< July 8	July 10 >

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

The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

École Franco-Polonaise[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Poorly referenced unnotable enterprise. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - not very notable as university since it closed after four years of its existence leaving its students out in the cold. If kept, add École Franco-Polonaise to Education in Poznań with a note "closed in 1997". greg park avenue 14:38, 5 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, — Scientizzle 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC) — Scientizzle 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That it once existed was sufficient. It would help to have an additional source DGG (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per DGG. Callelinea 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per DGGTaprobanus 17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carabinieri 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Zero[edit]

This game has not been commercially distributed. It is not particularly popular or notable as a non-commercial game. It has not been recognized by the developers of the actual Halo series or otherwise promoted in the mainstream gaming press. There has not been a controversy around the game to make it notable in that respect. It is made using a game creation engine, so it is not technically notable in terms of its own engine or assets. While there is no fixed criteria for game notability right now, it seems pretty likely that Wikipedia should avoid listing these sorts of projects. Stump 23:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The game itself is a copyright violation, it's major notability will come in the form of a C&D letter from the Halo copyright holders. Burzmali 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Halo (series), in case of copyvio issues in future etc. Giggy _U^CP 04:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage discernible. Oppose merge as there is no reason other than speculation that it will attain notice due to copyright issues. -- Whpq 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, permission was granted by Bungie for the project. Also, it was notable enough to get a feature in OXM, with a video featured on the disc. It has had over 100,000 downloads from download.com. since when is 100,000 not notable? Keep this article, your reasons for it's removal are incorrect.

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfire (Yu-Gi-Oh GX)[edit]

Ksy92003 reinstated prod after it "was deleted for no reason" by one of the article's editors. So, I deleted prod again and brought it here as a matter of protocol. Ksy92003's reasons for prod were "This article discusses a deck for a card game used in a TV show. The deck has no notability in it." Postcard Cathy 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless someone can find some decent sources, or any sources for that matter.++aviper2k7++ 23:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't even figure out if the character is just made up. --Sbluen 00:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, because the subject being discussed doesn't even exist in the show. The character does not exist, nor do any of the other two pages he's created. This user seems to believe Wikipedia is a place to post fanfiction. The Clawed One 01:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. Further discussion on possible title changes and references should be on the Talk page for the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of mentally ill monarchs[edit]

Do we really need more lists? There really is no way to judge whether a person from antiquity was mentally ill or not. It's the sort of thing that keeps scholars debating for decades. This list is basically going to become "List of monarchs that have been accused of being mentally ill." eaolson 23:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero sources, dubious merit, dubious validity. --Haemo 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, If it had sources I would keep it. Keep, change it to Rulers and add presidents and dictators.Callelinea 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. I agree. There must be a way to easily find leaders labeled as 'crazy'. But then, we could create a category instead. However, I don't see anything wrong with this list so far. --Loukinho 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The disclaimer about who was actually mentally ill in the article says delete to me. It lacks validity from that point and becomes relatively useless. --Stormbay 23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, as these people are not usually connectioned because they were thought of as mentally ill. Z1720 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cf. List of premature obituaries, a featured list. Slac speak up! 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's wrong with the "list of monarchs that have been accused of being mentally ill" idea? Of course we're never going to know definitively which monarchs were ill or not. We can recount what chroniclers have described them as - that's all we can ever do anywhere in Wikipedia. I'm sorry, "we can't be definitive" is not a valid reason for deletion. If you want sources, fine, I'll footnote each individual entry, but given the article has existed for all of 9 hours I think we might be getting a bit over-zealous in this regard. None of the reasons recounted thus far are convincing. Slac speak up! 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, Delete Nothing wrong with the idea. I was prepared to like this list, but it's not much more than a set of nine blue-links and a "this-is-a-stub-have-fun-adding-to-it" invitation. Not only that, it's more of a list of people whom some historians have labelled as "geez, they must have been crazy". Finally, considering the prime ministers and presidents who were removed and sent to a hospital for mental illness, why confine a list to kings and queens. Though I have to admit, "Mentally-ill Monarchs" would be a cool name for a band. Mandsford 00:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Mad King Ludwig" was called mad by his contemporaries at least in part because he was homosexual, and at least two others on this list were considered mad because of gossip spread 100 years or more after their deaths. Are gossip and invective reliable sources? I don't think so. --Charlene 00:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is a reliable source for what someone was called - ie. historically verifiable opinions. That's what we're aiming for, remember? Not The Truth(TM). The objections still boil down to "there aren't enough sources" - a view that would hold a lot more validity if, say, this was a few months old. Slac speak up! 01:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. So you concede that this isn't about people who were actually mentally ill, but just those that have been described as such at some point or another? You're going to have to add Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to the list. eaolson 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'cept they're not monarchs. And I didn't "concede" it, I started the article with that premise in mind. Slac speak up! 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with a category Corpx 01:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While moderately interesting, I don't believe that this really serves any purpose whatsoever. Any accusations of mental illness could be placed in the article itself (or confirmations) in it's own section, and the list can be (as so cleverly suggested by Corpx) turned into a category. This article is not necessary... at all. --HAL2008 talk Contributions 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add sources and further explain notability, i.e. for people like Caligula who have been the subject of films. Show that the list has relevance to popular culture and/or societal change. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about mentally ill people who believe they are monarchs? ~ Infrangible 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. Actually this list is somewhat useful. I realize that I am treading very close to WP:ILIKEIT, but this is a subject of great interest to historians and there has been much debate about these people for many years. Perhaps the title could be changed, as others above have pointed out above, but I think the idea of the list is sound. We do need documentation and sources, however. ●DanMS • Talk 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Locate sources; it's a valid topic. And "Do we really need any more lists?" is such a bogus statement. --Hemlock Martinis 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite a valid topic, go get sources. I'm tempted to ask "Do we really need fewer lists?" -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this information would only belong in the monarch's article, or in a category Giggy _U^CP 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consider renaming. Valid topic for which plentiful sources could, and should, be found. Needs expanding, possibly incorporating other heads of state. Brief notes could also be added to enhance the usefulness compared with a category. I would support renaming to clarify the inclusion criterion. Espresso Addict 00:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, you do know the person above you voted keep. Right? -MrFizyx 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly create a category as per Corpx, DanMS, Hal2008, and nom. Bearian 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the monarchs with a historical reputation for madness are linked by heredity. For example, Henry VI of England was the grandson of Charles VI of France. So this not just a list of unrelated monarchs. As for references, they can be added ( I added one.)Cardamon
Strong delete - not a valid topic. This is absolutely unverifiable, because it cannot possibly be known which monarchs were "mentally ill". That can't be found out anymore. SalaSkan 22:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Salaskan - I have two replies.

As others have already pointed out, the name of the page should be changed to something like Monarchs thought to be mad by their chroniclers or Monarchs with a historical reputation for mental illness, which is verifiable.
Some physical evidence may exist for more recent monarchs such as George III. Cardamon 09:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as advertising. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gates County USA News Magazine[edit]

11 unique Google hits for "Gates County USA News Magazine", mostly Wikipedia mirrors (could somebody please explain to me why surfonsteroids.com, medlibrary.org, and a listing of figure skating TV schedules are mirroring Wikipedia pages about magazines?); 17 unique hits for "Gates County USA", mostly RSS feeds; and the creating user, BlackHorse Web IMC (talk · contribs), identifies as the magazine's publisher. In summary, there seem to be no sources whatsoever with which to write this article. Unint 23:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as ((db-spam)) (so tagged), very non-notable magazine. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nnspam, Jimfbleak 05:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator and no other users calling for deletion. Non-admin close. cab 04:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Singh (soldier)[edit]

~~Non notable soldier. Article has no real sources and was likely the creation of a family member appears to be more of a geneolgoy page than an encyclopedia article.~~ Daniel J. Leivick 23:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Thanks for all the work on the article guys. My mistake, I have been going through old notability cases and removing misplaced or outdated tags and nominating close calls for deletion. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I am going to try to clean it up so it is at least readable but from what I can tell he was given awards and appointed to various positions. After I can figure out what the writer wanted to say, I might change my mind. But for now I say keep. Callelinea 23:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This one is tough but it reads a little better, the guy was a General in the Indian Army that was awarded a high Award by the President of India. I'm going to take a little break and see if I can correct some spelling in the article, all those names were giving me a headache, but all kidding aside this General really was someone important to Indian history or at least to the Indian Army.

keep and make a better article. He might be notable, it's hard to tell from what's there. --Rocksanddirt 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Perhaps there's a Wikiproject this could be brought up at? Not all generals are notable, of course, but this one appears to be more notable than the average general. --Charlene 00:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Recepient of military award . I have improved the article somewhat. Shyamsunder 12:57,10 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notability is asserted by now and article is (somewhat) better. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much nicer.Callelinea 01:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab 03:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Can someone find an administrator to close this AfD since the nominator withdrew his nomination. Callelinea 04:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about, some one will close it at some point. The article will not be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carabinieri 01:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Killer (StarCraft)[edit]

Unsourced, in-universe, game guide, etc. An overall irrelevant article. Not every Zerg breed needs it own page The Clawed One 23:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a minor Zerg unit. Single units are not notable; in fact, we've repeatedly deleted lists of these for being game-guidey cruft. --Haemo 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Better information exists on a specialized wiki, recommend redirecting the article to Zerg, and adding a link to http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page to that page. Burzmali 00:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is notable enough for inclusion and provides information that its ariticle on StarCraft Wikia does not. Captain panda 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is not notable, any relevant information should be in the Zerg article. -- Sabre 11:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna say merge to Hydralisk, but that's already a redirect, therefore delete. Wizardman 14:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . The best we could do is to merge to Hydralisk or Zerg. -- Magioladitis 06:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 16:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carabinieri 01:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torrasque[edit]

unsourced, entirely not needed. It's just an in-universe game guide The Clawed One 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a minor Starcraft unit. We don't even allow lists of these units, let along complicated in-universe articles about them. --Haemo 23:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Better information exists on a specialized wiki, recommend redirecting the article to Zerg, and adding a link to http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page to that page. Burzmali 00:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is notable enough for inclusion and is not as in-depth on the StarCraft Wikia. Captain panda 03:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that merely means the StarCraft Wikia should be updated, not that this should be kept. It's notable in-universe, but Wikipedia is for out-of-universe data. And seeing as how even some major characters have little written on them, I highly doubt a single unit will. The Clawed One 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply unnecessary. Any useful information can be made in the Zerg species article. -- Sabre 09:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 16:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carabinieri 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devouring One[edit]

A completely unnotable game guide. The Zerg don't need a page for every breed. The Clawed One 23:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Zerg unit that was in one level. We do not need a page about every single unit in a videogame; we don't even need lists of them. --Haemo 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Better information exists on a specialized wiki, recommend redirecting the article to Zerg, and adding a link to http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page to that page. Burzmali 00:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wikipedia is not a gameguide. I would categorize this as excessive coverage of video games Corpx 01:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is notable enough for inclusion and no article exists on StarCraft Wikia. Captain panda 04:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldnt matter if another wiki doesnt contain this information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Corpx 04:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article not notable, any relevant information can be retained in the Zerg article -- Sabre 11:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Captain. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 16:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yogani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Promotional article on non-notable subject. Aarktica 22:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The writer of the article has only contributed one article to wikipedia. That is not bad per say, but his only comments/edits all have to do with this one article. I have a gut feeling that the writer might be the subject of the article, which I do not have a problem with normally, if written in a neutral way. Which this article for the most part does. My problem is with that their are no sources other then yoga web sites and his writings. For me to even contemplate a change in my position, I would need additional mainstream sources. Callelinea 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although different from the previous AFD which I closed as "userfy", this falls victim to the same problems, ultimately, that one did. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per discussion. Page is largely self promotional. Publication of books is not, per se, a sign of notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no 3rd party documentation of any sort that might show notability. DGG (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per only trivial mentions in the media Corpx 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not entirely sure what to make of this article, but it does assert notability by saying "the first" in its first sentence and does provide sources in the form of a bibliography, a note, and external links. Maybe keep for that reason. Is it more a matter of conflict of interest by the article's author/main contributor? Or do you think it just needs more independent sources and edits? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

assserting is sufficient to keep from speedy deletion, but not sufficient for a keep. The external links are his online teachings and the reference is a series of his audio interviews on yahoo. DGG (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, three of the books are in worldcat, and LOC has most of the books, but that isnt sufficient to demonstrate notability as an anonymous author. The mentions in newspaper are all about a "Yogani" yoga studio that was at 1617 W Platt St in Tampa, and is now at 1112 W Platt St; there is a lot of information about the owner Annie Pomerantz/Okerlin, but she is not a he, so its hard to join the dots here. More information at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP). John Vandenberg 04:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only a single outside source does not mean notable. Bearian 19:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 03:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Ramey[edit]

Article was proposed by another editor for speedy deletion (article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject) - which was contested --VS ^talk 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No references to claims made in article. Poorly written. Needs to state the facts and not write it like it was a novel. As written it seams as a vanity piece since the writer is the subject of the article, if it had been written in a more neutral tone, I would of overlooked it, but it isn't so it does seam to be WP:COI. Callelinea 22:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A freestyle skateboarder of his stature would have some Google hits. Ramey does not. Adding a blocking phrase to weed out Wikipedia mirrors, we get: [1] - Richfife 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is listed at Freestyle skateboarding on wiki as a notable freestyle skater. I found nothing substantial anywhere else, however. --Stormbay 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An anonymous user added his name (and a lot of others) to the list last year. Not a reliable source, and Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles, so... the quest continues. - Richfife 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Richfife and I know what is considered a legitimate source. The point simply was that the article in question calls him notable with no apparent disagreement from anyone. Someone may even want to remove the name from the article when this one is deleted or footnote it to point out that he is not not notable enough to have his own article in wiki. --Stormbay 01:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Richfife. 19:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Move to Dawn-Marie Wesley suicide. Non admin closure. Jorvik 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn-Marie Wesley[edit]

Non-notable suicide victim. Since notability criteria exclude individuals that are notable only for a single news event, fails WP:BIO. Valrith 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very sad, but non notable. Poorly written article doesn't even give a time point of reference. Bendž|Ť 22:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree completly with Bendzh. Callelinea 22:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, Rename and revise or merge to Rats & Bullies: The Dawn-Marie Wesley Story. The individual was not notable before three bullies drove her to commit suicide. This tragedy became notable when two of the bullies were tried and convicted, and when a documentary film was made about it. The CBC reference says "The trial drew widespread attention to the role of the courts in dealing with school bullying cases across the country." It was also featured on the Oprah show as one of two instances of "bullycide" [2] and has been discussed in a number of published source over the 6 years since the death. It was discussed in the Legislative Assembly (2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament, March 26, 2002, under "Bulleying prevention [3]." But we normally have an article about the crime and its implications for society, rather than a memorial article about the victim.Perhaps it could be restyled Dawn-Marie Wesley suicide, similar to the common "John Jones murder case" although that would invite more memorial articles about other suicides which lacked the notable features of this one. Edison 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of Edison's argument. When individual stories that are not inherently notable per se become used by national news sources as an example, the incident becomes notable. When they get repeated attention over a period of years, and in particular legislative attention they are certainly notable enough for an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It's generally Wikipedia precedent that murder victims who become the impetus for legislation and have a bill named after them are notable. Although bills aren't named in Canada like they are in the US, her name was tied to the bill in the same way that Megan Kanka's was to Megan's Law, so despite being a suicide I can see that she has some claim to notability. Her name is also somewhat known in Canada, especially to people over about 35, and she may pass WP:BIO on that alone. --Charlene 00:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form as per Edison, but better as an article on the incident and its results rather than on the person. Davewild 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Rats & Bullies: The Dawn-Marie Wesley Story. Her suicide is the only thing she is noted for, so guidelines in this case would support merging the article on her and documentary based on her situation. Either way, she is not notable enough to have 2 articles, no matter how sad her death is. Lrrr IV 06:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Rats & Bullies documentary appears notable in its own right. And having one article serve as a bio, an event and a film about the event is difficult to categorize precisely. Canuckle 19:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Dawn-Marie Wesley suicide as per Edison. The Rats & Bullies documentary claims the case led to "two precedent setting cases by Canada's Provincial court in which the bullies were held accountable for their threats. Due to this and other similar cases, the term "bullycide" has been established". Canuckle 19:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per DGG. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take discussions on possible mergers and redirections to the Talk page for this article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of House (TV series) cast members[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Kariteh 21:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to House (TV series)--JForget 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to House (TV seies), As an independent article no way.. If the writer wants to do an episode by episode sub-directory in the main article that shows each cast member all the power to them. Callelinea 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a directory Corpx 01:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect/Merge, because concerns popular, prominent show. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete Looks like a directory to me. Doesn't add any real information... Looks like a credits list, really. OSborn^arf 03:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is NOT what categories are for. Over at CFD we spent months working on getting all the cast member categories listified. During discussions, we assured the people who maintained the categories that no information would be destroyed when the categories were removed and more detailed information could be added to the lists. PLEASE! don't delete these lists. If you do, people will start recreating the categories. This information makes much more sense as a list than as a category. I think it is impractical to say that cast lists should not have any home on Wikipedia. People will continue to add this information faster than we can remove it. Let it exist on lists. That is the most appropriate form this information can take. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, this stubby, random directory list should exist because there is a risk that people will create some inappropriate category elsewhere? I didn't know that it's how Wikipedia functions. If a category exists and shouldn't, it has to be deleted, that's all. Just because it can be tedious to do it repeatedly doesn't mean we have to violate WP:NOT and create a random directory list just to avoid this problem. Menace and risks of users doing this or that are irrelevant arguments. Kariteh 08:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to catalogue minor character actors. The main cast are listed on the main article for the show. Listing the rest of the cast is what imdb et al are for. JulesH 08:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the information exists elsewhere, I see no reason why this page should not be deleted. However, I very strongly oppose turning this back into a category. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. Using categories for cast members became a nightmare, as actors may perform in up to one hundred films and TV shows during their careers. The resulting block of category links at the bottoms of the articles for some actors became very difficult to read and use for navigation. Turning these lists back into categories would be highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not categorize This is notably different from voice actors, since a role in this series will almost certainly result in a link, making the list superfluous. Circeus 09:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into category — Will work better as a cat. Matthew 12:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not categorize Cast lists should almost never be done as categories. Leave either as a list article or merge the cast list into the main article for the show. See WP:OCAT for why cast lists should not be done as categories. Dugwiki 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to the show article or a list of show characters. Since all-capital-letter links to a particular essay and certain policies seem to be all the rage right now in WP:AfD, let me say that WP:JUSTAPOLICY is no more a valid argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply stating that something is an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory" does not make it so. Nobody has presented any valid argument as to why a WP:LIST of WP:NOTABLE cast members in a WP:NOTABLE television show, which is WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ATTributable to WP:ReliableSources, is WP:NPOV and not WP:ORiginal research, would be considered an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory". A cast list is a well-defined, finite, list, which is a perfectly valid criteria meeting the WP:LIST guidelines, as typically television actors are notable for the very reason of being in certain notable television shows. And cast categories are usually not appopriate for the very good reasons given in WP:OCAT. Furthermore, "delete and merge" is not a valid argument either, as deletion of the history of merged content violates the GFDL by destroying the attribution required by that license. DHowell 02:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take merger and redirect discussions to the talk page for the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guiding Light cast members[edit]

Totally random. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Kariteh 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Guiding Light into appropriate sub-section with the list.--JForget 22:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create category if one doesn't exist. This isn't random: just because Guiding Light isn't as popular with young tech-savvy guys in the same way that, say, Family Guy or South Park are, doesn't mean it's less notable of a television show. But I don't think any television show - any - needs a list of cast members on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the IMDB. --Charlene 00:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a directory Corpx 01:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is NOT what categories are for. Over at CFD we spent months working on getting all the cast member categories listified. During discussions, we assured the people who maintained the categories that no information would be destroyed when the categories were removed and more detailed information could be added to the lists. PLEASE! don't delete these lists. If you do, people will start recreating the categories. This information makes much more sense as a list than as a category. I think it is impractical to say that cast lists should not have any home on Wikipedia. People will continue to add this information faster than we can remove it. Let it exist on lists. That is the most appropriate form this information can take. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, this stubby, random directory list should exist because there is a risk that people will create some inappropriate category elsewhere? I didn't know that it's how Wikipedia functions. If a category exists and shouldn't, it has to be deleted, that's all. Just because it can be tedious to do it repeatedly doesn't mean we have to violate WP:NOT and create a random directory list just to avoid this problem. Kariteh 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cast information for major and recurring characters is already present in the per-decade articles on the show. A separate list adds no value. JulesH 08:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the information exists elsewhere, I see no reason why this page should not be deleted. However, I very strongly oppose turning this back into a category. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. Using categories for cast members became a nightmare, as actors may perform in up to one hundred films and TV shows during their careers. The resulting block of category links at the bottoms of the articles for some actors became very difficult to read and use for navigation. Turning these lists back into categories would be highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not categorize This is turning into a sort of vicious circle. And I doubt any argumentation can be made that this is "indiscriminate". Looks pretty specific to me.Now whether ot not this duplicate information found in the series' page, that is another question. Circeus 09:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not categorize Cast lists should almost never be done as categories. Leave either as a list article or merge the cast list into the main article for the show. See WP:OCAT for why cast lists should not be done as categories. Dugwiki 16:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to the show article or a list of show characters. Since all-capital-letter links to a particular essay and certain policies seem to be all the rage right now in WP:AfD, let me say that WP:JUSTAPOLICY is no more a valid argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply stating that something is an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory" does not make it so. Nobody has presented any valid argument as to why a WP:LIST of WP:NOTABLE cast members in a WP:NOTABLE television show, which is WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ATTributable to WP:ReliableSources, is WP:NPOV and not WP:ORiginal research, would be considered an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory". A cast list is a well-defined, finite, list, which is a perfectly valid criteria meeting the WP:LIST guidelines, as typically television actors are notable for the very reason of being in certain notable television shows. And cast categories are usually not appopriate for the very good reasons given in WP:OCAT. DHowell 02:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect - article provides information on when the individual was a member of the cast; however, I think this would be better treated in a box within the main article. I still don't think this is useful information on its own. Also do not categorize, to respect the wishes of editors above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - see Notable actors in Coronation Street for an example of how a "list of actors" can approach the state of an encyclopedic article. It's not great, but it's certainly more than a simple list of names. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take further redirect and merge discussions to the talk page of the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shortland Street cast members[edit]

Totally random. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Kariteh 21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what categories are for. --Sbluen 00:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a directory Corpx 01:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is NOT what categories are for. Over at CFD we spent months working on getting all the cast member categories listified. During discussions, we assured the people who maintained the categories that no information would be destroyed when the categories were removed and more detailed information could be added to the lists. PLEASE! don't delete these lists. If you do, people will start recreating the categories. This information makes much more sense as a list than as a category. I think it is impractical to say that cast lists should not have any home on Wikipedia. People will continue to add this information faster than we can remove it. Let it exist on lists. That is the most appropriate form this information can take. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, this stubby, random directory list should exist because there is a risk that people will create some inappropriate category elsewhere? I didn't know that it's how Wikipedia functions. If a category exists and shouldn't, it has to be deleted, that's all. Just because it can be tedious to do it repeatedly doesn't mean we have to violate WP:NOT and create a random directory list just to avoid this problem. Kariteh 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already a list of major & recurring characters in the main article for the show. This list adds no real value. JulesH 08:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the information exists elsewhere, I see no reason why this page should not be deleted. However, I very strongly oppose turning this back into a category. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. Using categories for cast members became a nightmare, as actors may perform in up to one hundred films and TV shows during their careers. The resulting block of category links at the bottoms of the articles for some actors became very difficult to read and use for navigation. Turning these lists back into categories would be highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not re-categorize. This is creating a vicious circle for information that should probably be included anyway. Circeus 09:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not categorize Cast lists should almost never be done as categories. Leave either as a list article or merge the cast list into the main article for the show. See WP:OCAT for why cast lists should not be done as categories. Dugwiki 16:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to the show article or a list of show characters. Since all-capital-letter links to a particular essay and certain policies seem to be all the rage right now in WP:AfD, let me say that WP:JUSTAPOLICY is no more a valid argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply stating that something is an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory" does not make it so. Nobody has presented any valid argument as to why a WP:LIST of WP:NOTABLE cast members in a WP:NOTABLE television show, which is WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ATTributable to WP:ReliableSources, is WP:NPOV and not WP:ORiginal research, would be considered an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory". A cast list is a well-defined, finite, list, which is a perfectly valid criteria meeting the WP:LIST guidelines, as typically television actors are notable for the very reason of being in certain notable television shows. And cast categories are usually not appopriate for the very good reasons given in WP:OCAT. DHowell 02:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect - article provides zero information, except that the person was a cast member on at least one show. It is therefore not encyclopedic; and any encyclopedic treatment you could provide for this list would be better off appearing in the main article (e.g. as a "cast" section for regular cast, and under a "trivia" section for special appearances). Also do not categorize, to respect the wishes of editors above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - see Notable actors in Coronation Street for an example of how a "list of actors" can approach the state of an encyclopedic article. It's not great, but it's certainly more than a simple list of names. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take further redirect and merge discussions to the talk page of the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! cast members[edit]

