R. Odden

Mitchell J. Nathan

Terrence S. (Terry) Millar

Susan B. Millar

Marilyn R. (Lynn) McDonald

Robert D. Mathieu

Kimber W. Malmgren

Thomas R. Kratochwill

Richard R. Halverson

Adam Gamoran

Clifton F. Conrad

William H. Clune

Eric M. Camburn

Patricia E. Burch

B. Bradford Brown

Brian A. Bottge

Geoffrey D. Borman

~~Daniel M. Bolt~~

Nominator update: I've stricken the other professors from consideration in this AfD. Clearly efficiency wasn't the way to go here, which is what I had originally hoped to accomplish instead of inundating AfD with separate requests. I'll list the professors individually instead. Therefore in this AfD, please only consider Thomas A. Romberg. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close on procedural grounds. This AfD mixes up people from many disciplines, with widely varying levels of academic achievement (assistant professors to named chairs such as Kratochwill). Many of them may warrant deletion but I think we should give these people the courtesy of discussing them individually on their own merits. —David Eppstein 17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While they are from different departments, they all appear to have an affiliation with the Center for Education Research. The author began by creating a category for education research. Since a single author created individual pages for basically every single faculty member associated with the Center, (although it is true that they have varying levels of achievements,) I figured it was acceptable to include them in the same list. I understand however if this is up for debate. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 17:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Or speedy keep, on purely procedural grounds and re-list seperately rather than tarball into one monumental disaster that will never reach a consensus. Burntsauce 17:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Procedural some are clearly notable, many just need improvement, this follows Be Bold to me and a mass delete is not appropriate. they need individual submission. --Buridan 17:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist indivudually, too big a hassle to lump into one, per above. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments added after the AfD was changed to concentrate only on Romberg[edit]

Keep. The article makes a clear case for the importance of his accomplishments in secondary-school mathematics pedagogy. —David Eppstein 19:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (referring to Romberg) Distinguished emeritus professor far exceeds any standard expressed in WP:PROF. 30 books, 300 research papers, chaired national panels to develop widely used math curricula for schools, won numerous research awards from national organizations in his field, tenured full professor at major university. An unusual choice to throw into an indiscriminate group nomination. Edison 19:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current article needs sourcing, however assuming even a fraction of it is well founded, he seems to meet WP:PROF in spades. Will add a few external links to help validate the article. Espresso Addict 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, actually there are already external links, I'd just missed them. Espresso Addict 22:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, default to keep. I recommend engaging with the editor to assuage any BLP concerns. Neil ╦ 10:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Mihaljevic[edit]

see also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Amy Mihaljevic

see also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Amy Mihaljevic

Article about a long-unsolved crime. Article apparently is being used by a single-purpose account to promote his book on the subject (citing himself as a source). Multiple WP:BLP issues caused by the repeated outing of suspects, based on apparently leaked police material. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nice. WP:OR, WP:COI, and WP:BLP, all in one neat little package. - TexasAndroid 16:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit of a mess at present and I agree that it should be deleted unless it can be more extensively sourced. The biographies of living persons (BLP) problems are pretty serious and also lend weight to deletion. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Videmus Ommia is bordering on libel. While I did initiate the page, it was not done to promote a regional book but to provide updated information on a tragic unsolved murder that has the potential to be solved if the right person finds the information. There have been several other people who have contributed information on this page if you check its history. Further, Videmus Omnia's involvement in this issue is verging on harassment. And his insistence on deleting an article that can only help bring about justice is just strange. Take out all references to the book if you truly believe there is a conflict of interest, here. But don't impede an investigation out of spite. There is historic interest in this article. It references other articles that have not been written by me. The above editor's claims are incorrect and damaging.-James Renner — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRenner (talk • contribs)
- Comment the above unsigned statement "borders on" a violation of the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No legal threats.Edison 19:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - This is a subject concerning public figures, so it is not Libel and slander to accuse an author of having a conflict of interest, especially if it appears to be true. Bearian 16:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move. This was as big of a news story at the time as the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping (obviously with a much more tragic outcome). The article is well-sourced, and deleting it would be a patent endorsement of recentism. I understand the BLP and COI concerns, but violations can be reverted and the misbehavior of editors dealt with through appropriate chanels. IronGargoyle 16:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep author did write a book and a news story on the matter, but I don't see how a journalist sharing his files with Wikipedia can be a COI if we accept the published sources meet WP:RS, which they do. WP:RS has a section on citing reliable sources you wrote, it IS ALLOWED (see WP:COS and WP:SPS). -Nard 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll grant that the crime is notable. What's got me pushing for deletion now is the serious BLP issue of discussing criminal suspects without multiple, reliable sources per WP:V and WP:BLP. If the article is kept, the history (and the talk page history) will have to be oversighted. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a BLP issue, because he didn't write bios of the suspects - if he did, that would be a BLP issue. This issue is the content of this article. Making a BLP wasn't called for. BlueSapphires 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a BLP issue. Naming people suspects in a murder case most definitely is a BLP problem, no matter where they are so named. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and weak Keep - (EC) it's icky. Seems like the BLP and OR stuff can be tidied up and then it becomes the sort of encyclopedic material that wikipedia excels at....the stuff that can't really go into a regular encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The crime may be notable (personally, I can't see that it's more notable than any other unsolved murder), but there's no evidence that the victim is. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to assist in the solving of crimes. Deor 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends on how old you are and if you live in the United States. It was bigger than the Amber case at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueSapphires (talk • contribs)
Delete The article needs oversight to remove names of "suspects" per WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not a crimeblog or an archive of murders or a newspaper. If the article is kept, it should be renamed "Amy Mihaljevic murder case"" or some title descriptive of the case, because it is not really a biography of the girl.The individual is notable only for the coverage of the crime, and does not satisfy WP:BIO. It is not clear how the sad, tragic and brutal crime had an enduring effect sufficient to justify a Wikipedia article, such as a "Megan's law" or an "Amber alert," although it would be satisfying if it helped to catch her killer. That coverage does not appear to have extended much beyond Cleveland and a book by the creator of the Wikipedia article. Edison 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was one of the first cases featured on Americas_most_wanted in the early 1990s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueSapphires (talk • contribs)
Keep There is nothing wrong with this article. It was notable in the media at the time, and started organizations that are committed to protecting young children from criminals and solving crimes. - Cyborg Ninja 01:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the WP:BLP issues with the alleged "suspects"? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That can be handled. If necessary the article can be wiped clean. The author needs some wiki-education, not having everything deleted. -Nard 01:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - No historic notability is established for these missing kids, unless they're exceptions like Amber Hagerman. They're all known for just one event and that event was caused by no action of their own. I hope I'm not too insensitive, but WP is not a missing kids database. Corpx 01:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This case was a huge deal in Northeast Ohio in the late 1980s and well into the 1990s. Although it is no longer much of a current story, this article should not suffer due to recentism. Also, to address the bit by Edison, that "the individual is notable only for the coverage of the crime." Well, yeah... exactly! All it takes is one event in life to make someone or something notable. Are you saying this girl had to have a resume of notability prior to her murder in order to pass the notability test on Wikipedia even though her murder was, without a doubt, extremely(!) notable? As a last resort, I would even support a possible move to something like: Murder of Amy Mihaljevic. Bat ears 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and Wikipedia is also not a directory of missing children, nor is it a crime log. Also noting the WP:BLP issues regarding suspects constantly being inserted, then removed and oversighted. --Core desat 05:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it appears to be a notable subject (a book and many stories were written about her), but the COI and slandering of suspects leads me to conclude that it needs to be protected if it is kept. Bearian 16:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The murder was notable in the US in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was on national television, everyone heard about it (I did on the other side of the country), scads of articles were written about it, and it is still well known in the mid-west. Moreover this AFD was a punative multi-modal attack on the James Renner, by Videmus Omnia, after Renner disagreed with him about an image deletion - disagreeing with Mr. Omnia about an image deletion seems to make in inordinately agnry. Videmus Omnia created deletions (full of Wiki-rule violations that Renner probably knows nothing about, on the following boards: BLP, COI, IFD and here. He might as well have noted it to the FBI, CIA, Interpol and to the Pope. What an unnecessary fiasco and how sad for Mr. Renner, who only needed some coaching and guidance, not a bunch of name-calling.BlueSapphires 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Original explanation of AfD is unnecessarily harsh towards User:JamesRenner, who is most certainly not an SPA. While there are definitely BLP, COI, and OR issues, they can easily be cleaned up by experienced editors (by removing possible libel against suspects, having editors other than JamesRenner have a look at it, and providing reliable and verifiable sources). This is a notable event which just needs some work done. Wholesale deletion never solved anything. --clpo13_(talk) 09:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and rename so that it is not a bio article. Since when is the violation of rules by some of an article's content a reason for deletion? Remove the suspects information (information like that is always shakey for a Wikipedia article) and add sourced information the the possible legislation or other legal impact this case has had. CaveatLector^Talk 19:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources on the case that have nothing to do with James Renner: September 30, 2001 Las Vegas Review-Journal; Morning Journal 08/18/2006. Renner's book has also been getting a fair amount of press: Akron Beacon Journal, November, 2006;Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Jun 10, 2007. Finally the big article that is used as a reference in the current article version mentions Renner's book but isn't based on it: June 24, 2007 Cleveland Plain Dealer. Clearly notable case, and someone deceased so long is not a WP:BLP concern. Yes, naming suspects would be a BLP concern, so we shouldn't name suspects until they've been named by more than just Renner's book. We can say that Renner's book names suspects, but we should not do the naming. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment - can we try to keep this about the article, and not the personal issues between the article writer and the deletion nominator? For what it's worth, yeah, they probably both went over the top, but one should be given a lot of slack for being pretty new, and the other for amazing contributions in other areas. Peace, folks, you're both good people. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep a notable case. The BLP issues regarding the suspects can be dealt with - we don't delete an article because it is a target for vandals and we don't delete an article because someone insists on inserting BLP stuff. Thats what a whatchlist is for. Viridae ^Talk 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AnonEMouse, highly notable as indicated by the mass of third party sources about the subject. RFerreira 01:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant paw[edit]

Unreferenced, supposedly secret organization 'Ancient Order of the Giant Paw'. A google search turns up a band and myspace pages, so I think we're looking at a hoax. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete researched and found the same. Likely hoax, or a society so secret that not a single living soul has ever heard of it. Pharmboy 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously a hoax, the band seems to truly have no connection. You'd think even a "secret" society would have at least one valid hit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Metamagician3000 12:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article is, and always will be in-universe. The threshold for notability is significant coverage from multiple secondary sources, and there is no evidence that any secondary sources have mentioned non-canonical spells. 17Drew 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Stop the Harry Potter cruft already! I frankly think some people somehow think that Wikipedia should have every detail on the series, but that's not going to happen. RobJ1981 17:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I'm generally infavor of more articles and stuff....this is over the line. At most it should be merged with existing HP articles to ensure their completeness. But secondary source or third party is going to be writing about them to create the references for such an article. --Rocksanddirt 18:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is worthwile and, with a little work, could get up to at least a B-class article using Template:Cite video game, Template:Cite video and some other references. And RobJ1981, familiarize yourself with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 18:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could make its way all the way to featured list. But it still wouldn't be notable unless there are secondary sources covering non-canonical spells. 17Drew 18:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Completeness? I don't think so. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of useful content, it's not a matter of "let's jam in every minor detail just so it can be complete". If it's useful and notable enough for other articles: I can see this information moved elsewhere. But if not: it just goes, and doesn't get resurrected as cruft. I know WP:IDONTLIKEIT just fine, so don't go throwing links at me. RobJ1981 18:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. RobJ1981, you seem to be very aggressive, calm down please. Just because someone disagree's with you, doesn't mean they are wrong and vice versa. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't assume and don't put words in my mouth, I'm calm. Your comments here, as well as on my talk page are a bit immature. Copying what I said, then putting in your view wasn't needed. I never once said I hated Harry Potter. I have the right to my opinion, just like everyone else. Where did I exactly say, someone was wrong? All I did was disagree. Calling someone wrong and disagreeing is 2 different things in this case (and most cases in my opinion). RobJ1981 18:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Well, RobJ1981 is likely, and understandably, frustrated that he cited the notability concerns brought up in the nomination, but you didn't address that issue at all and irrelevantly pointed him to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 17Drew 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. Bigdaddy1981 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are you suggesting physics articles should be deleted because they are all written by physics geeks? The title is a bit of a misnomer, since everything here is information officially sanctioned by licencees of Rowling, it means information not from the books. As such it compliments another article, Spells in Harry Potter, which deals with the books. I don't have a problem with wikipedia collecting information from multiple sources about one subject. Do people round here not realise that it is now possible to get rich with real spendable money made inside fictional universes? Information is just information and deserves collecting simply because it exists and matters to someone. Sandpiper 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about this being written by Harry Potter geeks? Not all information deserves collecting; that's the very reason we have WP:V and WP:NOTE. The verifiability policy is pretty clear on this: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." 17Drew 21:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's not at all in-universe, the real-world origin of the spells is clearly stated. The lack of secondary sources is a problem though.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Spells in Harry Potter. While I don't fully think that this information should be deleted completely, it doesn't warrant its own article. The list pretty much cruft on it own, and could easily be merged into the other spells list, as it isn;t notable on its own. Gran² 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This should be merged as explaned above by Gran.--JForget 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with both of the above posters. Keep it as a seperate section on the main Spells page if you don't want the canon and non-canon spells mixed, but the information definitely should be retained. 69.141.234.101 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although this is a movie, I think this should fall under WP is not a game guide. Maybe transwiki to harry potter wiki, but this is not the place for this Corpx 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont merge, this is full of WP:OR and interpretation of a primary source. Corpx 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avada Kedelete. This is ridiculous, it's a list of very minor fictional things with little to no real-world content or potential for same. This belongs on a fanpage, not an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was separated from Spells in Harry Potter for a reason; that article is ridiculously long as it is. Just because these spells don't appear in the books doesn't mean they don't qualify as "in-universe." GlassCobra 04:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being solely "in universe" should be a reason to delete. Something that lacks "significant coverage" from independent real world sources is not notable. Corpx 05:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not only are there not sources detailing significant coverage -- there are no sources at all stuffed with OR, this cruft should be trashed. Bigdaddy1981 07:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Even if they were in the book, this article would still be in-universe. Is there any information about why the directors or game developers/film directors created the new spells? What game/film critics said about them? If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it; it really doesn't get much clearer. 17Drew 05:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those types of information really aren't relevant. At the moment, this article is merely a list of spells that appear in various incarnations of the Harry Potter franchise besides the books. If you'd like to expand it to include a bit at the beginning about why these spells were created, I urge you to go right ahead. The article ought to be expanded and improved rather than simply deleted. GlassCobra 12:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're implying that this information exists and is available. Nothing so far has given any indication that there exist secondary sources that provide non-fictional information with which the article can be improved. And if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. 17Drew 14:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TRIVIA which also fails WP:N and WP:FICT. --Farix (Talk) 14:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Farix and per WP:NOT#INFO. Will ^(talk) 18:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This information has no relevance in the real world. Espresso Addict 23:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear your opinion on our coverage of the speculated shape or eventual fate of the universe, philosophical concepts such as gavagai, philosophical zombie and monads, or even the astronomical Great Attractor, though that's stretching things a bit. Sure, I'm not comparing the importance of this article to them, but all of these are completely irrelevant in our lives - the philosophical ones explicitly so. If the real world bears no relevance to this information, how on Earth did people in the real world learn and write it? --Kizor 12:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have two reasons why I think the article should remain: first of all, it is extremely comprehensive and deleting it would undermine a lot of hard work that probably went into it. Secondly, these shouldn't be including in the List of Spells in Harry Potter precisely because they're non-canonical. If it were merged with that article, it would mislead readers into thinking that they are as valid as the ones which appear in canon. →evin290 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:EFFORT. 17Drew 08:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite effort not being a sufficient reason to keep it, it should be sufficient to prevent deletion without examining the issue much further. →evin290 03:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, any source that could be found would invariably be OR or too primary to establish notability. Axem Titanium 19:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Merge with Spells in Harry Potter with a mention that they are non-canonical spells. It really doesn't do to have them in an already estranged place, but once they're there, they can get a whole lot of help (and, unfortunately, hell). Once there, I strongly suggest using the HPL's page [18] to help it out. Therequiembellishere 02:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Potter Lexicon appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source. 17Drew 02:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are fansites unreliable? →evin290 03:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very reliable source, as they update fairly frequently (I say fairly, as I do know several pages that need attention) and they always use extremely reliable sources coming from either the books, the writer, the actors or their affiliates. Therequiembellishere 04:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a very good point - the Lexicon has a strict referencing policy. Probably better than ours. --Kizor 06:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's the often-mentioned quote which says that J. K. Rowling considers it a reliable source to her own works and uses it to research them. By no means do I claim that we shouldn't use discretion in sourcing from the HPL, but from what I can see, every statement is sourced in its coverage of this subject. --Kizor 06:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fansites are self-published sources. If their referencing is good, then simply use the references they cite rather than them. But HPL doesn't qualify as a reliable secondary source. 17Drew 10:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But by using the HPL as a source, we instantaneously find what to cite it with. I said use the HPL, but not to use it as a citation. Besides, what real sources do we need for spells used in video games and films?! SHouldn't our only references/sources/cites be the games and the films themselves?! Therequiembellishere 16:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, primary sources can be used to describe the work itself. But there must be reliable secondary sources for the subject of an article, and it must have out-of-universe importance. There should be information about why the directors or game developers/film directors created the new spells, what game/film critics said about them, etc., all referenced to reliable secondary sources. 17Drew 23:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to know what critics think about an invented spell? This isn't the films' articles. And JKR didn't make them, so the directors felt they had to substitute them, it's as simple as that. If they can work a computer, they should be able to know that! Therequiembellishere 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it simple enough for you to understand. "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." If there is only in-universe information from primary sources and unreliable sources, then there is no reason to have an article about the subject. 17Drew 23:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, but why are you being so rude?! You seem to know the rules well enough, so don't you know this one?! I never made a jibe against you, I was referring to the idiots of the world!! Therequiembellishere 00:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Especially for an admin. Therequiembellishere 00:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had already stated five times that any article needs reliable secondary sources to be included in Wikipedia, providing examples of information that could be included if available and linking several times to WP:V. Yet you've ignored those comments and were still asking if the article should solely be relying on primary sources. If you're going to keep trying to get around policy, then expect people to keep directing you to it. 17Drew 00:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ure there are sources for it, if we merge the page to the more appropriate and more looked at Spells in Harry Potter. And are you getting ready for your next year of University at MIT? Why are you spending time on an encyclopedia arguing about Harry Potter? I don't even give a damn about your answer. Therequiembellishere 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources, please provide them. 17Drew 08:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hate leaving placeholder messages, but this seems like it's close to closing, so just adding another warm body to this side until I can get home and get a chance to do the detailed reasoning... --Kizor 09:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete, G11. --Eyrian 16:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M-Engine[edit]

8 non-wiki ghits for product, none of which show notability. COI issues. Previously prodded - prod removed by creator of article. Fabrictramp 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geneseo art league[edit]

NN art gathering in Geneseo, lack of third party coverage or references. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only references are from in-house. There are 300 Ghits, and the group is from a small town, so it's not likely to be notable. Shalom ^Hello 18:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeAndre McCullough[edit]

WP:BIO and imdb entry isn't enough for notability Pharmboy 16:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only roles listed on IMDb are minor. No other notability to speak of, so a failure of WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete GOogle news comes upw ith hits, but I think they're all trivial Corpx 01:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The last four comments were made by SPAs, as all have only edited this page and nothing else. —Kurykh 00:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Muzzles[edit]

Possibly there's a notable topic in there, but at the moment it's a charged, POV rant that is entirely unreferenced and borders on defamation at times. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be adequately sourced. Note there is not an article on the organization itself. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 15:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, almost speedy, Rant is an understandment, as is defamation. Not encyclopedic in tone, regardless of other merits. Pharmboy 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per notable sources on google news Corpx 01:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adequate if you do a google search for Muzzle Awards then you get a lot more hits, and can see it is covered by reputable sources. Also the entry was only recently created so it may still be under development.
Keep If you look at the Rudy Giuliani Controversy page, you can see another legitimate Muzzle reference. While the entry may look weak now, we should give it some time to further develop before it is deleted on the basis of being too short/small.
<3 I don't see why you are so upset with this article. A quick google search reveals that the muzzles are well covered in the press, including the Washington Post. My vote is to keep it. Fabulous article!
Muzzlicious. I did a search on Joshua Wheeler, the center's associate director, and he's kind of a big deal. He has written an article in a University publication,which well describes the intent of the muzzles. Keep up the good work Josh, YOU ROCK!