Totally random. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Kariteh 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what categories are for. --Sbluen 00:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is NOT what categories are for. Over at CFD we spent months working on getting all the cast member categories listified. During discussions, we assured the people who maintained the categories that no information would be destroyed when the categories were removed and more detailed information could be added to the lists. PLEASE! don't delete these lists. If you do, people will start recreating the categories. This information makes much more sense as a list than as a category. I think it is impractical to say that cast lists should not have any home on Wikipedia. People will continue to add this information faster than we can remove it. Let it exist on lists. That is the most appropriate form this information can take. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, this stubby, random directory list should exist because there is a risk that people will create some inappropriate category elsewhere? I didn't know that it's how Wikipedia functions. If a category exists and shouldn't, it has to be deleted, that's all. Just because it can be tedious to do it repeatedly doesn't mean we have to violate WP:NOT and create a random directory list just to avoid this problem. Kariteh 08:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are already cast lists on the main articles for each series (e.g. Yu-Gi-Oh! (first series anime)). There is no need to duplicate this information in a central list. JulesH 08:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the information exists elsewhere, I see no reason why this page should not be deleted. However, I very strongly oppose turning this back into a category. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. Using categories for cast members became a nightmare, as actors may perform in up to one hundred films and TV shows during their careers. The resulting block of category links at the bottoms of the articles for some actors became very difficult to read and use for navigation. Turning these lists back into categories would be highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens, do not categorize. Dr. Submilliter and Samuel have already explained why. Besides, if we delete it now, the information will become a bloaty part of Yu-Gi-Oh!, then a separate list etc. ad vitam aeternam! Circeus 09:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not categorize Cast lists should almost never be done as categories. Leave either as a list article or merge the cast list into the main article for the show. See WP:OCAT for why cast lists should not be done as categories. Dugwiki 16:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper JulesH, with a suggestion. There are cast lists for the various shows, yes? Are there any cast members left out of those lists? If so, put them in. No need to create little "list demons" for the casts of every show.--Ispy1981 16:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Improve it rather than deleting it.
Delete This type of information is better served and provides better context when incorporated into articles about characters. --Farix (Talk) 12:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete Not that I feel strongly about it, but I should point out that this isn't an indiscriminate list of information. The concept has worked for other articles, but if the layout can be done in a better way, then fine, redirect it. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to the show article or a list of show characters. Since all-capital-letter links to a particular essay and certain policies seem to be all the rage right now in WP:AfD, let me say that WP:JUSTAPOLICY is no more a valid argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply stating that something is an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory" does not make it so. Nobody has presented any valid argument as to why a WP:LIST of WP:NOTABLE cast members in a WP:NOTABLE television show, which is WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ATTributable to WP:ReliableSources, is WP:NPOV and not WP:ORiginal research, would be considered an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory". A cast list is a well-defined, finite, list, which is a perfectly valid criteria meeting the WP:LIST guidelines, as typically television actors are notable for the very reason of being in certain notable television shows. And cast categories are usually not appropriate for the very good reasons given in WP:OCAT. DHowell 02:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Listcruft is just an essay, but it applies here. This list only contains links to other articles, it seems to be a replacement for a deleted category without enough context to stand as its own article, and the information already exists in Yu-Gi-Oh! (second series anime)#Voice Actors, Yu-Gi-Oh! (first series anime)#Seiyū, etc. only much better written. Also, there isn't a lead with a clear criteria for inclusion - is the list only for actors who voice main characters, or for everyone who has done voices for the show, even "Duelist #2" or "Boy in pink shirt"? Does it include English or Japanese voice actors? (It seems like both, just thrown together.) Is it for actors from the first series, or the second series? --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 04:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could be a category, but it is not an article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect - article provides zero information, except that the person was a cast member on at least one show. It is therefore not exncyclopedic; and any encyclopedic treatment you could provide for this list would be better off appearing in the main article (e.g. as a "cast" section for regular cast, and under a "trivia" section for special appearances). Also do not categorize, to respect the wishes of editors above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take further redirect and merge discussions to the talk page of the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Park cast members[edit]

Totally random. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Kariteh 21:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to South Park article into proper sub-section with this list (if not done already)JForget 22:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a directory Corpx 01:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect/merge, as it does concern a noteworthy show and many of the individual cast members have appeared in other cultural outlets, too. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt that what categories are for? Corpx 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an article allows for the oppportunity for text to be added to better show linkage and for ready-made references, too. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Over at CFD we spent months working on getting all the cast member categories listified. During discussions, we assured the people who maintained the categories that no information would be destroyed when the categories were removed and more detailed information could be added to the lists. PLEASE! don't delete these lists. If you do, people will start recreating the categories. This information makes much more sense as a list than as a category. I think it is impractical to say that cast lists should not have any home on Wikipedia. People will continue to add this information faster than we can remove it. Let it exist on lists. That is the most appropriate form this information can take. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia simply isn't a directory. How can this list be justified? Kariteh 08:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any notable members to South Park characters. JulesH 08:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the information exists elsewhere, I see no reason why this page should not be deleted. However, I very strongly oppose turning this back into a category. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. Using categories for cast members became a nightmare, as actors may perform in up to one hundred films and TV shows during their careers. The resulting block of category links at the bottoms of the articles for some actors became very difficult to read and use for navigation. Turning these lists back into categories would be highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens, do not categorize. Dr. Submilliter and Samuel have already explained why. Circeus 09:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not categorize Cast lists should almost never be done as categories. See WP:OCAT for details. Dugwiki 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Work on it instead of deleting it. --Hemlock Martinis 18:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into South Park article. It's not that many names, and only the most notable should be listed anyway. Bulldog123 04:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Salt and Merge into South Park. I see no point to a separate list. The main article should handle it. Noroton 01:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to the show article or a list of show characters. Since all-capital-letter links to a particular essay and certain policies seem to be all the rage right now in WP:AfD, let me say that WP:JUSTAPOLICY is no more a valid argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply stating that something is an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory" does not make it so. Nobody has presented any valid argument as to why a WP:LIST of WP:NOTABLE cast members in a WP:NOTABLE television show, which is WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ATTributable to WP:ReliableSources, is WP:NPOV and not WP:ORiginal research, would be considered an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory". A cast list is a well-defined, finite, list, which is a perfectly valid criteria meeting the WP:LIST guidelines, as typically television actors are notable for the very reason of being in certain notable television shows. And cast categories are usually not appropriate for the very good reasons given in WP:OCAT. Furthermore, "delete and merge" is not a valid argument either, as deletion of the history of merged content violates the GFDL by destroying the attribution required by that license. DHowell 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect - article provides zero information, except that the person was a cast member on at least one show. In this case, the article isn't even exhaustive, as there is no George Clooney (who played a dog in one episode) or Robert Smith (who played himself). As it is nothing but a list, this list could well appear under the show itself. Also do not categorize, to respect the wishes of editors above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take further redirect and merge discussions to the talk page of the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Final Fantasy cast members[edit]

Not sure what's up with it but a bot created this article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Kariteh 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This would have been easier if these "CFD maintenance" bots would link to the CFD decision they claim to be implementing. As far as I can tell, there was a mass-CFD for all Actors by series categories in January 2007, for which the long-winded decision concluded "delete any category on this list after a suitable list has been created and several interested people agree that this is a suitable alternative" (emphasis in the original), and also to rename all the categories from "actors" to "cast". It then appears that sometime around April 2007 RedWolf decided to use his bot to create crappy lists and to then delete the categories without seeking several interested people to determine that the list was a suitable alternative. IMO, RedWolf's action did not respect the original CFD decision. Anomie 22:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, my "vote" is for Recreate Category:Final Fantasy cast members until someone creates a list here that actually respects the CFD decision, although I suspect deletionists would re-CFD it before that actually happens. Anomie 22:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The recreation of deleted content is highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So is the deletion of content against consensus. Anomie 12:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The possibility of recreation is not a valid argument. See WP:BHTT. Kariteh 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't worry about the category. The Final Fantasy series has a broad, ever-shifting voice cast, and the core development cast is already prominently linked whereever relevant. This single list would bring together the cast and development staff of a dozen plus games, and you know when you've got a list with many people who never worked together in the same place at the same time that it's overbroad. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, which says WP is not a directory Corpx 01:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Final Fantasy (series), because this list concerns one of the most enduring and popular video game systems in video game history and so it is likely that readers will be interested in this kind of information, even if some find it obscure. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User interest should not be a concern when it violates policy Corpx 02:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't things like NOT, not policies, but guidelines? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go take a look at the top of the WP:NOT page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list, as currently constructed, is useless. I could buy the concept if the list detailed who they voiced, what games, etc, but a bare list of names does not add to the project at all. Resolute 03:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over at CFD we spent months working on getting all the cast member categories listified. During discussions, we assured the people who maintained the categories that no information would be destroyed when the categories were removed and more detailed information could be added to the lists. PLEASE! don't delete these lists. If you do, people will start recreating the categories. This information makes much more sense as a list than as a category. I think it is impractical to say that cast lists should not have any home on Wikipedia. People will continue to add this information faster than we can remove it. Let it exist on lists. That is the most appropriate form this information can take. I don't think that WP:NOT applies to these lists. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, this stubby, random directory list should exist because there is a risk that people will create some inappropriate category elsewhere? I didn't know that it's how Wikipedia functions. If a category exists and shouldn't, it has to be deleted, that's all. Just because it can be tedious to do it repeatedly doesn't mean we have to violate WP:NOT (this list is an indiscriminate list of information) and create a random directory list just to avoid this problem. Kariteh 08:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the referenced CFD. The list was created because someone wanted to delete the category, and by creating this useless list they only had to ignore half of the CFD resolution instead of all of it. Anomie 12:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not an indiscriminate list of information. It lists the people who have performed on this particular show, and if cleaned up and annotated, it could be a useful supplement to the main article on the show. Also, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. Using categories for cast members became a nightmare, as actors may perform in many films and TV shows during their careers. The resulting block of category links at the bottoms of the articles for some actors became very difficult to read. Turning these lists back into categories would be highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, this isn't a show. It's a video game series. Each different video game has completely different characters and therefore voice actors. It's a different concept to television shows, or a singular game. --Teggles 09:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens, do not categorize. As explained above, this is neither quite "indiscriminate information" by any definition of the term, nor information that can readily stand anywhere else. Circeus 09:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it stands now, this list is as pointless as a page listing the ingredients in, say, Pepsi would be. I don't why, though, the page couldn't be turned into a proper list, showing what their roles were, which language edition, etc. But that would have to be done, of course. Leaving it as it is is a waste. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not categorize Cast lists should almost never be done as categories. Leave either as a list article or merge the cast list into the main article for the show. See WP:OCAT for why cast lists should not be done as categories. Dugwiki 16:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable list to me. Just needs work. --Hemlock Martinis 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly unnecessary list of stuff with no context, other than the fact that it's a list of voice actors who played in FF games, without the names of the characters they played, and from what games they come. As it is now, this has no purpose, especially when one can and should look at the articles for Advent Children, Dirge of Cerberus, Final Fantasy X, et al, for the cast and credits for the games (and movie). Maikeru 18:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not a useful or necessary intersection of data. Individual cast is more practical but those can be found in numerous other places (I can think of MobyGames which does a nice job of including profiles on what projects certain people have been involved in). Axem Titanium 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of Final Fantasy voice actors; or merge and redirect to the video game series article or a list of characters. Since all-capital-letter links to a particular essay and certain policies seem to be all the rage right now in WP:AfD, let me say that WP:JUSTAPOLICY is no more a valid argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply stating that something is an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory" does not make it so. Nobody has presented any valid argument as to why a WP:LIST of WP:NOTABLE voice actors in a WP:NOTABLE video game series, which is WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ATTributable to WP:ReliableSources, is WP:NPOV and not WP:ORiginal research, would be considered an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory". A cast list is a well-defined, finite, list, which is a perfectly valid criteria meeting the WP:LIST guidelines, as typically actors are notable for the very reason of being in certain notable television shows, films, and video games. And cast categories are usually not appopriate for the very good reasons given in WP:OCAT. DHowell 02:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to voice actors, and cleanup as per DHowell. It's a factual list that can very easily be complete; while it should obviously be better organized (by game is probably a good start), there's nothing harmful about it, and it's not indiscriminate. If Wikipedia is going to have this information - which I don't see why not - then a list is far preferable to a category. SnowFire 04:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect - article provides zero information, except that the person was a cast member on at least one show. It is therefore not encyclopedic; and any encyclopedic treatment you could provide for this list would be better off appearing in the main article (e.g. as a "cast" section for regular cast, and under a "trivia" section for special appearances). DHowell and SnowFire, my reasoning is that any article on Wikipedia should be externally verifiable, notable, and not copyvio or libel; but also, that it should be encyclopedic, i.e. that it a topic deserving of independent treatment, that can be presented as if it were in an encyclopedia. I do think lists can be encyclopedic, and I do think they can stand on their own sometimes - but I feel this article fails those tests. Feel free to disagree. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - see Notable actors in Coronation Street for an example of how a "list of actors" can approach the state of an encyclopedic article. It's not great, but it's certainly more than a simple list of names. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take further redirect, renaming, and merge discussions to the talk page of the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo cast members[edit]

Totally random. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Kariteh 21:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what categories are for.--Sbluen 00:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with category. Andre (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Keep as per category discussions. This information is valuable in some format. Andre (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a directory in WP:NOT] Corpx 01:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I question if calling them Ninendo Cast members is even accurate. The main criteria seems to be that they have done voice work for a Nintendo related product. Many of these people have done work for other shows with no connection to Nintnendo whatsoever. seems useless. --69.156.205.225 05:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - List of loosely assosiated topics per WP:NOT Corpx 09:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is NOT what categories are for. Over at CFD we spent months working on getting all the cast member categories listified. During discussions, we assured the people who maintained the categories that no information would be destroyed when the categories were removed and more detailed information could be added to the lists. PLEASE! don't delete these lists. If you do, people will start recreating the categories. This information makes much more sense as a list than as a category. I think it is impractical to say that cast lists should not have any home on Wikipedia. People will continue to add this information faster than we can remove it. Let it exist on lists. That is the most appropriate form this information can take. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These pages should be salted if people keep recreating it. We shouldn't keep pages that violates policy for fear of recreation. Corpx 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I very strongly oppose turning this back into a category. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. Using categories for cast members became a nightmare, as actors may perform in up to one hundred films and TV shows during their careers. The resulting block of category links at the bottoms of the articles for some actors became very difficult to read and use for navigation. Turning these lists back into categories would be highly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 08:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens, do not categorize. Dr. Submilliter and Samuel have already explained why. Besides, this information will eventually be re-added (and it's not likely it's entirely irrelevant. Look at the almost obsessive list of Voice actors maintained in Anime fandoms). Circeus 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, other crap exists. Kariteh 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - clearly violates WP:NOT#LINK #2 "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages ... and for structured lists". Alternately, perhaps this could be turned into a navigation aid like that used for characters? That would retain the same association without wasting a category and/or article on it. Garrett^Talk 11:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a structured list. Granted, it's not very well structured right now, but that can be improved (as you suggested), and an article which can be improved should not be deleted just because it hasn't been improved. WP:SOFIXIT! DHowell 02:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Sam and also because of the popularity and influence of Nintendo. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not categorize Cast lists should almost never be done as categories. Either delete altogether, leave as a list article or merge the cast list into the main article for the show. See WP:OCAT for why cast lists should not be done as categories. Dugwiki 16:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of Nintendo voice actors or List of actors appearing in Nintendo video games; or merge and redirect to List of video games published by Nintendo or List of Nintendo characters. Since all-capital-letter links to a particular essay and certain policies seem to be all the rage right now in WP:AfD, let me say that WP:JUSTAPOLICY is no more a valid argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply stating that something is an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory" does not make it so. Nobody has presented any valid argument as to why a WP:LIST of WP:NOTABLE voice actors in a WP:NOTABLE video game series, which is WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:ATTributable to WP:ReliableSources, is WP:NPOV and not WP:ORiginal research, would be considered an "indiscriminate list" or a "directory". A cast list is a well-defined, finite, list, which is a perfectly valid criteria meeting the WP:LIST guidelines, as typically actors are notable for the very reason of being in certain notable television shows, films, and video games. And cast categories are usually not appopriate for the very good reasons given in WP:OCAT. DHowell 02:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to failure to meet WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilos[edit]

There is no evidence that this program meets the notability criteria; prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 21:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no references or links that show notability. --Sbluen 00:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coherent assertion of notability. Someguy1221 04:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I don't understand why would you to delete this page? Could you more explain?. thededer 04:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It might be helpful for you to read the notability criteria; those are the criteria that all articles on Wikipedia must meet, and in this discussion, we're deciding whether or not this article meets that criteria. It's possible that it would also be helpful for you to carefully read our conflict of interest guidelines. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modifications Modification about notability will be included to the Wilos' description but I would like to say that your article defining them is not very explicit. It could have include some examples for people not used to write Wikipedia articles. It was not our intentions to make one bad.sadasblackmilk 00:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability proved Could you tell us the article is meeting global notability requirements or if there is something else to be changed. We'll be glad to do it. Thanks.sadasblackmilk 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think blogs and download links are notable. Macktheknifeau 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - The article fails to assert any notability. Download links should not be included, as Wikipedia is not for advertising and these links don't establish any notability. Blogs do not establish notability as a lot of editors here consider them non-verifiable, conflict-of-interest, and of low notability themselves. Most importantly, the article is not written in an encyclopedic tone, and does not provide any assertion of notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Coredesat. Non admin close. Whispe ring 11:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Jaxson[edit]

Cannot ascertaing any notability, fails WP:NN. Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No references for starters. Callelinea 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into band article since this person doesn't have the notability now Corpx 01:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep members of notable bands usually have an article. This one should get its chance, the band's article, and this one were only created a month ago. Ohconfucius 08:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vote change to delete apparently a hoax per User:Eliz81. Ohconfucius 06:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is part of a larger proposed deletion. Please see here for more information. Eliz81 18:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Village[edit]

This article asserts no notability; noone has written about Maple ,~~Story~~ Village outside of internet forums, as far as I can tell. It seems to be a forum for roleplaying, that noone cares about outside the community. It seems, infact, to be everything people say Gaia Online is when they put it up for AFD. If noone has a source for anything on the page, then it can't be verified and should be deleted. Spriteless 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as forumcruft. And if forumcruft doesn't exist, it does now. -WarthogDemon 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already inside Maplestory. Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 21:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Forums Corpx 01:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having checked search engines, reliable sources can't be found.--Kylohk 04:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per entire discussion above. Is forumcruft a word? Bearian 19:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, looked at site, is basiclly like every other forum, and btw, Bearian, forumcruft is "officially" a word after this article ;) --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN, NO DELETE OPINIONS -- Y not? 12:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gransden Lodge Airfield[edit]

NN airfield -- Y not? 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - former second world war bomber airfield - just needs more work on it. MilborneOne 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? Do we have mutliple non-trivial reliable sources about this airfield? -- Y not? 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - yes sources are available, but as this article is only three days old it just needs more work. At least one Canadian pathfinder squadron (405) operated from here and it later became a Mosquito base. Bomber Command lost 102 aircraft operating from this station - so they must have done something notable. MilborneOne 21:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let it be renominated later if it isn't improved. I think most WWII airfields have been involved in noteworthy events, and will justify articles if the work is devoted to them. DGG (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm not sure if it's good form to nominate an article for deletion within 14 days of its creation unless it's clearly non-notable, a hoax, a BLP problem, a copyvio, etc. Many editors are unfamiliar with userspace, and create documents bit by bit in the main space. A World War II airfield in Britain (as opposed to a training field in Kansas or Saskatchewan) may very well have some notability. --Charlene 00:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with doing so at all. It's more important to keep Wikipedia in check than to make it hard to people to make the effort to do that. Hawkestone 01:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I shall not be deterred :) -- Y not? 01:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RAF airfield. There are shelves full of books about this sort of thing. Hawkestone 01:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important RAF airfield with a wartime history Kernel Saunters 10:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 00:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Colorado Tornado Outbreak of 1990[edit]

Hoax. Helping the nominator create the subpage. -- Y not? 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC) -- Y not? 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The page's discussion page lists all tornadosin Colorado in 1990. There was not one on the supposed date. CraigMonroe 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No F5's have ever hit the state of Colorado -at least since 1950 perhaps never considering conditions are less favorable for F5's.--JForget 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete it Yes, there has been one F5 in Colorado, on June 11, 1990. I lived it. I am sorry to say but you are wrong. There WAS an F5, and the outbreak DID happened--Cgkimpson 25:57, 9 July 2007

Comment - ^{[citation needed]} please, this shows the map of tornadoes occuring on June 11, 1990, and they were all in the Dakotas or Minnesota and all were rated F0 and there were only 5 of them. --JForget 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of all Colorado tornados since 1950. note, not F5, and none on the date at issue. [4]CraigMonroe 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I found a map for tornadoes that hit Colorado but on June 6, 1990 and there only 9 tornadoes there and the strongest was an F3 west of Limon although Limon was hit by ... an F0. Still it fails notability even with the fixed date [5]--JForget 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense (G1). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schatzi Marketing[edit]

No claim of notability in article. Business has only been around two years. COI issues; contested prod. Kathy A. 20:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Lifestyle marketing? You can buy one of those? I'll take the eccentric billionaire please... ~ Infrangible 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. no evidence it passes WP:CORP. just 20 unique Ghits, nothing to write home about: either directory listings, piggybacking, or trivial mentions. Ohconfucius 08:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strongly. This agency specializes in cutting edge interactive content and integrated programs. If they can't describe what they do in more specific and concrete terms, they should abandon their current line of work and take up something more obviously useful, like providing integrated, cutting-edge janitorial services to barns and stables. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Also, one of the links, to the Sundance Channel, is a dead link requiring Flash. Bearian 19:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted (nn content) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce skate and ski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pierce skate and ski

Apparently this is a store. It doesn't appear to be a notable store. It has no references. It's been tagged for clean up since January, but it still isn't up to wiki-standards. I had considered renaming it Pierce Skate and Ski, so that it would comply with naming conventions, but I don't think it is worth the effort. Clerks. 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7, if Billy Joel ate at your Burger King that wouldn't make it notable. Burzmali 23:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by User:SirFozzie. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Taylor (wrestler)[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Article is a re-creation of the article deleted yesterday per the previous AfD. Article does not address the concerns of the previous AfD with regards to notability and sources to verify notability. CSD G4 tag was placed twice on article and removed. I left a not on the talk page requesting that before this article was to be recreated, to go to deletion review first to avail. Wildthing61476 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is clearly better than the previous one, the hack kid, who is new messaged me and I told him I would help him. Sources were added. More of Chuck Taylor working history was added. Over all it is a different newer article with more info on Taylor and why he is NOTABLE. The tag was removed when I added the HOLD ON Tag which you took it upon yourself to remove even though I was instructed to do so. It is a new more informative article and should not have to be discussed on the DRV. --EdWood 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Where are the reilable sources? I don't see anything that is different from this previous article as to now for a reliable source that confirms his notability. Also as I said before in the talk page, from {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck_Taylor_%28wrestler%29&diff=143565168&oldid=143564324} this edit, it appeard you removed the CSD, so please do not accuse me of removing tags. Wildthing61476 20:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't read anything I write, I ADMITTED the tag was removed when I used the hang on tag which you removed. And yes there are several more sources and articles linked to this than last time. --EdWood 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the sources I see listed, MySpace is NEVER a reliable source for one. The two Wikipedia articles that refer to the organization have been debated, and notability is NOT inherited, i.e., just because he works in one of those feds doesn't automatically make him notable. With regards to the other links, I'm not sure if match results are notable either. Wildthing61476 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should note that I absolutely agree that Chuck Taylor working in promotions with Wikipedia entries does not make him notable; no one should immediately be considered notable via association. However, the fact that he is an elite star in those promotions does make him notable, and to discredit him and his notability while knowing that fact is, quite frankly, ridiculous.--Matthewhack 21:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last thing, I'm going to let the AfD process play out here, I've said why i think he's not notable, you believe he is, so I respect the right to agreeably disagree on this. Wildthing61476 20:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a myspace doesn't make some one notable but several celebs ahve theirs listed as links. Articles noting his winning major indy championships are notable articels. Do any of us have online bios? No, he does. Yes, let us watch and see what happens. <3 --EdWood 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that this page should be maintained because it allows people to learn about wrestling. And it provides exposure for people who cannot garner it through the mainstream media, by using the internet as an way to provide info do not stifle it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mryan71689 (talk • contribs) — Mryan71689 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment, Wikipedia is not for people to garner exposure, it is for people who already have exposure (or notability, as some would call it). Wikipedia is not a wrestling fan site, but an encyclopedia for clearly notable individuals. Nikki311 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm recasting my vote from the previous AfD. Nikki311 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dear God almighty, was 50k of discussion not enough! No WP:RS, and now WP:COI spring to mind. Why do we need this to play out again, delete and salt until he does something worth writing about. Darrenhusted 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'd love to know how there are no reputable sources. OWW is widely considered to be one of the elite databases for wrestling information on the Internet. I've also taken time out to add some additional sources. Also, how has he not done something worth writing about? Regardless of your opinions on independent wrestling, IWA Mid-South (the promotion in which he has been heavyweight champion for nearly a year) is one of the more well known independent promotions around the world. The main thing holding them back from being a big time competitor on the same plateau as Ring of Honor is simply a combination between a less-than-desirable circuit (Plainfield, Indiana and Midlothian, Illinois are both very small towns), and the lack of a huge money source to fund them. The number of fans at a show has little bearing on their worldwide effect on the independent wrestling community, and simply because they don't have a major television deal does not make them un-notable.--Matthewhack 21:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Article is obviously about a person of notablity. References and Links are now included. Very well done. --EdWood 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep: I have gone through and added multiple valid sources from throughout the Internet. While some may question his notability, I have stated my case concerning said notability in my above comments. I find it hard to dispute that being a long term heavyweight champion in one of the most notable independent wrestling promotions in the world would make one a person notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia.--Matthewhack 21:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article is the exact same as last time, the sources you have added are not RS. The picture is still not fair use, like last time, [6] is a flyer, [7] is the same thing but on the CZW website, Youtube and myspace are not RS,

[8] mentions him in passing, [9] is just a results page, [10] and [11] is another results page. I get it he is a wrestler who has wrestled! So What? None of this establishes nontability, once this comment is finished I will gut the article to show you what you can prove about Chuck Taylor. Darrenhusted 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand that in most cases YouTube can not be considered RS. However, the source of the video is the official YouTube account of Chikara's Podcast-a-Go-Go, and the first place that the announcement of Team FIST taking Chuck Taylor for their King of Trios squad was announced. I fail to see how that would be a problem. Many of the other references contain information about his debut in other promotions (Chikara, IWA-MS, CZW, etc.). Also, it frustrates me that you're failing to take into consideration that he's more than just a "wrestler"; he's one of the bigger names on the independent circuit. IMO, there are many other articles that fall under the "professional wrestling" category that you should be focusing on, as it really seems to me as if there is no problem. The article will be reverted back, if you continue to remove my edits, I will be forced to report you for repeated vandalism.--Matthewhack 22:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is never a RS because posting it here violates copyright. This article has been deleted, recreating it was the error not me tidying up the article. Darrenhusted 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not know why you feel the need to attack people who disagree with you Darren.--EdWood 23:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is so obviously a violation of G4 I really am at my wits end as to why this was recreated, if the fanboys want a page then there are plenty of free sites out there, may I suggest Wordpad. I say delete it and take it to review and then watch as it gets an endorse. Darrenhusted 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by User:C.Fred. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Thompson[edit]

The creator of this article has intentionally mispelled Brooke Thompson as Brook Thompson, in order to avoid speedy deletion/redirection. Brooke "Pumkin" Thompson does not pass WP:BIO and thus should not have her own wikipage. She has done nothing of note other that lose two reality shows. Additionally, Brooke Thompson is alrady a redirect to the Flavor of Love page when spelled correctly. Gamer83 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete. Merge the relevant details as necessary and delete this article. Burzmali 20:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Speedy Delete patently fails the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:BIO. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but with a question Per nom, but: If Brooke Thompson already redirects, why bother AfDing this article? Since it is a common misspelling, I believe it is permissible to just redirect it, right? --Jaysweet 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Because while a redirect already exists at the correct spelling, there is no afd discussion there. By AfDing now, it prevents the article from being recreated there. Gamer83 21:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 02:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Welcheck[edit]

Person is not notable. Redrok84 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as ((db-band)), non-notable member of non-notable band. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoma County wineries[edit]

Listcruft. Better served by a category. Blueboy 96 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft for people with extremely good vision! Wikipedia is not a directory. --Charlene 19:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no reason to get rid of it. It is more then just a list of wineries and has a very good list of references. Callelinea 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Translation: WP:ILIKEIT. Not a valid argument for keeping an article. Blueboy 96 19:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that translates to ILIKEIT, then your reason translates to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not a valid argument for deleting an article. DHowell 03:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Compared to some of the lists I've run across, that one is downright pretty. I think it works as a list for now, but once the number of wineries with articles gets higher, half the list maybe, then turn it into a category. Burzmali 19:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article on legit topic perhaps a little short right now. If the list of wineries is a problem it can be removed, but the info on the wine region is totally appropriate. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know what's weaker here -- the argument for deletion or the arguments for keeping. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge intro and the 4 links to wineries with current articles with Sonoma Valley. "Sonoma County is home to more than 250 wineries" Do we need a list of all of them? WP:NOT a directory. Canuckle 20:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Those wineries that are sufficiently notable already have their own articles, those that do not are just receiving free advertising. People seem to forget that wineries are for-profit business enterprises too. Just making wine doesn't make a business notable. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of history in the wineries of Sonoma valley, such that any of the wineries started before 1940 are likely notable. The question is where to draw the line. If you start adding links to the individual wineries in the "root" article, it's going to force the move to a category when this list would suffice. I doubt many people browse Wikipedia to fine a winery. Burzmali 23:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're talking about a linking problem with just the wineries with articles, but linking only those ones (if they're not notable/don't have their own article, it's spam) shouldn't cause a problem. At least not one as bad as a directory of spam links. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that there is a lot of potential articles to be written on the older Sonoma Valley wineries. If we just keep adding them to Sonoma Valley as they are created, it will get ugly quickly. How about an article on the History of wine making in Sonoma Valley? That would satisfy the need to prevent the individual winery articles with some historical significance from becoming orphaned, and it keeps Sonoma Valley from getting crowded. Burzmali 00:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be what we have here. If you want to say this article's title can be improved upon, I wouldn't argue with you. I definitely think an article like this on a specific notable wine-making region should be kept. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either Sonoma Valley aor Sonoma County, CA per above.--JForget 22:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there were no list at the bottom of the article would we be really discussing this? Don't like the list, be WP:BOLD and edit the article. The subject is certainly notable, Sonoma County is a government-approved appellation for wine in the US, 27 Code of Federal Regulations 9.29, and appellations with their incident agribusiness are notable. Pleny of WP:RSes exist about Sonoma County's wine business. Carlossuarez46 23:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sonoma County as a region is very notable for its wines, but not very many of the wineries are really all that notable. Under the circumstances, I would opine that this list is better served by a category. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot follow the logic just above: it is precisely because most of them would not be notable enough for separate articles that a combination article like this is appropriate. The list portion can and should be expanded to provide more information than just the names. DGG (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article serves a definite purpose as stated just above. --Stormbay 01:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is specific and useful. --upzon 01:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)— Upzon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

NOTE Account created yesterday, only three edits. Blueboy 96 18:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just delete it. The article is just an exact c&p of the section in Sonoma County article, bar the laundry list, which fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY miserably, so there is no reason to keep it until the Sonoma County, California article is considerably expanded. Ohconfucius 08:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not just a list, it is an article with a list of items that are "associated with" the topic of the article. It is not a directory because the list does not provide information about how to find the wineries or contact the wineries (and is thus, not spam). The article itself could be expanded to include other information about the wine industry in Sonoma (including the explosion in the number of wineries in the last few years), but why would you move links to winery articles into the Sonoma County, California article? If this could/should be merged, perhaps it could go to Wine Country (California).--Tinned Elk 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just checked the history of this article. It was recently broken out of the Sonoma County, California to allow an article that would focus on the wineries of the county. I think it is unnecessary to delete it at this stage. Lots of work went into the list, formatting it this way to take up less room and leave a wealth of information for future development. I can see lots of work that could be done and the list is a good starting point. Certainly merging it back into the main article would be ridiculous. --Tinned Elk 02:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no vote but comment - This article should be kept if someone can tie in some text about some award winning wines. I am sure that there are some good ones from the county. The others in the list can serve as a list of potential articles. Either that or form a winery board, like they have in wikiproject -- where the names are red linked. Someone went through a lot of hard work typing the names, I think. Fineday 01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, several published books ought to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is a notable encyclopedic topic. Whether the list itself belongs in the article is an editorial decision outside the scope of AfD, but the article clearly should not be deleted. DHowell 03:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I think the list section could be pared down to notable wineries, preferably by an expert. However, the article above the list seems like a good first try at beginning a proper article on a specific and notable wine-producing region; I'd say the article is worthy of keeping, as it'll provide useful information once it's been improved upon. I think it also deserves to stay forked from the main Sonoma county article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Wicked (musical). Carabinieri 01:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Old Shiz[edit]

Article on very minor song in a musical, has no information apart from that it is the second song in the show, which is easily seen by looking at the list of songs on the Wicked page Mark E 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge and Redirect to Wicked. This article does not assert the notability of the song, and a few minutes' searching doesn't turn up any reliable sources asserting its importance or notability either. You'd think that a song in a Tony-Award-winning musical would have such a thing. --Charlene 19:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fails WP:MUSIC. A redirect will quash future attempts at re-creation. No need to merge to main article as everything in this article is in the main article. — MusicMaker 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above --omtay 38 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wicked (musical) per above. Not independently notable, not likely to ever become independently notable. This sort of thing can be boldly redirected without resorting to AFD. Otto4711 19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above discussion. I will have to give back my toaster oven for this one, girls. ;-) Bearian 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like redirect to Wicked (musical) would be sufficient enough. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 22:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riff (comics)[edit]

Non-notability. Might be better suited at Wiktionary. Konczewski 19:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Its just a definition of a word and violates WP:DICT Corpx
Detete, that's what Wiktionary is for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Burzmali (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:V. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Feels Good[edit]

Uncategorized stub article on a future Rascal Flatts album. I've searched and cannot find any verifiable info on this album besides the release date and lead-off single. Article has a bad case of WP:CRYSTAL right now; I say delete it until more info can be found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now and recreate when its released/reviewed etc Corpx 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it asserts it was released on the website. Bearian 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the single Corpx 20:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - info should be presented in the artist's article. Notability is not inherited; there is no independent source given that asserts notability anyway; and even if it gets written about in the press, it doesn't warrant forking from the artist's article until sufficient encyclopedic content exists. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was boldly redirected Ohconfucius; Non admin closure. John Vandenberg 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse McNally[edit]

Unsourced article about minor character in 2 episodes of the series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Already adequately discussed in Sunnydale High School students. Could be adequately covered by mention in Minor characters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer . Fails WP:N. Per WP:FICT: "Minor characters and minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." Edison 18:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:FICT. --Charlene 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont think this person qualifies as a major character Corpx 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; What They Said. Jesse has some claim to honorary "major character" status in that Whedon intended to put Eric Balfour's name in the opening titles of the first episode, to show that major characters are not exempt from risk of death (but an extra set of titles would have cost too much). But the fact remains that he is never(?) mentioned after the opening two-parter. —Tamfang 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; we have articles for characters with smaller roles in other projects.--Gonzalo84 02:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and is not a valid argument for keeping it. Should we have an article for every minor character in 20 years and 635 episodes of Gunsmoke? Presently there are not even articles for the main characters other than the Marshall. Notability is permanent. What should be the standard? Edison 04:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect boldly redirected to Sunnydale High School students#Jesse_McNally. There's usually a page for minor characters, and that's where this belongs. Ohconfucius 08:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take discussions of merging, etc., to the Talk page for the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of NYU Stern people[edit]

I don't get the point of this list...it's a list of past and present professors of a university? Sounds like it fails wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article does not even say what a "NYU Stern" is, which is annoying. If you're going to write an article about a university faculty (I'm assuming that's what it is?), you should use the full university and faculty name at the top of the article. --Charlene 18:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~It seems to be a list of notable people who have attended the Stern School of Business at NYU. I'd say merge into Stern School of Business; if there's any objection to that, delete.~~ Opinion changed; see below. Deor 19:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a category is much better at grouping alumns Corpx 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete, Merge the most notable into Stern School of Business, make a category for the rest and delete this list. Burzmali 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but:

the merge would be to List of New York University people There are a great many pages along this pattern, in the category Lists of people by university in the United States], all with both notable faculty & notable alumni. There are 3 for individual Colleges at NYU, but this does not seem to have been done for other schools, and I do not think it is a desirable innovation, even though the people named are exceptionally notable (half the faculty listed have won the Nobel prize) See the List of Harvard University People for a way to handle the resulting large lists.
On the other hand, if there should be other lists of this sort for other schools, we should consider at some more central location which way we want to go--I do not think lists by colleges within schools is a necessarily poor way to to it when the schools are as important as this one. DGG (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just compared the two lists, and everyone listed in List of NYU Stern people also appears in List of New York University people except for two: Adam Brandenburger and Fred Poses, both of whom lack WP articles. If anyone wants to add them to List of New York University people, please do so; but I'm changing my !vote on this list to delete as superfluous. Deor 03:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or create and merge into a category. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I think the list should be kept but merged with the article Stern School of Business. Callelinea 03:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a directory SamBC 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Star Trek planets: R-S#R. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rigel VII[edit]

Article makes no assertions of real-world notability and includes only plot summary (save for one piece of production trivia). The subject of the article appears in a single episode, mentioned in background chatter/set dressing in a couple of others. Had redirected page to List of Star Trek planets: R-S#R but FrankWilliams (talk · contribs) objects -- however, I don't accept being "mentioned" as equating to "deserving" to stay. I've brought it to AfD to either axe entirely or endorse redirect. I'd also support redirecting to the episode in which it does play a significant role ("The Cage (Star Trek)"). --EEMeltonIV 18:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Rigel in fiction. It's already mentioned there. --Charlene 18:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore EEMeltonIV's redirect Better dealt with in kind with the rest of the Rigel system in-universe and the myriad other planets covered there. No strong case for note in article and fewer/weaker refs in Rigel VII than in the R-S article. MrZaius^talk 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Requiem for Methuselah. Sr 13 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rayna Kapec[edit]

Article does not assert any real-world, out-of-universe notability, and the article is just a plot summary of the single episode in which the subject appears. Had redirected to that episode, but FrankWilliams (talk · contribs) undid that; bringing it to AfD to either axe article entirely or reach consensus to redirect. EEMeltonIV 17:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Character appears in one episode and does not pass WP:FICT. This kind of detail is fine for Memory Alpha but not for Wikipedia. --Charlene 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a major character Corpx 19:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the information in this article is already in Requiem for Methuselah, delete and redirect to the episode. Burzmali 20:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Burzmali. Too bad there's no James T. Kirk's women article, but I guess that would have been too long... Clarityfiend 20:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend and Burzmali. Bearian 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I was a newbie editor when I created the article; I don't think I should have created it, since the info is already in the episode's article. – Alensha ^talk 14:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, withdrawing my nomination, thanks to User:JulesH. NawlinWiki 14:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Whitaker[edit]

Young English equestrienne -- I don't think the few local awards mentioned in the article make her notable. No sources cited. Completing incomplete AFD listing. NawlinWiki 17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been speedily deleted for wp:nn. It doesn't even make any claims to notibility. Bendž|Ť 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it does make claims to notability -- it says she won first and second-place awards in English show-jumping competitions. That prevents this from being speediable. My argument is that the awards are minor and don't make her notable. NawlinWiki 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Non-notable. Speedy keep per JulesH, assuming he's added the sources to the article? ROGER ^TALK 18:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added sources to article, establishing notability. ROGER ^TALK 09:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:BIO yet. --Charlene 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it had sources my vote would change to keep. Callelinea 19:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Ranked 7th by the British Show Jumping Association for 2005-2006 (I don't have more recent statistics available). Reliable sources include [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Additionally, a game marketed using her name is apparently quite popular. JulesH 09:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have rewritten the page to take into account these sources. JulesH 09:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jacobs[edit]

Non-notable per WP:N or WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to non-notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. ROGER ^TALK 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont think this guy meets WP:PORNBIO Corpx 19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, If the article was edited to get rid of his penis size (I really do not think that should be en a encyclopedia) and if there was some newspaper or magazine article about him in particular, then I would change my vote to Keep. Also one photo of him would be enough.Callelinea 19:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to List of Rescue Me characters. Non admin closure. Jorvik 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Keefe[edit]

Non-notable per WP:FICT. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listed as a main character in List of Rescue Me characters, needs a cleanup though Recurring dreams 00:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) Major characters and major treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are covered in the article on that work.. Jeepday (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It certainly needs work but has a level of notability. --Stormbay 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Jeepday. ROGER ^TALK 18:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the show article. Corpx 19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Is it just me, or does the level of depth given to each and every character in that show border on WP:NOT#PLOT? Honestly, I see the whole set of articles working better merged into a few paragraphs per logical grouping and all of these little side articles deleted. Burzmali 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was histmerge to Williams Sassine (completed). We need to maintain the page history for GFDL compliance, and it's clear this all was created as an "accident," so there's not much point debating it. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Deshpande[edit]

I think Sandeep Deshpande has nothing to do with Williams Sassine. There was a redirect which I corrected. Williams Sassine now has his own page. I think somehow a prankster put Sandeep Deshpande's name at the top of the Wikipedia page for Williams Sassine. Mr Frosty 19:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what we have here, from a look at the page history, is Sanjeev dhir (talk · contribs) moving Williams Sassine to this location, leaving a redirect that I see the nominator has replaced. I think to preserve the edit history, the existent Williams Sassine article should be deleted, and this one renamed into its place. I think. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's obvious that we need to get rid of this article. The question is how to do that without losing the edit history. Moreover, the text that should be retained is the text currently at Williams Sassine, since that's clearly better. I, however, don't know the best way to do this. Could we move this article to William Sassine (which is a plausible misspelling of the author's name), change that to a redirect, and get the redirect created at Sandeep Deshpande deleted via RfD? Deor 00:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TPoX[edit]

Possible COI/spam (look at the username who created the article, and the ratio of external links to wikilinks. I found about 300 ghits on the subject, which is low for a term relating to XML, so I doubt the notability. Shalom ^Hello 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep until we can get expert advice on this topic, specifically. It seems to be notable. I welcomed the author/creator after he contacted me about my tag (with the wrong syntax, oops). I placed the tag (and fixed it) to get expert attention. I know a bit about HTML, Wikis, etc., but not anything more advanced. Can anyone out there help us? Bearian 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a new author on Wikipedia and in retrospect I regret the narrow choice of user name (can I change it?). Yes, TPoX is a relatively new benchmark but seems to contribute to an area of growing interest. If the number of ghits is a criterion for deletion then maybe it's too early to have this article on Wikipedia, and we can revisit at a later time. Both Intel and IBM have used this benchmark recently, so I thought this would be of interest. It was not my intention to create CIO or spam. As for the many wikilinks: I thought it's a good idea to show the relationship to related topics. I'm open to suggestions. --Tpox 17:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm a programmer and engineer and I have certainly heard of this benchmark, although I agree it is still relatively new and rare. Interesting paradox: no article until it gains acceptance but putting up an article and link references might help it gain acceptance? No strong assertions and I'm relatively new here, but I have heard of it. Kruglick 21:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other ways of gaining acceptance. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a means of gaining acceptance; see WP:SPAM. Morgan Wick 01:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:SOFTWARE. No reliable sources referenced to assert notability (other wikis certainly don't count). -- Kesh 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the basis of the references, which include good 3rd party references, and rename, which is easy enough when this is over. DGG (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References show it has been discussed at an ACM conference and has been the subject of a research paper. That sounds like enough to me. JulesH 09:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added one more external reference (from Marklogic). --Tpox 07:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per my tag, now deleted, which asked for expert assistance with this topic. See also above discussion by Kruglick and DGG. Bearian 20:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. XMark appears to be more notable, and there are other XML benchmark suites listed here, but this is the type of software where a few academic and/or real world uses should be enough to warrant inclusion in some form, whether that is an entire article or a section of a more general article. I removed the expert tag as there doesn't appear to be any specific problem with the article, and no query was raised on the talk page. John Vandenberg 07:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep due to updates and references added since nomination. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Business Communicators[edit]

No assertion of notability; no references. Shalom ^Hello 16:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a notable and respectable public relations association but the article needs help and sources in a big way. I'll see if I can spare some time in the next few days. Canuckle 23:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's similar to Public Relations Society of America. Canuckle 20:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- They are two separate organizations. PRSA focuses on media relations, while IABC focuses on communications strategy as a whole as well as online media.

Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 05:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Re: "original research": The current content is sourced from the association's official sites, which are acceptable sources about itself so long as the content is not unduly self-serving and meets other Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria. I'll poke around for some third-party sources when I have time. Canuckle 19:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've now flagged the creation of this AfD on the Talk page of the (relatively) new user who started the article. Canuckle 20:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Canuckle and Bearian have added sources and tidied up the article. John Vandenberg 06:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Originally, a conflicted mess, I'll work more on it, too, right now. Bearian 20:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knucklehead Zoo[edit]

Notability not established as per WP:ORG, article appears to be advertising, all edits from users with suspected conflicts of interest. Yamla 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a COI/vanity page, complete with the obligatory link to youtube. The assertions of notability (Star Search etc.) are sketchy. Shalom ^Hello 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as COI is not grounds for deletion. WP:ORG is not the right guideline for a dance troupe, these are entertainers. As such, they appear to me to be notable; not huge, but 2-time US Champs at BOTY would establish notability if it can be verified (I couldn't find mention of them at the BOTY web site). There are a few news hits out there, nothing really huge, but something. Capmango 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no news hits and everything that's been said about them is copied off their own website with quotes from non notables. Bendž|Ť 18:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A check of the competition's website (http://www.battleoftheyear.net/worldwide/pastevents/) confirms that in 2005 and 2006 Knucklehead Zoo won the USA and Canada qualifying round, but did not place in the competition itself. Burzmali 01:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted 12:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Les Sectes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:BK, since no independent coverage is known. Previous AfD resulted in "no consensus", with the keep arguments being mainly to "give the article more time to improve". More than half a year has passed since then; the only addition to the article is the section "Pieces a Conviction", which states that the work has been cited as a source of a TV documentary, Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous (but that's only one out of almost 20 sources of that documentary). -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book has been cited once, based on the information provided. The section on "parliamentary report" does not say that the book was cited in the official report, but merely that the book reprinted an obsolete list form the parliamentary report. That does not amount to notability. There seems no equivalent article in fr WP.DGG (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is English wikipedia. There is no article for this subject in fr.wiki, and unless the book has been translated into English, it will remain largely unknown in the English-speaking world Ohconfucius 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Cantonese profanity. Non admin closure. Jorvik 10:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puk Kai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a common term in Cantonese, but doesn't have much cultural significance on which we can write about. It has been nominated for deletion before. I cannot see why it should be kept. Those who are inclined to keep this please give specific reasons (how this article can be expanded etc). Cheers.--K.C. Tang 10:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and similar items to Cantonese profanity. Yes, I know it doesn't exist yet, time to create it; can be developed along similar lines as Latin profanity. The "Bad boys and bad language" paper cited in Puk Kai would be an excellent starting point for such a page. Last nomination rested on an invalid reason "not English, therefore shouldn't be in enwiki"; enwiki is the sum of human knowledge, not the sum of monolingual Anglophones' knowledge. Individual items of profanity seem to have trouble supporting their own pages; even Fuck, probably the most notable, is just a dicdef and a set of increasingly dubious theories about its etymology . cab 11:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions.

I think we share the same thoughts. Indeed I've been thinking of creating Cantonese profanity for some time. Cheers--K.C. Tang 01:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, we can create Cantonese profanity. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No compelling reason to overturn the first unsuccessful AfD. ~ Infrangible 02:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Just like there's no article for the insult "drop dead", just because an article for it exists in zh-yue:wiki doesn't justify its existence here as a dicdef. The article says all there is to be said about the term because its usage (as elaborated in the chinese article) would be impossible to translate correctly into English, so it's destined to remain a stub forever. Anyway, its part within Cantonese profanity would be encyclopaedic, IMHO. Ohconfucius 09:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motive for Movement[edit]

Non-notable + self-promotion: user "Motiveformovement" appears to have made most of the edits. I'm willing to bet that the creator of the article - "Sevendays487" - is also connected with the band. Hux 09:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:MUSIC. No sources except a MySpace page given, none likely to be found. --Huon 12:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete myspace promo, and COI are just the start. Darrenhusted 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability through media Corpx 20:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotion, fails WP:MUSIC.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Unreferenced, and doesn't even really claim notability. Precious Roy 09:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reshma Dordi[edit]

No sources, no assessment of notability. Prod tag was removed. Andrew_pmk | Talk 06:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stub article on minor local TV host who fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 08:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability Corpx 20:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Schiavi[edit]

Contested Prod (tag removed and no explanation given) and likely hoax, I feel. None of this is verifiable based on internet searches, including Mr. Schiavi as a carver [18], as an athlete [19], the existence of his father [20], the African architect [21], and the various churches (e.g. St. Aurthor Williams [22]). Slp1 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation it appears that the creator and only editor is one Joey Schiavi who was also born on September 12 but 100 years later (to the day) than Joseph Schiavi: see User:Wlwfb10. --Slp1 13:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete smacks of genealogy. Unverifiable (per the nominator) assertion of notability per WP:BIO. Eusebeus 08:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V let alone WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 18:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this juvenile hoax. Deor 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been tag with speedy delete. ShoesssS^Talk

comment: I think there is a claim to notability here, and articles can't be speedied for being a suspected hoax, so I believe Prod was the way to go. Or at least that is my understanding of things--Slp1 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MarketSimplified[edit]

Fails WP:CORP...non-notable company. On its face, appears to be a viable article (hence I don't think speedy), but the cites aren't actually RS or as claimed: the forbes one is actually just a PR piece from the company and the interview does not appear to be about the company. DMacks 01:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way a RS is published in today's copy of Chicago daily herald's business column which could have been the reason for the this entry, also if you checkout about link, the interview is fact of the CEO of the parent company, IMO this should not be discriminated against for being a niche/small search engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.167.194 (talk)

Delete - no real showing of notability, either through WP:CORP or WP:WEB. The Chicago Daily Herald article is not about this company in chief; it appears as a single-paragraph item in a bullet list at the foot of the column, that may represent only an excerpt from a press release. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Dhartung | Talk 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged and redirected The Evil Spartan 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hit & Run[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hit & Run

Not notable enough to have an independent article, although it is a very interesting and though-provoking blog, suggest merge to Reason (magazine). Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. If you wanted to merge in the first place, see WP:MERGE.--trey 01:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a less chatty summary of the material to Reason (magazine). Winning one award isn't real notability and there isn't much that's been written about it that I can find. --Dhartung | Talk 09:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Reason (magazine), then redirect to Hit and run. Resolute 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I was about to close this AFD as merge, but I noticed that the page never had an AFD notice on it. As such, I am letting it go for a few more days to give the creator a chance to respond. The Evil Spartan 13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' to Hit and run 132.205.44.5 22:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Anas ^talk? 23:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yojas[edit]

Several fictional species for the trading card game Draim arena. No sources for any of them, not even the Draim web page itself, making them unverifiable. Google turns up Wikipedia mirrors almost exclusively. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disians. Huon 13:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Otto4711 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tear down the wall. Darrenhusted 20:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Card game Corpx 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Yojas has too few Ghits (8), see [23], as does Vareens (2) [24]. Bearian 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Rome (TV series). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rome (TV series) production[edit]

Redundant page. The page either contains names of people who are unlikely to get articles under notability criteria - costume designers etc. - or writers and directors. The latter are listed in "at a glance" manner (apparently the article's intention) on the main page Rome (TV series) in the episode list, and many feature in the infobox. Therefore, there is little information on this page (that isn't non-notable) that isn't on the main one, so no need for a merge. Also, I haven't seen any other production list on Wikipedia, presumably because they fail WP:NOT. More suited to IMDb, surely? HornetMike 16:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. It looks as though this might have been split from the parent article Rome (TV series), which is in the process of being tidied up. Unfortunately, as often seems to happen when excess information is forked from an article, the result is a non-notable article EyeSerene^TALK 11:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge it back because its in violation of WP:NOT directory Corpx 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge, because it does concern a multi-season show and is encyclopedic information, but probably could be in the main article. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Director and Writer are already in the table of episodes, so that's done, and I'd like to have the series creators with a sentence or two at the start of the Production sub-section, then a paragraph at the end of the subsection mentioning historical consultant, costume designer, etc. These positions are more notable than other TV shows considering the vast effort at recreating the city and people, and there is alot of info on the production at the HBO site. I will attempt this in the next few days. Lipsticked Pig 21:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Video Professionals[edit]

No assertion of notability. Seems like a COI. —« ANIMUM » 20:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a self promotional article (per COI) which was created and largely written by the organisations Treasurer (third down). No third party sources referenced. LessHeard vanU 21:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so obviously just and ad. Darrenhusted 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Group Corpx 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion or citation of notability.-Markeer 21:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Goodger[edit]