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people slain in Romance of the Three Kingdoms[edit]

Unencyclopedic list. Yes, the work is very important. The list of kills from such a work, however, is simply too much detail. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure plot summary. --Eyrian 15:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another "list of", which are usually categories if they need to exist at all. And this doesn't. Pharmboy 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This, in fact, classifies by killer, which is useful information. Categories could not do this without both creating articles on all these characters, which would be cruft; and creating absutdly small categories, like Category:Romance of Three Kingdoms characters killed by Cai Mao, with one entry. These would be (rightly) deleted at CfD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - Because half of them have articles already, this would be perfect for a category/subcategory change. Cat of all killers, subcats of each killer, articles on the killed. This 'article' already has the category structure in place. Being categorized would simply add more structure and make it easier to list the categories in related articles instead of "see also"s. Pharmboy 18:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are betting that the other half of them are not perma-stubs. You are also advocating the creation of several dozen new categories, none of them with much chance of growth and all but four of them under a dozen members, most under 5; this in order to get rid of one list article. Go ahead and make the cats if you like; I doubt they'll survive. But in the meantime leave the list article, for those of us who find that easier to navigate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would it assuage anybody's objections if we made this into a table (one or two lines for each character: Name, # killed, names of victims? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note; this is more work than I care to do at the moment. Please userify a copy if deleted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why someone would disagree with this page. Other than the fact that it is "too much info for one book" or whatever. All the facts are cited and truthful, and really possess no real reason to be deleted. I mean clearly thus far many of you feel differently, but i personally don't understand why. --EveryDayJoe45 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article is purely plot summary, which is not permitted per WP:NOT#PLOT. --Eyrian 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not call this list a plot summary at all, its a list of generals slain in a book about war, nothing else. However, i guess everyone has different categorizations, so I won't argue against your claim. --EveryDayJoe45 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cited, yes. Truthful -- that depends on what you would define "truthful." I'd argue that it is not "truthful" in the sense that it bears no historical reality, and confusingly may suggest that it was in fact historical reality. --Nlu (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How about a List of people slain in the Harry Potter series? _dk 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well since there was about 10 people killed in that series it would barely constitute for a category let alone a page. However, _dk, your opinion is still respected. --EveryDayJoe45 01:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a directory (of people killed in <book>) Corpx 01:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is simply not needed, if not it's only fair that we include "unnamed soldiers at ABC" Suredeath 17:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, although one section identified by a CSD tag as a copyvio was removed. AKRadecki^Speaketh

Campion Higher Secondary School, Tiruchi[edit]

This article survived a prod, but my initial concerns have not been met. Most importantly, no sources are cited. Next, there are major clean-up/coherence issues. Why is there more info on the COBA than the actual school? What about the History section? What is up with phrases like It is the best school for men... and After a series of successes in his material life... It is likely that the subject meets notability requirements, but that alone is not enough to keep this article. I'd prefer that the article be re-written or brought up to standards, but barring that, I suggest deleting until a decent article can be written. The article is basically orphaned, so it's temporary absence wouldn't be missed.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Andrew c ^[talk] 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete I'm going to need sources to attest notability when its obviously created by somebody with a COI - "It is the best school for men in Tamil Nadu" Corpx 01:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per Andrew. No assertion of notability. Eusebeus 21:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are notable. Golfcam 23:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article definitely needs work but it in order to expand coverage of en.wikipedia in non-English speaking areas, I think we need to take into consideration that the beginning of an article is a good start and unlike Andrew c, I prefer not to wait until "until a decent article can be written". -- DS1953 ^talk 15:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments regarding the above. "All high schools are notable"? is that wikipedia policy? If not, that doesn't seem like a valid argument to be kept. I disagree that this article is a good start. It cites not a single source, only has 3 sentences on the school, and the rest of the article is about different topics or simply nonsense. Remove the "History" and "COBA Campion Old Boy's Association" sections and what is left?-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has source. making it better than 65% of articles on wikipedia. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability must be established by "significant coverage" from independent sources Corpx 07:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources. Are you saying the external link to the official homepage is the source? (follows link) I just realized that just about all of the content is copyvio. Because of my involvement here, I want to avoid any bias conflict, so would another admin take a look at this matter? [19] and [20] are two examples of source copying.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it for CSD Corpx 18:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tiruchirapalli is the best option in my opinion. I have no doubt that the school exists, but we need to keep the article trimmed down to the bare necessities which can be verified through reliable third party sources. Burntsauce 18:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a lot of work, but deletion is not the solution to that. Kayaker 23:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was Delete. Marasmusine 17:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bosses in The Ocean Hunter[edit]

Per WP is not a game guide - I dont think we should be going to a level where we're describing all the units and maps in a particular game. Also, lots of claims made here that's WP:OR with nothing to back it up (user-submitted FAQ is not a reliable source) Corpx 15:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a game guide. --Eyrian 15:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly strong if not speedy keep or merge or redirect without deletion. Created out of a request for comment suggestion as a compromise. Article in this instance concerns a notable arcade game that is noteworthy for it its use of mythological creatures as bosses. Not a game guide in anyway as it does not tell people how to beat the bosses, but rather provides an organized list of the many bosses that are inspired from mythological creatures. I would like to assume good faith, but I cannot help but notice that the first two people to vote here on an article I happened to create are individuals currently debating with me on the WP Not talk page. I hope it's just coincidence. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Game guide" doesn't just mean walkthrough. Excessive information about gameplay details simply isn't appropriate. --Eyrian 15:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is hardly excessive. It does not describe every minute detail about the bosses. In this instance, the bosses are a core aspect of the game and again it is notable because ALL of them are based on world myths. The list is referenced, verifiable, factual, organized, not "indescriminate," not "cruft," or any other nonsense term. The article concerns what makes the bosses of this game unique, not game play. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with this article is that this is about the bosses in the game. I was looking at Category:Lists of video game characters, and none of them are about a specific group of characters in a game. Maybe we can move this to List of characters in The Ocean Hunter and expand, but then again it would have to be sourced from something other than a user-submitted game guide. Is there any reliable source talking about just the characters in this game? Corpx 16:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to moving the article to List of characters in The Ocean Hunter. Incidentally, I have beaten the game in the arcade, so I know that the list in accurate. As for additional sources, I'll see what I can find:

- [21] - shows some game play with bosses
- [22] - notes Kraken's appearance in the game
- [23] - includes some screenshots showing bosses
- [24] - has information of game and screen shots
- [25] - official flyer with information and screen shots

Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are not reliable sources. --Eyrian 16:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are as some of them show footage or screenshots from the actual game. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but they still fail WP:RS, especially the YouTube link. YouTube is never a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand, I understand your enthusiasm as the article's creator, but this isn't really a candidate for speedy keep.--Chaser - T 03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm interested in mythology, not video games, and I'd never even heard of some of these, so it occurred to me that most of them ought to be in a category like "mythical ocean creatures', which doesn't seem to exist. Come to think of it, if there was such a category, the game article could link to it (something like "Many of the bosses in this game are taken from the mythical ocean creatures of various cultures"). --Jamoche 17:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an excellent solution. --Eyrian 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main article, or simply delete. -Sean Curtin 06:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect without a deletion. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of non-characters in a light-gun shooter. These are simply obstacles you shoot in their weak spot until they're dead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article, to the best extent possible. Chengwes 07:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subtrivial content not needed in main article. Eluchil404 05:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bosses of a game are not trivial, but rather are an integral aspect of the game in this particular game the major point is to fight various sea mosnters all of which are based on world myths and legends. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Virtual machine. Sr 13 08:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual platform[edit]

Term is identical to Virtual Machine. Jimmi Hugh 15:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to virtual machine. --Eyrian 15:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to vritual machine. Nom's rationale is not for deletion but for merging. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 15:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoPo[edit]

Non notable art movement, no reliable secondary sources. Of the sources listed two seem unrelated, one is an urbandictionary entry (that also doesn't seem very well related), one is from the homepage of the artist who created the movement, and one is in Finish so I can't determine how relevant it is as a source - but it appears to be a comment on a blog entry, which isn't a reliable source anyway. I originally tagged this as a speedy, which an admin declined, replacing it with a prod instead. The prod was removed so listing it on AFD. Darksun 15:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, fails WP:RS. No notable sources to be seen, total WP:V failure as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 15:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stronge delete No reliable sources at all, and funny how that prod tag was remove on it's last day...Wildthing61476 17:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails RS Will ^(talk) 07:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear caravan destruction[edit]

I have nothing against Top Gear, but I seriously doubt this needs an article to itself (notability for starters). Merge and redirect, perhaps? Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect, doesn't deserve its own article, has no specific independent references. --Eyrian 15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~Neutral per lack of coverage for this segement. Corpx 15:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (note possible bias, I am a significant contributor to this article) The Top Gear presenters' hatred of caravans is not only well known, but a running gag throughout the show, as such the destruction of them is a continuation of this theme. I have also added a ref to a new article where the BBC had to step in to defend Jeremy Clarkson & Top Gear from 500 complaints by British Caravanners. Improbcat 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The caravan destruction is well known enough that it is used in articles abut the show, for example here:

So when May, a novice pilot not trained to fly at night, races Clarkson in a Bugatti Veyron through Europe for a feature, or the guys play ‘caravan conkers’, the question has to be asked, is this safe?

Improbcat 16:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that article gives "significant coverage" for the segment. Wouldn't a section in the Top Gear about this segment suffice? Corpx 16:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is an article about their caravan antics not "significant coverage" of said antics? Improbcat 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions what was done in one episode and does not talk about the segment as a whole. Corpx 16:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are you saying I need to find articles that explicitly state that Top Gear wrecks caravans on a regular basis? Or that the Top Gear presenters often state a dislike/hate for caravans? Because the links to the various episode guides show they do regularly trash caravans, and if one were to watch the show their dislike of caravans would be pretty easy to see through presenter comments. For example in Jeremy Clarkson's Wikiquote entry there is this quote from the show "You know? Thats the nineteenth caravan we've destroyed on this progamme in 12 months.". Improbcat 17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A caravan on Top Gear never lasts the full hour; they are usually blown up, crushed or set alight pretty quickly. ". Improbcat 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, are there any mentions about the segment in general and not one incident that caused an uproar? Corpx 17:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "segment", there isn't an official "Caravan destruction" segment of the show (unlike the "star in a reasonably priced car" or "cheap car challenges"), instead they are destroyed as part of some other bit. For example, when trying to show how tough a Toyota pickup is, they drop a caravan onto it from a crane. Improbcat 17:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - put a sentence or two in the main article, that's it. --Orange Mike 20:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - A paragraph in the main article on this should really suffice. Earl CG 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though some details could be added to main article. Kayaker 23:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli politicians of Romanian origin[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of random lists (WP:NOT#DIR) Number 5 7 15:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nationalist/regionalist classification. --Eyrian 15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersection of occupation + ancestry, unless somebody can prove otherwise why this is notable? Corpx 15:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per corpx - no causal link between ethnicity and political role/views is argued - thus, it is should go. Bigdaddy1981 18:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again Corpx hit the nail just on the head. There is a cat Romanian Jews which could serve some of the purpose. Punkmorten 00:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect. I won't merge the table but it is available in the history of the redirect: editors of Raygun are in a better position than I am to pick and choose significant examples. Pascal.Tesson 16:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rayguns in fiction[edit]

Trivia collection, unacceptable per WP:FIVE --Eyrian 15:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See existing discussion in Talk:Raygun/Archive 1#Deletion of the list of fictional rayguns?, including about whether it is trivia or not. Anthony Appleyard 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Raygun. Nominator is in the midst of an edit war regarding this material. He excised the material from that article, created the nominated article and nominated it for deletion. While I agree that the material is in all likelihood not suited for Wikipedia, I do not like the actions taken by the nominator regarding it, which is a subversion of the ongoing process surrounding the main article. Otto4711 15:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are frequently spun-off when they grow too large. Since this list overshadowed the rest of the article by a significant amount, it needed to be moved. I only regret I didn't realize that sooner. --Eyrian 15:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come now. You know as well as I do you spun the article off for no reason other than nominating it for deletion. Otto4711 15:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's a matter of perspective. It needed to be spun off. And in its spun-off state, it's a ready candidate for deletion. My intention is irrelevant. Even if it's not deleted, it should still be in a separate article. --Eyrian 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't it have been more direct to argue in the article for deletion of the material? DGG (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want a binding resolution. I know from my past dealings that that will require an official decision. --Eyrian 01:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not comfortable participating in an AfD for a 3-minute-old artilce while there's a mediation ongoing.Canuckle 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what exactly is a Raygun? Who set the definition on what is and what's not a ray gun? I think its original research to classify many of the things on the list. This would also be a list of loosely associated topics Corpx 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The general opinion in sci-fi fans is that any fictional gun that fires a beam of radiation or a beam of atomic-sized or smaller particles, is a raygun. There is no original research here. It could equally be said that an article about Aquila-genus eagles is original research because its author must decide about 3 moot points about species division. Anthony Appleyard 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General opinion according to whom? --Eyrian 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the raygun article could also be up for deletion, because of a lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." (WP:NEO) Corpx 15:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly currently lacks sources, but it documents a notable phenomenon. I don't really think the entire article should be axed. Not that I'd be particularly inspired to support either option.--Eyrian 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no value in this list; it gives no context. Rayguns were a staple of classic SF (actually, I primarily associate the term with classic SF, not modern), so a few examples might be suitable for an article to show how it went from something that the author described in great detail (as was done in the Lensman series, which isn't even listed) to something taken for granted. --Jamoche 17:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SMERGE Merge earliest and most notable examples. such as Edison's 1898 "disintegrator raygun (1898)" used against the Martians and the "heat ray 1898" from War of the Worlds. Most recent references are an indiscriminate list. Edison 20:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice presentation with a table which is different a bit from the other in fiction/IPC or references in articles, but it does not remove the fact that it is trivia-filled. Some merge can be done though.--JForget 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even those who want to delete it admit that some of the content is notable. that's enough reason to keep the article, and edit. DGG (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Raygun has plenty of room for select examples. Clarityfiend 06:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raygun and move this list to a subpage of its talk page so that useful information from it can be extracted into the main article. There is some content that should be merged into the main article here, because it provides useful context that that article lacks. But this shouldn't just be a "paste in a section of the main article" job. The list we have at present serves no real purpose, and a much better treatment would be to highlight a few examples (no more than 3 or 4) in detail in the main article. JulesH 14:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. All of the instances can be referenced to the works from which they came. But if there aren't reliable secondary sources about fictional rayguns, then they don't belong on Wikipedia. 17Drew 04:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From Wikipedia: Deletion Process. "Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia."

Eyrian, you are an administrator. However, you appear to have been one of the most prolific nominators this week, with at least 10 nominations that I count on "_____ in popular culture" articles today. Not an uncivil observation. In this debate, other editors have suggested that you created this article as a spinoff and that it was nominated for deletion three minutes later; and that this was done while mediation going on over a similar article. In addition, you nominated the article about Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in popular culture two days after the previous debate on it was closed. Are the administrators supposed to take an active role in nominating articles for deletion? Apparently, I'm not the only one who is getting tired of all the debates about this species of article. Mandsford 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One's status should have no bearing on the nominations. It would be one thing if he was closing these AFDs with a prejudice and against consensus, but I see no harm in him making nominations. Corpx 03:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into raygun article. --Philip Laurence 08:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not merge. This is yet another useless trivia collection. Merging it into the main raygun article would clutter that article, which isn't needed. RobJ1981 05:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like the idea but the table is all over the place. Might be useful to students of sci-fi if there was more focus on types of beams ex. laser, particle accelerator, etc, in a more uniform table, and less text about scenarios where they are used. Squidfryerchef 05:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gehenna in popular culture[edit]

Trivia list of things that barely use more than the name and a vague hellish association. --Eyrian 14:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of trivial mentions = Trivia (WP:5) Corpx 15:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriate listings with Gehenna (disambiguation). Canuckle 16:36, 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]

You know, copying and pasting the same argument 26 times in 12 minutes Special:Contributions/Burntsauce (between 10:43 and 10:55) could lead to questions about whether your points are based on careful consideration or not. Canuckle 19:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia is trivia, no matter how you slice it. No change in opinion, this needs to go. Sooner the better. Burntsauce 22:12, 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. And yeah Canuckle, I did read the article. Punkmorten 00:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the effort to vary the comment. I chose this AfD at random to note the rapid-firing voting above. Probably a poor choice because I don't particularly care for this article and it appears to have little merit. Should I have posted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schrödinger's cat in popular culture where reading the article and the AfD would be hard to squeeze in while posting to 8 AfDs in 60 seconds. Canuckle 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize the most relevant articles in the list to Category:Abrahamic mythology in popular culture (or 'Jewish' of Abrahamic) and then delete CaveatLector^Talk 06:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. However, to my eye, there's only about 3 articles on this list (Cherryh's planet, D&D plane and the Norwegian heavy metal band) that would be appropriate. And those are already listed on Gehenna (disambiguation).Canuckle 14:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Facts can be covered appropriately by lists, topics cannot. Golfcam 23:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is silly. I was surprised that there would be any pop culture discussions of the Jewish concept of "gehenna", and it turns out that there aren't. This is mostly a list of persons and things named "Gehenna". Let's have an article about "Brandy in popular culture" and it can be about women named Brandy and Brandi. Mandsford 13:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Alexander (1982- )[edit]

Municipal politician who does not meet WP:BIO given the precedents at WP:AFDP. His video blogging activities do not make him notable. Pfainuk 14:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, no third-party refs to be seen (and look, another self ref). Almost a speedy candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 15:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Insufficient attribution of notability to independent third parties. --Dhartung | Talk 10:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marionettes in pop-culture[edit]

Irrelevant trivia collection. Doesn't even bother with an intro. --Eyrian 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a WP:D, reads like a "list of", has no context or any *txt other than list and links. Pharmboy 16:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#TRIVIA, WP:OR, unreferenced. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 17:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have gone the prod route, which I think likely would be uncontested. This is a 3-month-old trivia dump from main article which, to its credit, has maintained some discussion of uses of marionettes in TV, etc. Canuckle 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another dumping ground of a section from a main article. This is both trivial and just plain cruft. RobJ1981 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia collection - one of the worse of its kind, I might add. 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 00:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facts can be covered appropriately by lists, topics cannot. Golfcam 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after salvaging whatever might be useful. Regarding the idea of "Marionettes in pop-culture"... where the hell else are you going to find a marionette? We might as well have an article about "Actors who have appeared on stage, film and television". By no means should this be merged into, although some of this is already covered by, the article Marionette. Other than TV shows and movies that use marionettes, I don't see that any information in here is of any value. Cut the strings on this one. Mandsford 14:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarot cards in popular culture[edit]

Spot-the-reference trivial collection, inappropriate per WP:FIVE. --Eyrian 14:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list of every time somebody pulls out some tarot cards = trivia (WP:5) Corpx 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Corpx hit the nail on the head. Punkmorten 00:28, 27 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 23:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facts can be covered appropriately by lists, topics cannot. Golfcam 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Corpx. This really is just a list of scenes in movies, books, comic books, TV, where someone is seen turning over Tarot cards. You don't have to be a mystic to see the future for this article. Mandsford 14:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Burntsauce. Matty-chan 16:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Pascal.Tesson 16:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incest in popular culture[edit]

Inappropriate trivia collection, with a healthy mix of OR, that serves more as a hindrance to constructing any kind of useful article than as a starting point. --Eyrian 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely trivial list of "incest" (WP:5) Corpx 15:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate extant phenomenon. Is your problem with having an article on the subject altogether, or with the current content of the article? Because if you just don't like the content, you fix it--you don't just try and delete it. Kurt Weber 15:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of "loosely associated topics" (WP:NOT). Anything that mentions the word incest or mildly reference it is put on this list. Corpx 15:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another "list of"/"popular culture" article that is just a bunch of references with no context as to what it MEANS. Serious subject and this list (although compiled nicely) trivializes it. Pharmboy 16:10, 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 I think the solution is not to delete but to try and make some sense of all the copy. Pablosecca 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient scholarly commentary on the subject of this article to allow the present content to be polished into a fine article. As is, it could use some polishing. "Incest in fiction" might be a better article name, and remove any or discussion of record albums. A taboo subject written about by classic Greek playwrights and Faulkner certainly is not trivial. Do not let unreasoned hatred of the words "in popular culture" remove a topic covered in college literature classes. Edison 20:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my delete: I agree the topic merits an article. I would even drop my objection *if* the article was WAY LESS a list. It is a serious subject. Making it a list trivializes it, like a list of "best movies of 1994". Titling it with Incest in popular culture also trivializes it. Would have to have a serious rewrite with context for me to withdraw delete. Pharmboy 21:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say not a list at all. CaveatLector^Talk 23:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you accept that it is salvageable, and don't object to the general idea of the subject, then why delete at all? Why not let it stick around for awhile and give people a chance to get something done with it? Kurt Weber 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I don't accept that it is salvageable as THIS article, I simply allow that some of the content is worthwhile, just not as "incest in popular culture". The context is simply wrong. Not to violate WP:BEANS but why not Box Office Hits That Featured Incest or Best Selling Books That Feature Incest? These also trivialize the issue and are glorified lists. Pharmboy 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a few entries that are mergable to incest article, but as it stands now, it is a list of loosely associated topics. Only link of association is that these works mention or infer an incestuous relationship in some way. Corpx 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tidy up, per Edison & Pharmboy. Grutness...wha? 05:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up per Edison and Pablosecca. And source Incest in folklore at the same time. There has been scholarly research [26] and reviews that likely merit not merging a reworked article back to the main article [27] and Incest in film would likely stand as well. An expert hand is required. Canuckle 14:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Biophys 06:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup and consider a rename. "Popular" and "Incest" don't belong in the same title. This is an important issue, however, and one which publishers and producers avoided for millenia after Oedipus came out, up until about 25 years ago. Definitely needs to be edited, particularly since it looks like the consensus will be keep. Mandsford 14:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to Son of Sam and/or David Berkowitz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cultural references to Son of Sam and/or David Berkowitz