Submitting for deletion as the article is a blatant vanity page that fails WP:BIO and lacks multiple non-trivial sources. Waste of space. Burntsauce 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lead developer of Mozilla Firefox browser. Also, tone of nomination doesn't sound like a good-faith nom. Lurker (talk · contribs) 17:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Passes WP:BIO ("The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work"), adequate references - although some of the links appear to be invalid, the articles are there if you search for them. The article needs de-vanitizing, but the subject meets the guidelines. Tevildo 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you cite reliable sources that demonstrate this person is actually known and responsible for these significant projects? The article is a borderline WP:BLP failure right now. Being the "lead developer" of any given software project does not automatically make you notable, nor does it allow you to ignore content policies. Burntsauce 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The NZ Herald article [25] seems OK to me - if we can find a fixed URL for it, it should be included in the references. Firefox is a "significant or well-known work". The fact that the article can be improved isn't grounds for its deletion if the notability of the subject is established. Tevildo 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may want to read WP:COATRACK. If the best we can do is "A is the lead developer of B" then we should delete and redirect the article to B. Burntsauce 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the best-known working programmers in the world (due to his association with a popular browser). Sources abound (200+ more). One of two programmers heavily associated with publicity for the Firefox launch (not always to everyone's happiness). --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this person has played a major role in the development of a well-known work, but the article seems to just be a link farm to vanity sites about the person. The article doesn't really have any "meat" to it concerning the argument about this being a major developer behind firefox. Even if the article had more to do with this person’s history and how he eventually helped developed firefox, I would give it a weak keep.Redrok84 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep needs more refs and significant coverage. Darrenhusted 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I'm sure the claims about this individual's notable accomplishments may be true, they are not verified in independent, third-party sources. If no such sources are provided, he does not meet WP:BIO notability guidelines. Simply saying that the sources exist and not linking them here or adding them to article does not fly. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. If those links are sources, they needed to be in the proper section (References). External links is only for links to content not suitable for the article. If someone had gotten this right the first time, we probably wouldn't have had to do this useless AFD to begin with. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find it strange that the developer of Firefox, through which half of us are reading this page, can be deemed non notable. There's now sources about him from CNET news etc. Frankly it's this AfD which is the waste of space. Nick mallory 23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick Mallory. Darrenhusted 23:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crush (Amerie song)[edit]

Unsourced and speculation-filled article about an Amerie song that it claims will be released as a single; I couldn't find anything on her official websites or MySpace page, or in other reliable souces, that suggest this is the case. Also nominating (for the same reasons):

Extraordinary Machine 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Articles can be re-created if and when the songs are actually released as singles. Precious Roy 10:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crush, er, delete. There's no guarantee that these singles will ever become popular. Shalom ^Hello 02:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotting nose disease[edit]

There is no record of this disease or the protozoan Ocimita anywhere outside of wikipedia Bendž|Ť 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely WP:HOAX. Something smells fishy. The reference and external link don't lead anywhere useful. Clarityfiend 17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either a hoax or a seriously confused article author. "The genus is one of three genera which make up the phylum Chordata"? Feeding garlic to sick fish? Deor 19:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This apparently is a disease of oscars similar to hole in the head disease, but I couldn't find anything to support its existence on the internet. An inquiry over at the science reference desk gave a possible solution to this: it could be someone's name for head and lateral line erosion disease. This article is currently helping no one, since it is unlikely anyone would search for it under that name, and the details are too vague to rename it to anything else. --Joelmills 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, or at least uselessly inaccurate information given a non-existent name of a disease caused by a non-existent protist. One editor attempted to contact the creator of this article [26] to clarify the facts, but no clarification ever happened. Neil916 (Talk) 03:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Hole in the head disease. Could just be a different and less common name for the same disease which already exists as an article at hole in the head disease. Or could be a hoax trying to make a parody of hole in the head disease. But in any case it should be redirected to HHD to prevent future confusion. --Melanochromis 03:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OMG, I thought you were joking, but there really is such a thing as hole in the head disease. Should I add to the article that that certain politicians are also extremely susceptible to this disease? Clarityfiend 06:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might be possible that the author was confused with the article similar to the one above. nearly the same contents were at the hole in the head article Shinhumcho

Delete. I write about freshwater fish for a living, and I've never heard of this disease. It sounds like Hole-in-the-Head though... perhaps a flawed translation from another language. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Travesser[edit]

AfDs for this article:

There is not enough reliable source coverage independent of Michael Travesser to write a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts about Michael Travesser. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wp:nn. Bendž|Ť 17:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. ROGER ^TALK 18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability seems to be primarily local. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even formatted properly, non notable. The keepers in the first AfD didn't even try to improve the article and the first AfD has two unsigned keep comments. Darrenhusted 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it was verifiable I would say keep. Callelinea 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Mantanmoreland 23:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The trouble with sourcing mentioned in nom is very valid. Besides Travesser's website, only sources are mentions on some anti-cult sites. It's basically impossible to glean some reliably verifiable facts about the basics of this man's life from these kind of sources. The last AFD is something of a joke; only a few people commented, and they did not argue persuasively from a policy standpoint. --C S (Talk) 00:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, I agree. When I first saw this site on Wiki about me (Michael Travesser) it was entirely made up of false reports by your so-called "source material." I removed the false information and replaced it with the actual facts. I also removed the false source material that seemed very fine to you before. Now you say there is no source material because there are now no false reports written. BBC is doing a movie about our land, but then you would say that is not source material either since it would mostly show us reporting on ourselves. I vote to delete. There is already too much information about us on the Web from all kinds of sources, and most of it is erroneous. If wikipedia bases most of its information on its pages based on these kinds of "sources" I would dare to say the encyclopedia is pointless.

Secondly, the man who did the original protest against this article not having sources is a Seventh-day Adventist. Adventists have a vested interest in getting me out of the spotlight because I was once an Adventist minister and left the Adventist church in protest. There have been other efforts by the Adventists to eliminate me from the public, even using a false charge of child molestation. Mormons would like to eliminate any bad publicity for themselves and Adventists are no different. I only have bad publicity so it makes no difference to me. :-) 1:42 July 10, 2007 CST Michael Travesser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.165.135.218 (talk • contribs)
Delete, though without prejudice. If reliable sources (books or news stories) turn up on him, then I'd be fine with an article. --Delirium 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An IP address identifying himself as the subject of this article, and I tend to believe it is, has asked that this article be deleted. See deletion vote above from User:65.165.135.218. WP:BLP says: "When closing AfDs about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. There is no consensus as to the weight that should be placed on the subject's wishes, so this is left to the discretion of the closing admin."--Mantanmoreland 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 20:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Coated Chaos[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC, no WP:RS to indicate notability. Leuko 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Leuko 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a famed record label, Neutone Records doesn't get very much online play - 275 hits. The band doesn't inspire much in the way of reliable sources either. Delete. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete, no notability, no independent references, probable spam. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modena Vox[edit]

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they were signed to a notable label, I'd be more hesitant to say delete. Looks like they're heading in the right direction, though - the press coverage is marginal leaning towards good, but with one (apparently) self-released CD, they're not quite into range of meeting WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They seem poised to qualify for notability but there's very little non-trivial press coverage from WP:RS out of all of those references. Precious Roy 10:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futures in Biotech[edit]

Non-notable podcast per WP:WEB. Videmus Omnia 17:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this could definitely be deleted using ((db-web)), in the tag it says "It is an article about a web site ... webcomic, podcast, or similar web content that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it for Speedy Delete Corpx 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into new article Elmos Semiconductor. Non admin closure. Jorvik 09:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon microstructures inc[edit]

Non-notable subsidiary of a semiconductor company. Contrary to opinions expressed on the talk page, I do not think that it passes WP:CORP: No secondary sources are given, and none have been added since the notability warning was put on in Nov 06. Article was created by an WP:SPA. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 21:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The parent company does not have an article on the English Wikipedia, so there is currently no place to merge the imformation to. --B. Wolterding 22:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I would add that article doesn't assert the subject's notability. -- Futurano 20:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Helle66 (a SPA on the English Wikipedia, but not on the German one, though without very many edits) made a case for keeping it on the talk page, but was not notified of the discussion. I have notified this user on both Wikipedias. Tualha (Talk) 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've googled around and, though there are a lot of hits, it doesn't seem any more notable than a million other companies. Plus it was created by an SPA who hasn't done anything with it in months, and it has pretty much died on the vine. Replying to Helle66's point on the talk page, notability in Germany doesn't mean it needs an article in the English Wikipedia; it means it needs one in the German Wikipedia. Tualha (Talk) 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of secondary sources exist on Google News, and the parent company is even more notable. At worst it should be upmerged into an article about the parent company, which I am happy to do if nobody else has a problem with that approach. John Vandenberg 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same opinion as John, including the upmerging to a parent as an option. If you want to do so, I think this will be the best solution. Thanks to Tualha for my notification. --Helle66 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of solo piano pieces, Italian[edit]

Same rationale as List of solo piano pieces, English - it's unmaintainable and a possible WP:COI violation. Crystallina 16:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per unmaintable list Corpx 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article about the English thing is already deleted. -- Magioladitis 06:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Eve of Destiny. Non admin closure. Jorvik 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haruhiko Ash[edit]

Haruhiko Ash fails the notabilty test. He is a member of a barely notable (if that) band called Eve of Destiny and he seems to have made the acquaintance of various famous people in this genre of music - but that doesn't make him notable. Only one release not on a compliation disk and it was on a minor label. I couldn't find any information proving the notability of his earlier band, the Zolge, either. Jayran 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know who he is, but according to Google lots of people do and are very interested in him. He even has his own fanclub. http://ash.delirious-jellyfish.net/ Seems notable to me.MightyAtom 04:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A google search of "Haruhiko Ash" OR "Ash Haruhiko" yields only 1,450, which is not a lot compared to over 500k for an obscure band like Godspeed You! Black Emperor. Also, from what I understand, google searches are not reliable for an AfD. Amazon Japan lists no CDs by his band; Oricon, the Japanese music charts, has no mention of them; I searched "Eve of Destiny" in the Japanese wikipedia and only got one hit - as a member of another band belongs to the group "Eve of Destiny" now, and I haven't found any actual reliable sources about him or his band. For having a supposedly big fanbase, there is no coverage of him or his band in the media. This article has been tagged for a year and there are still no sources. EDIT: I just searched that fanlisting and it only lists 26 members. Jayran 05:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Technically, since Eve of Destiny is notable, that makes him notable. However, since the ~~article~~ stub is unreferenced (and has been tagged as such for over a year), I say redirect to Eve of Destiny. Precious Roy 08:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn — Non-admin close. John Vandenberg 08:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mengal[edit]

~~Not obviously notable and contents not verified.~~ Withdrawn. ROGER ^TALK 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I could not find any information on this at all. Fails WP:V --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google search of "mengal tribe" pakistan yielded news articles: asia times, bbc news, economist.com, satisfying both WP:N and WP:V ~ Infrangible 09:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) WP:N the Mengals are mentioned in passing in the context of newsworthy but not necessarily notable events. The first mentions Ataullah Mengal who is notable in his own right. (2) WP:V, none of the great detail in the Mengal article is verified other than that they are one of the smaller tribes in the Baloch provice of Pakistan. ROGER ^TALK 09:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're absolutely right. If we look hard enough, mainstream media does indeed provide more than enough material. ROGER ^TALK 14:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Notable and verifiable - article updated ROGER ^TALK 14:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Mengal[edit]

Not obviously notable and contents not verified ROGER ^TALK 15:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2007-04-01#Asif_Mengal --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local politician with no notability attached Corpx 20:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ROGER ^TALK 08:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge into Mengal. John Vandenberg 09:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfied. Sr 13 04:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VíaVienté[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article is a substantially different rewrite from the text considered in the first AfD, helpfully undertaken with aid of the closing admin thereof. DRV permitted its move into mainspace, with the suggestion that -- since notability concerns still exist even with the new article -- it be taken to AfD as well. Weak Delete, citing notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 15:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like a condensed version of the deleted article. It's nice that contributer trimmed the most obviously promotional material from this MLM, but it has no substantive RS coverage. Fails the GNAA test for notability (it cites, for example, a local TV show that merely mentions the existence of said product). Cool Hand Luke 15:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is still appalling spam, even as condensed. (Who cares that ViaViente paid Time for an advertisement or has held clinical trials? Successful clinical trials published in peer-reviewed medical journals are notable. The existence of clinical trials for a privately-held company are not.) The one puff-piece in the Dallas Morning News (which almost reads like a paid advertisement, rather than journalism) takes it to the cusp of notability, but not quite there, especially for a pyramid scheme with annual sales of $36 million. (I also wonder how that DMN article was found, given that there's no link to it on the craigkeeland website that it comes from, but that's neither here nor there.) THF 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I have worked tirelessly trying to make this article better. All I get from nay-sayers is constant complaining without suggestions on how to make things better. There is MORE than ample 3rd party documentation available. To Users Cool Hand Luke and TedFrank, I respectfully point out that your beef seems to be with MLM or network marketing companies (though ViaViente is not officially an MLM company) as opposed to this particular article. That is POV and, though I am fairly new to the editing world of wiki, I understand is not reason to cause for delete. Furthermore, for user TedFrank, I respectfully point out that your saying that the company is "a pyramid scheme with annual sales of $36 million" is incorrect. Some would even consider it libelous since a pyramid scheme is an illegal structure. If you have some beef with the business model of network marketing then that is your right, but it doesn't mean that the companies themselves are not noteworthy. I honestly have no idea what "promotional" ideas you are talking about. Everything is dated as to when pieces premiered. It is not a commercial, it is a expose.Arnabdas 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N. That the article verges on incoherence in some places and is unintentionally humorous in others (I especially like the "management team" that consists of a single guy) doesn't help matters. Hell, it doesn't even say what the company's product is. Deor 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was ample information on the product, but people deleted it. It is pretty frustrating trying to work with people who do not offer productive suggestions. I was editing it all in my own section several weeks ago. Then all of a sudden without me knowing I see today that it was moved to the main wikipedia. It should be given a chance to be made better, not deleted.Arnabdas 21:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your query on my talk page: The two sections that I deleted were the ingredients and the endorsements, both spam. Sr 13 02:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give me a guideline to follow so we can improve the article. Although he is a very satisfied customer and that was his motivation to highlight the company, Terry Bradshaw's piece on MSNBC wasn't an advertisement. It was a spotlight, which is different. Therefore it should be included. Also, could you give me the basis on what grounds you called both of them spam i.e. the official wiki policy guidelines that I may read up on so we may improve the article (as opposed to irrational and IMO hasty deletion) and not allegedly violate wiki procedures? Thanks.Arnabdas 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Bradshaw promoted (i.e. endorsed) the product, a claim that won't make the article any more notable than it is. Celeberties would endorse anything, even non-notable subjects. Worst of all (as well as the several other endorsements), that claim isn't sourced! The appropriate guidelines are WP:N, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT. Sr 13 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the difference is between your definition of promotion and spotlighting. If Barbara Walters interviews Bill Clinton, does that mean she automatically endorses him? From what you're telling me it is. Privately she may endorse him, but that interview is still considered notable and objective if she phrases her questions correctly. For the record, Bradshaw has done a promotional video for the company, but the first video that was first aired on MSNBC was NOT a promotional piece. The broadcast rights were lost to the video, so I can't get a link to it, but I did put down the date of when it was aired. How would you suggest I handle the sourcing?

On the note about the ingredients, I do not understand what grounds that constitutes spam...especially considering that Xango entry has the same exact thing done on that page, albeit not in its own section.

Once again I ask that this article not be deleted, but archived under my name. Let me work on it privately until there is no dispute of standards. I was doing that and then all of a sudden it was published as an entry in wikipedia without my knowledge. Furthermore, the gutting that took place makes it worse. It needs work, not the axe.Arnabdas 14:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is stopping you from using your userspace to draft a better article. But we're debating this one, not some future hypothetical one, and this one has had several months to get fixed, and hasn't been yet. THF 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mention that it is ok to use my userspace to draft a better article? I wouldn't mind doing that at all. Last time it was moved there for me. Could you explain the procedure that can be done to move it? Thanks.Arnabdas 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I've done the best I can with this article with the available sources. If you can do better, go ahead and do so. I brought the article to DRV because the last edit you made to it was almost three weeks prior, which made me a bit concerned. Sr 13 17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound snide at all, but I do have a life outside wikipedia and many obligations. I don't always have the time to spend my life editing. Past couple of weeks I have been on more because I had a project at work I finished so I have had more time. I actually e-mailed the communications director of the company and informed her of the situation. The sources are there, but we are just trying to get the actual citations so that they meet wiki standards. I would appreciate it being moved back to my userspace, but not deleted because despite my limited time I have contributed a lot to it and would hate to have my work destroyed.Arnabdas 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done as much as I could to improve the article after request, and if the best I can do can't meet guidelines, than it's fine with me to delete. Sr 13 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed to be Under Construction I put in an under construction tag. I propose to keep the article while helping it become better. Arnabdas 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's been "under construction" since September 2006, and is still wildly substandard, with no indication that it's going to improve. My Delete vote doesn't change. If you want to play in a sandbox in your userspace, go ahead, but I have no indication that there is a notable Wikipedia article to be made out of this mess. THF 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I'm going to have to agree. Even with some sources, it isn't enough for a Wikipedia article, no matter how much effort is put into it. Sr 13 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Everything I source could find through google and from news databases seem to be in the article already. Perhaps in the future it might be a notable subject with non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cool Hand Luke 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept that. If you guys can help me move it back to my userspace that would be appreciated. I want to be able to work on it at my own pace. I appreciate you guys giving me the chance to make it better instead of destroying my work altogether. I will message one of you when I feel it could be ready for publishing. Thank you.Arnabdas 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you should be looking at WP:WELCOME, which, really, you should have done before creating the article and criticizing the people who had read the rules and were simply applying them. THF 22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was criticizing the lack of constructive criticism. Of course we all should follow the rules. My point was instead of just coming down on me, why not help guide me and offer up suggestions? It is far more productive that way.Arnabdas 15:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to my userspace. Will contact one of you later to get your thoughts on notability.Arnabdas 15:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Search of Sunrise 6[edit]

This article is about an unreleased album for which no reliable references/sources exist. The official sites of both the series it is a part of[27] and the artist who is to produce it[28] make no reference to it and the only source of information about it is a fake of the album circulating in file sharing circles. It is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's policies (WP:CRYSTAL, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR to name just a few). D4g0thur 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of available info and WP:CRYSTAL Corpx 20:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we know i've wanted this deleted, thanks D4g0thur for getting this started, didn't know how to do it. I've been trying to get people to add facts cause this is a fake. So I strongly vote for deletion. -- GoDawgs 04:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anything going to come out of this? Only two entries? -- GoDawgs 01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The five day time limit is up so an admin should come along to delete it any time now. D4g0thur 02:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into A Requiem for Homo Sapiens. — Scientizzle 16:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neverness[edit]

Yet another book with no ascertion of notability. Did it get close to winning anything? Anything else that could ascertain notability? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: see related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vild. Tualha (Talk) 03:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per nom. All fail WP:BK. No assertion of notability, although A7 isn't applicable to books. Not 100% sure that the author himself (David Zindell) would pass WP:BIO if the issue were raised. Tevildo 18:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some resources: Old website that could be used to show notability. Review. Relevant quotations from the book. The precursor to Neverness, "Shanidar", gave Zindell recognition with the "L. Ron Hubbard Presents Writers of the Future" (src). Also, it is interesting to note the actual reviews given to the book by such authors as Orson Scott Card asserting "I wish I would have written this book," etc. Maybe we can accept that as proclaimed relevance from other sources (Card) already considered relevant here? /me is new to the deletion defense process. -- kanzure 19:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BK is the appropriate guideline. The Orson Scott Card review would be a very useful factor to demonstrate its notability - if you have a link to it, or a reference to the magazine it appeared in, you should add it to the article. The same goes for the other books, if similar references are available. I'm afraid that fansites and fanzines don't count as reliable sources (see WP:RS) - there won't be a problem with you including links to them in the article, but they won't, by themselves, help it get through AfD. Tevildo 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Merge per JulesH. :) Thank you for the clarifications. -- kanzure 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for lack of notability. The neverness article is just plot summary, which is a violation of WP:NOT. Somebody's personal site is not a notable reference Corpx 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Card's reference would have to be in a published review -- what people let publishers say on ads and on book jackets is not a RS for anything. I support articles including reasonable plot summaries, or even primarily devoted to reasonable length plot summaries, but the absurdly detailed plot summary in the main article here is what gave plot summaries a bad name. The articles about individual characters are even less justified than the main article.DGG (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to A Requiem for Homo Sapiens. Book series isn't important enough to warrant an entire category of articles, but it is a well-known series written by a popular author, so should probably be included. References for the series include [29] (just the first paragraph, but describes it as containing "the most striking writing, vivid spectacles, memorable characters and insightful presentations of philosophy and religion seen in SF for many a year"), [30], “Neverness, David Zindell” by Faren Miller, (br) Locus v21:3 No.326 Mar 1988, “The Broken God, David Zindell” by Faren Miller, (br) Locus v31:3 No.392 Sep 1993, “The Wild, David Zindell” by Faren Miller, (br) Locus v37:1 No.426 Jul 1996, “War in Heaven, David Zindell” by Faren Miller, (br) Locus v40:1 No.444 Jan 1998, “David Zindell’s Neverness” by Julian R. Bliss, (br) Overspace #10 1990, [31], [32], [33], etc... JulesH 09:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JulesH. Burzmali 15:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but please do make sure the print refs (Locus et al) hit the article, too, not just the AfD debate. MrZaius^talk 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all other articles into A Requiem for Homo Sapiens per JulesH. Even the Vorkosigan Saga doesn't get one article per book. Tualha (Talk) 00:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7Shades of Black[edit]

No asertion of notability; apparant fancruft as there are countless webcomics just like this one. Why is this one notable? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, non-notable. --Huon 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not assert notability, and because of that, I believe it meets CSD A7 --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A future article may be in order, if this webcomic were to somehow become notable - but, as it stands, it's too soon. Non-notable. ZZ 15:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asgard in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Asgard in popular culture

I am currently categorizing the notable references mentioned in this article within Category:Norse mythology in popular culture. These "'x Norse element' in popular culture' articles really just comprise a list of mostly small popular culture references. I went bold and am attempting to cleanly place them in categories, nominate the 'culture' forks for deletion, and perhaps edit the main pages (like Asgard to include a link to the category rather than the article listing the references. I realize this is complicated and will explain my reasoning more if this is unclear). For now, I finished categorizing pages mentioned in this article, and wanted to prepose its deletion. CaveatLector^Talk 14:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also going to put these efforts on hold until the results of this deletion discussion and, as the nominator, will abstain from giving an official position. CaveatLector^Talk 14:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a standard laundry-list article that does not attempt to address the subject specified in the title. Worse still, this is a list of instances of the word Asgard, and not the actual place itself. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the other similar lists. Punkmorten 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FIVE and WP is not a trivia collection Corpx 21:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:OR and is trivia unnecessary--JForget 22:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bushland Independent School District. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushland High School[edit]

Contested prod. Article effectively has no content other than "it's a school in Bushland". No apparent notability, no external sources, no information. >Radiant< 14:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Radiant, but redirect to Bushland Independent School District. Eusebeus 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but agree should redirect to Bushland Independent School District. Mark E 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bushland Independent School District. Article states that school was founded in 2005, which matches the National Center for Education Statistics data for the school that shows it made up entirely of 61 students in 9th grade. A Google news/Archive search finds a few dozen sources, almost all of which are about the establishment of the school. Unlike other high schools that have had several decades to generate a history, this school is simply too new to establish notability. A redirect will allow a standalone article to be created once independent notability can be established for this high school. Alansohn 17:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a total absence of non directory information. I am in general not in favor of extending the reach of speedy, but articles like this make me wonder whether we might want to do it after all. DGG (talk)
Keep and expand. We will have an article about this school in the end, so there's no point in deleting this stub. Hawkestone 01:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep because all high schools are notable, as I argue User:Noroton/opinions, although User:Husond or some other closing admin may come along to again disenfranchise me. Noroton 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it is written now. No notable alumni, no historical value, no architectural value claimed in the article.Callelinea 03:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the opening date in with Bushland Independent School District and redirect. A one line article is worse than having no article because it makes the reader think that we have an article when we don't. There may well be a justification to make a separate article on the school, but that can be made later if someone wants to. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as above. There is no worthwhile content here whatsoever and it seems unlikely that any reliable sources will exist at present to enable expansion. There is no consensus that all secondary/high schools are notable, and this cannot be quoted as a reason to keep an article. Dahliarose 11:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (no asserted notability) or Merge into appropriate collection (for related thoughts and arguments, see this proposal-under-construction: User:Sambc/wip/Sprawl Control Policy Proposal) SamBC 14:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its school district. Having failed to assert notability, and lacking famous alumni or incidents, it's just not notable enough to get an article.--Kylohk 15:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as has been done already is fine. This is a recently constructed school, so there is little history to record, and there doesnt appear to be anything novel about the school. Also, there have been no significant contributions in the school article, so a merge to the district article is a good interim solution until the district article is large enough to warrant separate articles for each school. John Vandenberg 02:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as already done, and redirect. Delete is not a simple option due to the requirements of GFDL. --SmokeyJoe 03:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the GFDL cause problems with deletion of articles? SamBC 10:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If material is moved from page A to page B, then the authorship information of the material must be preserved. This information is contained in the history of page A. If page A is deleted, then the complete authorship information of the new page B is no longer readily available, in violation of GFDL.

This GFDL issue aside, redirect is appropriate in this case, reasoning as per Sjakkalle. I see no benefit in deletion over redirect. Your own reasonable writing on Sprawl control (Redirect, Don't Delete) also seems to me to support redirect over deletion in this case. --SmokeyJoe 15:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I completely agree, as my writing indicates, and for a variety of reasons. I was just curious about the GFDL issue. I chose to ask the question here rather than your talk page as I thought others might benefit from the answer. Thanks for that. SamBC 16:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all elementary, middle, and high schools that are without notability should be deleted. They serve no purpose and lead to trivia rather than an encyclopedia. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Self, My Soul[edit]

Speedy tag (db-nocontext) removed twice, once by author, once by suspicious SPA account. I presume this is a book, but I can't tell, and it doesn't pass WP:COI and practically every other guideline you can think of. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, unverifiable. --Huon 15:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:N, WP:V. Although not technically a reason to delete, also fails WP:COI as well. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is just a whole bunch of nothing. ~ Infrangible 09:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- Now blanked (except for afd boiler) by original author (does it still count as G7?). -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 17:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, counts as G7 now, but let's let the AfD finish so it can be G4'd if recreated. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article is well-referenced, and the primary argument for merging is that this wasn't a really important part of Gandhi's beliefs. However, it has been pointed out that this article (which is currently a stub) is certainly eligible for expansion in future, and that references aren't too hard to find. SalaSkan 11:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Blunders of the World[edit]

Keep or Merge. This is concise knowledge distilled from experience and observation of the human condition, it belongs as an encyclopedic entry somewhere - it should be both preserved and accessible to humanity - even if it is only a footnote.