Loose association of trivial references, inappropriate per WP:FIVE. Nothing that can be salvaged here into the desired analysis of popular perception --Eyrian 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal purge, merge and redirect to David Berkowitz - it is notable that the Son of Sam killings have been adapted into the film Summer of Sam and the television series The Bronx is Burning. These two items and other similar adaptations of the story should be listed in the main article in a section called "Adaptations" rather than "In popular culture." The passing references to Berkowitz in various episodes of Seinfeld or on records that mention him or random trivial references are not encyclopedic and should not be preserved. Otto4711 15:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can to merge those two primary references. --Eyrian 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This a list of absolutely trivial mentions to this person and I think its trivia (WP:5) Corpx 15:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator is merging useful content into other articles, after which this should go. The "Son of Sam", like Richard Speck, is not a cult hero, although his story lends itself to a number of tasteless jokes, none of which need to be preserved in Wikipedia. Mandsford 14:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airships in culture[edit]

Trivia laundry-list (don't let the lack of bullet points fool you), with nary a reference to be seen. --Eyrian 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be documentation of every time a blimp comes on TV/video game/movie Corpx 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This part is okay but needs sources: "Airships were a popular theme in scientific romance (prototypical science fiction) and adventure fiction published in the late 19th century and the earliest years of the 20th century. The theme of aeronautical exploration was most famously explored in this period by Jules Verne (The Clipper of the Clouds) and H. G. Wells (The War in the Air)." The first civil flight was two years prior to the Verne novel. I don't know about the rest. Canuckle 16:28, 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 00:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 22:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not that the ideas are bad, but this article is so inclusive, and runs off on so many tangents, it's a mess. Thus, we have movies featuring the Goodyear blimp (such as Black Sunday), movies about the Hindenburg disaster, films from the pre-Hindenburg days when airships were common, Rudyard Kipling's science fiction writings about the Airship Board of Control, and alternate history yarns, and Lord knows what else. Some of the information from this article could usefully be incorporated into other articles. This one, no matter how well researched, is a true example of the "collection of indiscriminate information". The author does make a good point about the airship as a cliche' in alternate history literature. For whatever reason, writers presuppose that if the South had won the Civil War, or if the British won the Revolutionary War, or if the Spanish Armada hadn't been sunk... that the Wright Brothers would never have invented the airplane. As I say, some useful material in the trivia weeds. Save it to the hard drive. Mandsford 14:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jay32183 --Russavia 07:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 18:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Chelmsfordians F.C.[edit]

Non-notable club. Does not play at step 7, and does not appeared to have played above this level in the past. Was nominated for deletion in the past and kept, but since then articles on similar clubs have been consistently deleted (e.g. Oakley United, Stansfeld O&BC F.C. etc). Number 5 7 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Old Chelmsfordians recently played in the Essex Olympian League, which, while Step 7, is effectively a 10th level league because it is a direct feeder to the level 9 Essex Senior League. Furthermore, it was agreed that EOL Division One clubs are inherently notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this agreed? All the agreements I have seen point to Step 12 being non-notable. Number 5 7 15:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siva's point was that the season before last this club was in the EOL's top division (then called Div One, since renamed the Premier Div) and that the EOL's top division should count as an "honorary" Level 10 division as, despite being officially graded by the FA as Level 11, it actually promoted directly into a Level 9 league. Hope that made sense.... ChrisTheDude 15:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know how the pyramid works. Stansfeld O&BC are in exactly the same situation (i.e no step 6 league in Kent) but the article was still deleted. The EOL hardly ever promotes to the ESL anyway (in recent years clubs have only come from the Essex Business League and the Middlesex County League!), so to say that EOL1 is effectively Step 7 is a bit optimistic. Number 5 7 15:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plays at too low a level. Edison 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it has been agreed that notability starts at level 10 and there is no evidence that this team have ever played at that level; the article for its present league confirms that it is at level 12. Also, the article lacks the necessary multiple, reliable sources. TerriersFan 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has played at too low a level. I am not convinced by the argument that the EOL be granted a 'honorary' level 10 designation, it is either level 10 or not imo. --Malcolmxl5 07:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE previous deletion was valid. Recreation and subsequent AfD was not valid. Pure and simple policy wonking. Nick 23:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Air[edit]

Comment this article was speedy deleted by User:JzG under the summary WP:CSD criteria A7 (no assertion of notability) and G11 (blatant advertising). [28] I disagree with the rationale for speedy deletion and as such have restored the article and put it up for afd to see what is the consensus for it. I hold no opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. Jersey Devil 14:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See nothing satisfying WP:WEB, borderline advertising. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WEB per Fang Aili. --John 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frankly it is close on a speedy G11, but nevertheless let's run it through the process Pedro | Chat 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline A7, borderline G11. Fails WP:WEB. Definitely a delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Fang Ali, consider mentioning on the main Malkin page. JoshuaZ 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - someone, please, show me where there is an assertion of notability. Martinp23 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially A7. Also, I fail to see the reason for undeleting this when obviously is fails WP:WEB and as such was rightly speedy deleted by Guy. MartinDK 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is material for speedy deletion, but in this case I would prefer to let the debate run its course so there are no questions later when we need to throw it in the lake with cascading protection cement shoes. Burntsauce 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question - This was speedy deleted in December of 2006, any particular reason to resurect it now? Is the venture even still around? If so, it might be notable enough now for a real article. --Rocksanddirt 18:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Only two sources: Hot Air (the subject) and Malkin (the subject). Spam, no asseriton of notability, valid A7 and G11, and lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge it with Michelle what's-her-name. one and two. And that was after ten seconds of searching, so I guarantee there's many more where that came from. NY Sun and Wash Post? Knee-jerk, anyone? Come on, now. Make some effort. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was transwiki to Wikiquote. —Kurykh 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of quotes from Shakespeare in Brave New World[edit]

~~Delete~~ Transwiki - WIkipedia is not a collection of trivia. A listing of quotes from one author in another author's book is not encyclopedic. It tells us nothing about the book, nothing about the source of the quotes, nothing about either author or the real world. Otto4711 14:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lists of quotes are unacceptable for Wikipedia, WP:FIVE. --Eyrian 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikiquotes Corpx 15:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Useful, an obvious theme of the book; but Wikiquote is where this belongs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If the full text of the quotes themselves are transwiki'd, the article retitled Use of Shakespeare in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (or whatever), and real-world analyses such as this [29]] added...then would a list of links to the wikiquote material be appropriate? Canuckle 17:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a retitle, that's a completely different article. --Eyrian 17:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could move the article, add a ref like the above to the introduction and leave it as a stub for future development. I've seen that outcome from AfDs before. But you didn't answer my question. Once the literary source is transwiki'd to wikisouce, would it be appropriate for a list of links to that source? Not full text, but in Chapter 1 Savage quotes from (link to wikisource quote from Julius Caesar).Canuckle 18:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that kind of list (one work quoting another) is appropriate for Wikiquote, but if so, then I'd say yes. --Eyrian 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move article to Brave New World's use of Shakespeare. Remove quotes from article and place them in Talk page for reference. If I understand right, one character speaks in Shakespeare quotes. The use of Shakespeare in the novel appears like an encyclopedic topic but even if the use had real-world analysis, a wholesale list of this character's dialogue is unnecessary. Canuckle 20:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. Having read source more closely, it says these references are for the most part casual and ornamental, not functional, and do not constitute a pattern of sustained allusion. A comparison with The Tempest could be made but that seems significantly different in scope than this list's goal. Best for that development to start on novel's main page Canuckle 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and as per WP:NOT#DIR - list of quotations are specifically identified as not wanted. Canuckle 16:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hard to see that this list is encyclopedic, or that there is a common theme of this set of quotes that makes it worthy of being preserved in Wikiquote. Having looked at the JSTOR article linked by Canuckle , I find it conceivable that someone could write a WP article called Brave New World and the Tempest, and collect opinons from various secondary sources about that issue. But that would be a whole other article. No objection if Canuckle wants to userfy this and start writing a proper article under a new title. EdJohnston 15:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote, obviously. EdJohnston, I don't see why this is not worthy of being preserved in Wikiquote; it is Shakespeare, after all. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirected to Argus Filch. Already mentioned in target article, so the only decision is whether to delete or redirect, and opinion is split on that decision. Redirects are, however, cheap. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 21:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwikspell[edit]

A fictional company mentioned once, in passing, in one Harry Potter book. This article is bad original research into a non-notable subject. Deserves maybe a passing mention wherever we cover Argus Filch, but not enough to call this a merge. Contested PROD Sandstein 14:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the basic information to Argus Filch, delete the rest. Some of the information would be worth keeping if only for more context about Filch's Kwikspell lessons, but the majority of the article is mere plot summary, which is in direct violation of WP:NOT. Any further expansion of the article would have to be original research or fancruft, as the company is indeed only mentioned once (unless it's in Book 7, but I would think the article would mention that, and it's irrelevant anyway). Also recommend creation of a new "Harry Potter" AfD category. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 14:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Hersfold. I don't think all this info is justified, it is just too much detail about a very minor point. A redirect to Filch might be worth the having. Sandpiper 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, insufficient real-world impact. --Eyrian 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 15:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Argus Filch. Oddly enough, I ignored the banner at the top and was ready to AfD it myself. 17Drew 17:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Argus Filch.Ravenmasterq 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. This company is only mentioned in one chapter of the series. --musicpvm 22:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hersfold Will ^(talk) 13:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would not pass WP:N or WP:FICT, violates WP:NOT#PLOT, and since the article on Argus Filch already includes a mention of the fictional company, there is nothing to merge. --Farix (Talk) 12:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about fictitious bands or musicians[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a musical genre or style where referencing fictitious bands is a notable phenomena, so this article again seems like a loosely-associated list, unsourced, and generally trivial in nature. Bulldog123 14:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was just nominated last month; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial list. The only way to source this would be to post excepts of lyrics... which we can't do due to copyright. Someone could potentially add any song to this list that mentions someone's name and claim that they were intended to be a musician. Large potential for edit wars and disruption, so get rid of it. (Following added after edit conflict and reading previous AfD) Wow, that's a lot of lists. User:TenPoundHammer mentioned that this particular list is "the only one that would be verifiable, and (at least to me) seems more encyclopedic than the rest." I do grant him that, compared to the other nonsense that was included in that deletion, but it is impossible to verify "fiction" as anybody can make it up as they go along. Plus, that's also covered under WP:NOT, as there is no analysis into the fact. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 14:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Very few "List of..." articles belong as articles anyway. This wouldn't be a likely category either. Just trivia. Pharmboy 14:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inappropriately loose association. --Eyrian 14:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary non-encyclopedic list `'Míkka 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely loose criteria for inclusion. Corpx 15:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite comments at last nom. Totally indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics, even if it is a bit easier to verify. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article also incorporates original research; I don't know why the article says that Billy Joel's "Piano Man" is about a fictitious musician. Some of the other songs may be disguised references to real people as well. --Metropolitan90 04:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose Bierce in popular culture[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia tid-bits on every author you can imagine. To get an idea of the information on this article, here is a sample: "Robert Bloch's short story "I Like Blondes" (published in Playboy, 1956) is constructed around a group of alien bodysnatchers frequenting Earth. The narrator's host body's "name was Beers...Ambrose Beers, I believe. He picked it up in Mexico a long time ago." Bulldog123 13:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, total trivial mentions, hard to reference. The example stated by this nom is a perfect example of how ludicrous this list is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 13:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least some of the data on this page should be merged into Ambrose Bierce's article in chief; the business about Robert W. Chambers should belong there (this, in turn, was borrowed into H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos). So also should be the observations about the films made of An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge. Doesn't Bierce put in an appearance in the Riverworld novels? All of these things are noteworthy IMO. I'd call a subsection of the page "Legacy" or "Influence" to try and keep it relatively focused. The rest can safely be deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and merged the information I thought was worth merging into Bierce's article, and added a couple of references. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say to merge any sourced info to Ambrose Bierce, but what should really be done is putting these references into a meaningful paragraph or two. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent references. --Eyrian 14:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per trivia collection (WP:5) Corpx 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and divide into two articles: Ambrose Bierce as a fictitious character and Adaptions of works by Ambrose Bierce; one or both of these might fit in Ambrose Bierce.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim that this is unsourced is pedantry; the source for the appearance of Hastur and Carcosa in the King in Yellow is the King in Yellow; the source for his appearance as a character in Lost Legacy is the novella itself. Publication details, including the ISBN for a reprint of the Chambers can be found in the articles linked to. (I agree that the claim that Victorious Opposition comes from Bierce does need a source; but the best solution to that is probably to look at the front matter; the epigraph may well be "MANICHEISM, n. The ancient Persian doctrine of an incessant warfare between Good and Evil. When Good gave up the fight the Persians joined the victorious Opposition." -Bierce.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; it is not pedantry, it is policy. No one is denying that these references in popular culture exist, but reliable, third party sources are inherently difficult to come by in this IPC articles, and this one is not any different. That a script or a novella proves the reference's existence is immaterial to the fact that there are no sources to provide proof that these trivial laundry list articles, including this one, are important to popular culture. María (críticame) 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So here's the problem. I added what I thought was most relevant from this list to the Ambrose Bierce article, including his influence on The King in Yellow and how his inventions made it into the Cthulhu mythos through these connections. This was sourced to two reliable, third-party sources: an essay on the mythos by August Derleth, and a reference book on Lovecraftian lore to which S. T. Joshi, among others, has contributed. This information was removed by another; despite third party references noticing these influences and connexions, it is still "trivial" in some eyes. So long as this sort of thing continues, keeping these sorts of articles in some form or another will remain the best option among several flawed ones. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:06, 27 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]
split as suggested but in practice it would be simpler just to write the new articles. Why waste time trying to answer bot-written arguments? DGG (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the personal attacks. --Eyrian 01:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's better to be robotic than inconsistent. What is the big difference between the trivia on this page and the trivia on Cultural Depictions of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, where you had fewer "conditions" for deleting? It makes little sense to me. Bulldog123 17:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, trivial references that violate WP:NOT#INFO. That the author "lives on through continued appearances in today's culture" goes without saying, but any incredibly important depictions can be merged into the "Legacy and influence" section at Ambrose Bierce. María (críticame) 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Yllo points out, anything that is of more than trivial interest can be part of the "Legacy and influence" part of theAmbrose Bierce article. Mandsford 14:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I know it exists; that doesn't mean it's notable. Sr 13 08:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ani-Monday[edit]

Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Image already tagged as copyright infringing as well.Pharmboy 13:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Violates WP:NOT#GUIDE, does not establish notability, violates fair use policy, only source is first-party. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Argh, I had some reasons but the edit conflict ate them. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Hersfold. WP:NOT#GUIDE, no notability established, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 14:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete The article is factual and in no way violates wikipedia's policy. If the image were copyrighted, it could easily be reuploaded with the proper sources cited

Can you explain why it doesn't violate WP:NOT#GUIDE? And please sign your posts, BattleDragon, since you are the author of the article and the above request to not delete. Pharmboy 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Hate You[edit]

Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the notability of this song. Does not meet the proposed guideline for songs at WP:MUSIC. Otto4711 13:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, not a notable song, no sources, fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 14:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable song at all. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Moreover, it must be noted that most songs do not merit an article and should be redirected to another relevant article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx, though it is such an entertaining article. The trivia section of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home could be updated to include more of the information here. (What to do about an article with a large trivia section is another matter altogether.) Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 17:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, everyone knows "I hate you...and I berate you", but we might as well have an entire article about the "No, I'm from Iowa. I only work in outer space" scene. Perhaps the song was part of the soundtrack album for ST4 or for Back to the Beach, but it's one of many forgettable songs that were written specifically for film. This one's unusual in that the writer got to have it played twice, but in both films, less than 60 seconds of the song were heard. Mandsford 14:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, since this article has no hope of surviving. Poorly defined (what is a "flaw"), inaccurate ("great variety" is really "one thing I noticed"), original research, fan-based trivia....-Wafulz 13:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter Flaws[edit]

Yet another Harry Potter page that contains information that is found somewhere else or that could be moved someplace else. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 13:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, almost an A1 (no context) speedy. Original research, with a dash of uft-cray. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 13:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps not an A1, but we certainly don't need an article on this, particularly when there is only one entry. If someone really wants to include this, they can merge it into Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but I don't really even see that as necessary until there are a substantial number of such flaws and they have been pointed out by an independent source. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 13:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR. --Eyrian 14:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR - but you have got to love the opening line in the article: there is a variety of flaws and then goes on to list this variety being....err... just one. Pedro | Chat 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR Corpx 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, more worthless fan-generated material. Burntsauce 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, what the hell? Where did this come from? And since when is a 'great variety' one thing?Ravenmasterq 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete worthless cruft - and just a single piece of worthless cruft in there too. Bigdaddy1981 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avada Kedavra Delete The article names only one supposed flaw, that the cloak was supposed to make the wearer invisible to Death, and Moody could see Potter in it. But Moody was not Death, so the flaw is flawed. Kill the article before the purchasers of 25 million copies of a several hundred page book add more spurious original research "flaws." Edison 20:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a WP:SNOW is justified at this point. --Eyrian 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical music in Star Trek[edit]

Delete - A colletion of loosely associated items. The listed pieces have nothing in common other than happening to have been used in an episode of a TV series. The pieces do not gain notability from the use and the episodes don't gain notability for using them. Similar song lists have been deleted for a number of different shows, including Scrubs, both versions of The Office, Freaks and Geeks and others. Otto4711 12:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Star Trek is not known for its use of classical music, and I can't immediately recall any single episode in TOS, TNG, or VOY whose plot revolved around a piece of music. Can't say for the other series, but I find it unlikely there. In short, it's not notable and therefore trivial. WP:NOT. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment: There was that one episode where Troi goes crazy from hearing the same music box melody over and over. (But this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand--just wanted to geek out a little.) --Fang Aili ^talk 14:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment of my own - I'd forgotten about the Doctor's love for opera in VOY. That did play some part in a few plot lines, but relatively minor, and it can be mentioned in individual episode articles on a dedicated Wiki, as suggested below by Fang Aili. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 14:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, painfully loose association. --Eyrian 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, you have to admit some time was put into the article. However is it noteworthy? Probally not. --Kuzwa 14:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I get a big kick out of this article, being both a Star Trek fan and a musician, but it is something better placed at Memory Alpha, or elsewhere. Is there a GFDL wiki that can take this? (Memory Alpha is not GFDL.) --Fang Aili ^talk 14:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Memory Alpha already has a similar series of articles, one for each composer whose work was used. Index is here. For future reference, Memory Beta is GFDL licensed, so is a potential destination for trek-related moves, although I believe they only want non-canon related information, so this article wouldn't fit there. JulesH 14:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory (of music used in Star Trek) Corpx 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list does not help understanding of Star Trek or classical music. A brief mention in Star Trek that classical music is sometimes used will do, and also in the Doctor's article that his love of opera is sometimes used as a plot device, are all that is needed (and indeed all that is interesting). Totnesmartin 17:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Oh my. Burntsauce 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm a a fan of Star Trek (and the first one to call me a trekkie gets a fingerwagging) but this doesn't merit an article. -WarthogDemon 22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Glad I've saved a copy to my desktop. If someone happens to come looking for this, finds the AfD and wants the info., let me know. --EEMeltonIV 02:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - EEMeltonIV, there are a few admins who will retrieve deleted articles for you if you ask them. This page should be helpful. Totnesmartin 07:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is very well organized and researched, and worth putting to a website for "Trekkies" like me.. or WarthogDemon (I'm a fan, and, like Wart, not that much of a fan). Does anyone have a suggestion as to how to preserve classical music references for researchers? I consider it to be important, particularly to offset the dumbed-down portion of Wikipedia. Unlike pop songs whose title can be inferred from the lyrics, you can't identify, say, "Haydn's String Quartet No. 5 in D major, Opus 64, from The Lark". The answer doesn't appear to be an article like "Haydn in popular culture", since so many of these get deleted. This list could probably qualify for incorporation into a category, more easily found by a "Trekkie", rather than being in a separate article. Mandsford 15:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are suggesting a list of every time a piece of classical music has been played? Sure, that might be useful to somebody, but that's not what an encyclopedia is about. --Eyrian 15:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not really that. In this case, the list is about what music was used in a particular series, so people can identify the piece that way. I'm just saying that there should be some way for people to have a common frame of reference for describing a particular composition. Rossini and "The Lone Ranger" is the classic example. Mandsford 01:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per author request. Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Education City (Queensland)[edit]

This appears to be advertising. Also, after I requested CSD G11 (which was declined), the author of the article left a message on my talk page telling me to "kill" the article. Evil1987 12:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, may count as a G7 speedy if author told you to "kill" it. By the way, you forgot to put the AfD tag on the page (fixed). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry for not putting up the AfD tag on the page, and thanks for fixing it. I used Twinkle, but I guess I must have had something screwed up. I'll try to double-check in the future. Also, I thought only the author himself/herself could place the G7 tag on the page.--Evil1987 15:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete delete delete I created it as a separate article because someone inserted it into Education City which is like, well, on a different continent. I made it just because I knew it didn't belong where it was at first, I put the cleanup tags on it, and I support its deletion. Cornell Rockey 13:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yup, that's a G7 (author requests deletion). Blank the page if you want, or leave a note on the talk page saying you want it deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 13:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete both. —Kurykh 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Van in pop culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete both - These are directories of loosely associated topics. The listed items have nothing in common beyond using a segment of a particular piece of classical music. These lists tell us nothing about Beethoven, nothign about the symphonies (except that they're public domain and so free for movie producers to use), nothing about the fiction that uses the symphonies, nothing about how they are related to each other and nothing about the real world. Strongly oppose merging any of this into any other article on the composer or the pieces. See for precedent the deletions of similar articles for Adagio for Strings and 1812 Overture. Otto4711 12:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete both per ^{[citation needed]} as a trivial list of... well... trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Read through the article; it's horrid. For everyone saying "Don't delete; improve!" -- the sheer length of time that this has stood here idle tells us that nobody is in the mood to completely revamp the list. Other the other hand, if the article is deleted w/o prejudice for recreating, it would certainly have a stronger tendency to turn into a legitimate rewrite. Honestly, information like this: "In Civilization II, when there's a "We Love" celebration, "Ode to Joy" is played." is an insult to the man's music. Bulldog123 13:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete impractical, utterly uninformative, incredibly loose association. --Eyrian 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia collection, WP:5 - Every time _______ was used/mentioned in a tv show/movie Corpx 15:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hate to see these two get deleted, since there's no denying the universal appeal of parts of of these symphonies. That the nominator refers to Beethoven as "Ludwig Van" (there being no article by that name -- thank God) is testimony to the pop culture symbolism of the late composer. On the other hand, nobody has cared enough to improve these, and some heavy editing by a "music major" would be a good start. Obviously, these shouldn't be merged into a main article: I hate to think that Beethoven's legacy would be an answering machine that plays "No-bod-y's HOME! No-bod-y's home..." Undeniably, parts of Beethoven's 5th and 9th symphonies are heard all the time, though most listeners have no idea about what they're hearing. It's something to think about. Mandsford 15:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Brahms in film and popular culture[edit]

Delete - This is a directory of loosely associated topics. The listed items have nothing in common beyond using a segment of a piece of music by a particular composer. This list tells us nothing about the composer, nothing about the compositions (except that they are public domain and so free for movie producers to use), nothing about the fiction that uses the compositions, nothing about how they are related to each other and nothing about the real world. Strongly oppose merging any of this into any other article on the composer or the pieces. See for precedent the deletions of similar articles for Adagio for Strings and 1812 Overture. Otto4711 12:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per ^{[citation needed]} as a trivial list of... well... trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete bad trivia. Like Otto says, it tells us absolutely nothing of worth about this composer. Bulldog123 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia collection, WP:5 - Every time _______ was used/mentioned in a tv show/movie Corpx 15:09, 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 00:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I had expected that this would be a mention of different compositions as part of modern day film, but this is one of those "guess-what-I-heard" type lists that typify most "pop culture" compilations when someone said Brahms or Mr. Brahms was portrayed by an actor. A tip of the hat to everyone on this one for not suggesting that all such articles must be deleted; this is crap, even by IPC standards. Mandsford 15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. This article has little or nothign to do with "cultural depictions" of Mozart or his music. It is instead a few apparently random facts thrown together with no sort of unifying theme or premise, which material is already covered adequately in the article for the composer. Otto4711 12:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per ^{[citation needed]} as a trivial list of... well... trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Read through the article; it's horrid. For everyone saying "Don't delete; improve!" -- the sheer length of time that this has stood here idle tells us that nobody is in the mood to completely revamp the list. Other the other hand, if the article is deleted w/o prejudice for recreating, it would certainly have a stronger tendency to turn into a legitimate rewrite. Bulldog123 13:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mozart and Salieri. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this particular article does not have substantial content. As collections of minor cultural references go, this is pretty bad--there's a lot more that would be better worth an article. This one is not worth improving. The list of films can fit in the main article if it isnt there already. DGG (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto and Bulldog. Even DGG and I can't bring ourselves to find anything to like about this one. It's a list of films, followed by a list of trivia. Horrid is an apt description. Mandsford 15:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Seasons in popular culture[edit]

Delete - This is a directory of loosely associated topics. The listed items have nothing in common beyond using a segment of a particular piece of classical music. This list tells us nothing about The Four Seasons (except that it's public domain and so free for movie producers to use), nothing about the fiction that uses The Four Seasons, nothing about how they are related to each other and nothing about the real world. Strongly oppose merging any of this into any other article on the composer or the piece. See for precedent the deletions of similar articles for Adagio for Strings and 1812 Overture. Otto4711 12:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per ^{[citation needed]} as a trivial list of... well... trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia collection, WP:5 - Every time _______ was used/mentioned in a tv show/movie Corpx 15:08, 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 00:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thank heavens for WP:NOT#IINFO, which catches this one Ohconfucius 14:16, 27 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 23:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone, even Burntsauce.sauce.sauce.sauce.sauce.Mandsford 15:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg Variations in popular culture[edit]

Delete - This is a directory of loosely associated topics. The listed items have nothing in common beyond using a segment of a particular piece of classical music. This list tells us nothing about the Variations (except that it's public domain and so free for movie producers to use), nothing about the fiction that uses the Variations, nothing about how they are related to each other and nothing about the real world. Strongly oppose merging any of this into any other article on the composer or the piece. See for precedent the deletions of similar articles for Adagio for Strings and 1812 Overture. Otto4711 12:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per ^{[citation needed]} as a trivial list of... well... trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia collection, WP:5 - Every time _______ was used/mentioned in a tv show/movie Corpx 15:08, 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 00:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, thank heavens for WP:NOT#IINFO, which catches this one Ohconfucius 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Für Elise in popular culture[edit]

Delete - This is a directory of loosely associated topics. The listed items have nothing in common beyond using a segment of a particular piece of classical music. This list tells us nothing about Fur Elise (except that it's public domain and so free for movie producers to use), nothing about the fiction that uses Fur Elise, nothing about how they are related to each other and nothing about the real world. Strongly oppose merging any of this into any other article on the composer or the piece. See for precedent the deletions of similar articles for Adagio for Strings and 1812 Overture. Otto4711 12:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per ^{[citation needed]} as a trivial list of... well... trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia collection, WP:5 - Every time _______ was used/mentioned in a tv show/movie Corpx 15:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thank heavens for WP:NOT#IINFO, which catches this one Ohconfucius 14:17, 27 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 23:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article leaves a place for the numerous popular culture references that might otherwise pollute the main article and that deserve mention. Perhaps the article needs to be revised to be less random, but its need is apparent. 205.237.164.127 19:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. At last, something that hasn't been copied and pasted. Well done, 205.237, well done. All the same, strongly oppose merging, it's, well... trivia...about every time ____ was used/mentioned, thank heavens, violatin' my pillars. Für Elise is one of the few pieces which merits its own popular culture article, and there aren't many. However, this article isn't it, and it would have to be heavily edited to be of any use. The author puts in too much, including the lyrics to the 1980s McDonald's commercial. However, EVERYONE who hears "Für Elise" recognizes it as something they've heard before, even if they don't know what its named. I agree with you that it's a good subject, and that it needs to be revised. A better written article would be a keeper, I think. Mandsford 15:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart's Requiem in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mozart's Requiem in popular culture

Delete - This is a directory of loosely associated topics. The listed items have nothing in common beyond using a segment of a particular piece of classical music. This list tells us nothing about the Requiem (except that it's public domain and so free for movie producers to use), nothing about the fiction that uses the Requiem, nothing about how they are related to each other and nothing about the real world. Strongly oppose merging any of this into any other article on Mozart or the Requiem. See for precedent the deletions of similar articles for Adagio for Strings and 1812 Overture. Otto4711 12:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per ^{[citation needed]} as a trivial list of... well... trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia collection, WP:5 - Every time _______ was used/mentioned in a tv show/movie Corpx 15:07, 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 23:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strongly...well..used/mentioned...pillars. Although it does have a reference (nice addition), the Requiem doesn't have the universal appeal of other classical compositions, and its use in popular culture isn't that notable. Mandsford 15:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. —Kurykh 17:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madras Bulls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Deleted through AfD, overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_22. Procedural nomination. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to have been covered by multiple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only one secondary source is provided, "The Hindu" newspaper, they just wrote two articles about it. The notability guidelines do call for sources, not a singular source. Also, the bit about "informal club" says to me that this is little more than a group of friends who all happen to own motorcycles - a large group, albeit, but in concept no different from the hundreds of non-notable garage bands we get articles about every day. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 14:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Neutral - I can't argue the notability test following the comment just below, but I still don't believe this is something we need an article about per my later argument. I'll stay neutral on it for now, as that alone isn't enough to merit deletion. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 14:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's 2 different articles, so shouldn't they be considered as 2 different sources? Here's two clips I found illustrating coverage from CNN India - CNN India coverage, more from CNN India Corpx 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per my reasoning at the first AfD. Caknuck 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deletos. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethehofos[edit]

Obvious hoax full of sillyness and with anachronistic references (e.g. ethyl, central processing unit). Utter asininity. I know plenty about the Ancient Greeks and their gods. Anthony Appleyard 12:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, obvious hoax, amusing enough though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ask Uncyclopedia if they want it. Pedro | Chat 12:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've removed him already from List of Greek mythological figures where he lurked for more than two years. --Tikiwont 13:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. It's already been copied to a ton of websites, but let's try to contain the damage. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after BJAODN has it; "ethyl is Greek for two" should be preserved - but not in article space! Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Do not BJAODN. Do not feed the trolls. Burntsauce 17:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad hoax. Also restored Afd info to the page. Edward321 01:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just restored Afd notice on the page a second time. Edward321 01:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. —Kurykh 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Staub[edit]

Geesh, this should have looked familiar to me. I prod'd it, it was contested it, I afd'd it and then someone deleted the afd. Anyhow, I tried to prod it again, forgetting it had been prod'd before and my reasons are the same now as they were then: There is absolutely no evidence of notability here and don't tell me he has an IMDB page. As I mentioned on the talk page back in January, the drama/music guy from my summer camp did the score for one B movie (and calling it a B movie is being nice) and as a result, he has an IMDB page and a rotten tomatoes page. And that is the sole pro work he has done. Who is to say Ralph is any more notable than my summer camp friend? Nothing! There is no indication of awards, honors, nominations for either, his films being in the top ten of box office receipts, ... NOTHING! Postcard Cathy 12:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From the IMDB page I learn that three of his short subjects in the Screen Snapshots series have been nominated for the Academy Award and he was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.--Tikiwont 14:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was nominated for Academy Awards in 1944, 1945 and 1946. That seems to satisfy notability for creative professionals, in that "The person's work either...has won significant critical attention...." Also, he directed 198 films, which may be somewhat more notable than your summer camp friend...or at least more prolific. :) If we class him as an entertainer rather than a creative professional, he seems also to qualify for keep on "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Not all of them are documentary shorts, either. According to IMDb, he did a number of full length comedies in the 30s and 40s. Moonriddengirl 15:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are few online sources but what we have indicates that he was producer/director of a popular series of newsreels for some 20 odd years, a series thrice nominated for an Oscar. This was essentially the Entertainment Tonight or Showbiz News of its pre-TV day. That seems miles beyond the nominator's "one credit in a B movie" scenario. In general with historical topics it is more difficult to find sources, but this must have been notable in its day by all indications. --Dhartung | Talk 10:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it kind of sad that it takes this much effort for someone to improve an article? Postcard Cathy 21:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kapanalig Street[edit]

Notability not established. Michael Johnson 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN street. --Tikiwont 14:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Moonriddengirl 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 14:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to notability. Punkmorten 00:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely non-notable, AFAIK (full disclosure: I'm from the Philippines, and I am also familiar with Caloocan City, where this street is supposedly located). --- Tito Pao 00:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and non-historical street. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail WP:50k by some margin. Grutness...wha? 05:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Pockett[edit]

Pretty sure this is a hoax. Virtually no Google hits for the name (if you're "the hottest new developer", the odds are that you're going to clock a fair few hits). Also, claims like "better known as a computer analyst/expert" and "the first teenager in the world to create bi-lingual software which can adapt to 'Pacman', 'Tetris' and 'Ninja' control software" ring soundly of nonsense. It is irrelevant if the "software took Pockett over 4 months to create" as virtually any non-trivial software development project is going to take many months if not years. If that's notable, then I deserve a Wikipedia page along with a vast number of other people. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 11:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — the article has been proposed for deletion by another editor. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 11:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced. Complete bollocks. --Onorem♠Dil 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Chewy vanity goodness in a hard hoaxy shell. — Coren ^(talk) 11:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the obvious reasoning of everyone else. ;-) --XDanielx 11:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, obvious hoax. You'd think a "hot developer" would return more Google hits... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any reference to him. Deb 17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no such thing. McLarenJAB 14:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Cécilia Sarkozy. Sr 13 07:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne-Marie Martin[edit]

Daugther of... with no independant notability whatsoever Rama 11:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cécilia Sarkozy as is fairly standard with relatives of famous people. Iain99 12:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her mother as above. --Dhartung | Talk 10:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as custom has it. Rama 11:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neru Poiamajar[edit]

Hoax. The article says that he comes from Saaremaa and plays for an amateur Turkish side, but neither his name nor his club's name get any google hits. He's not listed as part of the unofficial Saaremaa national football team [30], despite the fact that the article suggests he has won seven caps for them, plus his name doesn't sound Estonian and he has never played for any amateur sides in Estonia. -- Ban Ray 22:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Ban Ray 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax/non notable. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete smells like hoax. --Angelo 00:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either hoax or non-notable. Number 5 7 08:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as very obvious hoax. Nom spells it out pretty clearly here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 13:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would also been a clear delete even if not a hoax. Punkmorten 18:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if he exists, he is not notable. --Malcolmxl5 21:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. —Kurykh 17:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Kamel[edit]

The article is poorly written and almost entirely unsourced. Moreover, I do not think this gentleman meets the notability requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newt43 (talk • contribs) 2007/07/25 23:29:02

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF. The subject in question has not published a significant and well-known academic work. He is also not known for originating an important new concept as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think cabinet level appointees are notable Corpx 14:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the Egyptian minister of communication [31], not simply an academic. Category:Egyptian politicians lists articles on several other Egyptian ministers. He gets many more hits when you google "Egyptian minister of communication", as there are spelling variations of his name in English. — Zerida 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have cleaned up and added official biography links. He isn't important for his research, and as a cabinet minister is automatically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy close seeing as nominator gave no reason for deletion. In addition, this page is already rolled into this AfD. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Business Journal[edit]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep There is no reason for nomination. However, this is a notable business publication. Absolutely influential and with time, this article will develop the indicia of notability. Scarykitty 11:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main discussion for thsi and related journals is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Business Review, so it seems that thsi page here has been created in error. --Tikiwont 12:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of ecommerce solutions[edit]

Definitely unencyclopedic (Wikipedia is not a directory of software). In addition, this article is a spam magnet almost by definition-- the vast majority of edits are additions of linkspam and reverts of same. I don't think this can be salvaged. — Coren ^(talk) 09:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~Weak Delete I'm really not sure about these comparisons. It seems to me like they'd be a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, but stuff like Comparison of Internet forum software (PHP) exists. Corpx 14:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; yeah, I know. But WP:WAX. There is also the very obvious problem of neutrality and original research; even if everything is verifiable, who chooses the comparison criteria? Any why those? Those lists are a maintenance nightmare as well. — Coren ^(talk) 15:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the other list also falls under "WP is not a (software) directory" Corpx 15:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you guys? You keep repeating that wikipedia is not a software directory. In the mean time you promote several software products: Take a look at the Shopping cart software section; there is oscommerce, Zen Cart, ViArt Shop and several other articles under Shopping cart software. It seems like some editors have special interest in promoting just these products.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.90.148 (talk • contribs) — 66.176.90.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Fix, if possible, else delete Nothing in there is sourced except for, indirectly, the few products we have articles for. The rest are just spamming it up. But without those the list wouldn't be at all comprehensive or informative. Also I reckon the sort of websites dedicated to comparing these products can do a better job of it than Wikipedia can. They have workable demos and stuff. --Anakin ^{(contribs, complaints)} 17:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything. Delete the blatant advertisement of osCommerce, Zen Cart, and ViArt Shop from Shopping cart software. Why listing them when they are not even the most notable e-commerce shopping carts available today? - Where are monstercommerce, x-cart, fortune3, volusion and the truly notables?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.246.41.62 (talk • contribs) — 74.246.41.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. I don't see how making a comparison list of features of products inherently violates WP:NOT. Actually, the fourth point in the directory section quite clearly implies that they don't. If you're concerned about spam, delete all the entries with no articles. If you're concerned with sources, hit it with a ((sources)) tag. And per the anon above me, if you think it's incomplete, you can always edit things in. Someguy1221 01:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article being difficult to maintain is not an argument for deletion. These lists are useful, not to mention we have a vast number of them:
Keep These types of articles are great you just have to police those trying to advertise their products[32]. the wub "?!" 10:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being WP:USEFUL shouldnt be a reason to keep either :) Corpx 15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – software list and comparsion articles are typically a spam and conflict of interest magnet. I've been watching this article for some time, and most edits seem to revolve around insertions by editors who have a very narrow interest in promoting a particular product. There is no apparent attempt at verification or a standard of notability. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 02:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. CitiCat^♫ 04:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baynote[edit]

Falls far from WP:WEB; only claim to notability is having a few notable customers, but notability is not transitive. — Coren ^(talk) 09:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of reliable sources for this company is a major conern here. Moreover, a google search shows up no reliable hits for this company. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:; I followed your google search and noticed very notable sources. BusinessWeek, ZDnet, and Forrester Research to name a few. — toronkusu

Keep — this is a company rather than a website, so I don't think WP:WEB applies. Instead WP:CORP is more relevant. There are quite a number of external references to the company that can be found by a simple Google search [33] and I have added some. — Jonathan Bowen 15:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:; well, it's a company providing web content. I don't think it meets WP:CORP any more than it meets WP:WEB anyways— what little coverage there is is either trivial or press releases. — Coren ^(talk) 16:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:; As previously stated, BusinessWeek, ZDNet, and Forrester are hardly trivial sources. The company seems to be applying socio-economic principles mentioned by the books cited in the posting to their technology. — toronkusu

Delete as spam, CORP issues. Not everyone with a 800 number is noteworthy. Pharmboy 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:; This statement is unfounded. — toronkusu

Weak keep, sources seem just enough to establish notability. the wub "?!" 10:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep website recommendations are a important trend all over the globe and people are researching it. Moreover, it provides real evidence of how collective intelligence and behavior are being used effectively. The MIT & Businessweek references, and customer proof points, provide enough notability. mjsvatek 1:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC) — mjsvatek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep--evrik ^(talk) 10:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Washington[edit]

Not Notable Heavytundra 09:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see it as notable. Apparantly it's ownly claim to notability is a brief segment with Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, this guy. Delete. Made one appearance on Conan, which has been rehashed on various Conan specials. No evidence to indicate he's done much after that. Certainly none to denote him as a notable performer.--Sethacus 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if he is just a sidekick to Triumph it is enough to make him notable. He has been on his CD, taken to different performances, appeared on the radio...Oreo man 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Conancruft (or more likely WP:VSCA). Created and primarily edited by a handful of IPs, suggesting WP:COI issues. No coverage from reliable sources found in a Google News Archive search. --Dhartung | Talk 11:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as spam. El_C 19:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New mexico injury lawyer[edit]