Just a philosophical list that Mahatma Gandhi gave to his grandson. This article stands little chance of being expanded. I suggest merging the content to Mahatma Gandhi by creating a new section. A W 14:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: when @pple nominated merging, the article looked like this and now looks like this. Maybe all stubs should be brought to AFD to encourage the contributors to expand.

KEEP THIS! This is important stuff. It is easily expandable, and Gandhi, frankly, was right. This list has within it the answers to the human condition and crisis. Leave it alone!

Agreed--the information is valuable, but the article doesn't make much of an article by itself.

Keep. It's worth having its own entry, imo.

Delete. No notability independent of Gandhi demonstrated in this article. Every utterance or turn of phrase of any given famous person does not merit an article of its own. It's quoted a lot so gets a decent number of Ghits, but unless someone can provide references that actually treat this as a subject .. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Detailed commentaries in notable sources , such as Arun Gandhi's [34] and Stephen Covey's [35] treat this as a subject on its own. Hopefully this helps. deeptrivia (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We need to remember that this is an online encyclopedia, not bound by page space like its paper counterparts. Why the push to delete/merge it? I think it would be better to have more 'documents contents' for us to examine on their own, and this is one such document. At least to be able to read the content of important documents has great value, and I think this is one such document. It could be expanded in several ways that woudl be distinct from a general article on Gandhi himself. Humbleservant 11:40 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Leaving it as a separate article would encourage future contributors to expand on the list with material about what Ghandi meant by each of those, or how they have been applied. There may be other historical information to contribute. People may also note references to this list from other works, or in the news, or in popular culture. Cos 15:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you say "future contributors", "there may be", "people may" is just speculation. I don't know how expansive this article will be in the future, but now it's just a mere list with no further information about how they are applied or referenced. Thus I suggest merging. If the content can be expanded as you say, future contributors may create a article for it. A W 15:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That speculation is what the entire wiki philosophy is based on: Article will be of significant quality some day. So, "lacking in current state" is not a valid ground to remove something. If the subject is of importance, it deserves an article. Whether its a one liner stub or a featured article. Someday it will be of high standards. But yeah, things look out of context with this list. Merge is probably a good idea. But where? Into the Mahatma Gandhi article or the Arun Gandhi one? I think the latter would be better. --soum ^talk 15:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to see this expanded with any historical impact, ie notices of works where these are referred to. Also any additional commentary by Ghandi if it exists. Ocicat 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Expansion would reduce its impact. It is easily valuable enough to keep.

Merge. I don't see a need for this to be separate from the Mahatma Gandhi article. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question. Where in the Wikipedia policies does it say that an article needs to be a certain length in order to be left as a stand-alone article? Dave Runger 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Delete I don't know if it states that... but i do know WP:NOT clearly states deictionary definition are not included. I personally don't see anyway this article can be expanded beyond being a basic definition. Also WP:SIZE insinuates that short pages should be merged into larger related articles, i think something as trivial as this list definetly should not have it's own article. -- Jimmi Hugh 17:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Apart from "definition" (which is more like a description), the article has a bit of history associated with it. A section about notable commentaries, such as Arun Gandhi's [36] and Stephen Covey's [37] is coming up. Hopefully this helps. deeptrivia (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As said before, it needs to be expanded, but that's not grounds for deletion. In particular, it needs a "cultural impact" section. Dnavarro

Keep. It is a good lesson to learn. Even if arrived at by chance, even if somewhat redundant, its reading will be likely to help the Planet.Tommy Mandel 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even though I agree with keep, just saying that "its reading will be likely to help the Planet." is not reason enough. Shabda

Merge with the Ghandi article. Luvcraft 16:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's good to think about and not substantial enough to include eith the main article. Russell 17:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gandhism. The main article is way too long as it is. Clarityfiend 17:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhism. It is not important or substantial enough to merit a separate article, but it does seems important enough to deserve inclusion in his article, which talks about his other beliefs. --BennyD 17:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gandhism. Nearfar 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would not be adverse to a merge as per the above !voters. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This looks important to have an entry of its own. Shabda

Keep Keep this article, but make it a stub. wait for small sections to be submitted on each of these topics. Reference the article in the areas that you suggest it be merged into. Worth keeping.130.13.163.101 20:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Matt[reply]
Merge into Gandhi or Gandhism to ensure user gets full context. This is not a comment on its importance or notability. Also, wonder if the Time Warp Trio will get an article for their book, Seven Blunders of the World Canuckle 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 300 votes and 100 comments on the front page of Reddit shows that it is interesting and relevant [38] cojoco 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Doesn't seem like a significant part of his philosophy, according to the current version of the article. It can bide some time as part of the main article (be that on Ghandi himself or his philosophy). --Gwern (contribs) 22:11 9 July 2007 (GMT)

Keep or Merge. Keeping it would be my preference, so that through later development of Gandhi and Gandhism the topic doesn't get forked between them like it might if merged. Those articles are also very long already. And also, the topic does (appear to) have enough interest and notoriety to stand on its own. So long as its not deleted entirely. Anakin ^{(contribs, complaints)} 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This can stand on its own , but needs to be expanded Neoryder

Keep. The rationale of the initiator behind the AfD was that there is little scope of expansion. Regardless of whether that is a good rationale, the fact that detailed commentaries, such as Arun Gandhi's [39] and Stephen Covey's [40] exist on this list, indicates that there surely is scope of expansion. deeptrivia (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhism. The list is worth keeping, but can't stand on its own in it's current state. If further information about the list were to be added in the future then we should consider re-separating the two articles. To say that the article could grow is speculative. Brian Willis 01:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list does not stand by itself and depends on the assumed "sanctity" of Ghandi for its stature. Inclusion of list apart from Ghandi is a sentimental item.

Keep is worthy of its own article. Mero son ox 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a simple, clear enough concept that being able to look it up directly is better than it being buried in another longer article like Ghandism. And it's perfectly acceptable to keep an article that *may one day* be expanded - this is a Wiki, after all. What do you think a stub is? Hopefully one day there will be some commentary, criticism, etc added. Stevage 03:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While many of the other keep !votes here have argued about the list being useful, or because of the potential for expansion, which last time I heard weren't particularly good reasons, I would point out that the content of the article is verifiable, and indeed referenced, and a quick Google Scholar search on "seven blunders" has brought up what appear to be a non-trivial references to the concept in a number of publications, which I would say service to make this notable in its own right, not just in relation to Mahatma Gandhi. Confusing Manifestation 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gandhism (with redirect from "seven blunders" pointing to "Gandhism"), or Keep if article loses its "stub" designation. Also, whether kept or merged, it would seem that the title should be "Seven Blunders".. this is how they are referred to on the more authoritative Gandhi Institute website. The title "The Seven Blunders of the World" appears to have been created by neither Gandhi nor his grandson, but instead a 3rd party who has added a few extra lines of his own. Bezapt 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out several sources, such as this, and it does look like the title is correct. deeptrivia (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The philosophy relates to LIFE - It has not much to do with Gandhi This article cannot be merged with Gandhi related analysis, it will only be distracting. If at all it has to be around, it should stand by itself or be merged with ethics/ morals/ philosophy related topics. Agree, it's not really an article, though interesting to read. 203.187.199.30 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Purvi[reply]

The fact that this could be relevant to both Gandhism and ethics/ morals/ philosophy related articles suggest that it would be better to have it standalone. One might decide to refer to this article from articles on business ethics, research ethics, ethics of war, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - This article should be kept as a stand alone article. The moral value is immeasurable and can be used to expand the thoughts of anyone. I arrived at this article through looking at "The Seven Wonders of the World" and not through any reference of Ghandi so merging it into Ghandi would be a waste. Without that link being where and what it is, I would not have had the chance to read such an enlightening piece.*** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.238.27 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 10 July 2007

KEEP: this is such a wonderful and knowledgeful information. Please keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.218.152.190 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 July 2007

Keep if not for any other reason, then at least to maintain the links from other such lists to this one. Thor NL^{AMAZE ME} 07:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a very important philosophy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinequest (talk • contribs)

Keep -- It would take up too much space if merged with the Ghandi article, in which case you'd have to rewrite, shorten, and link to its own article anyways.

Comment It is only Seven Lines. The rest is purely Trivia. -- Jimmi Hugh 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a bad comparison, but Four Noble Truths is only four lines. :) deeptrivia (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Dokic[edit]

DELETE Minor short-term character who now has nothing to do with the show. Should at least be merged with Recurring characters of Neighbours. Hardcore gamer 48 14:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless it can be merged some appropriate place. Recurring characters of Neighbours is not one such; it's just a list of characters and actors. Tualha (Talk) 00:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ransis[edit]

There isn't much context here, but this is a neologism and I can't find any verification that this term is actually widely used, nor can I verify the definition. All I found was this website, which makes me suspect this is actually intended to be an advert. That isn't clear enough for a speedy on that grounds though, so I'm bringing it here instead. My opinion is that this should be Deleted.--Isotope23 13:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Isotope23 13:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of context and sources. --Huon 14:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Notability is not asserted. --Charlene 18:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kind of shady for a supposed ISP to have a yahoo email for contact information. ~ Infrangible 09:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Les Misérables#24601. The subject deserves a mention in the main article, but probably not notable enough to stand on its own. Enough information is in the section; anything else is coincidental, trivial trivia. Sr 13 05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24601 (number)[edit]

Delete - this is a thinly-disguised pop culture article, serving exactly the same "spot the reference" function as so many now-deleted "...in popular culture" articles served. It is a directory of loosely associated items which as a grouping tell us nothing about the number, Les Miserables, the fiction from which the trivial references are drawn, their relationship to each other or the real world. The number itself does not appear to be significant as a number per the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) or by the relevant Wikiproject. Otto4711 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Les Misérables#24601, from where it's presently linked. It doesn't seem to be large enough to actually need its own article, and if it did it shouldn't be this one, but rather Cultural references to Les Misérables or something like that, just like all the references to 42 are at The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references rather than at 42 (number). I don't see how a redirect would hurt, though, and it would have the benefit of being able to use the current material in the main article (as "merge and delete" isn't an option). -- Jao 14:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. >Radiant< 14:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of multiple mainstream references in shows like South Park and Simpsons, but again, add sources. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is not the issue here. I accept without question that the number indeed appeared in every instance asserted in the article. The issue here, as noted in the nomination, is notability and WP:NOT. Otto4711 18:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The number appears to have a cultural significance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jao. Deor 19:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I dont think we should start articles on notabilities of numbers. I think that would be too trivial Corpx 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; the examples given in this list are of such minor importance to the works mentioned that they don't justify an enire article. Just a list of small "in-jokes". Masaruemoto 23:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Les Misérables#24601, per above. Will ^(talk) 23:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Norton and Roi. I never heard of the number, but this is one that's actually significant because of pop culture references, not in spite of. Besides being a code for Hugo's Les Miserables, it's the zip code for Amonate, Virginia whose name itself (MN8) is interestingMandsford 01:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. This is nothing more than a list of trivia. Resolute 04:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use as a prisoner number is covered well enough by the paragraph in the Les Mis article, so, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, I suggest merging all non-trivial, non-prisoner-related properties to 10000 (number), along with a single statement along the lines of "Also a popular choice of prisoner number in fiction in reference to Les Misérables." The article can then be changed to a redirect to 10000 (number), as with any other such number. Confusing Manifestation 04:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is thinly-disguised pop culture article a deletion criteria? It is arguably notable. ~ Infrangible 09:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NUM permits articles on numbers with significant cultural associations (see, for example 46664 (number)). Article establishes multiple cultural references. Gandalf61 11:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

46664 has actual real-world cultural significance as the prisoner number of a historically and culturally significant real person Nelson Mandela and later the title of a series of charity concerts. This number has cultural references that amount to a series of in-jokes; cultural references are not the same thing as cultural significance. Otto4711 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural associations do not have to be links to "real world" events and people. WP:NUM has a section on numbers that appear in fiction. Articles on 42 (number) and 47 (number) have Pop Culture sections with diverse cultural references. Gandalf61 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While those two numbers contain pop culture references, they are not made up entirely of pop culture references. That's the difference. Resolute 13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was countering Otto's claim that cultural associations in number articles have to refer to the real world. For other examples of number articles that consist entirely of cultural references, see 6236 (number), 6346 (number) and 144000 (number). Gandalf61 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That other such articles exist does not justify this article. My main point, which you haven't answered, is that a handful of passing references to the number as throwaway jokes in cartoon shows and the like do not add up to cultural significance. Otto4711 14:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eight separate popular culture references plus a real world instance adds up to cultural significance as far as I am concerned. WP:NUM permits cultural references to fiction. WP:NUM does not prohibit number articles that consist mainly or solely of cultural references. That is my extended justification for keeping this article. I do not intend to engage in further debate on my position. Gandalf61 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly free not to continue to discuss your position but that doesn't mean I'm not going to continue to point out flaws in it. While WP:NUM certainly doesn't forbid pop culture references in number articles, it states that "In general, the number needs to be conspicuous and important to the story to be worth mentioning in the number articles." A number on a character's helmet or on a prison jumpsuit or a cell, seen in passing and AFAIK not commented on within the story, is not "conspicuous and important to the story." Maybe if Sideshow Bob had song a parody of a song from Les Miz while wearing his jumpsuit, but simply showing up on screen for a few moments? No. And the one supposed real life example is unreferenced original research. Otto4711 15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Notable number, apparently. WP:NOT#PAPER Matthew 12:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As is apparently par for the course when you cite WP:NOT#PAPER, you're not seeming to understand that it is not a free pass for the article. The storage medium of Wikipedia does not mean that the articles on Wikipedia do not have to adhere to other policies and guidelines. Otto4711 12:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Matthew and others. It is indeed notable (although a few sources would be nice). nb: article fails to state that the number is always spoken digit-by-digit: 2-4-6-0-1 — as in the lyrics. --Jack Merridew 12:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 24601 is a very significant number. It used to be Jean Valjean's prisoner number in Les Miserables, and is sung out in many performances. I could have sworn to see it used in some cartoons involving prisoners. Notable indeed.--Kylohk 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been established for 24601 above and beyond other numbers, cemented by the multiple cultural references. Alansohn 18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:N: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail...Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. Can you, or anyone claiming that this number is notable, point to the reliable sources in which the appearance of the number on Skinner's helmet or Sideshow Bob's prison jumpsuit are addressed "directly in detail"? Otto4711 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Otto - you said above "Sourcing is not the issue here"; now you say that sourcing is an issue. Your deletion nomination uses Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) and WP:NUM as benchmarks of notability; now you cite WP:N. This deletion dsicussion would be less confusing if you could stick to one consistent set of arguments. Gandalf61 10:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I said above was that I don't question that each of the passing references noted in the article happened so adding a source that mentions the mention is not the issue. I have said from the start that notability is the issue and notability is established by the existence of reliable sources in which the subject is discussed directly in detail. That argument has certainly been consistent, and the failure to respond to it substantively has also been consistent. You seem like a bright enough fellow so your claim of being confused seems a little disingenuous. By the way, now that you're talking again, do you by any chance have any sources that discuss any of these passing mentions of the number directly in detail? Otto4711 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge or rename per Jao. This is certainly a meme, even if there is a flavor of WP:SYNTH about it; but it has nothing to do with the number as such. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. IronGargoyle 00:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genny Goulet[edit]

I am nominating this article since someone marked the article with a prod tag, however I feel that the it should be put to discussion, She is currently, despite here retirement, one of the the most notable female indy wrestlers in North America and has achieved notoriety as being one of the few women to actually participate in deathmatches Sinkholeca 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.
Delete I PROD-ed the article becuase I don't think it establishes notability strongly enough. She was once banned for wrestling by an athletic commission, and has wrestled in a few indy feds. The refs are weak, other then an official site, and a french site there is the news report about the banning, but not significant third party coverage of her career, for someone who debuted in 1997 the coverage is minot, much like her career. Winning the CZW Iron Man title is not a reason for an article (five other winners of that title are redlinks). Darrenhusted 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: She really was one of the leading female indy wrestlers around, notable for generally slugging it out with the men. I've added a profile link to canoe.ca's wrestling site. RGTraynor 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think she passes notability test. Callelinea 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Major name on the indy women's scene, notorious for her history in deathmatches, her debut in SHIMMER was one of the most anticipated in the company, and she may be retired now but once her injuries have healed more, that could change and her career would continue. Demolicious 05:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral CZW is televised in at least 2 countries. Might qualify as significant part in significant production if properly sourced. The Ontario Athletic Commission/Ontario Human Rights Commision, properly sourced, would probably put the subject over the top for notability. Ontario is the most populous province in Canada and the one with the largest GDP. A legal challenge that results in massive changes to the regulations governing a multi-national industry within a large, economic area is borderline noteworthy. It would affect the wwe and any other promotion that desired to promote within the territory. Similar to the Billy Baxter (poker player) case against the Internal Revenue Service I'd prefer not to see a standalone article, especially since the subject is at least borderline notable and it's a niche industry. Horrorshowj 08:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LuFisto's notability lies in, as previously stated, the Ontario Athletic Commission deal. That area of the page should really be expanded. DanZero 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 03:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Kane in popular culture[edit]

This article, like other deleted popular culture articles before it, is an indiscriminate list of loosely-associated topics. None of these entries are made famous as a result of mentioning Citizen Kane in passing -- it's just trivia, basically. Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What's really needed is a worthy spin-off article exploring Citizen Kane as a popular film, not just a bunch of references. Alientraveller 13:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These "articles" (scrappy unedited research notes in reality) are always bad, with a built in tendency to get worse over time. Hawkestone 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia articles are not directories of loosely associated topics and WIkipedia articles should not contain original research. This is a collection of any time something reminded some editor of CK, whether the thing was actually inspired by CK or not, and of course sourcing is atrocious to non-existent. Even pruned to actual confirmed CK references the list still fails WP:NOT. The resulting pruned list would tell us nothing about CK, nothing about the fiction from which the references are drawn or how they relate to each other and nothing about the real world. Further, the inevitable suggestion to merge any of this back to the main film article should be shouted down. The information is of no more use in that article than in this separate article. Otto4711 13:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not attempt the subject mentioned in the title but rather just a list of instances in violation of WP:NOT. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because first sentence of article demonstrates notability by asserting: "Citizen Kane is one of the most referenced films in popular culture." And, this is a culturally/historically significant film, after all. Again, though, I would recommend adding some kind of tag that requests sources. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Like Arkyan said above, the topic does not meet notability standards. The sentence is completely unsubstantiated in its claim, and listing all the passing mentions of Citizen Kane in various media to support this claim is pure synthesis. Certainly, it's a culturally/historically significant film, and should be covered as such on its article, but that's no reason to make a trivial list of entries that mention it in passing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. The Simpsons is not up there with the Colossus of Rhodes or the Pyramids culturally: just because something shows up there doesn't mean the appearance is notable. Unless someone else is discussing Citizen Kane and how it has become part of our culture (and PLEASE, "culture" does not mean passing references on cartoon shows!), this article should not exist. If someone is discussing it, then the article should report on what is being discussed. --Charlene 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FIVE WP is not a trivia collection Corpx 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, OR, trivia, Nuff said!--JForget 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like a lot of "in popular culture" articles, this is one where a fan's effort actually detracts from a classic film by listing every reference to "Rosebud", every movie that seems to have a Kane-like influence, 10 Simpsons episodes, etc. There's a good reason why lists like this aren't part of an article about the film. Author is required to listen to Roger Ebert's commentary on the Kane DVD in order to regain perspective. Mandsford 01:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, Either keep it or Merge it with Citizen Kane, I actually liked the list and think it is notable how one film has made such a cultural influence, that it is mentioned in TV and other movies. Callelinea 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I like it," unfortunately is not a valid reason to keep the article. Additionally, the article fails to meet Wikipedia's specific notability standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone. Bulldog123 00:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and very much so. Violates WP:NOT#INFO as an list of indiscriminate trivia. María (críticame) 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Yassin Adem[edit]

Lack of notability, lack of verifiability, lack of references Iterator12n ^Talk 13:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by subject of article on 1 Feb 2006, not notable per check of Factiva and only links with "cognitive business" are this article according to Google. Orderinchaos 09:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable person yet in the field of computer science, as per Orderinchaos above. Lankiveil 04:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. The bulk of the article isn't even on the subject; it covers his work (which doesn't appear sufficiently notable in and of itself). This sounds more like a bio on a university's Web page than an encyclopedia article. Caknuck 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr 13 05:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saliba[edit]

Non-notable: no examples of famous members of the family, nothing. - Vox Humana 8' 12:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as creator. – Just created the page; need a bit to collect the information. Other, similar Lebanese family pages exist, such as Taouk and Jumblatt. Worth noting that a Google search for Saliba returns 1,110,000 results, while Jumblatt returns only 226,000 and Taouk returns only 66,300. — George^[talk] 12:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, George, If more information can be found then go for it, give the article abit more time.Mark E 15:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think it proves the family is notable. Callelinea 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to provide multiple sources ~ Infrangible 09:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Stockinger[edit]

Non-notable person. Though claimed to be notable in the article, there is nothing to suggest that this person is actually notable. I suspect very few bookers would be notable. Evil1987 11:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources and notability. A dentist of the same name seems to generate more Google hits. --Huon 15:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Non-NotableMark E 15:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Network[edit]

Completely non-notable --Vox Humana 8' 11:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Little assertion of notability, no independent sources cited. Caknuck 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caknuck. Shalom ^Hello 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Heaven Church[edit]

Completely non-notable, and neither is the network of which it is part notable--Vox Humana 8' 11:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, nonnotable individual church. NawlinWiki 11:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Delete patently NN. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN Tiggerjay 06:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR--Sefringle^Talk 05:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems to be more about the author than the book itself. The notability of the author may be arguble, but that's another story. Sr 13 05:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save Hawaii[edit]

Notability; I can see no asertion that this book is any different from any of countless others on similar subjects. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 11:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gail Grabowsky is a professor at Chaminade University. This is her only book. Insufficient notability IMO.--Targeman 18:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per not meeting the required notability. ♠TomasBat 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In Hawaii, Dr. Grabowsky is an environmentalist of renown and this book is unique in that it addresses issues specific to Hawaii fragile environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.122.22.9 (talk • contribs)

— 166.122.22.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Dr. Grabowsky is an environmentalist of renown. She has appeared on television both in Hawaii and nationally. Her book has been the subject of articles by at least three publications both paper and digital.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.246.111 (talk • contribs)

— 72.130.246.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - I've been on TV and in the paper, too. That in itself doesn't make me notable. Nothing I can find on Google hints at Ms Grabowsky's fame. I'm sure she's a good specialist but I think you need to be more than that to be on Wikipedia. Just my 2 cents--Targeman 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Targeman,REREAD Wikipedia guidelines for notability and do some real research please, Possibly starting with the links on this listing. You are on Wikipedia and your credentials don't cmpare with Dr. Grabowsky's: PhD, star of a PBS documentary that also featured Kealii Reichel, member of the Hawaii State Environemntal Council (appointed by two different Gov's), regularly consulted by the media for information as an expert in Hawaiian Environemntal issues, NW Hawaiian Island National Monument Committee member, author of this amazing book (endorsed by Malama Hawaii), 5 time Waikiki Double Rough Water champion, winner of over 30 gold medals for paddling (World Sprints and Hawaii State championship), host of the UH TV series, "Topic Hawaii", It goes on and on!!! This person gives her heart and soul for Hawaii; out of a deep love for the place and the Hawaiian people.