Non-notable content. Page seems more like an advertisement. A separate article already exists for personal injury lawyer. --Uthbrian (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if there were something unusual about personal injury lawyers in New Mexico, it would probably be more suitable for a subtopic on the personal injury lawyer page. Moonriddengirl 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - thinly veiled advertising for The Fine Law Firm (see the last link). In any case, we aren't the Yellow Pages. (We aren't the Network Information Service either, but that's another topic.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has some form here --Xorkl000 09:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as backdoor spam attempt. Montco 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep and merge all. (except Liero Heroes (Comic) which is almost a speedy deletion candidate as it makes to attempt to assert any sort of notability.) I leave that task to the editors involved in the debate who seem to have found an agreement amongst themselves. Pascal.Tesson 23:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liero[edit]

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the outcome of the Liero Xtreme deletion debate:

The purpose of this AfD is for the community to engage in meaningful discussion about what constitutes notability for a computer game, and thereby decide what should be done with these articles. Do not post any comments without posting your reasons backed up with facts. Thank you.Snoopydawg 08:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep'Speedy keepMerge, as outlined by nominator below (i like changing opinion..) Liero is very notable, should be easy adding several reliable sources for that to the article ([34] [35]). That CNN article also makes the situation clear: "NiL is a remake of a little-known title called Liero, a freeware game that runs on DOS." so indeed, it seems by now, many of the remakes got more notable than the original - but in an encylopedia, we should not just go by current popularity but actual notability. And yes, merging some of the less notable clones/remakes into the Liero article might be a good idea, but better let the editors discuss that with a normal merge process, not in an AfD. --Allefant 09:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is it exactly that makes Liero a notable game? And which of the articles above would you consider notable enough to warrant their own article (and why)? --Snoopydawg 10:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, seeing now how you was the one who dug up references in the Liero Xtreme AfD, I changed my vote above, as I suspect this is just a case of WP:POINT. And offtopic to this AfD - I would consider Gusanos, NiL and MoleZ notable enough for their own article after a quick google check. Also Liero Xtreme for that matter. But such are the ways of Wikipedia that you need some kind of references saying that the game is notable. With 125000 unique google hits all about Liero Xtreme, I guess it should be possible, so I agree the AfD was closed too soon. Also the way it was closed certainly explains why you did this, an admin stamped delete on it with only a single delete vote, and without anyone having had time to comment on the sources you found - that's not in the least conforming to WP:DGFA or any general sense of how to not anger other editors. But then, unless you think a deletion review has any chance of changing the outcome, better try to ask him for the article and merge the relevant (and sourced) parts into the Liero article, instead of causing another good article (well, i never had a chance to see it :P) get removed by what you try now. --Allefant 11:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge everything together. I think that Liero and its remakes and offshoots, taken together, are notable enough for an article. 6 articles is a bit much though. Note that merging could have been done editiorially and does not require an AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Under which name would you suggest that the merge would be (and why)? --Snoopydawg 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any reason in particular not to have the article at Liero. It seems the most logical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Even though Liero itself is a clone of MoleZ? --Snoopydawg 16:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - MoleZ may have come first, but Liero is a good deal more well-known, and a more likely search term. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:POINT nomination. --Servant Saber 14:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crap like this nomination is the reason I left this hole. Possibly one of the most influential freeware action games ever... the side articles could at worst be merged, but I think the nominator ought to seriously reconsider whether they're contributing to Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia, or trying to rewrite history to better fit a groupthink social club. Oh, and if anyone screams "OMG anons can't vote", you should ask yourself the same question - are you dedicated to the spread of free knowledge, or just happy to feel self-important by winning the weekly power struggles? (In case you couldn't tell, that's a keep. Not that it counts.) 192.43.227.18 06:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You really don't see the point do you? --Snoopydawg 08:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After consideration of facts, the opinions above, and apologizing for this being a case of WP:POINT, i've decided to propose the following:

- - Keep the article Liero, search for sources, and remove material without sources.
  - Merge Gusanos, NiL, and MoleZ into the Liero article. They are not notable enough or or suffer from such a lack of sources, that it's better off to merge them. Remove material for which sources cannot be found.
  - Delete Liero Heroes (Comic) as non-notable fancruft.
  - Undelete Liero Xtreme, and merge material that sources can be found for into Liero.--Snoopydawg 08:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support that idea. Also delete LOSP I guess, it already is mentioned in Gusanos, which is probably enough. --Allefant 09:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it's probably enough mentioning it in the chapter with Gusanos. --Snoopydawg 09:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just check the Wikilinks, articles in so many languages. Perhaps you haven't heard of it, but it's a legendary and very well known game among freeware gamers. It has reviews at many places, unliek some other freeware games, thus we can get sources if we want. I'd merge the other "liero-articles" here. --Pudeo ⺮ 12:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French Horn Lane[edit]

Non notable road Malcolma 08:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator, I can't seem to find viable sources to expand it due to it's lack of notability. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor road with no evidence of notability. the wub "?!" 10:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor street. Would fit in a list of "Streets named after musical instruments" which would likely in turn be deleted. Edison 18:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge and redirect to John Darnielle. Walton^One 16:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lalitree Darnielle[edit]

The primary notability of this person is for being the wife of John Darnielle, a member of the band, The Mountain Goats. As she is non-notable outside of that, and has a lack of verifiable information, she fails WP:BIO and WP:V. --Dark Falls ^talk 07:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below Mammotheejit 20:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: That she was the inspiration for an album could, if sourced, be mentioned in the the band or album articles. It does not justify an article about her alone. As long as her only claim to notability is through her marriage, I agree with the nominator that she fails WP:BIO and this article should be deleted.Dr bab 08:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. by Mammotheejit's admission, not notable. Fails WP:RS - all sources appear to be self-published Ohconfucius 08:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, I can't seem to find verifiable info either and it does indeed fail WP:BIO. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to John Darnielle. As a supernumerary of the band she is a potential search term, so she's more than just an inspiration, but that isn't notability either. --Dhartung | Talk 09:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- She is not just an inspiration, she is a fellow musician. Mammotheejit 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - She may be a musician, but she is not a notable musician. --Dhartung | Talk 11:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - appears to be a consensus that she isn't notable in her own right. Addhoc 12:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SHe is a fellow musician Mammotheejit 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited through marriage. Corpx 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, she is a fellow musician. Mammotheejit 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's still a lack of reliable sources giving her significant coverage Corpx 15:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE & REDIRECT I really do'nt think it needs to be deleted. She was part of the Mountain Goats side project, THE SENECA TWINS, a little-known, but neverthless listened-to indie 9-song demo with Chris Butler (there are records of her music being played on Last.fm, meaning it, while unreleased, still reached an audience. (see http://www.mountain-goats.com/discog.html) Mammotheejit 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was

The result was keep notable subject; the decision of whether to merge is left to the editors involved. El_C 18:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icosahedral–hexagonal grids in weather prediction[edit]

This mathematical topic (about numerical solution of partial differential equations) seems to be too specialized even for a merger to possible parent articles. An expert review by WikiProject Mathematics was slightly in favor of AfD, so I am listing it here. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 07:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an incredibly specific and minor part of a larger process, that would barely be notable on weather prediction. Somethings are simply too specific to have their own pages; this is one. --Haemo 07:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since when do we delete articles on perfectly legitimate scientific topics just because they are "too specialized"? The article could potentially be merged into a larger article about the types of grids used in climate modeling, but if there is none yet, there's no reason to delete this one. --Itub 11:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not in widespread use, the nomination is in line with WP:SCI. --B. Wolterding 14:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not being in widespread use is not the same as being too specialized. And as far as I can tell, this term is widely used among climate modelers. There are over a hundred scholarly articles that use it, and it also appears in books in the field. --Itub 15:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: this topic is not really about differential equations, but about cartography or geometry (although the grids can be used, together with the differential equations, to model the Earth's climate). The article is not very clear as it is now; I suggest reading [36] and [37] for more information. Especially the PDF in the second site, [38]. After looking at those sites, I would suggest renaming the article to Discrete global grid or something similar, and eventually expand it to discuss the various types of grids (triangular, diamond, hexagon aperture 3, hexagon aperture 4). --Itub 11:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since no good reason has been given for deletion. The article is specialized, and if a merger was suggested it might be appropriate. If not, let's leave the article to grow as it will. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Why did the Math project review this? It seems only narrowly connected to mathematics at all. Sure, it applies a mathematical technique to work, but so do many other fields... CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse my naiveness, but numerical solution of equations, as well as geometry, are clearly mathematical topics to me... So I asked WikiProject Mathematics for a review. --B. Wolterding 15:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually now that I think about it a math review wasn't a bad idea, though I still don't think it's a particularly mathematical topic. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely the article needs to get cleaned up; it needs to list published sources that are mentioned but not listed, and it could use more mathematical details. But the skimpy peer review linked to here looks at it from the wrong viewpoint. This may be at most a minor topic within applied mathematics--a footnote to another article, perhaps--but nonetheless it may be a major topic within the field of weather modelling (I don't know if it is or not). Michael Hardy 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to geodesic grid. The two articles describe the same thing. In particular, the geodesic grid article could benefit from some of the references listed in icosahedral–hexagonal grids in weather prediction. Of course, someone needs to sort through which ones... :/ Lunch 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and merged most of the text to geodesic grid. I'm a little more than an amateur at gridding techniques and shallow-water modelling, but less than an expert. Someone should check up on my efforts here. Lunch 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with merging it with geodesic grid. That's exactly the kind of article I had in mind as a merge destination, but I couldn't find it... --Itub 07:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Lunch, and consider speedy keep, since the nomination was procedural, and a merge doesn't need AfD, just editing. (Note that geodesic grid does define the what the IH grid is.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to have little chance of developing, as it basically exists to say that these grids are used in weather forecasting. Should be merged to an article on weather forecasting. As a thought experiment, what if there was an article on cubes in the finite element method? In any case, the article in its present location should be deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been around for months and never had any content other than incomplete references to the literature; it was proposed for deletion not because it's a bad topic but because it showed no signs of growing into a useful article. I'm pleased that an appropriate "mergeto" was found. —Tamfang 06:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep per Lunch and someone should clean up the references before it's merged. —MJCdetroit 11:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted under CSD A7 by Xezbeth (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 09:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe2morrow[edit]

Notability not established. Michael Johnson 07:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. The band has not been the subject of any multiple non-trivial published works. Moreover, this band has not had a charted hit on any national music chart as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Looks rather spam-like. Note that I am inclined toward discounting Siva1979's opinion due to its seemingly monolithic, google-count form (i.e. elsewhere, too). As well, in future please use http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22your+search+query%22 as the url field (the one in your browser is too lengthy). Thank you. El_C 17:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hole Quenchers[edit]

NN thing i am doing this for someone else because there might be a conflict of interest so i am helping them out bye doing this for them they want to reach a comsence Oo7565 06:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomOo7565 07:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The information in this article is verifiable. Moreover a google search shows up quite a number of hits for this subject. In this webpage, there is also a definition of this term as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There appears to be a COI with the article creator, but the subject itself appears to be verifiable and somewhat notable, taking into consideration the specialist nature of the topic. —AldeBaer 09:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Is this a description of a type of dye, or is this a trade name for a line of dyes by this particular company? There's a flavor of spam about this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is one among many biology products, I strongly feel that having this article in wikipedia is a form of advertising. "SYBR Gold" and "Platinum Taq" are offhand examples of products that have an order of magnitude more google hits and yet do not merit their own wikipedia articles. If the company itself is notable enough to have a wikipedia page (which it doesn't), this product could be mentioned as a one-liner within. (And on that subject - Applied Biosystems is an offhand example of a more notable company that lacks a wikipedia page.) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 00:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam for a tradenamed biomolecule, not especially notable (probably worthy of a sentence or two on the quencher article). Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted - no content. the wub "?!" 10:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty 5[edit]

This appears to be pure speculation. A prod was placed on the page (with the reason "pure crystal ball rumor") but it was removed by an anon IP without an explanation [39]. While this game may be in the works, there is not nearly enough info on it now to warrant an article. clpo13_(talk) 06:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Crystal Ball — Blue 。 07:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Moreover, a google search shows up no reliable hits for this video game. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "It is rumored that there will be Call of Duty 5 nothing is known about the game". Says it all. This will be snowed. --Haemo 07:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It just fails. Reinis^talk 07:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously pure speculation. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep all, at least in the interim. If you wish to merge the articles, then please discuss on the relevant talk pages. —Kurykh 17:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Royal League Final[edit]

The final of a relatively minor sporting event, doesn't need its own page. Lilac Soul 06:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Delete All relevant info already can be found at Royal League 2004-05, Royal League 2005-06 & Royal League 2006-07. Caknuck 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I reformatted the AfDs to conform better to standards. Caknuck 07:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks, I only just now noticed the proper way to propose more than one article. Lilac Soul 07:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cup finals deserve an article, and the Royal League is at a pretty high level. ArtVandelay13 07:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Important info already present in Royal League season-by-season articles. Number 5 7 08:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Royal League 2004-05 Irishjp 14:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The level of this tournament is not particularly high... Could be merged per Irishjp. Punkmorten 18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't believe I'm commenting on a soccer article, but this is an important cup in the three Nordic countries. It's a pretty important league (and the finals are even more important) for these countries. I would find it useful if I were actually interested in this sport. I disagree with LilacSoul's characterization of this event as being "minor." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a competition between the best teams, the cream of the leagues in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Both the UEFA website and the FIFA website carry articles on this competition, which suggests to me that it is notable in the footballing heirarchy. A FIFA article[40] describes it as being a "...prestigous title..." [sic], which confirms notability to me. Certainly, it is of a higher level than domestic football. Consequently, I say keep and improve the articles (a little narrative about the play a la 1998 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup Final would be good.) --Malcolmxl5 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Irishjp's suggestion. Chengwes 07:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, they're very short, so a section in their parent article is more appropriate. --Angelo 00:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - This is a notable cup final and it is normal for such football cup finals to have their own article. TerriersFan 20:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all given that we have articles for the finals of many other club competitions, and this features the top clubs in the participating countries. Robotforaday 23:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all notable cup final. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I couldn't have put it better than Malcolmxl5. Maybe look at FA Cup Final 2002 for a better lineups/colours format. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zookerball[edit]

No verified sources (WP:V), only 3 Ghits (for a sport, I would consider that WP:N). Amnewsboy 05:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely sounds like something made up at school one day. Nyttend 05:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly made up in school. Someguy1221 06:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made up at school one day. Maxa megalon 2000 06:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, the Ghits suggest it was Camp :-) Jddphd 06:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook violation of WP:NOT. Caknuck 06:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete, obvious hoax made up one day. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and bring in the arsenal of snowballs please. Burntsauce 17:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Time Blockbuster Films in Indian cinema[edit]

A list of films based upon what exactly? No set genre, statistics, nor reasoning for these films. Jmlk 1 7 05:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete Not being an editor of films, has there been a "standard" definition used for "blockbuster"? If not, I say delete per nom and for failing WP:NPOV. Jmfangio| ►Chat 05:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What's an all time blockbuster? Someguy1221 06:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list doesn't even match the all-time grosses presented in the sources, which can only mean that the criteria are arbitrary. Caknuck 06:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what an all time blockbuster is, but if such a category does exist, doesn't a category suffice? Corpx 14:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This should be knocked right off the board because the author had the tools to write an accurate article, and didn't do so. Author's premise is that there are "14 blockbusters" (not defined, as everyone else has noted) and a cite is made to a website for that. The first two movies on this partiuclar list aren't even in the Top 20, even when adjusted for inflation. A good article about Bollywood's highest-grossing films would be welcome, but this one is awful. Mandsford 16:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment An all time blockbuster is a film which at the time made a larger profit than any other film previously made. They are not necessarily all-time grossers nowadays. They are listed on certain websites as these 14. The term is in current use in the Hindi film industry. There are also other articles not up for deletion such as List of highest-grossing Bollywood films and List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in overseas markets 82.36.245.146 23:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't this article then duplicate those lists?--Chaser - T 01:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't the same as explained. Fay06 11:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral and comment. Needs substantial cleanup, sourcing, and retitling, but 82.36's comment implies that the editor is aiming for something akin to the Bollywood equivalent of Closing milestones of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. THF 23:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Thunder[edit]

Unknown band, only sources include myspace and wikipedia. Jmlk 1 7 05:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My google search yields only trivial mentions and unreliable sources. I also ask that you throw in Luke Davidov Stence as well, as his only notability is being in this band. Someguy1221 06:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as a complete hoax. If you look at the bio on the MySpace page, the band was actually formed last year. They even go so far as to list this as their band Web site on the MySpace profile. Caknuck 06:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#SOAP. Just another dime-a-dozen myspace band, AFAICT, fails WP:RS. Yes, I like the bit on their myspace page which says "Band Website: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_thunder" Ohconfucius 08:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. per all uses above. See also Luke Davidov Stence. James Luftan ^contribs 01:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, except the text is copied from http://www.jetready.com/home.php. The solution is to rewrite the article from the numerous sources available. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widzer[edit]

Notability is questioned.... - Philippe | Talk 05:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy seems to be notable per USA Today and a number of other sources. Article may not be NPOV and needs improvement but the guy is notable. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article does nothing but assert notability through the mentioning of coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Someguy1221 05:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see mention of outlets that have "interviewed" him, but.... I'm not sure that's real notability. Is everyone who's interviewed notable? - Philippe | Talk 06:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I think the key here is having been interviewed by multiple sources. This shows that he is considered notable enough by said sources that more than one person wants to talk to him. Someguy1221 06:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a blatant promo piece the way it's written. It also needs to be blanked per WP:CP pending confirmation of the author's authority to use the text on the subject's website. So if you want to see it for this AfD, look in the history. -- But|seriously|folks 06:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite as a cited stub. We don't need his PR blurb, which doesn't really even focus on his being a "travel expert". --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the man seems notable because of his media appearances and coverage in USA Today. However the article needs a major re-write (based on the last archived version before the temporary blanking). Pats Sox Princess 13:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K.Flay[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage received by this individual appear to be local only, and happens to be doubtable on both the "reliable" and the "independent" part of WP:N. Someguy1221 05:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per nom Ronnotel 11:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009

Could we bring this article back? She's famous now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.64.253 (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is now a notable ommission. Anarchangel23 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't salted, anyone can recreate. You'll probably need some reliable sources to substantiate. I've recovered the article as it existed just before deletion and it will be posted in a subpage for a limited period of time (a few weeks at most). If someone wants to try to re-establish notability feel free to use this. Ronnotel (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sassing mackenzie[edit]

NN Canadian band, fails WP:MUSIC. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 05:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search shows up no reliable sources for this group. Moreover, it fails WP:BAND as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced article. I fail to see how it passes WP:N, or WP:A. Ohconfucius 09:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not every "locally important" band is noteworthy. Pharmboy 14:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the Love of the Game[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Future album on which nothing but the "tenative" release date can be stated (and not even confirmed). Nothing concrete here yet, so delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be deleted if it was confirmed to be recorded and it has for tracks confirmed also. I think it should stay until further information is released (Quetzal123 04:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmed where? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to myspace.com/pillar and go to the blog that says "July 24th New Journal From Rob" (Quetzal123 04:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

MySpace is not, I repeat, not, a reliable source. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 05:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the band's official page pillarmusic.com?(Quetzal123 05:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Doesn't count either. To pass muster, it needs multiple independent sources. For instance, non-trivial coverage in a newspaper or notable magazine, or on a popular (and reliable) music website like the All Music Guide. I can't find anything reliable that verifies the release date. And if the release date is the only verifiable piece, then why bother? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 05:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. That's all the sources there are for now, but there will be some more later on this year. (Quetzal123 05:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You can re-create the article when there are more sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 05:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then I will. Nice talking to you. Later(Quetzal123 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Yet-to-be-released items can sometimes be notable, but this needs to be confirmed by multiple, reliable, independent sources. While using their blog to post the upcoming album, we can be reasonably assured (unless we suspect the band is lying) that the album is actually in production. Unfortunately, it's not notable yet. For example: an album published by a notable band on a notable label can usually be presumed to have proper sources floating around somewhere (WP:V requires only that they exist, not that they be given); an album that is yet to be released cannot be presumed to have such sources, and so they must be provided for both verifiability (people do lie sometimes) and notability. Someguy1221 05:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then recreate as a redirect to a (yet-to-be-created) DAB page for For Love of the Game (the book), For Love of the Game (film) and this album (assuming notability can be verified). Caknuck 06:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the release of the album was confirmed on a myspace page? Myspace isn't a reliable source, unless of course its really the bands page. However, if it is the bands page, there is no reliable, independent sources cited to prove notability. And the page should be a DAD anyway, like canuck said. Pats Sox Princess 13:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Myspace isn't a reliable source even if its the band's page. The band can post whatever they want, truthful or not, with no one reviewing for accuracy. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wyverns in popular culture[edit]