Comment. I have never questioned Dr Grabowsky's credentials. You seem to be well informed about her, so please "do some real research" because you're the one who's writing the article. And there's no need to get emotional, either. Erasing my credentials from my user page is a truly childish reaction. And please sign your comments.--Targeman 13:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She has written a book and appears to have been a resource in the media seems to be of some value to those of us who know nothing about her. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in music[edit]

Content is not encyclopedic; completely violates WP:OR. This might actually make a good and interesting page for Wikipedia, but the page as it stands has no research, comes entirely from the facts one person 'knows' to be true, and might be libellous, considering the naming of artists and the last line in the article. Thespian 10:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, and looks more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Perhaps the topic deserves an article, but this is not it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Written as an essay, original research. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 11:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the current version as it stands as total original research but would support a rewrite and recreation immediately if anyone feels they can do so.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay. Hawkestone 13:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV essay. Chubbles 17:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not original thinking and not even an essay. Trivial comment and totally unencylopaedicDaverotherham 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somebody's term paper, and little more than someone's opinion that the music recording business is racist. Especially odd, since many of us think that the music industry has always been more diversified and integrated than most other pop culture. Motown may not have eliminated hard core racism, but it had a positive effect, just my opinion. Mandsford 01:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this author is just whistling dixie. ~ Infrangible 09:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People seem to agree that the subject may be worthy if the article is not. Would it not be better to rewrite the article rather than deleting it? SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 10:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you think you can? I haven't seen anyone else volunteer, and you'll need to ditch a *lot* of prejudices, and not work it as an issue of just white people ripping off black people; all the statements you've made in what you've written are half-truths - UB40, for example, has always been about 50/50 on the race mix, has done 20 albums, of which 2 were cover albums, and their biggest hit was a cover of an *Elvis* tune. Paul Simon hardly took advantage of poor South Africans and their music, as Ladysmith Black Mambazo was actually a fairly successful band for 20 years before appearing on Graceland, and they said (and history has borne it out) that they used the opportunity to get a toehold in the American market. Now, there's *lots* to be found, especially in the 50s, but as I looked over your edits, I found things like your statement that 'it was unknown' if a black artist had been paid for a cover of his song by a white cover artist. This seemed to only be based on the supposition that they wouldn't pay, and not on any reference, *anywhere*, that they hadn't. Finally, you're strongly embedded in making your own point. Racism has also gone the opposite direction, and has also been aimed by both whites and blacks at other groups (especially Asian; much of the New York rap scene has produced songs by blacks against Asians, and of course, there's Gwen Stefani's Harajuku girls). I don't have time to do it, just to rattle off things like this, and no one else had made it at all, because this is really a page that needs to be researched and cited and verified to kingdom come. I think you could contribute to it, but I'm not sure you could write it yet. --Thespian 11:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that I write it but I was hoping that someone else might. And anyway it isn't just my point of view plenty of people would agree with the thoughts expressed. I could write more disagreeing with your points but this probably isn't the place suffice to say that a lot of your comments are just as POV as mine. SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 11:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are. But then, I didn't start the article, and wouldn't have, because I can't do it in an NPOV fashion; I don't actually know enough about it to be NPOV, so I have to base it on what I can find (the UB40, Gwen Stefani and Ladysmith Black Mambazo facts are from their articles here, the comment on New York rap on interviews I've read with NYC rapper Pete Miser, who is mixed race). --Thespian 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the article exists right now, it is ~~an embarrassment to Wikipedia~~ not nearly compliant with Wikipedia's policies of NPOV and RS. There is a place for this topic on Wikipedia, but it needs to start over, and it needs to start with a different article title. Chubbles 18:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using "embarrassment", as the article was only edited by one person, and that's straying close to being a personal attack/WP:BITE. Discussion of the issues with the article should concentrate on the issues, and not use loaded words like that. Thanks, --Thespian 21:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well what title would you suggest Chubbles? SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 08:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have an article entitled "Race and music" or "Racial theories of music" - there's a decent body of scholarship on race theory and its impact on how people viewed music in the nineteenth and early 20th century. Could be expanded to talk about the practical ramifications of such theories, such as "race records" of the early 20th century and such. Good place to start would be "Music and the Racial Imagination", by Ron Radano and Philip V. Bohlman. Ooh, and we've got a great article on coon songs - good as a model. Chubbles 14:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Coon songs" would seem another good reason why there is a need for article called 'Racism in Music' SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while a legitimate topic, this version is origional research--Sefringle^Talk 06:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Anas ^talk? 22:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hachisuka clan[edit]

This article seems to be a non-notable clan with possibly a notable member. It has been unreferenced since inception, and has been tagged as needing references for nine months, and in-text citations requested but not fulfilled as well. It does not appear that this fits Notability requirements, and lacks much context to even evaluate it. Kuuzo 09:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hachisuka Koroku is definitely notable, and makes the clan notable. Fg2 10:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clan notability is not established by only single members, but a bit of digging with Google gives a few reliable sources (well, a TV station and a city government website, but better than nothing) [41][42] which discuss the clan itself. They were the ruling clan of Tokushima for a long time, so almost by default, they have many notable members. Tokushima University's library have a portion of their family archives online in digital form [43]. cab 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Daimyo families are notable. Hawkestone 13:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, and a quick search indicates no lack of sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The former ruling clans of Japan are notable in part because reliable independent sources are discussing them, often (at least in Japanese) ad nauseam. They're also notable having been rulers of millions of people. --Charlene 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Hachisuka clan was a minor clan, not a "ruling" clan, nor did it rule "millions of people", but the article has been expanded and looks fine now anyway. --Kuuzo 08:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Charlene reasons. Callelinea 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have just added several sources and seriously expanded the article. I believe it now to definitely pass notability requirements. Tadakuni 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks good now. If people added sources up front, this sort of messy confusion could be avoided. --Kuuzo 04:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 12:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateurly Honest[edit]

Non-notable album from non-notable musician, with no reliable sources. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, musician and label non-notable. Someguy1221 04:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed. There is nothing here for an encyclopedia. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect all to List of American Dragon: Jake Long episodes, all the articles are just a repeat of the summary of the main article, no need to be kept or merged, but no need to be deleted nither per the GFDL. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Befuddled Mind[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, hence it is not an episode guide. The now-cancelled TV show, American Dragon: Jake Long, is not notable enough to justify this depth of coverage. Each of the nominated articles can be wholly described by the following skeleton:

Infobox with non-free image.
Plot summary.
Trivia/quotes section, which shouldn't be there anyway.
External links/see also.

... which renders them as merely plot summaries. The plot of each episode is already adequately summarised at List of American Dragon: Jake Long episodes. Not one reliable secondary source is cited in these "articles", which flunk WP:WAF. Left out was the one already nominated. MER-C 09:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. None of these is worth a seperate encyclopedia article and they have all been listified already so are currently worthless.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While better plot summaries could be included in the list of episodes than the current ones, the articles I randomly picked weren't actually enough better to justify the effort of merging them. JulesH 13:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. However a decision should be made on duplicates of half-episodes, such as Adventures in Troll-Sitting, Fu Dog Takes a Walk, Adventures in Troll-Sitting/Fu Dog Takes a Walk, etcetera. Episodes with little detail should be saved for expansion. ---- DanTD 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, how is this different from our plethora of articles on Star Trek episodes? Yes, yes, otherstuffexists and all that, but actually we have extensive precedent for covering TV episodes. >Radiant< 14:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree, Radiant. There is a precedent of covering TV episodes, but only when they contribute to well established plotlines or universes (like Star Trek or Stargate) and are thus notable (right?). I do not feel that a canceled animation's episodes meet this criteris. CaveatLector^Talk 14:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per precedent. Episode articles for a series that has aired on network television have been deemed notable precedent. We can't pick and choose which shows we like or don't like. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your !vote I have to dispute your reasoning. Every episode of every TV show is not automatically inherently notable. Otto4711 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - per WP:EPISODE individual episode articles are acceptable if the episodes are discussed in appropriate secondary sources. It is unreasonable at AFD to expect people to go through every mass-nominated episode so I default to keep. Editors are certainly free to nominate individual episodes for deletion if they have not been discussed in secondary sources but I would suggest a merge and redirect of any such episode titles to an episode list article instead. Otto4711 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Delete since the episodes already have appropriate brief summaries in the list of episodes, and since these article violate WP:EPISODE "..it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available." The ones of these I looked at are sourced only to a fansite, TV.com. The series may be notable, but that does not propagate down to the individual episodes. The individual episode articles are inappropriate and unnecessary. That said, the fact that the series was cancelled is irrelevant, since it is the nature of TV series to be cancelled eventually, and notability is not tied to current popularity. Edison 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - per Otto4711. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and add social commentary Wikipedia is a reference work, not really a traditional encyclopedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as notable episodes of a notable series. Seems like a possible case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT driving the deletes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the way I've felt about every other episode of a series that has been deleted. ---- DanTD 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This television program does not have the kind of notability and cultural significance that, say, Knight Rider or The Dating Game has. Which independent, non-trivial third parties are discussing these episodes specifically? --Charlene 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you're not as aware that there are many who mihgt've felt the same way you do about those shows. I know of a letter to an old episode of TV Guide that dismissed the signifigance of that classic TV sitcom Bewitched ---- DanTD 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WP is not a TV guide. We dont need recaps of every TV episode. I can understand exceptions where the particular episode won an award or something else notable, but this is not TV guide. None of these episodes note anything like that. Corpx 21:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of American Dragon: Jake Long episodes per WP:NOT, WP:WAF, WP:MERGE, and WP:EPISODE.
Seriously, it's all "Airdate, episode number, plot summary", which is what is in and should be in the LOE. Specifically, WP:MERGE 3 says:

Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.

Additionally, episodes of Disney shows are rarely notable because while they may have a viewership in the millions, a very large percentage of these will be either children or parents. This makes it very difficult to find an independent reliable source about the episode - the very crux of the notability guideline.

I would rather not see the episode pages deleted, though, but simply merged, hence my merge vote. However, I would not object to either outcome - the fact is that there's little or no content in them that could be salvaged to put in the LOE. Will ^(talk) 00:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm sure it'll be kept, for that's the "double standard" of Wikipedia. It's hard to think of anything closer to "original research" (and unoriginal topic) than having a separate article for every episode of a TV series. Keep per precedent just means keep the double standard. Merge makes the best sense. We don't have to be intolerant of everything we don't like, and there's no reason why this shouldn't survive in some form. On the other hand, if you regularly vote to delete "....in popular culture" or "list of....." or "companies located in ....", don't be offended if these get wiped out. Nice to see the shoe on the other foot now and then. Mandsford 01:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no standard that says TV episodes should be kept. WP:EPISODE says there must be "enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes" and even discourages this kind of episode by episode recap. Corpx 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps it is time for a more radical discussion on whether or not W'pedia wants to carry episode summaries, or whether these would be better hived off into fan-edited show-specific wikis, which could then be linked to from the show's W'pedia page. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE says that articles should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (This is again rehashed in WP:EPISODE). These episodes dont pass that bar. Corpx 07:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — They are notable for being American Dragon: Jake Long episodes. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper, there's no valid reason why this series can not be covered. Matthew 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not paper doesn't mean it is an indiscriminate collection of information. Corpx 15:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podtacular[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Only claims to notability is being "featured" (mentioned) on Bungie's website, and winning a podcast award (from a site which itself may not be notable) that is voted on by random people. Drat (Talk) 09:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm having trouble seeing reliable independent non-trivial sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Seems good enough to me Mark E 15:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable niche podcast. Completely fails WP:RS. Caknuck 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Caknuck. Though perhaps notable enough for a mention on Halo (series).--Absurdist 06:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Fredburger[edit]

This is a very minor character of Billy and Mandy. He has only appeared in three or four episodes. This article has cruft added way too often by people anyways. I keep merging and redirecting it to the List of Characters in Billy and Mandy page, but various people keep undoing it. All of the non-cruft information for this character (which isn't much) can all fit on the characters page. DietLimeCola 08:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason to have an article for an admittedly very minor character. A section in List of Characters in Billy and Mandy is fine. INBN 08:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not justify a seperate encyclopedia article, a mention elsewhere may be fine.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly salt. Not a notable character; fails WP:FICT. --Charlene 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Douglasr007 08:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect all to List of Phil of the Future episodes, again there is no need for an article, if most of the info already in the parent page and again all those episode articles can not be deleted because of the GFDL. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Cheatin' Heart (Phil of the Future episode)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not an episode guide. The only content in these articles is a plot summary and trivia, both considered inappropriate on their own. This also fails WP:EPISODE (and WP:FICT for that matter) for lack of "secondary sources about individual episodes". I'd also like to note that these episodes are also summarized at List_of_Phil_of_the_Future_episodes Corpx 08:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The TV show isn't notable enough for this depth of coverage. You missed a few, as well. MER-C 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, the rest should be deleted too, with two exceptions. The episodes "Broadcast Blues" and "Not-So-Great Great Great Grandpa" have won independent awards, as I explained below. --Smtomak 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. Episode articles for shows that have been broadcast are given notability per ample precedent on Wikipedia. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:EPISODE which says "..it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available." The ones of these I looked at have no secondary sources, because these episodes, unlike, say selected episodes of Star Trek or Twilight Zone or Seinfeld, have not had substantial coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. There is a list of episodes, which is sufficient to give the general plot of each episode. Edison 15:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:EPISODE because it is unreasonable to mass-nominate TV episode articles, some of which may be in compliance with policy and guidelines. No prejudice to nominating individual episodes for deletion but I would prefer merge and redirect. Otto4711 16:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But these are all the same though. None of them have have any content other than plot summary and trivia Corpx 16:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just boldly redirect them to a list article, then? Otto4711 16:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I again agree with a keep all per Otto4711. Plus, why the repeated leap to relist articles for deletion that have been voted as keep? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:EPISODE --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:EPISODE does this qualify under? Corpx 17:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EPISODE. Yet another television show that is simply not notable enough to have this kind of detail on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not TV Guide. --Charlene 18:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:EPISODE. Episodes of notable shows are worthy of their own articles. Far too much detail to merge into the show's article. --Oakshade 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EPISODE says "if there is enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes". There are no secondary sources that mention these episodes. Corpx 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for consensus on the general issue The varied opinions here show there is no consensus on the general subject of whether there should be individual episode articles, and on what the bar should be. Looking at a few--and I find I am glad never to have seen the original--not all of them actually do have plot summaries. Alternatively, merge into articles for individual seasons. DGG (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why wait? Just vote to Delete all (or keep all), tally the votes and see whether it gets to stay in the fraternity house. I like "Phil of the Future", a very interesting, well-written and acted, 30 minute science fiction show. But do we really need an article for each episode? We may want them, but do we need them? Mandsford 01:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all First of all, precedent is not a valid argument because consensus can change. Secondly, what is it about the episodes that gives them nobility? Notability is not inherited for a good reason. Thirdly, I would be o-kay for some shows to have an article on every episodes like dramas where every episode has an effect on the rest, but most comedies don't have that. None of the episodes of this show have shown why they deserve to have their own articles. The Placebo Effect 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, WP:NOT#INFO The Placebo Effect 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps it is time for a more radical discussion on whether or not W'pedia wants to carry episode summaries, or whether these would be better hived off into fan-edited show-specific wikis, which could then be linked to from the show's W'pedia page. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE says that articles should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (This is again rehashed in WP:EPISODE). These episodes dont pass that bar. Corpx 07:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to List of Phil of the Future episodes. Individual episodes are not notable enough for their own articles. In cases where a specific episode has gained notability, that specific episode can have an article. --OnoremDil 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Two episodes of Phil of the Future actually have won awards which make them notable imho, but neither of these have articles listed for deletion here. The notable episodes "Broadcast Blues" and "Not-So-Great Great Great Grandpa" should be kept and expanded, but the episodes listed above are probably all non-notable. Smtomak 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I would accept a compromise merging the information into List of Phil of the Future episodes with the understanding that the synopses will be trimmed down to a short paragraph each, though this may make the article unnecessarily long. Smtomak 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to be two points here which everyone is dancing around, rather than addressing headon: (1) Should Wikipedia have an article on every episode of every television series & (2) What is a "notable" television episode? My gut answer to (1) is no, simply because in many cases, the information no longer exists, & where it does, the editor would be treading uncomfortably close to original research. As for (2), "notable" is a bad measure to use in any case; rather, I think it needs to be decided whether the default for television series is to have separate articles for each episode or not, then decide whether "Phil of the Future" meets or fails that criteria. Until that is decided, my opinion is that this AfD should be tabled -- & any future ones on this & related articles. -- llywrch 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is an essential criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Phil of the Future is a notable TV show, as it has many followers, it has been discussed in independent media sources, and it has even won a few awards. However, not every episode is notable, just as not every chapter in a notable book is itself notable. Some may be, and those deserve articles. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of plot summaries, and this kind of information is not encyclopedic. --Smtomak 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting: I was unaware that Wikipedia:Notability has the same level of importance as WP:BLP, WP:NPOV & WP:3RR; last I heard, "notability" was just another way of saying "I never heard of it", and its use without an explanation is strongly deprecated. However, I wonder which edit war led to adding that clause at WP:NOT. Nevertheless, speaking as someone who has never heard of this television show (& I probably wouldn't enjoy it had I watched an episode or two), much of what I've read here so far arguing for its deletion are either paraphrases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or wikilawyering: none of what has been written explains to a relatively objective (& more-or-less uninvolved -- I only came here because of the link at Wikipedia: Community Portal) person like me why this article should be deleted or kept. Many articles on television program episodes begin as simple plot summaries, yet later grow into more rounded and complete articles. I don't see that anyone has addressed that possibility other than to claim that this show has never been discussed in independent media sources. Nor have I seen anyone either provide an argument confirming -- or denying -- Corpx's opening reasons why this episode should be deleted in their own independent words. I don't see any one has argued, for example, that this subject lacks enough substance to ever become a Featured Article. And let me make one point clear here: I have no strong feeling in the outcome of this discussion -- delete the article, keep it, roll it up & stick up people's noses at the next Wikimania, any of those work for me -- but seeing that this is the second AfD nomination for this article, I would hope someone gives this matter enough thought to provide a solid enough argument to keep or delete this article so this will be the last time it is nominated. My points above were offered solely to make that so. -- llywrch 20:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since nobody has brought up WP:BLP, WP:NPOV & WP:3RR in any relevant way, I don't see how the significance of those policies compared to the notability guideline really have any bearing on this discussion. Has anyone provided an argument other than WP:ILIKEIT for keeping the article? Everyone using WP:EPISODE as a rationale for keep must have missed the following section:

All articles on Wikipedia must meet notability guidelines, which state that:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

It is important to bear this in mind when creating articles, and it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available. Wikipedia: Notability (fiction) explains this further:

Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance.

While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page. (See examples listed below). Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory.

Over time, you might find that some episodes or story-arcs have enough real-world information to warrant their own article. Such an episode can be broken out into its own page.

Individual episodes are not notable unless they receive coverage that makes them notable. There is nothing that stops redirects from being expanded when and if that significant coverage occurs. I, like Wikipedia, am not a crystal ball, but I'd be willing to bet that none of these 3 year old TV episodes are suddenly going to become the subject of multiple sources that makes any of them notable. --OnoremDil 22:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - My point with comparing those three guidelines to the page about notability you are quoting at me is that one can point to any one of those three by themselves (well, most of the time) as complete justification for one's action. And that's been long-observed community consensus; I don't remember any major discussion that ended with that guideline being promoted to the same level of reverence those three have. Repeated citing of this page -- as has been repeatedly done -- means nothing more than "some of us created a consensus over in a discussion on this other page, & now you have to conform to it." If a consensus makes sense, and is based on sensible arguments, then provide those arguments -- don't quote policy as if it were law. Since you appear to know this policy on notability so well, can you provide here the reasoning that led to it, & show how that reasoning is relevent to this debate? If you can do that (which is what I'm asking) not only will you win this discussion, but strengthen support for this policy. Resting an argument on the words of a policy alone only tempts the unhappy to change those words -- & weakens the intent of the policy. -- llywrch 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        AfD is not the place to debate policies and guidelines. That's what policy and guideline talk pages are for. As of now, consensus on WP:N, WP:NOT and WP:EPISODE is that individual episodes need individual arguments for notability. I don't see a reason why I should have to argue ~~against~~ that current consensus. Also, while WP:N may not be at the level of some of the policy pages, it's not like it's some new concept that's being thrown out in the discussion. --OnoremDil 02:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC) -Bold portion added and against struck out after reply was posted.-[reply]

"I don't see a reason why I should have to argue against that current consensus." -- Who's asking you to do that? That would mean you agree with some of the folks in this discussion that you want to keep this article. My questions have been to get you to argue for that alleged consensus -- if that is the intent of this page you've been quoting from. -- llywrch 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK...now I'm a little confused. Are you saying that arguments made on guideline and policy pages now need to be rehashed on every AfD where someone wants to quote the guideline or policy pages? --OnoremDil 09:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - Nothing notable about any of the listed episodes. Merge basic plot information to a list as Smtomak suggested.PGWG 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would only support the mass merge if that's what it takes for a consensus. I don't have much of a problem with moving all the writer/director information (except that it isn't yet sourced), but there's already a short plot summary for each episode at List of Phil of the Future episodes. --Smtomak 17:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, notable. Everyking 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How are they all notable? --Smtomak 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete all "Phil of the Future" episode articles without good sources. Fans of "Phil of the Future" could create a new wiki where they can write a detailed episode guide for the show. WP:EPISODE seems to provide a reasonable set of guidelines for Wikipedia and those guidelines correctly and clearly say that not every episode of TV shows can have a Wikipedia article. The main problem is that the only source of information about most episodes is from watching the episodes or reading promotional material (advertisements) about the show. Such sources do not provide a basis for writing a Wikipedia article, but they can provide the basis for an episode guide at another website. Fans of "Phil of the Future", please concentrate your Wikipedia editing on a FEW good encyclopedia articles about the show and then link to a detailed episode guide at another website (you could make such a guide here if you do not want to start a new wiki just for this show). --JWSchmidt 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather they write the stuff here, where people can actually find it, personally. I'm not a big fan of telling people to take their efforts elsewhere. Everyking 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for all the information on the internet. Only notable episodes - like those that have won awards or that have had important impacts on culture or society - should remain. There are plenty of other wikis for aggregating non-encyclopedic information. See WP:NOT. --Smtomak 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per precedent. Episode articles for shows already broadcast are kept in order to maintain a minimum size in the main article. We'll be debating which branches of mathematics are "notable" pretty soon! - Bevo 22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cant compare math to fiction. Corpx 01:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One man's trash is another's treasure, they say. And "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" [44]...there's plenty of space for all verifiable information - Bevo 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPAPER states "However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done, which is covered in the Content section below." The content section below states "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article."

Redirect to a list of episodes and no information needs to be lost. ~~I've yet to see any explanation about why we need the same information presented in two places.~~ About the only things individual episode articles seem to be good for is fair use arguments and unsourced trivia and quotes sections. --OnoremDil 02:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:EPISODE, which none of these episodes pass. Corpx 03:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm ignoring WP:EPISODE since there's an ongoing battle over its meaning and interpretation. Really, it's just a guideline on how Wikipedia:Notability should be applied to television articles. As it states, "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The episode itself is not independent of itself. The name of a writer or director is not significant coverage; it goes in the infobox. Without any sort of other references, an episode cannot be said to be notable. 17Drew 04:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT#CBALL--Sefringle^Talk 06:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, actually, these episodes already aired. The show has been cancelled. Everyking 06:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I'm kind of confused. 17Drew 06:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Until this whole mess on episode articles can be figured out. For those of you who aren't aware, there is a big brouhaha on what should be done about episode articles. It would be unwise to do anything related to mass deletions/merge/redirects until it is settled. Personally, I would say merge, but again, this is unstable guideline territory. Addendum I would also like to note that WP:EPISODE should really not be cited for either side of this discussion. As noted before, the interpretation and application of it are currently under much debate. Try to stick to other P&G that are stable. I ^{(said) (did)} 10:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is also failing WP:NOTE due to "lack of significant coverage from independent sources" Corpx 15:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of yet, nobody has provided a reason why any of the listed episodes are notable. The two episodes that have won awards are not up for deletion. An episode in a notable series is not automatically notable any more than a page in a notable book is automatically notable. Can someone who supports keeping the articles please provide an argument here? Otherwise we'll just be running in circles forever. --Smtomak 23:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they inherit the notability of the main article. These subarticles are an organizational technique, to keep the length of the main article within reason. - Bevo 04:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. An individual chapter of a book is not notable since secondary sources cover the book as a whole and not individual chapters. Likewise, the secondary sources do not have significant coverage of these individual episodes. 17Drew 04:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an individual chapter certainly could be notable, but only for the most notable books (classics). But I think this is a poor comparison to episode articles, which are aired separately and have self-contained plots. Nobody ever picks up a novel they've never read before, reads chapter 12, sets it aside for a while, then reads chapter 18, and then never reads it again, but this is common for episode viewing. A much better comparison, I think, would be to individual books in a series. Everyking 14:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are great for a TV guide wiki, but I dont think an encyclopedia should be providing plot summaries and trivia (ew) for every TV episode. Corpx 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're veering away from what I said. Notability is whether or not there is significant coverage from secondary sources. Just like there aren't sources that only cover one chapter of a book, there is not significant coverage of any individual episode. 17Drew 19:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and repeat, redirect and protect to a "List of episodes" article. The fact that the show is notable does not mean that every episode, character, etc., etc., from it is. In this case, I simply see no third-party source material to support these articles. We don't even need to bring notability into this, we can simply look at verifiability: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." As these are apparently not verifiable through independent, third-party sources (the episode itself ain't it, that's original research!), they must go. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per User:I. Dalejenkins 19:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featured on South Park[edit]

For the same reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs featured in Vanilla Sky. The essay WP:FAN is relevant here. Included:

List of songs in South Park
List of songs featured in The Simpsons

--Bulldog123 07:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - loosely connected trivia related to the shows in a non-integral way. The Simpsons is not The Magic Flute. --Haemo 08:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are all trivial details about the show and Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia Corpx 08:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I look up songs featured on TV shows quite often and consider such lists helpful and encyclopedic (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs featured on Lost). However, List of songs in South Park#List of original songs on South Park does appear extremely fancrufty and should be deleted, but not List of songs in South Park#List of real songs featured on South Park. Merge non-fan-crufty information from List of songs featured on South Park into that article as well. Strong keep List of songs featured in The Simpsons - the sortable table makes finding song info very easy. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless restricted to songs that are original to the series. A list of songs written for a series is reasonable. A list of every song that appears in any episode is not. Otto4711 13:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concordance with the suggestions of Sgeureka above. CaveatLector^Talk 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. I couldn't have expressed my opinion better. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because South Park is a noteworthy, popular show that has been on for several seasons and musical numbers are a major aspect of many episodes. Wasn't a song from the South Park movie even nominated for an Academy Award? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LGRdC nails it; the songs are by no means trivial, but rather critical to a proper explanation of the show. Chubbles 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The songs written specifically for the show may certainly be necessary for a critical understanding of the show, but the fact that a character hums a few notes of a song or sings a couple of lyrics isn't. Otto4711 22:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all songs that were not written specifically for the TV show and Keep, otherwise Merge to South Park. --Charlene 18:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because we like South Park and The Simpsons and don't like other shows is no reason to keep these sorts of lists, would we even consider keeping List of songs featured on 60 Minutes? c'mon. Carlossuarez46 23:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see any reason why keeping it is a problem, and yes, the sorttable tables in the Simpsons is a great idea, and yes in my opinion, encyclopedic. Put it simply; people will look up to it and will know that The Simpsons and South Park has gone to this far for many years and has featured many famous hit songs. However, there should be a rule that only original song tracks that are really featured in the Simpsons/South Park can be added; and not just adding part of a song that lyric's are being sung by a character. As a knowledgable music buff myself, I see alot of Simpsons songs being added that are actually just "referenced" and not the original song's track being "featured".

Someformofhuman 02:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to South Park. “The Simpsons” and “South Park” are extremely significant and unquestionable notable subjects. Unlike “Vanilla Sky” they represent critical commentary (on current society). The songs are not incidental, or padding, but are a significant component of the commentary, and often significant commentary themselves. The amount of material on the subjects is so large that it needs to be divided and organized, and this is just the function of List of songs in South Park and List of songs featured in The Simpsons. Both subjects are currently not well written, being excessively orientated to a fan perspective, and not enough to the perspective of serious scholarship. A reorientation is desirable, as is a better application of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), and deletions of attempts to organize the material are counterproductive. --SmokeyJoe 04:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; then add links to Chef Aid: The South Park Album and South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut#Soundtrack from South Park. We don't need a list of songs other than those on the albums; instead expand or add to the section on music in South Park, or create a separate article dealing with Music in South Park. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete song pages that describe songs played in the show. Songs created for the show should be kept where notable enough to warrant their own article, or merge all songs created for show into one article if individual articles cannot be used. A show should only have an article on songs played in the show if the show is known for its outside music sources, and reliable sources would be needed for this example. --WillMak050389 03:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What you say is sensible, and perhaps I was tending a bit leniently eventualist above. Not even South Park links to this list! However, but I don’t think delete is preferable to a merge to South Park. The list contains sourced material that can be improved, to prose, if a listing of all songs used is thought to be not appropriate. --SmokeyJoe 04:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, if the outside music used in the show has important and can be sourced, it should be used in the South Park article, and if enough information can be gathered, into a separate article. Any original music should be merged into a "List of songs from South Park" or similar, and if notable enough, separate songs or groups of songs (such as soundtracks) should have their own article. I hope that clears up what I was thinking/trying to say. --Will Mak 050389 05:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There really isn't any assertation of notability. It boils down to Wikipedia is not a collection of information. Relevant notable releases, such as the soundtrack, can and are covered. Keegan^talk 05:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a difference between trivia and an encyclopedia; this is trivia. If there is anything salvagable it should certainly be merged into the main article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Pancake[edit]

Massively uncited, probably OR at best, NFT or HOAX more likely (article's only supporting link (wikibooks) led to nowhere relevant); no relevant-looking ghits for "pirate pancake" rum. DMacks 07:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP is not a cookbook and there's no citations for the rest of the info Corpx 07:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V and WP:N as well as having a load of WP:OR.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been working on the WikiProject:Mixed Drinks, and even if this drink exists, we don't generally do 'house drinks', which this likely is. Drinks with spiced rum and maple syrup do exist, but they're generally punches, and if this is a regionalism for such a drink, it should be put there, instead. --Thespian 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the history section, although this was clearly of Canadian-Jamaican origin. ~ Infrangible 09:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see nothing wrong with this article.128.105.48.180 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Eusebeus 08:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, house drink, and not even a single hit on Google Groups: failing in many ways. Greswik 09:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Na astaraichean[edit]

It is a non-notable "religion" founded 1.5 year ago. All the information is obviously self published and a GS gives less than 100 links that most of them are just repeats -- Magioladitis 07:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of media coverage Corpx 07:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of no independent sources, and no notability established.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - orphaned, in poor shape, no independant sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bizarre, completely non-noteable, probably one bloke's attempt to pull with the help of wiki.:) Could have been a speedy.Merkinsmum 11:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATT - unattributable per Google search and possibly WP:SPAM. --Charlene 18:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete patently NN. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: deleted twice before with different capitalization. PubliusFL 20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nuke it again. Frjwoolley 21:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. IronGargoyle 00:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Palomino[edit]

Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article absolutely fails to cite any reliable sources Ohconfucius 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fifteen minutes of fame does not make one notable. If anyone can show that his music is of note, or anything else notable for that matter, then he might barely pass muster. Someguy1221 07:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a game show contestant does not make one inherently notable. Resolute 04:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as he gets 1,000's of Ghits, see [45]. Personally, I think that show so bad as to be a sign that It's the End of the World as We Know It, but he seems to have a cult following. Bearian 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning delete. He has released 2 albums under the name 'Marcelino Palomino', though I can't say whether they've had any success. This article in The Arizona Republic provides a fair bit of biographical information for a stub and he also has a biography at CD Baby, though I'm not sure that's a reliable source (I don't deal much with articles on musicians). His name gets a few hits in Google News, though most of the coverage is about his elimination. He was also interviewed by Buddy TV (not sure what that is). On the one hand, he is a top 20, but he was also eliminated in the first round. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Langas[edit]

Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article absolutely fails to cite any sources, reliable or otherwise Ohconfucius 06:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge info (what little there is) into the main So You Think You Can Dance article. Not a single one of the (eleiminated) contestants appears notable. Question Shouldn't there be one central AfD for all AfD'ed contestants? My opinion is the same for each contestant article. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only merge or have as a standalone article if she won. Her elimination is documented (such as it is), in the article for Season 3 of the show.--Ispy1981 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Losing game show contestants (IMO reality shows are game shows) are not notable simply for being on television. --Charlene 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a game show contestant does not make one inherently notable. Resolute 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not believe this is even being debated. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faina Savich[edit]

Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article absolutely fails to cite any reliable sources Ohconfucius 06:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete asap. Zero notability.--Targeman 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Losing game show contestants (IMO reality shows are game shows) are not notable simply for being on television. --Charlene 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a game show contestant does not make one inherently notable. Resolute 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Arguello[edit]

Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article absolutely fails to cite any reliable sources Ohconfucius 06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete asap. Zero notability.--Targeman 18:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Losing game show contestants (IMO reality shows are game shows) are not notable simply for being on television. --Charlene 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a game show contestant does not make one inherently notable. Resolute 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 18:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Solorio[edit]

Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article absolutely fails to cite any reliable sources Ohconfucius 06:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete asap. Zero notoriety.--Targeman 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't you mean "notability"? I think he'd agree he had zero notoriety whether he was notable or not. --Charlene 19:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, of course I meant notability :)--Targeman 20:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Losing game show contestants (IMO reality shows are game shows) are not notable simply for being on television. --Charlene 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a game show contestant does not make one inherently notable. Resolute 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All contestants should be merged into a single article (à la "So You Think You Can Dance? (Season Two) finalists").

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessi Peralta[edit]

Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article absolutely fails to cite any reliable sources Ohconfucius 06:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete asap. Zero notability.--Targeman 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Losing game show contestants (IMO reality shows are game shows) are not notable simply for being on television. --Charlene 19:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a game show contestant does not make one inherently notable. Resolute 04:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe she is notable. A Google news search yields significant coverage on TVGuide.com[46] and the Orlando Sentinel,[47] among others.--Evil1987 00:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected to So You Think You Can Dance? (Season Two) finalists by User:Night Gyr. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Savich[edit]

Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article relies on show publicity, and absolutely fails to cite reliable sources Ohconfucius 06:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge/redirect with So You Think You Can Dance (Season 2), that article ought to contain capsule bios. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Boldly redirecting to So You Think You Can Dance? (Season Two) finalists, which already contains the capsule bio. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Chip's Challenge. Non admin closure. Jorvik 10:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tile World[edit]

No independent references (WP:V); article does not explain how this game is notable (WP:N). Web search only reveals download pages, nothing that would satisfy WP:Reliable sources. Prod dismissed by an anonymous user as 'silly' without addressing these concerns. Marašmusïne_Talk 07:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 07:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a merge to Chip's Challenge -- it's already mentioned there, and as it does seem to be the most notable clone of that game, it should probably be discussed in a little more depth there, but I don't think it warrants its own article. JulesH 08:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Chip's Challenge if any reliable sources about it exist.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Chip's Challenge; sad because this is well-known in tile-based puzzle game circles, but I couldn't find any sources we can use to establish notability. — brighterorange (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as its notability is contingent on Chip's Challenge. Andre (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge even though this will set back my video game addiction recovery by at least 10 years. ~ Infrangible 10:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, though the result should not be construed as any kind of precedent for other articles in the three "foods" categories noted in the discussion. Individual menu items may be notable (e.g., Big Mac), but this article provides only one source from the corporate website itself. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Chicken Grill[edit]

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard 06:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was speedy-deleted as db-corp. And best look at other members of Category:Wendy's foods. Anthony Appleyard 06:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And perhaps Category:McDonald's foods and Category:Burger King foods as well. ROGER ^TALK 07:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont think an encyclopedia is the place for fast food resteraunt menu items unless they exert a lot of notability Corpx 07:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merge the members of Category:Wendy's foods into a short list as a section of Wendy's? Anthony Appleyard 08:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wendy's already has some. Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items, but also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taco Bell menu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items. There's no real consensus on such articles. --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I see a huge difference between one article per major fast food chain listing its menu items and individual articles on each menu item, including ephemeral offers, from each chain. Some fast foods items, like the Big Mac, genuinely satisfy the notability criteria, but most don't and should be excluded on that basis. ROGER ^TALK 09:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking non-trivial outside published sources, perhaps worth a mention elsewhere in the relevant place.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is sourced, what harm will it do to keep the article? Many other fast food items have their own article.

Additional CommentWould it be beneficial to have a combined article for "Wendy's Chicken Temptations", which is the brand name for all of their chicken sandwiches.

--Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 21:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced from wendys.com Corpx 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Firstly, the harm is to Wikipedia's credibility, and that could be incalculable. Secondly, many of the other fast food articles do not appear to fulfil notability and verifiability requirements. Thirdly, the source is Wendy's own promotional material, which for notability is no source at all. ROGER ^TALK 21:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would argue that the Ultimate Chicken Grill™ is prepared from a tender grilled whole chicken breast fillet with a delicious honey mustard sauce and crisp fresh toppings on a warm Kaiser roll. ~ Infrangible 10:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stop it! You're making me hungry. ROGER ^TALK 12:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only source is Wendy's itself. No WP:RS, and frankly, makes no assertion of notability at all. I'd ((dbfood)) it if such a speedy criteria existed. Resolute 04:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but can you deny it has all the flavor with only 8 grams of fat? (I think not.) ~ Infrangible 10:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Never mind how tasty it is: is it notable enough for Wikipedia? Anthony Appleyard 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not just any menu item from a restaurant, it's a product that is available at thousands of restaurants across the world.--Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 22:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Only at Wendy's restaurants. It's Wendy's that's the common factor; that's what provides the context (and the notability). That's why it would be better to merge this into the main Wendy article or even into a Wendy's menu items article than having separate little articles (with virtually no prospect of expansion) on each of them. ROGER ^TALK 07:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Wendy's menu items article would be deleted right quick if the precedents noted above are any indication. Resolute 13:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KHE[edit]

Orphan, no claim of notability, no third-party sources given. —Bkell (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability for the site Corpx 07:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable webclone of MXC, and the site hosts most of its content on secondary providers like YouTube and Putfile; Putfile links are within the body of the article also, which also violates WP:NOT A HOST. Nate 09:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a lack of significant coverage for this article. The lack of secondary sources is a major concern here too. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn JulesH 19:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Binary Economics[edit]

~~The bulk of this article is bizarre original research that is totally non-encyclopedic and violates WP:NPOV Bigdaddy1981 06:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)~~ Per below, I'll withdraw my AfD nomination and add a Disputed tag to the article. Bigdaddy1981 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search shows that this topic is notable in nature. It would be wise to rewrite this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Which part of this is "original research"? The article has more sourcing and bibliography than most I see. I think that all three of the reasons cited in the nomination (OR, POV, "non-encyclopedic") are inapplicable. Perhaps WP:IDONTLIKEIT is what is actually meant. Mandsford 11:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No what is meant is that this article is nonsense. Please, remember to assume good faith when considering AfDs. Bigdaddy1981 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sorry for pointing this out but as an economist with a master's degree I simply cannot refrain from commenting on this. If Wikipeida wishes to keep incoherent blatant nonsense that no economist with respect for himself would ever waste a second on just because of the disturbing fact that these ideas actually have followers then I sincerely do believe that we have reached a point where we must reconsider if we are the free encyclopedia or the free collection of lunatic ideas with no relation to the real world. Sorry if I'm trolling, I don't normally talk like that here but I feel quite strongly about this. The critics of economics already got to screw up the Economics article, this is where I draw the line. MartinDK 12:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs attention from an expert on the subject for possible NPOV concerns -- it should stress more strongly that this is not a mainstream economics theory, and present a more balanced view of the criticisms that (presumably) have lead to it not being adopted by mainstream economists. I'm also a little concerned about the reliability of some of the sources, for instance Rutgers Law Journal is a student publication, not the peer-reviewed publication it sounds like it should be, and may therefore be somewhat misleading with respect to its authority. Also, too many of the current sources were written by the originator of the theory: a broader mix of sources is required. But none of these is a good enough reason to delete the article. There are reliable sources here. Most of the article is based on content in Kelso's professionally published books. Other content is based on articles in the Journal of Socio-Economics. This isn't OR. JulesH 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I generally agree with JulesH. The article seems to make out its own case for notability, and nothing about this looks like original research in the sense we use it: it was not invented on Wikipedia. POV issues are not grounds for deleting this. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons stated above. CraigMonroe 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I'd like to address MartinDK's point about Binary Economics. Of course he's right, no respecting economist would take binary economics seriously. But I wonder, should we also delete the article on heliocentrism? Of course not, because it's still a term that may be referenced, and people should be able to turn to an encyclopedia to find out what that term meant. Exactly the same thing here. Binary economics, along with the reasons that it is not taken serionsly, should be clearly explained. We do readers a far better service by accurately characterizing bad science as bad, rather than by simply pretending it does not exist. We can easily do that here. --JayHenry 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it is to be kept as a curiosity as heliocentrism then it should be rewritten to make it clear that this is a fringe theory with no acceptance amongst professional economists. At the moment, it reads as POV gibberish. Bigdaddy1981 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then add a criticism section. As it stands, AFD is wholly innappropriate. CraigMonroe 16:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly my point. It should be rewritten to make it clear that it is a fringe theory with no acceptance amongst professional economists. --JayHenry 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have an economics degree. This article isn't economics, it's a thinly veiled rationalisation of the Islamic prohibition on lending money for interest, which is in itself one of the main reasons for the failure of Islamic countries to thrive . If it's kept it has to be rewritten to reflect this as JayHenry points out. This is religion, it's NOT economics. Nick mallory 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about this Islamic thing? Just cause you have a degree in economics evidently means you don't want to cite the fact that Christianity prohibited usury also. Lets try not to judge an entire civilization on the fact that they don't lend with interest. Rhetth 02:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me show you how easy it is to debunk this. From the article: This supply of interest-free loans for the spreading of productive capacity, as well as for environmental and public capital, would be a move towards using a 100% of banking reserves. Thus the banking system would not be continually creating money but would be confined to lending (with permission) depositors’ money and the bank’s own capital

Amazing!! First of all they manage to claim that banks would not create money yet they would lend out no less than 100% of their reserves thus creating lots of money (100% in fact). In fact they would create more money that banks do in Western capitalist countries. To claim that they would not continually create money suggest that deposits would not increase or decrease over time. In other words the world would be static and nothing would ever change over time. In response to this they will claim that creating money actually means creating profit (another sign that they don't even understand the terminology they use) but then why are they allowed to charge "fees"? It just makes no friggin' sense. Not only this but they would lend out 100% of their reserves. Banks in countries with efficient supervision of the stability of the financial sector (most Western countries) do not allow banks to lend out more than usually around 80% of their reserves. Why? Imagine what happens when people come to the bank to withdraw their deposits... If rumour spreads that the bank does in fact not have the money it generates what is known as a bank run or quite simply panic where people rush to withdraw their deposits. Result: complete collapse of the financial sector. This is something that the Indonesians should already be aware of after the collapse in 1997-98. All that without resorting to use of algebra which these people hate so much because it allows us to debunk their theories and expose them as little more than political propaganda in disguise. And trust me people... that is exactly what this is. I understand the part about educating people like we do with the flat earth theory article or the many creationist articles here but the article should at least point out that this is politics disguised as science. MartinDK 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand Binary Economics and those who don't ~ Infrangible 10:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Laughing Hey, that's pretty good. Almost a 1010.
Strong Keep Janos Abel invited me to write the original article which he kindly put up. As it developed eighty two book/paper references were included (and about another fifty published paper references could be included). However, apparently because binary economics is a new paradigm (or, simply, because some people just do not like it)attempt is being made to suppress it which has not been done for other schools of economics.
Moreover, if a Western university had been the first to take up binary economics there would have been no objection but, because it is an Indonesian one (even though it is second in prestige in the whole of Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous nation)there is an implicit assumption of cultural and intellectual inferiority.
I apologise for not using my password but I am rushing to make sudden arrangements to go to Indonesia and do not have time to find it.
Rodney Shakespeare rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com
I should have added that a clear, referenced account of binary economics can now be found at www.binaryeconomics.net and much information/papers etc at www.cesj.org and www.kelsoinstitute.org

Rodney Shakespeare.
Thanks for openly admitting your conflict of interest and use of self-published sources. I have added the appropriate tag to the article and I will be removing the links to your website as spam. Also, I do invite you to respond to my debunking of your monetary theory rather than assume that I hold bias against Indonesians (which I don't). Sigh... Now that the main contributor to the article have admitted that much of the "research" used on the article is in fact original research by him and his colleagues could we agree on what OR is? MartinDK 12:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, The Kelso Institute is not the reliable source that it sounds like. It is a website run by Patricia Kelso, the wife of the originator of this theory. MartinDK 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add a criticism section with sources. Even if wholly innaccurate they can place the theory out there since it is sourced. CraigMonroe 13:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two peer reviewed sources. The rest are working papers and other self-published sources. Anyone can write a working paper or a book. MartinDK 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two peer reviewed articles is more than enough under Wiki standards. Not to mention, a book would also qualify. You disagree witht eh topic. ... so instead of discussing it here (the AFD nom was withdrawn) spend the time to write a criticism section in the article so people actually know this is an unsupported theory and why it is wrong. CraigMonroe 13:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MartinDK, It is no conflict of interest if the writer of an article is in the best position to write an article. It is rather important in these matters that people should know what they are talking about. Perhaps you can suggest the name of somebody who has unequivocably read all the books and papers. As regards 'origianal research' is The Cpaitalist Manifesto (1958) 'original research' and therefore to be rejected?. Or The New Capitalists (1961)? Or Two-Factor Theory (1967)? Or Democracy and Economic Power (1987). Or Binary Economics (1999)? Or Seven Steps to Justice (2002)? Or Capital Homsesteading (2002/4? Or The Modern Universal Paradigm (2007)? Or The Universal Partadigm (2007)? Published works are published works and if publication is grounds for supppression then all books can be suppressed. Book burners, rejoice! I also notice that you are trying to suppress any reference to a very clear account of binary economics at www.binaryeconomics.net. I invite all people concerned with this matter to go to that website before they take any decision. What do you mean by "self-published sources?" All the books referred to above have publishers.

And why do you attack the Kelsos? Is it a crime to simply propose that workers should own shares in corporations? Is it a crime to want to see everybody owning shares and to see everybody having some form of productive capacity? Is it a crime to want to use interest free loans for prodcutive capacity (so that the effective cost is halved?

Rodney Shakespeare

MartinDK with regard to your comments on monetary theory. I am sorry but you do not understand the subject. The 100% reserves proposal (Friedman, Fisher, Simons and others)STOPS the banks creating money out of nothing (they have to use depositiors' money or their own capital). There is then a new supply of central bank-issued interest-free loans going THROUGH the banks (i.e. they administer it and charge administration cost). The central bank intersst-free supply is directed (by the banks) at the development and spreading of productive capacity and the associated consuming capacity. It cannot be inflationary because, over time, all the lent money (secured on productive capacity) is repaid and cancelled. It is not helpful when people like yourself attempt to put out gross distortions about a subject because they do not understand what has been clearly written.

Let me just briefly respond to this. The 100% reserve requirement proposed by Friedman et.al. does indeed stop the banks from creating money since they cannot lend out what has been deposited. That is not what is in the article. According to the article banks would lend out what has been deposited as well as its own capital in addition to loans tunneled through the private banks at 0% interest. Thus they would be creating money. What you should have written was that due to property concerns, banks should not create money out of what, according to the supports of this theory, is not the bank's property but the depositor's property. This is an old and discarded idea but it is not original research and is generally considered one of Friedman's oddest ideas (he had quite a few of those). You seem to misunderstand how banks create money. But I will leave it at that since this really didn't belong on this AfD and I should have known this would happen so I will just leave it at that. I give up. MartinDK 14:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for saying that the 100% requirement as proposed by Friedman et al. stops the banks from creating new money. We are making some, although slow, progress. But you still have not grasped that what is proposed is the use of existing money (deposits -- with permission -- and bank capital) plus loans (from the central bank) which start as newly-created money but are then directed solely at the development and spreading of productive capacity and are then repaid and CANCELLED. The overall effect is that, over time, there need be no overall increase in the money supply and, due to the huge diminution in the role of interest (as opposed to administration cost) no continual pressure to increase the money supply (which is what happens at present thereby causing continual inflation). I also note that you say the 100% reserve is not an original idea and has been discarded. As a separate idea it may have been discarded but binary economics links it with the central bank-issued interest-free loan supply for the development and spreading of productive capacity -- and that is one of the original aspects of binary economics. But, of course, as soon as I use the word "original" up jumps the I Don't Like it Brigade to twist the meaning of Wikipedia's rules on the meaning on originality to try to stop the whole article. Also it would be generally preferable if people who know nothing about binary economics did not pontificate on content (as opposed to matters of style etc). Rodney Shakespeare.

KEEP Binary Economics addresses issues missed by mainstream economics and is a valuable addition for this reason (despite being a work in progress). The fate of LTCM is only one glaring example of the need for improvement in that which is approved by mainstream economics. Read Keyne's essay The Future (Essays in Persuasion) if you want an eye-opener of a mainstream economist coming clean.
STRONG KEEP As an author of 8 books on economic questions I am opposed to the idea of deleting the article on binary economics and so depriving institutions and good causes the possibilityof low or no interest loans. I therefore vote STRONG KEEP. Those who oppose the principles of BE are simply ignorant of its workings or have vested interests for its suppression in the name of the establishment and powerful corporations. Yhe time has come for experimentation and alternative economic theories in the name of social justice and a more equitable world in both north and south. Robert Corfe robertcorfe@tiscli.co.uk

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

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Stoll[edit]

This person seems to be just an ordinary criminal. From the article there does not seem to be anything notable or remarkable about him more than the hundreds of others who are found guilty by the courts every day. Steve Dufour 05:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. He is already mentioned in Kent Hovind, which is his only potential link to notability. -Jmh123 06:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a "weak" and somewhat reluctant "delete". Ironically, I disagree with fellow editor Steve Dufour on his rationale -- but I agree with Steve on his conclusion. As far as I know, Glen Stoll has never actually been charged with or convicted of a Federal tax crime. The references in the article are to civil tax cases (albeit serious ones). I edit heavily here in Wikipedia in tax law articles, especially articles involving tax protesters like Glen Stoll. I would argue that if Glen Stoll HAD been convicted of a tax crime, that could very well be a possible ground for a Wikipedia article, as convictions for U.S. Federal tax crimes are rare (compared to, say, convictions for murder). Ironically, had Stoll been charged with and ACQUITTED of a Federal tax crime, that might make him even MORE notable, as acquittals in Federal tax cases are extremely rare. Anyway, I would incline slightly toward a "delete" at this time, with the obvious proviso that Mr. Stoll might properly be the subject of a Wikipedia article at a later time if he gets into any more tax trouble. Yours, Famspear 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The whole subject of Federal tax crimes and the process by which the government decides who is going to be prosecuted is actually quite interesting (uh, at least, it is if you're tax law geek like I am). A discussion of why and under what circumstances being charged with, convicted of, or acquitted of a Federal tax crime could make an individual "notable" for purposes of Wikipedia is of course beyond the scope of this page. Yours, Famspear 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or perhaps redirect) and move relevant well-sourced info to Kent Hovind. This is not a biography but Stoll's doings mentioned here seem notable enough in the context of Hovind's endeavors. Avb 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep only if there are more 3rd party sources to show that this particular man and his schemes are notable. It is not necessary to be convicted to get a WP article; the article is careful about its language and so should have been the nomination. DGG (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is mentioned in the press and in federal court cases. People looking for information about him and his "Remedies at Law" scheme would be interested in this article. This Seattle article explains why he is notable and this US Department of Justice press release adds further detail. The article needs a rewrite, not deletion. There are over 30 mentions in the google news archive's search over the last few years that can help with a rewrite. Plantocal 05:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Interesting scheme, certainly. I tend to view such arguments as reasons to move/redirect/transform to an article about the subject's scheme(s). Avb 14:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the individual is not remarkable; when does common crime become notable? Why would we want to make it notable? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful Life (Gwen Stefani song)[edit]

Despite the "rumours have been flying around" that it'll be released as a single, there are no reliable sources that say so, including the links provided. Disputed prod. ShadowHalo 05:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia isnt a place for rumors Corpx 07:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else but allow for recreation if released as single.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - too vague and too little info. Notability questionable at the moment, WP:CRYSTAL applies here in full. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unsourced and crystal ball-gazing article. Its author has a history of creating hoax articles and adding misinformation to Wikipedia via multiple usernames, and has been blocked indefinitely. Extraordinary Machine 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hardly any info and pointless.
Delete for now and eat our words later (no choice but it's NN now). Fineday 01:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, song does not pass WP:MUSIC and information in article is not supported by reliable sources. --Charlene 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a crystal ball.--JForget 22:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It hasn't been released as a single and it hasn't charted anywhere. Recreate if and when the single's released. Precious Roy 06:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a huge rumour circulating in many blog sites. People are just talking. No news has come from Interscope. User:Luxurious.gaurav
Delete It's too early for this article. Should have waited until some official confirmation had been made.--Kylohk 04:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted. Sr 13 06:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreeCeilo[edit]

Non-notable software. Name gets four google hits. Weregerbil 05:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A7.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Carlosguitar 23:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being Human (American Dragon: Jake Long)[edit]

Needs merging to List of American Dragon: Jake Long episodes - Vox Humana 8' 05:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just a plot summary, which is a violation of WP:NOT. All the other articles must be deleted also. Corpx 07:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above. Kyriakos 07:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Connell66 07:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The TV show itself got cancelled, so it's unlikely any more reliable sources will be produced. The rest of them are nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Befuddled Mind. MER-C 09:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DEFER to the group nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Befuddled Mind. >Radiant< 14:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As goes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Befuddled Mind, so should this. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Kurykh 17:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis de Piro[edit]

From Tancarville (talk · contribs)'s edit summary: Merged with Buttigieg de Piro. This page is no longer needed.) Nomination completed by me. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like a speedy redirect? Otherwise no opinion. --Dhartung | Talk 05:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On review, Buttigieg De Piro, the name of the current title holder, is a copy of this article and contains no new information. If any article should be deleted, it would be the other one.--Dhartung | Talk 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, agree 100 % with Dhartung on this one. The substance of the article is on the Title and who has held the Title. Callelinea 20:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it was to close as the data was transferred to both Buttigieg_De_Piro and Budaq. The title was of no avail as it is a Spanish Title not a Maltese title. Correction was needed and carried out. --Tancarville 10:02, 10 July 2007 (EST)
Keep rd Buttigieg De Piro to this Giggy _U^CP 05:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nom withdrawn). Anas ^talk? 12:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Fortune[edit]

WithdrawnLacks notability or references. Listed as Pro-Wrestler but had 4 matches in World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and indeterminate time in World Championship Wrestling (WCW). No PPV, titles or coverage from outside sources. He's a monster truck driver, but I'm not sure that counts as notable either. Has been tagged for references for 4 months.Horrorshowj 04:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC) He's not notable as a wrestler. I don't think he warrants a standalone article as a monster truck driver. However JulesH is correct, the buried reference in the NFL.com article to his having played 2 seasons in WLAF does meet the minimum standards for notability as an athlete. Horrorshowj 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A professional wrestler up for deletion? Oh no, somebody call TJ Spyke! I'm inclined to vote Keep, although it certainly needs some citations. Calgary 05:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of media coverage Corpx 07:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Such a search brings up numerous articles concerning him. If anything this asserts notability. Calgary 13:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I didnt realize he was also the football player. Corpx 16:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of references in a more refined search. Also, as a former professional footballer (not described in the article, but it is mentioned in sources found by the search above), he meets the criterion in WP:BIO for "competitors who have played in a fully professional league". JulesH 13:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cahir grinder[edit]

Probably a hoax, or non-notable. -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTE, WP:POV, WP:CITE, and all that good stuff. Calgary 05:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per both of you.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per all the above comments. A google search shows no hits as well for this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually. I'll send you a loaf if you don't believe me :) Or at least a picture. I've known Cahir Grinder for over 15 years now. It's a local trademark, so I'm not surprised that you haven't heard of it before —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eoghanzer (talk • contribs)
- It'd be best if you cite independent, reliable sources about this matter. -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The references seem to be only topical external links and not references concerning the subject himself. Lack of improvement and a possible single purpose account are also factors in weighing consensus. IronGargoyle 15:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Cunard[edit]

A person of no sourced notability. Worked for a record company; his mother was mentioned in a government report. The article has a bunch of references, the majority of which don't mention this person. A few trivial mentions of his name are made in passing ("record so-and-so produced by David".) Nothing substantial notability-wise, all information about the person is unsourced. Weregerbil 04:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. There is a claim of notability in that the article says he was nominated for a Grammy Award as a producer. However, the sources I have been able to find don't list the producers of the albums nominated in his category (just the titles and composers), so I have not been able to verify the claim. In addition, the article rambles all over the place. I don't see how his mother's experiences in being ~~committed to~~ placed involuntarily in a nursing home could be relevant enough to be included in this article. Depending on whether and how this article is improved, I may reconsider later. --Metropolitan90 10:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I now recommend a delete because no attempt has been made to improve the article yet. --Metropolitan90 07:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are definitely some claims to notability in there; this one's going to be more difficult than your average A7. Still, I think that more likely than not the final result will be "delete".-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A worthy and active member of the middle class, but not encyclopedia material. Hawkestone 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I think the article is way too long and should be edited down. But I think he makes the mark in notability. Callelinea 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently those who have read this article are totally ignorant of the British National Health Service, the largest employer in Europe. Despite the Wikipedia assertion that there are three other “national systems” in the United Kingdom (which is one sovereign nation) the NHS is funded by general taxation of the entire country. The financial problems of the Health Service are a frequent topic in British media. The "Government Report" dismissed by Weregerbil above indicates an unfamiliarity with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and effect of its work which is quasi-judicial. The report in question was the most important ever made concerning the long-term care of the elderly in the United Kingdom and has resulted most recently in a complete overhaul of the manner in which patients are granted funding. That alone is worthy of inclusion since the subject of the article influenced government policy which affects some sixty million people, all of whom will be old one day. The background to the case is included to indicate how the matter came about - and incidentally, the article never states that his mother was "committed to a nursing home". The manner in which she and others are placed in accommodation and then required to pay was a major factor; perhaps it would be wise for critics to familiarise themselves with the problems of the National Health Service before being so dismissive. Referring to “a bunch of references” does not, I submit, indicate professional editorial acumen.