Delete - this is another directory of loosely associated topics with nothing in common beyond some reference of greater or lesser importance to a wyvern. This list tells us nothing about wyverns, nothing about the fiction from which the references are drawn, nothing about how they relate to each other or the real world. Otto4711 04:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, loosely associated list, telling nothing of their impact on real life or anything of that sort. Just another lame IPC list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Arbitrary list of facts, with no explanation of how this concept is notable. Someguy1221 06:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually quite like the article, and it certainly is more interesting than Wyvern (disambiguation). Can we not replace the contents of the latter? Ohconfucius 09:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes recommend Merge with disambig page in these discussions. But on a quick skim, I don't see any notable items on this list with articles that aren't already on the disambig page. Canuckle 18:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a bunch of context-free, name-only references. --Eyrian 14:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FIVE - trivia collection Corpx 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia collection. Punkmorten 00:23, 27 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 23:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with Canuckle, I don't recommend merging this dull piece into the (well-written) article about Wyverns.
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^One 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill misconduct issues[edit]

This article was originally speedy-deleted under Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Deletion review determined that there is real dispute regarding the existence of BLP concerns in the article. As suggested by ArbCom, this article is referred to AfD, with its history available, but with the article protected blank. Consensus at AfD will now decide the appropriate course of action. Deletion is on the table, as are other options that merge portions of the content to other articles, renaming, and any other acreative solutions. Xoloz 04:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article is very, very studiously sourced -- however, the sheer size may be a bit of a problem. It's not exactly necessary for an encyclopedia to document every single minor thing in this vast controversy -- with living people, broad strokes are not only more encyclopedic, but more appropriate. I'd say it would be better served as a section of Ward Churchill, but if it needs its own page, I think it can be trimmed appropriately. --Haemo 04:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While some trimming might be posisble, I think it is precisely the detail that makes it clear exactly what the nature of the allegations are, exactly how throughly they have been investigated, and by whom, and exactly what the results of that investigation have been. Too broad a brush and these will look like wild unsubstantatied accusations, or else as if rather more has been proved than in fact has, IMO. The balance is in the detail, here. DES ^(talk) 18:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the article is too long and covers too much minor detail, let it be edited. I agree with haemo that normally it is better to have one article--but in this case the amount of the material makes this page an appropriate solution.DGG (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject has received a lot of coverage and the reasons for Churchill's sacking are a matter of public record. If there's too much material to go in his own entry then this page is not only desirable but necessary. Nick mallory 06:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly merge or rename. Just because an article talks about things the subject might not want talked about, does not mean we should delete. If the article is guilty of giving undue weight to one view or another, or contains libelous statements and vandalism, we should edit it, rather than deleting. If (as I anticipate some will argue) its very existence as a sort-of POV content fork makes the topic inherently one-sided, then we should change the name of the article to sound more neutral, or merge it with the main article again. However, it doesn't seem to me that we can't have a well-written, balanced, neutral, encyclopedic article on this topic, even if many versions of it so far have not been that article. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 07:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Rename, second choice Merge. Reading the article, it scrupulously cited and written, and there is a lot of it there. But I really wish it wasn't, because it's really just one aspect of a person's career. If there was a way to merge it in to the main Ward Churchill article without ruthlessly slashing out important, well cited material, that would be my first choice; since I can't think of such a way, it's merely my second. In any case, rename to a more neutral title, since "misconduct issues" suggests there was misconduct. I suggest Ward Churchill academic investigation, since no one can deny there was an academic investigation. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When looking at this article, Ward Churchill, and Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy, I feel we have too much material on this individual. The Ward Churchill article, left without this, would violate WP:NPOV by being overly biased in presenting him as a legitimate researcher. Having this material in a sub-article but making that sub-article's summary more prominent (than it currently is) in the main article would appear a reasonable overall balance. Sourcing meets WP:BLP standards in the version immediately prior to deletion, with the likely exception of the source in footnote 54, which can be solved by editing. GRBerry 14:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying later, I would have no objection to an implemented merge to the main biography, but I do think we would violate NPOV if we redirected with the merge to be done later. GRBerry 19:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced, relevant, useful, topical, too detailed for the main article. Rklawton 14:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article covers a lot information that is relevant, but there is just not enough room in the main article for it. If the article needs to be edited then it should be edited. I agree that the name is inappropriate, but that is not a reason to shutter a whole article because of the name. I say keep with a rename and appropriate editing.--Getaway 14:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back? I feel uncomfortable about having 2 pages to 1) say the good things about the person and 2) the bad things. I feel like these two should be in one place. Corpx 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back and edit down. Alcarillo 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep these are well-cited matters of public record. They have been of significant public interest, and have become notable through sustained comment in multiple fora by multiple reliable sources. The length of this page precludes a merge, yet all or most of the content is justified to clearly explain the allegations made, and how they have or have not been substantiated, and what the subject's responses have been. I see no issue of undue weight here, particularly not when combined with the main article about the subject. I see no BLP issue here, unless Wikipedia cannot contain well cited, verifiable, notable, and apparently accurate negative content about a living person. I do suggest a move, perhaps to Criticism of Ward Churchill or Ward Churchill academic investigation or some similar title. We must be careful only to include documented, cited content in this article. Indeed, even if we can document that an obviously baseless accusation has been made, it should not be included unless we also include and document its refutation, IMO. But that is editorial, and not a reason to delete. Indeed I see no valid reason to delete at all DES 15:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm amazed how anyone could think such a well-sourced article violated BLP policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy)
Keep This is an article about an event, with multiple players, not an individual, and should therefore be kept separate from the biography of the individual. There can be no question that the event is notable per the volume of sources, and tight sourcing meets BLP standards. This is just another example how a radicalized fringe equipped with delete button is harming Wikipedia. ~ trialsanderrors 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, this is about an event, or rather a series of events. Perhaps a rename would help make that clearer? DES ^(talk) 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, that's an issue for WP:RM and the talk page though. ~ trialsanderrors 22:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Quite true, but it is not uncommon for an afd debate to suggest a change of name. DES ^(talk) 00:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge with the exception of a few sourcing issues, the article is actually fairly good. At this point in his career WC is known more for his problems than anything else. might be good to combine this with his Lil' Eichman article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with the Churchill 9/11 controversy page. As it is we have three separate articles on Churchill. One rather bland bio, one about his misconduct, and then the 9/11 page which was created by Churchill's defenders. I would merge the misconduct and 9/11 pages. Perhaps the title could be changed to reflect the "event" nature of the topic.Verklempt 21:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is an attack article. Albion moonlight 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint is too vague to evaluate. Can you point to any specific policy violations in the article?Verklempt 22:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole situation is comical. It looks as if the article is going to be reinstated. The article is an attack article and your refusal to admit it it quite telling. Either way I am having fun and could not care less whether the article is deleted or not. Consensus and putting an end to edit warring have always been my principle goals and in your case my tactics are still working. Keep up the good work Albion moonlight 23:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Albion moonlight: All of your comments above focus on you and how you feel. This discussion is not about you or how you feel. You really need to focus on substantive reasons for the articles deletion and you haven't given any, other than your feelings and that is not a Wikipedia standard.--Getaway 12:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mistake what an "attack page" is. We have one more or less authoritative defination of an attack page: WP:CSD#G10 which says: "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." Note that this article is about as far as it can be from being unsourced. Note also that it serves a purpose beyond disparaging Churchill -- it serves to document a series of highly notable events. In general, no well-sourced page that accurately and from an NPOV documatments an actual event or events can fairly be called an "attack page". DES ^(talk) 04:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Corpx. - Crockspot 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Churchill is just one insignificant professor fired for misconduct. Giving him all these articles in content forks is undue weight. --Tbeatty 03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As we discussed before the content forks were created in the first place by supporters of Churchill. There is a large amount information that is relevant and important (and carefully sourced and cited) and yet it does not fit into the main article. The article needs to be kept.--Getaway 12:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced. No visible BLP issues in the article as of last revision. Incident is relatively notable. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP violation - He just filed suit against his termination today, and from a glance at the article about the case, it's clear that he has some substantial points. I think WP:BLP implies without a doubt that this sort of stuff should not be here while it is still in the courts. ←Ben^B4 03:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically in the article do you think violates BLP?Verklempt 03:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to delete this pending his suit, or any other suit. We can and should include the fact that he has sued in the article (I presume that will be easy to source) and if he has made public statements or offered evident to refute the accusations, we should include those too, assuming that they can be sourced. That's how WP:NPOV is maintained: report all points of view and sides of an issue, insofar as possible, and attribute them properly. DES ^(talk) 04:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that the article was being controlled by Churchill bashers who are hell bent on reverting any information that speaks to his side of things. Balance is a nice notion but it will not be achieved until all the extremists are weeded out or become disinterested due to being forced to adhere to consensus. The CEO of wikipedia made the following statement. "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." Albion moonlight 06:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viz. Moral panic. ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word controlled in a very general sense. If they quit edit warring and seek and except consensus they will be fine. It is unlikely that consensus will ever fall to there favor but in the event that it does that too is ok by me. Once the article reopens or is moved back to where it may belongs we shall see what happens. There is no conspiracy there that I know about. I think that Ward Churchill sought notoriety and achieved his goal. Wikipedia is helping him sell his books without meaning too. He is as insignificant as the wiki editors who despise him. Albion moonlight 09:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept, as one who argued for it and has not been involved previuously i will put it on my watch list and do my part to enforce NPOV there. I hope that others arguing for keep here would do the same. DES ^(talk) 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a plan to me. THANK YOU . Albion moonlight 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An editor named Xoloz blanked the article, but the prior versions are available. In reviewing them, I see that there are articles about Ward Churchill and about his post-9/11 article. Regardless, why should we create articles about somebody's "misconduct issues"? Have not all of us, at some point, had our own such "issues"? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Mandsford 16:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because in his case, those issues have become matters of national news coverage, and therefore are notable, and because they affect his reputation and credibility as a notable scholar. Our overall coverage of him and his work would not adhere to WP:NPOV without some form of this article's content. See above. Also, while many, perhaps most, of us have enganged in questionable conduct at one time or another, I+ hope that few of us have intentionally fabricated or distorted facts in serious academic publications, as Churchill has been accused of doing. DES ^(talk) 17:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot be saved from its many WP:BLP violations, unfortunately (I know, I've tried for two years to save it). LotLE×talk 05:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, no example has been given of where the BLP violations are and keep in mind that Lulu is the editor that created the child article in the first place. Now, he wants to delete it because he can no longer control it by being the only editor on it.--Getaway 11:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find there will be a few more of us if the article survives. That article has been controlled by Churchill's enemies for quite some time now. It was speedily deleted when TDC showed up trying to get an admin to delete its externals links. That was an extraordinary lapse in judgment. by someone who admits to strong dislike for Churchill. Albion moonlight 11:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I though that the external links were BLP violations and I did not want an edit war to ensue over thier removal, does not mean I wanted the article deleted. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that . It was an obvious blunder on your part. You seem to have have a rather marginal understanding of BLP policy. It was your fear of consensus that led you seek the deletion of those 2 links. You seemed genuinely surprised when your plan blew up in your face and the article was speedily deleted. Oh well you tried..... Albion moonlight 06:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Haemo. BLP does not mean sympathetic point of view. Eluchil404 05:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Any manual-like components should be removed, of course; just as they should were they to appear in Meth_lab#Illicit_production, Pipe bomb#Design, and any other clandestine devices (Hydrogen bomb#Public body of knowledge concerning nuclear weapon design, etc.). El_C 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dry_ice_bomb[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dry ice bomb

Delete / Nomination:This article gives dangerous advice and is overall unencylopedic. User101010 03:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I stumbled upon this article and find it intriguing. It is well written and informative. It may be regarding a dangerous object, but an encyclopedia should have information about it if it exists. Supertigerman 03:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, especially not for things as dangerous as this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if how-to parts are removed. It's a notable topic for sure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject is unquestionably notable given news coverage such as [41][42]etc., treatment in professional literature such as [43] and even Google Scholar. The article leans too heavily into HOW-TO territory, though. --Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove the how-to elements. Topic is encyclopedic; instructions are not. Otto4711 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of the article is "how-to" including the safety section. Deleting the how-to also means deleting the safety how-to elements. --User101010 04:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WikiPedia is not a recipe book / how-to guide. This is currently a recipe and how-to. 70.51.8.90 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Dhartung suggests. I edited it to remove the detailed instruction and leave enough to show the dangers, with the refs. he found. I'd like a second opinion on the external links. DGG (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove how-to elements. I think the topic itself belongs here, but the article does lean too much towards how-to, and the "safety" section seems superfluous. It ought to be enough to say they are dangerous. However, these reasons only compel me to want to edit the article, not delete it. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Dhartung's logic. "How-to" elements should be removed. Infiniteawe 08:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it provides information, but doesn't cross the line into "how to" (as I am reading it). They have been featured in enough tv shows and such to be worthy of an article, even if a bit dangerous. Even nuclear bomb explains how they work, so trying to remove all info on how to make them is a bit silly. Pharmboy 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enecylopedic, well referenced, and contains adequate warnings about hazards and (il)legal status. Gandalf61 15:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's getting colder in here... is that just the dry ice, or is it beginning to snow? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for the hearty laugh. Burntsauce 17:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETE Good God! Why not have an article about how to make a roadside bomb? As soon as the "how to" information was added, this one was tainted forever. I don't think it has occurred to most of you that simply editing out the objectionable parts won't stop anyone from reading a previous version. User101010 and I must be the only parents in this discussion. The rest of you will be someday. Keeping this in Wikipedia is irresponsible. Mandsford 16:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia has articles about all kinds of dangerous stuff that is encyclopedia worthy, such as nuclear bombs. Thousands of websites tell you basically how to make both. You can't stuff the genie back into the bottle, and "I'm a parent", "This is dangerous", "Please think of the children", "this is objectionable" are not reasons for deleting an article. As a side note, I'm pretty damn sure no kid will be introduced to the concept solely because of this article, but a parent overhearing kids talking about it might get some real info here. At least this article won't be about "k3wL w4y t0 m4k3 1cE b0mBs, d00dz" and present factual info, including the dangers. Pharmboy 18:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Actually, "This is dangerous" is one of the best reasons for deleting an article, and you don't need a Wikiprinciple to make the correct decision. Hopefully, nobody will be seriously injured after consulting a Wikipedia article, but if they do.... let's just say that it would be easy to prove (a) When someone logged onto Wikipedia; (b) When Wikipedia was alerted to a potential liability; and (c) What was done to correct the problem. Wikipedia leaves the best paper trail that a PI lawyer could ever ask for. So, if "Please think of the children" is silly, then I'll add "Please think of Wikipedia getting sued for an amount so big, donations won't cover it." If it's available from a zillion other websites, fine (great for eavesdropping Moms & Dads too!), but Wikipedia doesn't need to be hosting that type of thing. The solution would have to be to take out the "how to" part, delete all prior versions of the article from history, and put a block on further editing. Or, you could delete the damn thing and let someone less irresponsible put up a new version. Mandsford 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree with everything Pharmboy said, but I would also like to point out that this stuff has valid potential use in the pyrotechnics industry. Ever watched a movie and wondered how the smaller (non-graphics) explosions were done? They're all done with small pyrotechnic explosions like this one. I have no idea if they actually do use this particular one, but they could. —gorgan_almighty
Keep now that the howto information has been r, or even that you consult with an attorney, rather than letting ordinary people vote on this. Administrator, please note that when a lawsuit is filed concerning negligence, anyone can be considered a tortfeasor (ask or look it up); in many cases, a regular person must be sued in order to reach the entity for whom he or she works, which means that even a volunteer administrator who handled the deletion review could be sued personally. Please check with Wikipedia management, rather than to the editors here, when deciding what to do. Thank you. Mandsford 12:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds almost like a threat. I want to take your advice in the spirit of Good Faith, and hope that your concerns for the welfare of other editors is genuine, but might I suggest you consider rewording any like advice in the future. Pharmboy 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion that these unwritten books are notable. NawlinWiki 14:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Tredsward[edit]

Total WP:CRYSTAL job here. Series of upcoming books by an author who doesn't seem to be on Wikipedia yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Zero Google hits searching for Tredsward. Cannot be verified, and nothing really asserts its notability. My gut feeling is this was made up in school one day. —C.Fred (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete An unpublished series of books that appears to be a ripoff of Harry Potter. That's assuming it's not made up per C.Fred. Caknuck 06:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is it unverifiable, but the main character's name is lifted directly from Harry Potter's Rubeus Hagrid. Moonriddengirl 12:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakview Mall[edit]

Very poorly written article about a non-notable mall in Nebraska. Gives very little context, and seems to have a bit of OR regarding the "notable" stores. (And why can't people ever get it through their heads that JCPenney has two E's in it?) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of WP:N Rackabello 03:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article in no way asserts the notability of the topic. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not notable at all. Moreover, it is impossible to get third party reliable sources for this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn by nominator -- article sourced and improved -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ġnejna Bay[edit]

Unsourced, unencyclopedic; could be just a small strip of beachland. Obviously things would change some with some sources, but this doesnt belong here in the meantime. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A google search brings out no reliable hits for this subject. Moreover, there are also notability concerns as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to wait for some local input; it may just be a lack of English sources. --Haemo 05:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Local input? This AFD is only open for five days. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article but replace its contents: they are a clear copyvio of this website. If you drop the diacritic, you'll find plenty of references on the web. The area seems notable enough, but the article has to be cleaned up asap. --Targeman 14:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unecyclopedic and 3 sentences worth of bad grammar and POV violations. I would almost guess it was created as a joke, and looking at the author's other work would confirm this. Pharmboy 14:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the article right now, give me a couple of hours. Gnejna Bay exists and is a popular tourist attraction, no hoax here. --Targeman 14:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There, I'm done. It's still stubby, but I think it doesn't qualify for deletion at its present form. Please have a look at it now. --Targeman 15:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two references do not use the term "Gnejna Bay". Third is a map. All 4 sources are from 2 actual sites. I still think the place isn't notable and the article should be deleted. Pharmboy 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look closer. The sources that don't use "Gnejna Bay" are about public nudity. The map has abundant text beneath. And the sources are highly reliable. Google the orthographic variant "Gnejna" (without the dot) and you get 12,300 hits [44]. --Targeman 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewritten version. The controversy over nudism and the asylum seekers being picked up there seem to get it over the threshold. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally geographical features like this are considered notable and the controversy cited by user BigHaz demonstrates further notability. --Oakshade 06:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, I've added more content. Please take another look at the article.--lamato

Withdraw - greatly improved; sourced now -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Philippe. NawlinWiki 20:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsdale Center[edit]

Another stub on a mall. Page reads like an advertisement, and judging from the tenant roster, it's probably a power center. Doesn't seem to have a lot of information online either (power centers rarely get coverage on the 'Net). Tagged with cleanup, advertisement, AND orphan since April. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Definatley for no assertion of notability and possibly for spam as well Rackabello 03:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it. Wasted Time R 03:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese Nicknames[edit]

Unencyclopedic, fails WP:NOT, doesn't belong on Wikipedia -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no verification. Realkyhick 03:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A google search shows up no relaible hits for this subject. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article. Moreover, the subject matter is unencyclopedic in substance. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the verifiability standard. Furthermore, it seems to be a direct copyvio of this author-attributed article. (Unless Professor Falzon is moonlighting on wiki as BONGU SEAN, which is, of course, always possible.) Moonriddengirl 12:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've nominated the article for Speedy Deletion because it is completely a copyvio of the above. Moonriddengirl 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cars 2 (film)[edit]

Appears to be a case of WP:CRYSTAL ("Wikipedia is not a crystal ball"). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Article is pure speculation. Out of three sources one link is broken, the other is about how cars influence culture and the last is a blog. Peregrinebee 15:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was too lazy to read the whole article, but please can we not have articles on films to be released four years from now? The centralized discussion on applying WP:CRYSTAL to unreleased films finds another useful application. Shalom ^Hello 03:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. "According to a very reliable anonymous source" doesn't inspire much confidence (or meet WP:RS). -- MarcoTolo 03:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal ball-ism. Realkyhick 03:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, fails WP:RS and is a total WP:CRYSTAL job. Whoever created it needs to chill for a while. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say Do Not Enter to this article and put up a one way sign to Delete-land along the WP:CRYSTAL highway Rackabello 03:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL and lack of verifiable non-blog sources per WP:CITE. SpikeJones 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everyone else. The only source is a blog post, and the rest looks copied from the article on the first film. Maxa megalon 2000 06:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. How can an anonymous source be reliable? This article has no place yet. ClEeFy 12:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Consider Deep Throat. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't even crystalballery, this is just a bad case of WP:NFT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd probably say delete for now. At least until there is a official announcement from Pixar. Mrx9898 08:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definite WP:CRYSTAL case, plus no reliable sources. RaNdOm26 11:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep; Addtional refs noted in debate should be added to article AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Park Village[edit]

Non-notable mall in Florida. Only one source, sub-stub-class article, doesn't seem to even have any anchor stores. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Realkyhick 03:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for opening up this discussion. However the article in question does not describe it as a mall, rather as a shopping center. I have added a St. Petersburg times article to back up the existence of the place in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaze33541 (talk • contribs)

Comment - actually, the article describes it as an "open air shopping center" in the first sentence, and as a "mall" in the second. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Debating if it is a shopping center or mall is irrelevant and splitting hairs. Remember, the question at hand is that whatever you choose to call it, is the subject wiki worthy? Postcard Cathy 12:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Mall" is to "shopping center" as "to-may-to" is to "to-mah-to". The added source doesn't seem to be that reliable -- it's from a newspaper, but it reads as a first-person account. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to notability. Punkmorten 00:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Tampa Tribune calls it a "landmark" [45] and it is the subject of multiple secondary sources in the both the TT and the St. Petersburg Times [46][47] [48] (and many more). Article could use expansion, but that's a content issue, not a notability one. --Oakshade 06:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many articles from the St. Pete times about this location. Thanks for noticing that as well Oakshade. The one article I used to cite the location proved its verifiability on its own. Apparently the other editors think it's up to them what type of newspaper article is valid enoughBlaze33541 01:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Armstrong[edit]

Minimal ghits, and nothing to assert notability as a person (only as a murder victim). Giggy _U^CP 02:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:DGG once pointed out that Ghits are not a good measuring stick for minor historical figures who lived before we were born. It has a reference in some encyclopedia, and I believe a murder victim is not inherently nonnotable. Compare Gail Miller, whose is notable not so much for being a murder victim as for being the murder victim that produced a wrongful conviction - but if we consider the wrongful conviction irrelevant to her, we're left with the fact that she's a victim of a murder. I don't know. Shalom ^Hello 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The Ghits thing is a problem for any subjects that existed before modern media, but sources aren't particularly relevant here as being a murder victim isn't notable unless the case is notable. (The "Encyclopedia" referenced details 540 cases from the last two centuries, I doubt many of those cases are notable). Saikokira 03:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So we're going to list all 540 of those cases in the encyclopedia? No, we're not. No notability here. Realkyhick 03:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can a case coming from an existing encyclopedia not be encyclopedic? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply being unsolved is not notability, even if there is an encyclopedia collecting them. Without more sources, or any that explain why this is notable, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The use of an outside encyclopedia for notability has been discussed at WT:N, and here on occasion; reasonably enough, it depends on the encyclopedia. some books with that in the title are uncritical compendiums of unsourced material; some are sourced, but cover everything within scope, notable or not. It's from Facts on File, a supplier of very well thought of academic and public library references, so I think the information would be reliable. If there's a source given, we can cite it--Reallyhick, you seem to have it around--could you check for us? Since it contains only a few hundred cases, I would be prepared to say they might well all be notable. There are about two million articles in the English Wikipedia, so 540 is a tiny drop in the bucket. We probably have tens of thousands of articles on crimes, and relying on good reference books as a way to focus on some of the more notable ones makes sense. DGG (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As always a considered opinion, DGG. But here's the rub. The book's official description says that it includes "legendary unsolved crimes" as well as "disturbing cases ... that have continued to spark interest", "cases involving prominent figures ... as well as those with a major social impact". Yet this article tells me exactly nothing about why this case is included in the encyclopedia, let alone why it should be in Wikipedia. I'm perfectly willing to accept this book as a source but I'm not willing to uncritically accept its criteria for inclusion as notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - I dont think a mention in a book is enough to give "historic notability" as required by WP:NOT. Maybe if the book was solely about the subject, then I'd say there's historic notability, but not in this case. Corpx 06:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Allowing this to stay would be setting a bad precedent for articles about the thousands of otherwise non-notable unsolved crimes. Just because a specialized encyclopedia has an article about this crime doesn't obligate WP to as well. We don't have articles on unremarkable hospital cases documented in medical journals. Caknuck 07:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is still not paper, and there are really no limits as to the depths of our coverage of historical crimes. At least one secondary source exists, and if someone went digging in newspaper archives in the area, more could likely be added. "Notability", after all, is a guideline that seeks to insure, not actual fame, but rather the existence of independent, reliable sources. That much has been met here. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every story covered in the news will have notability, but articles must demonstrate "historic notability" per WP:NOT#NEWS. This would be perfect for wikinews, but a transwiki there is not possible. Corpx 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone chose to write an article recently about a sixty year old murder, that would seem to make a strong prima facie case for historic notability in itself. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this. I've seen the suggestion several times that wikinews would be a better place for these articles about old murder cases. It simply isn't true: wikinews only accepts articles about current events. JulesH 14:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didnt realize that. :o Corpx 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is covered in a specialist encyclopedia by a mainstream publisher. Therefore, I really see no reason it shouldn't be covered in this encyclopedia. JulesH 14:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are about 600,000 murders a year in the world, calculated from [49] and the present world population. The "Encyclopedia" is said above to list 540 as more significant than the others over a 2 century period, or around 3 per year. It appears to be a reliable reference work with editorial control. Therefore I see it as providing some degree of support for notability, but it is still just one reference. I see no evidence (it could be out there) that this murder, out of the hundreds taking place a year in the UK in the 1940's (based on the population and murder rate of that country at that time)had unusual notability or effects on society or enduring interest sufficient to justify an article. By no means am I willing to turn over editorial control of Wikipedia to an individual who manages to get a "crime encyclopedia" published. This crime sounds like a run of the mill, dime a dozen murder. I could show you its equal dozens (perhaps hundreds) of times a year in any large US city. More research and sourcing is needed to show it has the notability of the murder of Bobby Franks by Leopold and Loeb the prototype "thrill killers", or of Charles Lindbergh Jr, the baby killed in the Lindbergh kidnapping , or of disappeared and said to be murdered Judge Crater, or of the murdered wife of Hawley Harvey Crippen, who was the first murderer nabbed via radio. I would expect that many of his 500 plus murders already have or deserve articles based on long term press , documentary, and book coverage. In any enent, we generally have an article about the crime, not the otherwise non-notable victim. Didn't he provide references? Edison 18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We don't need to remove content just to save space. --W.marsh 13:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, why delete anything? Giggy _U^CP 00:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, content that hasn't been covered by reliable independent sources may not be accurate, so we need to ensure that such sources exist. That doesn't seem to be an issue for this article. Also, carrying things that appear to be advertisements would damage Wikipedia's reputation. That doesn't seem to be an issue for this article. Seriously, I fail to see a good reason to delete here. And people have been arguing that the large number of similar cases is a reason not to cover this one, but WP:NOT#PAPER is an explicit rebuttal of that idea. We can cover these cases, so why not do so? JulesH 11:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Austin[edit]

Nothing to assert notability. Being murdered doesn't cut it. Giggy _U^CP 02:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ditto my comments on Emily Armstrong above. Realkyhick 03:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Another non-notable murder victim from the Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes. Saikokira 03:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply being unsolved does not make a crime victim notable, regardless of an encyclopedia collecting such cases. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, according to my comments above. a selective reference book, listing only 540 unsolved crimes. Probably a reliable source for information, but should be checked for copyvio & rewritten if necessary. Please read the article--this one seems notable in any case & I'm sure there would be newspaper accounts. DGG (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - I dont think a mention in a book is enough to give "historic notability" as required by WP:NOT Corpx 06:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Roy Adkins[edit]

No assertion of notability. Giggy _U^CP 02:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ditto my comments on Emily Armstrong above. Realkyhick 03:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Part of an effort by User:MadMax to transfer non-notable murder victims from the The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes onto Wikipedia. Some advice for the nominator, try putting the name in quotes, with your Google search you get over a million results, in quotes you get only 12. Saikokira 03:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep, according to my comments above. a selective reference book, listing only 540 unsolved crimes. Probably a reliable source for information, but should be checked for copyvio & rewritten if necessary. DGG (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - I dont think a mention in a book is enough to give "historic notability" as required by WP:NOT Corpx 06:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no particular notability beyond being "unsolved". --Dhartung | Talk 09:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Bailes[edit]

Being murdered doesn't assert notability, and there's nothing else in the article that does. Giggy _U^CP 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ditto my comments on Emily Armstrong above. Realkyhick 03:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Non-notable murder victim from the Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes. Saikokira 03:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep, according to my comments above. a selective reference book, listing only 540 unsolved crimes. Probably a reliable source for information, but should be checked for copyvio & rewritten if necessary. I'd expect we 'd want more articles than their list, especially from the modern period, but this might be a good source for the others. DGG (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - I dont think a mention in a book is enough to give "historic notability" as required by WP:NOT Corpx 06:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no particular notability beyond being "unsolved". --Dhartung | Talk 09:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nom (me) withdrawn. Not sure waht I was thinking in nomming, thanks everyone for showing me sense! Giggy _U^CP 23:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gampalagudem[edit]

Ghits don't indicate notability, and there is nothing to indicate anything special about this place. Giggy _U^CP 01:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a well established precedent that populated locations are inherently notable. This mandal gets 59,000 Google hits, which is more than sufficient to establish its existence and, therefore, notability. Deor 02:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But none of those ghits assert notability. Existence isn't enough to get you through. Giggy _U^CP 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this in terms that you might understand, the administrative division is roughly equivalent to Caloundra City Council in your neck of the woods. It's just as notable as that. Deor 02:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But where's the proof? That's the problem. Giggy _U^CP 02:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof: [50]. The population is 68,112.--(Sumanth|Talk) 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but needs another source or two. Realkyhick 03:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per common AFD outcomes. This is an entity larger than a village, so something like a U.S. township. As long as it can be verified, there's no reason for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both It, and the individual villages in it, all are notable. But just as a suggestion--perhaps the articles for the individual villages could be written as subsections of this one? DGG (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Discussions about the notability of size of tehsils/mandals in India can be found here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Sumibot and User_talk:Peterl#Deletion_Tag.As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Cities and shops, the size doesn't matter. But I agree that each village in a mandal need not have a page. I created those pages before the discussion about the bot took place.--(Sumanth|Talk) 11:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though of small size in India, its big by international standards. Yes, the article needs considerable improvement. Thanking You, Altruism ^{To talk} 11:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Populated place with population>68,000[51]. The article needs references, but is verifiable[52][53]. utcursch | talk 13:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, article needs improvement, not deletion. Populated establishments are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It needs reference and more information; not deletion. Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size, for just being there. Information like population and attractions should be included, with citations, of course. --Boricuaeddie 00:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, inherently notable if real. Punkmorten 00:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Sumibot. Populated places shouldn't have to prove their notability to be on Wikipedia -- having a reliable population count and defined boundaries is enough to justify an article, in my opinion. As an aside, it has roughly 10 times the population of Credit River Township, Minnesota. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just by being a population center is an assertation of notability. --Oakshade 06:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Bell Award[edit]

Article duplicates a portion of National Football League Most Valuable Player Award. This could easily be a redirect to the specific section. Jmfangio| ►Chat 01:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Football League Most Valuable Player Award per nom. Giggy _U^CP 02:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because in 1998 Randall Cunningham won the award when he wasn't awarded the NFL MVP of that year. So that means not every single person who won this award also won the NFL MVP award. --Phbasketball6 02:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But the NFL article already has the Bert Bell Award there, so the information is there. Jmfangio| ►Chat 02:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of coverage for this award Corpx 02:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I, unaware of the existence of the NFL MVP Award article, created the Bert Bell Award article, so take this with a grain of salt (I'm abstaining from voting). I submit that there is really no such thing as the NFL MVP Award: there are a whole bunch of awards that purport to be that, but they are all separate and distinct, awarded by various folks, each with their own opinions. Are the Heisman Trophy and the Maxwell Award really the same thing? Why not merge those into the same article? Maybe the article should start with "National Football League Most Valuable Player Awards [plural] are given..."--BillFlis 02:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per BillFlis et al. Seems to be a notable enough award with plenty of news coverage, but according to BillFlis there's really no "NFL MVP Award", so this may just deserve its own page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Football League Most Valuable Player Award is the primary NFL MVP award. This is just second fiddle, just like the Maxwell is to the Heisman Corpx 02:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since these are all relatively short lists, and I don't know that it will ever get to full article length - why duplicate information already in the MVP article? Jmfangio| ►Chat 03:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. A Google News Archive search shows over 500 results so the media considers it notable enough to report upon. [54] Needs sourcing but the topic is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, perhaps it could be a redirect with the introduction of the NFL MVP award indicating that the Bart Bell Award is one of the various awards given to MVPs in the NFL. Capitalistroadster 03:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm wondering if something is getting lost here - the information is already in wiki. So should the information be removed from the MVP article if this one is to stay? Jmfangio| ►Chat 03:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I never knew that, in that case I would make the page to redirect where it is now. --Phbasketball6 03:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article duplicates a portion of the National Football League Most Valuable Player Award. I would think we shoudl redirect the page in question to the subsection of that article. Jmfangio| ►Chat 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - just merge the info back into the main article, NFL MVP, keep what is worth keeping and be done with it. There is one diamond with many facets; no need to talk about just one facet. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There seems to be insufficent extra information to warrant a seperate article, therefore merge this is and redirect. Pedro | Chat 10:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought: The Bert Bell Award is not an MVP award, it's "Professional Player of the Year". If there is no real distinction, that should be clarified somewhere. I know "MVP" is used loosely for all such awards, but the ones that have MVP in their official names all seem to use the term "most valuable" explicitly in their criteria.--BillFlis 10:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to be enough of a distinction between the MVP award and the Bert Bell Award. Chengwes 07:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but keep a distinct section in that article about the Bert Bell award. A section is warranted, but unlikely that an article is. --AEMoreira042281 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAPedit[edit]

violats WP:N Misterdiscreet 03:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article fails to establish notability. Searching with Google finds a large number of hits although they seem to be either download links or blog-type pages, again not establishing notability.--Mendors 03:13, 21 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 01:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable software. Oysterguitarist 01:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non notable piece of software. Giggy _U^CP 02:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, completely unsourced. Caknuck 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was userfy and delete, for now. El_C 18:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit42-Base[edit]

violates WP:N Misterdiscreet 03:14, 21 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 01:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It's a useful programming tool. I can't see refs, but I think there's notability out there somewhere. Giggy _U^CP 02:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Reads like an ad and does not assert notability. No references to secondary sources provided. That said, notability and secondary sources may exist, even though they are not mentioned. —gorgan_almighty 14:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep with new name. Neil ╦ 11:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nb, now moved to Cacti (software). Neil ╦ 11:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cacti[edit]

violates WP:N Misterdiscreet 03:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Keep or merge - Notable and popular graphing front-end. Covered in online articles [55], Magazines [56], and books such as Cisco's Network Administrators Survival Guide (ISBN 1587052113) and Short Cuts Network Monitoring with Nagios (ISBN 0596528191). --Mperry 04:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Ammendment: I agree with Smerdis of Tlön that it might be wise to merge this with RRDtool until the article can stand on its own. If the article remains it should be renamed to Cacti (software) and a disambiguation page created. --Mperry 15:12, 26 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 01:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename I agree, it's ovbiously in use and notable and should be possibly be renamed Cacti (software), but I think a disambiguation page would be a better solution. Joe User NY 02:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cactus regardless of the value of the current article. The current article can be renamed if it is kept, but this title should redirect to cactus. 70.51.8.90 05:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep but disambiguation seems a better option. Just direct people to the disambiguation when they search. Keep internal links where they need to go.
Delete. WP:CORP says that particular products should be listed by their parent companies or projects, and this is apparently something made to work with another software package, called RRDtool, about which we also have a brief stub. The two might be profitably merged. This is not consumer software, really; it is apparently an open source program for system administrators to display network usage statistics in graphics. I don't see a real need for a standalone article about this software, and as noted above, this article highjacks the informal plural for cactus. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or justify, I have issue with any product article that focuses soley on the product and reads like an advert. There is little about the importance of the product, the industry it is in or serves, no 3rd party verification, just external links. If this article is the criteria, then EVERY software package should have a Wikipedia page. Apache, Samba, Wine, yes. But not every software package is encyclopedia material. At the very least Cacti should be a redirect for cactus. Pharmboy 14:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that every software package should not have a page here, but I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment. Wikipedia already tolerates pages about musical albums, movies, and TV shows, no matter how obscure and non-notable. Why shouldn't software be afforded the same courtesy? For example, The Lost Room details a mini-series that aired once, contains no references except to other wiki articles on the same subject, and passed an AfD (disclaimer: I proposed and supported that AfD). I wonder if Wikipedia should be (or is becoming) more inclusive of articles rather than exclusive. --Mperry 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: More is not better. I think the reason that many articles are here that don't belong is that many of the authors manage to write enough material, in a well thought out manner, so at a glance it looks "like an article", even if it doesn't really belong. Much of the content here, including some well written, doesn't belong. But there are more people adding than deleting.... Pharmboy 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and redirect to Cactus, the most obvious usage that it's hijacking. On reflection and reading round a bit, I don't think the sources are sufficiently reliable and strong evidence of its notability. Looking at RRDtool, there are half a dozen similar offshoot articles, and I'm none too sure about RRDTool itself. Gordonofcartoon 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with RRDtool, then Redirect Cacti to Cactus. —gorgan_almighty 11:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think merging is the best solution. The relationship between Cacti and RRDtool seems to be similar to that of the Microsoft Jet Database Engine and Microsoft Access, two products that work together, but are still their own individual programs. Joe User NY 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's correct; however, Cacti is a well-known user of RRDtool. If it's decided that the article goes then it wouldn't hurt to move some of the content into a "User's of RRDtool" section of the RRDtool article. --Mperry 01:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was close with status quo; that is, a disambiguation page. —Kurykh 17:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sagal Twins[edit]

This article is superfluous in light of the existing individual pages for the twins, Jean Sagal and Liz Sagal. They are sufficiently notable on their own, and the moniker "Sagal Twins" does not go above and beyond their own notability. It should be noted that all three articles contain nearly the same wording (some paragraphs verbatim), further making this page redundant. Delete without redirect. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 00:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article but add references, then Redirect Jean Sagal and Liz Sagal to this article. That would seem to be the most logical choice, seeing as all three articles are pretty much the same. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 00:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with what TPH (if I may call you that) has said. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page only. The section on Double Trouble has much detail on the TV show's plot that doesn't even belong in a biography and the last half is about each one of them separately. This material either belongs in their separate articles, the TV series article, but not here. Unless they're infants or constantly in the news as twins I'm opposed to treating two adults as one entity. --Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment rewritten as DAB page. I also rewrote both individual pages. Whoever wrote this couldn't resist listing the career highlights of every single person mentioned, which is grating enough when my 70-year-old father goes on at dinner, and definitely is not encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 10:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 15:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerak Khas[edit]

Google search for "Gerak Khas" -wikipedia gives 591 unique hits (over 10,000 hits total, but many of them duplicates, especially the IMDB hits). Also, there is actually no entry on IMDB for a TV series called "Gerak Khas", just the movie. Finally, even when you search for "Gerak Khas" -wikipedia, you get a lot of unrelated hits (including for Grup Gerak Khas, a formation in the Malaysian Army). The same search in just Malaysian sites gives only 704 hits (only 192 of them unique), most of which still refer to military units. Therefore, I vote to delete this article because it does not satisfy the chief criterion for notability - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."-- ugen64 03:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I noted in the deletion review, in Google News Archive, it gets 145 hits, of which about 115 are related to the series and its movies.[57] These stories describe GK as popular, a hit, a blockbuster, etc. According to this box office chart, the first film was the top film in Malaysia (middle chart)[58]; it was also #1 the following week. I will be working on the article to flesh out its notability claims. That IMDB would fail to include a TV series from Malaysia is not surprising. Also, as I noted at DRV, there seems to be something funny happening with the hit counts Google is giving for "gerak khas", but all Google searches will give you less than 1,000 unique hits, because it only gives you the unique hits in the first 1,000 results (see WP:GOOGLE#On_.22unique.22_results)
- P.S. As for the Malaysian-domain results, I don't know if hit-counting for a less-wired nation like Malaysia is the best test of notability, but if you look more closely at the results, you'll see that most of them are for the show or its movies. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a foreign show, is it now? In that case, I wonder about the effectiveness of your search. I would suggest referring this to an existing project on Malaysia to see what they can find out. PS, AFD is not a vote, it's bad form to represent your nomination that way. FrozenPurpleCube 05:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. -- Groggy Dice T | C 06:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a figure of speech, where "I vote to..." means something like "I propose that we should...". Maybe the better word there would have been "elect" - like "Bill Belichick elected to start Tom Brady at quarterback". In that case it doesn't literally mean "elect" either, just a figure of speech. Also, the burden of proof regarding notability is on the article creator and contributors, not on the rest of us - if someone wants a foreign TV show to have an article, that person has to come up with the sources for notability. ugen64 09:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a slopppy figure of speech, which tends to distort the purpose of AFD and while it's not a horrible thing, it's still bad form. My advice is to just make it a habit to avoid it. I know it's easy to let the word slip, but it can be avoided. In any case, while I agree the burden of proof is on the person claiming notability, there's also the realization that as a non-English Language program, the sources in English may be minimal. Thus my suggestion to seek input from an existing Malaysia-related project so native language speakers can weigh in. FrozenPurpleCube 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unconvinced English-language searches are the most useful way to go about discerning the nobility of a Malaysian show. Convinced by Groggydice. Phil Sandifer 12:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - English-language sources, such as IMDB, and searches on English language web pages ... ah, what Phil said! If you can show that there is no such thing, will change vote, but a television series running for 6 years, with 3 movie spin-offs, is clearly notable. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Top rated show, even in it's fifth season, three million viewers per episode [59], spawned a movie spin off that raked in over RM4 million [60], then more sequels, etc etc. Come on, counting google hit to determine notability in Asia? This is an article that needs expansion, not deletion. Paxse 13:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sr 13 06:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-JASL: The Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship[edit]

This article is incredibly promotional, violating WP:SPAM. I tried to nominate it for speedy deletion under G11, but the tag keeps getting deleted with the silly construction notice. No work has been done on it. Delete GreenJoe 05:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you think no work has been done, you should check back on the much spammier original. It gives the purpose, it gives the type of material, it gives the editor. the original article listed him two or three times over, and some of the other editorial people also, but I removed that. The notability rests on the inclusion in the two standard indexes in the subject, Library Literation and Library and Information Science abstracts. DGG (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with DGG. I'm not sure what makes it particularly spam-ish - seems pretty factual to me. And I would say the fact that it's peer reviewed would also help its notability (or at least its credibility, which seems linked to notability). --Gpollock 07:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agreed that this appears notable in the academic sense. Tagged as ((primary sources)), but otherwise fine. --Dhartung | Talk 10:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as academic journals are generally considered notable. A note, though, that it should be renamed with just the title, no acronym, after close. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to check, but I think the form as stated is the official title, emphasisng the E- part. So what it would need is a redirect. DGG (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A professional, peer-reviewed academic journal that's archived by Library and Archives Canada sure seems notable enough to me. Keep. Bearcat 05:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Peer-reviewed journal, indexed by relevant subject-specific indexers, in its eighth volume. Espresso Addict 23:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all. —Kurykh 00:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaisuan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

unable to verify notability claims, non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC Studerby 06:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are dependent on the notability/verifiability of this article - they stand or fall together:

Comment I've looked for references to this artist and his album in a number of places, for example: amazon.com, Def Jam records (distributers for Inc. records), Universal Records, iTunes, NME, various likely hip-hop magazines, and some searchable Billboard archives, such as www.musicsqaure.net and everything comes up empty, as if the album does not exist. Since I'm not a hip-hop fan, it's remotely plausible I'm looking in the wrong places. Studerby 06:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if y'all concur with my findings, let's protect after the deletion... Studerby 07:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. There's no allmusic entry for the artist, and a search of Kaisuan at Billboard.com comes up "No results found." A google search primarily hits at betarecords.com, which is a self-promotional tool for unsigned artists. Maybe someday Kaisuan will be notable, but he doesn't seem to be now. Moonriddengirl 12:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same, notability. Wikipedia shouldn't be the most significant source of info for an artist. Pharmboy 14:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted as advertising. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Lossev[edit]

The person does not appear to be notable. The only claim to notability is that he once organized teleconference between an American and Kazakh University. The only reference is a University E-zine Alex Bakharev 07:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability apparently not demonstrated by independent sources -- project was USIA sponsored, and the article cited appears to be a USIA press release: brief Googling finds no independent supporting cites. Delete. -- Karada 08:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Walton^One 16:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Torah-submission[edit]

This reads like an essay concocted according to a POV known to few people. What's "Christian Torah-submission" if not a pure neologism?! It is yet another piece of original research to dress up Christianity in Jewish garb. A look at the few external links tells all, and the "citations" are no better. A gross violation of WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. Most of this article can be deleted and whatever is new can be placed in the Messianic Judaism article. IZAK 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Messianic Judaism and any new (?) info in the Messianic Judaism and/or the Jewish Christians article/s. IZAK 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IZAK, thanks for your attention to this article and note on my Talk page.

I propose that it would not be in Wikipedia's best interest or yours as an established editor to propone this deletion. While you appeal to a number of Wikipedia policies, I hope to show there is no valid basis for deletion here under any of them.

WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT#ADVOCATE The procedure when one objects to perceived original research or non-neutral point of view is to edit it or request that it be cited; not to delete an entire article. This is especially true for one that has over 30 verifiable citations. As you know, you or any editor is free to place "citation needed" tags so that other editors may consider them accordingly. Furthermore, there are numerous citations and links to alternate and objecting viewpoints for balance. If there are specific phrases that editors find not to be common knowledge and unverifiable, then I agree that they should be edited in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

WP:NEO The primary objection to neologisms, according to WP:NEO is, "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people." If an article title merely uses clear, descriptive words, it does not fall into this category. This title is not a neologism, but merely a simpler way of saying "the view of the Mosaic Law within Christianity that upholds the applicability of the Torah to Christians," which, I think we would both agree, would not be an ideal name for an article. Christian Torah-submission is merely descriptive, in the same way as Illegal immigration or Shaving in Judaism for example. The article is not about the term, it is about one branch of the Christian view of the Law, written in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. If editors deem that there is improper emphasis on the term itself, then I agree those phrases should be edited.

I'm afraid your suggestion to merge this with Messianic Judaism shows a significant misunderstanding of this subject matter. While Christian Torah-submission is an issue within Messianic Judaism, it is not only a Messianic, or Jewish, issue. It is an article on a Christian view, held also by many ethnic Gentiles (as cited), that value and follow Torah (see the wikilinks to the Adventist, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Church of God movements). The fact that there are comparatively few sources citing non-Messianic Jewish related practice, means only that citations should be added, not that the article should be deleted.

Since you're an experienced editor that obviously values the ethics and policy involved in Wikipedia, I appeal for you to consider if your hasty recommendation for deletion may not, in itself, be a non-WP:NPOV edit. Your statement, "It is yet another piece of original research to dress up Christianity in Jewish garb," might suggest a primarily emotional reaction, based on an aversion to Christianity that looks like Judaism, rather than objective reliance on facts. A non-NPOV could also be suggested by your sole focus on Messianic Judaism when other links were available, and your classification of the article in "Judaism-related deletions" rather than Christianity-related, when this is primarily a description of a Christian view of the Mosaic Law.

A careful reading of the sources, especially the books and encyclopedia articles cited, reveal not only the well-sourced historical existence of Christian Torah-submission, but also the well-sourced existence of the belief and movement today - and this, not just within Messianic Judaism.

I appeal to others that agree to weigh in on this discussion.

Recommendation: KEEP and edit if necessary, considering specifics that might be disputed. Namikiw 14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ See below re: change - I had to give this one some thought. The term, as it is used, is a neologism. While the statements the article makes are well sourced, and clearly the product of significant work, and while the principle is certainly a valid one, there are few to no sources that refer to the term itself as a notable phrase. The commentator below states, "The primary objection to neologisms, according to WP:NEO is, "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people." This is true, and the commentator makes a case against it being a valid criticism of this article; however, it is a quote from the wrong section of the policy page. The source for that quote is about the use of neologisms IN articles. There is another section about neologisms AS articles, and this states something reflecting far more rigid criteria: "Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case." Note, therefore, that even if multiple sources could be found to verify that "Christian Torah Submission" was widely used, it still might not merit an article. The article does not provide even one verifiable resource to state that this term is in common use, therefore there is no question about its failing to meet the inclusion criteria. Again, there is a difference between a concept and a title; if you look at the Wikipedia entry for Stock character, for example, you will find many concepts that are cliché in both fiction and real life, but not all of them have individual entries. That, by itself, of course, does not mean this would not merit one - but unless resources can be found that demonstrate not only the principle, but also the use of this specific term, this article isn't viable in its current form. Those two things are, I reluctantly admit (because it's always a shame to see hard work get deleted) compelling arguments against retaining it. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zahakiel, thanks for your thought-out answer. With respect, I ask that you consider the following.

WP:NEO states:

Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society.

Thus, in an article about a neologism, the term is in central focus. How was it coined? Who is using it? In what contexts? With what definitions? (Cafeteria Christianity is a good example of this.)

Does the article we're dicussing try to answer those questions? Does it put those questions in central focus?

As you yourself pointed out, no, it doesn't. The article does not provide even one verifiable resource to state that this term is in common use. There's a reason for that. The term (that is accused of being a neologism) is not the subject of the article.

With the exception of three sentences, the term "Christian Torah-submission" is all but irrelevant in this article and could be removed completely without affecting its information. If the article were simply renamed "the Torah-submissive Christian view," consider the article. With very few edits, it would remain untouched by the accusation of promoting a neologism. The article is not about a term and/or its usage. It is about a view that a significant group of Christians hold. Any fitting adjectives could describe the view and name the article.

For example, the lead sentence could easily be:

One of the views of the Mosaic Law (Torah) in Christianity is that it remains valid and applicable for Christians under the new covenant. This view largely sources from the view that Jesus..."

There is no emphasis on any term and yet the meaning is unaffected.

While I don't see any reason to make wording more complicated if it is already descriptive, the change can be made if editors think it is necessary. My point is this: Easy, small changes can be made to align the article with Wikipedia policy.

If that's the case, then there is no justification for deletion. Namikiw 21:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have considered that. You state that the term is not the topic of the article? Then why is that the name of the article? One would expect a Wikipedia article entitled "Christianity" to be about Christianity, one named "Judaism" to be about Judaism, etc. The topic of an article is indicated by its name, and as such there is simply no support for such a term being a topic of multiple third-party coverage. This is not a matter of minor changes being required, but an entirely different use of the information you have presented. It may be that the same information might be used to contribute to other articles (Perhaps the section Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law) that have topics named and used in common communication, in that case a Merge to the appropriate articles would be the right course of action. Honestly, maybe simply renaming it to something more appropriate might be worth a reconsideration. In either event, this article would be deleted. ◄Zahakiel ► 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - While my initial concerns remain, they are (as the commentator above points out) primarily about the title rather than the content. A rename to Torah in Christianity would shift the emphasis to being about the way the Torah is viewed and practiced (some submitting, some not) with appropriate data included on both positions. The current data is a decent starting-point for this expansion. This would at once both eliminate the potential POV issues (see the vote below about WP:NOT#ADVOCATE) and ensure the avoidance of neologistic flavors to the article. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article describes something which exists and proves it exists with footnotes. It also seems to be notable enough. The neologism argument doesn't cut it as a deletion justification because, as has been pointed out, the article doesn't depend on the existence of the phrase but on the existence of the concept and practice. I think the article does have some fixable non-NPOV problems, which is not cause for deletion. (Also, what need is there in this article for the extensive, high-up section describing Torah regulations? That's the subject of other articles.) Noroton 16:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Obvious WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. --Yeshivish 19:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What I don't like about Yeshivish's comment is that WP:NOT#ADVOCATE is never, by itself, a reason to delete. As is stated in that very section of WP:NOT: Wikipedia content is not: 1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. It's worth considering whether some editors here just don't like the particular subject, which is also not a reason to delete. Noroton 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Christianity and the Mosaic Law (or similar, with redirects for all the variations on the name), fix the obvious problems, and expand -- like User:Zahakiel says above. Over at Talk:Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law, we were discussing branching off the section Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law, where this view is currently represented. It seems to me that this view could be a starting point for that article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article is well-sourced, describes a belief system with a substantial number of followers. Perhaps it should be renamed or redirected, although if "Christian Torah submission" is the most current term, leave it the way it is. I don't believe that it advocates anything; in fact, this is one of the few articles I've seen that has links to "pro" and "con" views on a particular interpretation of the Old Testament. Mandsford 17:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just layman searching for answers. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to help people find the knowledge they seek. Stop over analyzing all this. This article has succeeded and it should stay. HAYBLUE

Delete One massive OR essay. --Shuki 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Java7837 18:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zahakiel. Amoruso 11:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zahakiel (above) advocates keeping and renaming. Namikiw 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if referenced: the article should be set up as a main article from the subsection The Torah-submissive view in Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law. Moreover, I see some segments of the article with unreferenced claims, which look to me like advocacy or original research, e.g. Other Observances section. Furthermore, and this goes to the heart of the matter, doesn't the article need to show that Torah-submissive groups have been linked together by notable sources other than the wikipedia author(s)? HG | Talk 11:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is well sourced (perhaps it needs to be expanded a little) and it describes the core of certain christian belief systems with a substantial number of followers, although different in some important aspects. For instance, the followers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church do not circumcise, which is one of the most important mitsvot, while in Ethiopian Orthodox Church it is as mandatory as it is in Judaism, and that is quite a difference. I think it should be left the way it is. I don't believe that it advocates anything; in fact, this is one of the few articles I've seen that has links to "pro" and "con" views on a particular interpretation of the Old Testament. Plus, personally I have studied in a Seventh-day Adventist Church Elementary School in my hometown (we had no jewish school by then) and their beliefs and practices are very different from Messianic Judaism and they always try to make that point clear. Something similar occurs with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, so I don't think this article should be deleted or renamed; this article and (most of) all Wikipedia articles are intended to expand people's knowledge on a particular matter, whether we like it or not its content. Please leave it the way it is. --JewBask 12:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the rather funny message below (I've never seen an AfD closed like that... This to me is a clear case for deletion. The majority of the article is OR, and what isn't OR is riddled with PoV and Weasel words to the point that one could not be blamed if they thought from this article that this was a major mainstream sect. What little in this article actually has value should be merged to Messianic Judaism. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 12:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
move into messianic judaism it's really a subtopic of that topic, doesn't have any life of its own outside. Gzuckier 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Shmaltz 14:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one big original essay. The main author should have no problems to restart an article under proper title and acccording to major wikipedia rules WP:Attribution. `'Míkka 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - Appears to be a description of a strict form of Messianic Judaism. Looks well-referenced, but most (all?) of those are standard MJ texts. Could easily be cut down and merged into that article, although a lot of the information is already there. Daniel^C/_T+ 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template Removal[edit]

WP:Deletion#Deletion_discussion states: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants should explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate."

Clearly, there is no consensus and the discussion has continued for over seven days. Therefore, according to policy, the page will be kept and the discussion on editing, merging, or redirecting will continue on the Talk page. Namikiw 17:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a AfD closed in this manner, and to my knowledge, Namikiw is not an admin. Can someone please clarify what this is? -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 12:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Chabuk. I was unaware that I was improperly closing the deletion discussion. Apparently, I didn't read the note on my Talk page closely enough to know that a neutral Admin will come along to close the discussion. It was not my intention to shirk policy, and I ask the editors to disregard this Template Removal section. The motion was not malicious.

Thanks for correcting this so it can go through the proper channels. Namikiw 13:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy close, article has been rolled into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Y Fido to simplify things. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Dogz[edit]

This article about a record label, which does not appear to have any notable acts signed to it, thus fails WP:MUSIC Ohconfucius 09:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can I close this and add this page to the existing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Y Fido? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 15:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Bentley[edit]

PROD added by User:ZincBelief and contested by User:Emmabentleysdad. PROD was re-added, so bringing it here to AFD instead. Reason for PROD stated as "Emma Bentley is not a notable Chess player and the article is poorly sourced and poorly written". Note that User:Emmabentleysdad has stated he is in fact Emma Bentley's father so there are potential WP:COI issues. Much of the discussion is not on the article page but is on User talk:Emmabentleysdad. I am !voting weak keep on this one with rather minor BBC coverage. Whpq 13:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think anyone has contested the deletion so far. One user left a message on my talk page saying they deleted the template by accident (edit conflict) --ZincBelief 13:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. The original Speedy Deletion was declined by User:NawlinWiki with the comment "decline speedy, asserts notability, take to AFD if you want". -- Whpq 13:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Bentley's father appears to be the English Chess Federation's Junior Publicity Officer as well. I think that may be relevent to the WP:COI--ZincBelief 14:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1422 is not a notable chess grade, it is nowhere near the top echelon. World Champions are above 2700, Grandmasters above 2500, International Grandmasters above 2400. Emma has never won an official junior world championship, she has won an international competition run by Susan Polgar. She has not won a competition in an age category senior to her own - for example English U16 girls category. She has not won an English junior category (meaning male and female competitors) as far as I can tell. I am sure Emma is a nice young lady, and I wish her all the best in her chess career. However, there are thousands upon thousands of chess players out there with a 1422 rating, thousands of chess players who have won junior competitions. Ok, so for publicity they put her onto a magazine or local tv, but she is not a notable chess player. She has not acheived a significant title or result that would meet wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The article is also rather short on detail, and is basically just a small list which seems to have been written by her dad. Here ends my opinion.--ZincBelief 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The grading lists, http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/engjuniors.php ecf top juniors and http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/engtopgirls.php ecf top girls are also relevant for this assessment. As somebody else said, a few years yet before she is going to be noteable.--ZincBelief 18:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - The article history was that it was CSD'd and that was declined by Nawlinwiki. Emma's father didn't remove the tag or contest it except verbally on his talkpage and by adding references etc. User:KirkEnd removed the PROD. Thanks to User:Slp1 for pointing this out to me. Apologies for any confusion created by me. -- Whpq 13:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification on the removal of the prod - this was not done intentionally, I was in the middle of trying to neutralise/wikify the article when the prod was placed and I accidentally saved over that version. As soon as I realised I contacted ZincBelief and asked him/her to replace it. For the record my vote is a weak delete on the basis that now all the POV and unsourced statements have been removed it is, as ZincBelief, states simply a small list of apparently unremarkable achievements. KirkEnd aka • nancy • talk to me • 13:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, She has done pretty good, but still doesn't seem to meet notability requirements and the article doesn't assert any reason to exist except as a list of accomplishements. No context, almost back patting. Maybe in a few years. Pharmboy 14:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insuffiently notable. imagine, spamming for your kids.Montco 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: subject does not come close to fulfilling any of the WP:BIO criteria. Players like those listed at chess prodigy deserve articles; Emma's got a long way to go... youngvalter 01:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Probable COI and not sufficiently notable at this point. I hope she will be in the future. Bubba73 (talk), 02:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the 1422 is a provisional rating based on one six-round tournament. I can't find her on any USCF top 100 lists, by ager or girls under 13, see this. I think provisional ratings are not included on the list, and 1422 is not near the top anyway. Bubba73 (talk), 02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if her rating was established instead of provisional, she would be tied for #64 of Ten-year-olds in the USCF and tied for #32 in USCF girls under 13. I still wish her great success in the future, she has a pretty good start. Bubba73 (talk), 04:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that she's rated way below a GM may not matter, if she was a notable prodigy for her age, but I don't see evidence that she is. (For an example of a true prodigy, Judit Polgar had a rating around 2200, and defeated an IM, when she was 10). Winning a national age championship isn't sufficiently notable, or there'd be thousands. The only thing which might make her notable is winning the Susan Polgar "World" U11 girls' championship, but for me that probably isn't sufficient. I wish her all the well, but I don't think she's sufficiently notable yet. Also COI issues as already mentioned. Peter Ballard 04:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She may not be highly ranked in the grand scheme of things, but the fact remains that she has won both the national title for her age group and an international competition. Those are not achievements to be dismissed lightly. JulesH 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she has only won the national girls title for her age group and an international competition (i don't know if that was for girls only or not). Just a point of information.--ZincBelief 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The international competition was a girls' only, under 11, competition. And it was privately (or at least semi-privately) run, not the official FIDE world age group title. (FIDE under age girls-only competitions do exist, and their winners generally are not listed on Wikipedia either). Winning it was still a fine achievement, of course, but not enough to make her notable. Because if the competition is not notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia (and it's not), then to me it follows that winning that competition does not automatically make a person notable. Peter Ballard 13:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was the only international player in that competition; all the other players were from the States. And international competitions aren't a big deal anyway - it doesn't look like any sort of qualification process was necessary. youngvalter 20:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable in my opinion. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete g7 per author request on article talk page. Author is only substantial contributor. NawlinWiki 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Joaquin Film Festival[edit]

I had put a speedy on the article since it isn't happening until Summer 2008 and there were only minimal references to it around the web as "San Joaquin Film Festival", making it non-notable so far. Since the festival is "created and presented by the organization Stockton Crossing Cultural Bridges", I felt the Stocktoncrossing (talk · contribs), who created the page, was using Wikipedia to promote the event. It was removed from speedy, WP:PRODed, page blanked by the creator, I replaced the prod tag when revamped and it was removed again. I now bring it to AFD. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable local film festival. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when it becomes a regular, established festival handing out awards, then come back. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7. Creator has requested deletion on article's talk page. Deor 20:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I tried to tag this with a G7, but User:KillerChihuahua protested, stating that it was invalid, because other editors have made contributions to the page. A look at the edit history shows that the only non-creator edits are addition or removal of tags, which I don't see as substantial edits, so I think that a G7 is fitting here since the author has requested deletion. Does anyone else think that a G7 is inappropriate? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]