Biographical information requires that the background and education of a subject be included; “worked for a record company” indicates unfamiliarity with the Recording Industry. In the 1960s, EMI Records was then the largest record company in the world (Capitol Records is one of its subsidiaries) and Mr Gooch replaced the older George Martin when he departed. He had as a colleague Norman Newell (q.v.) who, apart from producing many well known artists and translating Italian lyrics, appears not to have helped his fellow man in any way. Producing the first album to donate royalties to an Aids-related (or in American use, AIDS-related) in itself would be cause for inclusion. Concerning the Nomination for a Grammy Award, a check with the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences for the awards period 1985 will confirm this: David Gooch - Very Warm For May. Unfortunately they do not list nominees on their web site since that are always five in each category. Although the article does not mention it, the Nomination was a directly responsible for a change in the Academy’s rules which in the following year (1986) forbade unreleased historical recordings from being included in the category. It so happened that until 1985 no other British record producer had been nominated in this “field” as the Academy calls it.

In my estimation, the article does not “ramble all over the place” but is clearly divided into chronological sections culminating in the circumstances and results of his campaigning for the rights of the elderly in the UK. Wikipedia is read by the British researchers and if it is to be considered definitive, fame or celebrity should not be an indicator of biographical worth; if he had appeared on Big Brother, there would not be a discussion! 1810 GMT 10 July 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Shuster (talk • contribs)

The article says that the subject's mother was "placed involuntarily in an EMI (Elderly Mentally Ill) Nursing Home", which is why I said she was committed to a nursing home. --Metropolitan90 08:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK one can only be "committed" to a psychiatric hospital under the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983; it is commonly called "sectioning", which means that a 'section' of the Act has been invoked; a patient cannot be 'committed to a nursing home' and in this particular case, no "sectioning" was involved. In British law there is now no division between a "nursing home" and one which offers "residential care"; they are all known legally as "care homes". What does happen (as it did then) is that the Social Services department of Local Authorities (similar to those of US counties) can (and do) transfer patients to care homes for which the patient is then (unlawfully)required to pay. The Report made to Parliament by the Health Service Ombudsman upheld the formal Complaints made about this, and the result was that most recently the National Health Service substantially amended the procedures. There is no equivalent in the United States because there is no universal health coverage. WLS 0837 GMT
- Noted. I have changed the wording of my original recommendation above accordingly. --Metropolitan90 08:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The events leading up to the change in British Government policy are interesting and probably notable, perhaps these merit an article themselves or being recorded as part of a larger article. However, much of David Cunard's life otherwise appears to have been unremarkable and unless notability is brought out and established, I would go for delete. --Malcolmxl5 02:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the issues raised by a (probable) spa don't assert notability. Giggy _U^CP 05:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - seems to have a lot of references. However, article seems a little long-winded. Guroadrunner 13:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Windows Vista Compatible Programs[edit]

Another unmaintainable list. There are many, many, many Vista compatible programs, and presumably there will be many, many more in the future. Crystallina 04:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate delete per nom. Unmaintainable list. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Over time the list would grow incomprehendably long. If that is indeed a word. Calgary 04:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In a few years this list could include, well, almost every program that comes out in that time. We already have a [[Category:Windows Vista]], so this is unecessary. Someguy1221 05:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete also per unmaintainable list. Wikipedia shouldnt become a software review site. Corpx 07:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Calgary and Corpx. -- Magioladitis 07:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Connell66 07:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Not to be uncreative in my rationale, though. --Haemo 08:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable, and getting moreso by the minute. Maybe as a category it wouldn't be so bad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOT. We aren't a software compatability guide. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-brainer delete Unmaintainable list, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete There is no point for this article at all, I agree with all the above delete comments. Redrok84 19:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per WP:NOT. A true unmaintainable list. Carlosguitar 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's impossible to maintain. More and more software are coming out which are Vista compatible, making the potential size of the list huge. Had it been restricted to software released pre-Vista release, it might have gone the other way.--Kylohk 10:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of solo piano pieces, English[edit]

Unmaintainable list - there are thousands, possibly millions of solo piano pieces. Crystallina 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Soapbox, anyone? Calgary 04:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The only edits are by someone who seems to have the same username as the only artist listed.... --Hemlock Martinis 07:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept. Sr 13 06:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legend Seven[edit]

Seemingly non-notable. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about albums by this band:

--Vox Humana 8' 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:MUSIC by having two releases on Word Records, a very notable Christian music label. Also, charted several hits at Christian radio. Chubbles 05:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable Christian rock band. Releases on the very notable Word Records, a sub-label of Warner Music Group. Why is this listed in the "Places and transportation" catagory? --Oakshade 16:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable Christian band during the 90s. Had radio hits, videos, and albums released on major label. Thief12 00:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept. Sr 13 06:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legend (Legend Seven album)[edit]

Nominated for deletion as an album by a seemingly non-notable band. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about (1) the band and (2) the other album by this band:

--Vox Humana 8' 04:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legend Seven is notable; full-length albums by notable bands qualify for their own article. Chubbles 05:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legend Seven is a notable group. A google search shows over 700 hits. This group is also the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Google test is completely unreliable - in any case, 700 hits is nothing. I mean, U2 turn up about 46.8 million hits - that's almost 67,000 times as many hits.--Vox Humana 8' 11:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - Comparing Legend Seven with U2 is completely out of the question. It's like comparing Paul Walker with Jimmy Stewart, or Marlon Brando. You'll be way better comparing them with another band not of the status of U2. Thief12 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading my comment above, I want to rephrase. Paul Walker is a lousy actor. Legend Seven wasn't a lousy band. But you can get my drift of what I was trying to say, hehehe. Thief12 02:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Release by notable Christian rock band on Word Records, the Christian sub-label of Warner Music Group. Why is this in the "places and transportation" catagory? --Oakshade 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The band - and their albums - were notable even getting some hits on radio. Their members were also notable coming from another known band. Thief12 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Anas ^talk? 22:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Faith (Legend Seven album)[edit]

Nominated for deletion as an album by a seemingly non-notable band. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about (1) the band and (2) the other album by this band:

--Vox Humana 8' 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legend Seven is notable; full-length albums by notable bands qualify as notable. Chubbles 05:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete album - WP:MUSIC states that albums must have independent coverage in them. I cant find anything about it on a google search Corpx 07:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is that a new policy? In that case, we have tens of thousands of album pages to delete. If that (thoroughly silly) policy is to be followed, the track listing of the album should at least be Merged into the band page. By the way, Google isn't going to turn up any press for a 15-year old Christian Rock album. That's a bad standard to judge notability for albums. Back issues of CCM Magazine will, though. Chubbles 08:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full text of Wikipedia:Notability (music) Albums section:

"If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage.

Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting."

Corpx, what are you basing your claim on? --Oakshade 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The individual albums should have indepenent coverage part. I see no reviews/billboard chartings etc for this album Corpx 17:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Should" and "must" are very different. Where's the "must"? --Oakshade 17:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The album had three hit singles on Christian radio. Chart positions are now sourced. Sheesh. Chubbles 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable group. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Release by notable Christian rock band on Word Records, the Christian sub-label of Warner Music Group. Why is this in the "places and transportation" catagory? --Oakshade 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Chubbles, who makes persuasive arguments here. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, album was notable, released on major label and had several radio hits, and videos. Thief12 00:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tentative list sites[edit]

An unsourced, unclear, and unnecessary list that doesn't comply with WP:LIST guidelines. Crystallina 04:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unclear is right. I haven't a clue either. Not. A. Clue. -WarthogDemon 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 04:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Apparently this is a list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites on the “tentative list”, which I’m assuming is some sort of subcategory. Take note, we have the following: List of World Heritage Sites in Africa, List of World Heritage Sites in the Americas, List of World Heritage Sites in Asia and Australasia and List of World Heritage Sites in Europe, which make this article more than somewhat redundant. Take note, I think I saw a similar list, something along the lines of List of World Heritage Sites in Poland, which could probably stand to be deleted along with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgary (talk • contribs)
Delete. Calgary is right that this is a list of "potential" World Heritage sites, but in that case fails WP:CRYSTAL. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Soapboxing concerns are still here I think, but Black Falcon and DGG's newly presented information is compelling enough to keep the article for now. IronGargoyle 00:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mintz[edit]

Candidate for North Carolina state treasurer in 2008. No other claim to notability, no independent sources. Only notable (maybe) if he wins, not till then. NawlinWiki 03:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Political candidates are not notable. Calgary 04:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Possible soapbox. Calgary

Delete Political candidates are not inherently notable. I see no indication that being a candidate for state treasurer establishes notability. Resolute 04:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless article can make some claim to notability and source those claims. Montco 05:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Political candidates are not notable. This politican have not held any national office and have not received any significant press coverage. However, it must be noted that a google search shows over a thousand hits for this politician. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No references, vanity piece for a candidate. If it had more references I might be convinced to keep but as written now, get rid of it. Callelinea 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if anyone wants to do it carefully; a preliminary scan of the google results show there seem to be several genuine news stories in independent RSs (albeit local one) among all the political blogs. There was in fact already a reference, so those saying there were none may not have read the article carefully--It did not show prominently in a separate section, so I formatted it. the WP article for some reason leaves out what seems to be the reason for the interest--a party switch in 2006 (I added it on the basis of that reference). I wonder who wrote it. DGG (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. The above "delete" comments were all made prior to the addition of sources to the article (see diff). The article now cites 4 distinct sources, three of which seem to be independent, and two of which seem to provide significant coverage (these two). Being a political candidate does not make a personal inherently notable, but it also does not make someone inherently non-notable, which two of the "delete" recommendations and the nomination suggest. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have converted the cached references with <ref> tags so that they are more easily identifiable. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Merge is tempting, but the arguments are strong that we should be avoiding trivia sections. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra in popular culture[edit]

Per WP:FIVE, wikipeida is not a trivia collection. This article is just full of trivia. Wikipedia should not be the place to document every time somebody mentions something in a book/tvshow/movie - Some precedent in AFD regarding Gorgons and Medusa in popular culture - Corpx 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is the article trivia, but it's primary focus is video games an the like, which frequently draw from classical mythology. Nothing surprising there. Calgary 03:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to be a section in the Lernaean Hydra article. Most mythological beings, stories, etc have a section for XX in popular culture; it's factual and, I think, actually quite interesting to see how those archetypes are reused in games, books, etc. However, it could be edited considerably for length to condense it down. --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 04:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Wikipedia has a policy against trivia sections, and this list, even if massively conensed, would be an obvious trivia section. The transition of classical mythology into popular culture is an interesting one, but would be much better served by a paragraph or two in another article than a trivial list. Calgary 04:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to main Lernaean Hydra article, as Bookgrrl said. Connell66 07:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the unsourced trivia, and save the rest. --Haemo 08:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, summarise or keep, modern references to hydra are relevant to the Lernaean Hydra article. Ideally these references should be briefly summarised in the main article but a separate article might be okay too. Cedars 08:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An overgrown trivia section should be trimmed down, not expanded into a new page per WP:FIVE, which states that WP is not a trivia collection Corpx 08:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. We should avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a directory of loosely associated items. The listed items have nothing in common with one another. They don't all even have the Hydra in common, as this list not only captures appearances by the creature but things that are simply named "Hydra" or merely use the word "hydra." This list tells us nothing about the Hydra, nothing about the things that use the word "hydra," nothing about how these things relate to the Hydra or to each other and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These "articles" (scrappy unedited research notes in reality) are always bad, with a built in tendency to get worse over time. Hawkestone 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of the talk page. Forking out "popular culture" sections into separate articles and then deleting those articles is a poor substitute for actual editing. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Place relative pages into Category:Greek mythology in popular culture and delete. To many 'popular culture' articles floating around, when the would do much better and be much more managable in categories. CaveatLector^Talk 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a very brief summary in continuous prose into Lernaean Hydra. As Siva1979 writes, "We should avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts." EALacey 15:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say merge, but I don't think there's anything worth merging. CaveatLector makes a good point about categories: if the list items have their own pages, they should be in a category; if there are enough items, the category could even be Category:Hydra in popular culture. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say keep, because it concerns and Ancient myth, which is certainly encyclopedic and provides enough examples from noteworthy venues to justify inclusion. What I would suggest is more in the way of references and images. Also, I am in the process of cleaning the article up in terms of organization, references, internal links, italicizing titles, etc., so please at least allow for some time to clean up to see if it improves. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the list is pure trivia and a violation of WP:FIVE Corpx 17:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is still being improved with images, reference, internal links, etc. Definitely not mere trivia, because the persistence of the Greek myth in Western culture is indicative of its strength throughout many centuries. The fact that there are so many references to it show its long-lasting legacy and relevance to world culture and is therefore absolutely encyclopedic. As for WP:FIVE, an ancient myth that has influenced various aspects of popular culture for many, many years is definitely encyclopedic; verifiable sources can and are starting to be provided and the article does not attempt to force any one point of view on readers; the article contains free content edited by many different editors; the article seems to have had a pleasant edit history with not much in the way of edit wars from my glance; and it is a bold, interesting article. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete little different than other popular culture articles deemed by consensus to be non-encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I again request some patience on this one as efforts are being undertaken to improve the article. Please note that in addition to my edits, User:Michael Hardy has also made several edits to improve the article in the past couple of hours. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are far too many of these 'pop culture' articles, and would stress that we shouldn't keep this JUST because its a classical in nature (and I'm a Classicist!). The enduring nature of Greek mythology and culture is better displayed through a category, I think. It is much easier to access and provides a lot more research opportunities. CaveatLector^Talk 20:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think that there are not enough articles of this nature, because, while I agree that many of the existing ones can and should be improved with sources and images, listing the many places in which an original source, concept, idea, etc. resurfaces throughout the various arts throughout the ages is quite revealing of the topic's importance, not to mention it's handiness for researchers. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am into the Classics myself, but many people and creatures and deities of Graeco-Roman mythology have entered our vocabulary and as such become a quick reference: e.g., someone ugly: Medusa; strong: Hercules; naughty: Bacchus; beautiful: Venus or Helen of Troy. Hydra is little different and resort to the name in different media really doesn't show a pop cultural phenomenon. Is there a book, or journal article out there that discusses that Hydra is a pop culture icon and why we resort to it? how it's used, referenced, etc.? I didn't find one, but if such a WP:RS is found I'd reconsider. But to now, a slew of references is not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let it burn in wikihell. And please target the one in Charon (mythology): I find it really off-putting. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For comparative purposes and as a possible means of a compromise solution, I temporarily merged some of the article into the main hydra article. Please look over this version and see if it would work better in the article or a separate article. Feel free to revert the edit to the main article if necessary, but I just wanted to see what it could like and show others what it could look like as well. Please see possible temporary edit at Lernaean_Hydra#Hydra_creatures_in_culture and discuss what you think; I don't know what more I would have to add at this point. Take care! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia and listcruft.--JForget 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; and this isn't any better merged back to the main article as it has just been. Examples like In Tenacious D's "Wonderboy," Jack Black says "There's the Hydra. Pull out your broadsword. Slice his throat. Grab his scrote" or The band Green Lights use the term Hydra-rock to describe their sound have no encyclopedic value anywhere. User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles says he is attempting to improve the article, but the only apparent changes are a huge photo of a roller coaster has been added, and the entire (slightly reformatted) Hydra in popular culture article has been copy and pasted into Lernaean Hydra. Masaruemoto 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I added TWO pictures, a couple of references, put titles in italics, corrected some grammar, etc. If you look at the history of the article you will see that I made FIFTEEN edits to that article in order to improve it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I did look at the edit history, every single recent edit. You seem to believe that simply correcting spelling and adding images can save an article that violates WP:NOT. Read the deletion arguments, none of them say "delete because there aren't enough images" or "delete because there are some typos in the article". Masaruemoto 02:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but then why say "the only apparent changes", when there were more than that, because I also added some references, too. And I did read what others argued, and it just doesn't seem to violate "not" in that the list is hardly indiscriminate or not encyclopedic. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep; do not merge. Some of these are probably notable; none of them belong in Lernaean Hydra. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note for the closing admin I have begun work taking articles relevant enough and adding them to Category:Greek mythology in popular culture (soon I hope to be renamed "Category:Greco-Roman mythology in popular culture. This is to show how I feel this information should properly be handled. CaveatLector^Talk 12:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am a stickler about trivia being paraded as an encyclopedia; far too often they are confused. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 02:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 03:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Medina[edit]

This article should be deleted because it is a blank page. ManbirS 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Western North American heat wave[edit]

Wikipedia is not the news. For those of you unfamiliar with the western part of North America, heat waves such as this one occur two or three times every summer. There is nothing extremely unusual about this weather event. People die and records get broken in just about every heat wave. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per article citations. It is unusual for major freeway closures and fish dying from warm waters. Featuresaltlakecity 03:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And this article is in its infancy. Many records have been broken that have not even been listed yet. Featuresaltlakecity 03:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either. MortonDevonshire Yo · 03:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unsure of your intention. Records have already been broken. Featuresaltlakecity 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many of the temperatures you have listed in that table are forecasted temperatures. That is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's rephrase from "many" to 3 out of the 13 and those three are verifiably projected (do we not list hurricane projections?). And that is just one part. Featuresaltlakecity 03:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, without looking at this in detail, it is news and so should be covered by WikiNews first. Only after a bit of reflection and comparison should any event be recorded in Wikipedia. Breaking records is generally meaningless as they are broken regularly; statistics can be found to support anything, and newspapers usually find them in order to sensationalise events and give people something to talk about over a beer. Compare with 2007 Western United States freeze for a specific event that is well presented, and 2007 European heat wave for an unreferenced general sky-is-falling piece of news. John Vandenberg 03:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would favor deletion of the 2 articles you mention, if someone cares to nominate them. OHMYGOD! IT'S 100F! IT'S 35 F! EVERYONE'S GONNA DIE! (So how do people in Baghdad [48] or Alaska survive?) Edison 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Jayvdb and others' comments. --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 04:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. belongs in Wikinews, but would require a complete rewrite. The closure of highways due to fires is hardly unique, neither are heat related deaths. Resolute 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 1) highest all-time high in state of Utah 2) unusual trout deaths in Yellowstone 3) tied highest all-time high in Las Vegas 4) largest wildfire in West 5) unusually large area affected (100s even in Canada) 6) and freeway closures in America for fires are almost unheard of. Quite frankly the land area, the scope of the area affected by this extreme heat is unprecedented. If we delete this we should absolutely delete the less-notable 2007 European heat wave and 2007 Western United States freeze. Globeism 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply We should probably delete both of those articles regardless of the outcome of this AfD. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. CraigMonroe 05:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as viral ad for LiveEarth. Seriously, Keep. Yes, heat waves happen, but usually not over this many states at the same time, for this long, and this early (July vs. August). The secondary effects are unusual and extensive. Notability is established in relation to other heat waves. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is an unimportant story and has not yet reached long-term notability. This is not early for a heat wave, nor is it a severe heat wave. How long has it been going on - a week? --Charlene 06:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its referenced from multiple independent sources. see Category:2007 meteorology for an idea of hat is considered notable for people interested in the weather. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it isn't a news report, but an ecological event in history, one which may continue to be expanded as time goes on. Connell66 08:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A number of temperature records in a number of places (including a fairly large city like Reno) make this event more notable than an average heat wave. Although heat waves are not as dramatic as hurricanes or blizzards, they are just as much a part of the weather. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep "The 2007 western North American heat wave is an ongoing record-breaking event" - record-breaking is a good start for notability. We go on to see talk of various other indications of notability - freeway closure, deaths of six people, deaths of hundreds of trout in Yellowston (= environmental disaster) etc etc. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- per reasons above. Storm05 13:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a classic case of recentism. So it got hot. It happens all the time. All this dramatic hand-waving about "freeway closures" and "all time record highs" is bollocks. Read the article folks - the freeway closures are due to wildfires, whose connection to a supposed heatwave is speculative at best. Wildfires happen out west every summer, heatwaves notwithstanding. Record all time high in Utah? If you believe an unofficial thermometer. Reno tied it's all time high, not set a new record. A group of immigrants perish in the Arizona desert - again, this is a regular (while unfortunate) event that happens with or without "heatwaves". Does anyone actually read these articles and check the references before nodding in agreement with the claims being made? This is a regular sort of event that is getting blown way out of proportion here. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hurricanes and tropical storms happen all the time too, but we cover each named storm. We have articles on all 28 storms in the List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, including Tropical Storm Franklin (2005) which never struck on land. We even have a template ((Ongoing weather)) applied to the article, so this type of developing article is not so unusual. Dhaluza 10:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and a weather report is a most transient form of news. The article does not show that any all-time records were broken yet. Records for a given calendar day are somewhat trivial because there are so many days during the hot (or cold) season. "The heat wave may extend to eastern North America by July 12, with highs around 100 (38 ºC) for New York and Washington D.C.[1]" does not belong in an encyclopedia, because it is trivial and because is a crystal ball prediction, and because those would not be records. It is not the function of an encyclopedia to have an article about how hot it gets every summer and how cold it gets every winter in every part of every country. This is despite the fact that the weather (actual or predicted) is a part of every newscast and every newspaper, thus seeming to satisfy WP:N and WP:A. It is newsworthy, because people want to plan their daily activities, but not generally encyclopedic because it is often too hot, cold, wet or dry for comfort. The Great Blizzard of 1888 is encyclopedic because it caused vast property damage and a high death toll, and led to requirements that more power lines be placed underground in cities. The 1871 fire in Peshtigo, Wisconsin is encyclopedic, because a heat wave parched the forest and prairie, followed by the winds from a cold front which fanned the flames. The Dust Bowl was a notable pattern of heat and drought and social upheaval. All had lasting consequences. This kind of article is best written retrospectively. For now, cover the weather in Wikinews. The article about global warming could have mention of these phenomena if reliable sources relate the events to that claimed trend. Edison 15:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to refer any all-time records for drought or heat to Climate of the United States , but there is no such article, while there is Climate of the United Kingdom. Wierd. Edison 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When you consider the vast size of the US compared to the UK, it isn't that odd. Hell, going from Seattle to Montana results in an entirely different climate, nevermind the other points of the nation. Resolute 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ther state boundaries are drawn rather arbitrarily, and certainly not to delineate climate zones. Some states cross between climate zones. An article on Climate of the United States should break it into 5 or so zones and discuss the climate of each, and recent possible climate changes (hotter and dryer in the west, wetter in the central, etc). Edison 14:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a heat wave somewhere every summer. It's not especially notable. Wikinews is a better site for commonplace events. Coemgenus 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a Super Bowl every winter, yet we have an article on each one, and this heat wave arguably has greater social and economic impact. Recurrence is not a reason for deleting an article. There are many other cases of recurring topics. In order for them to be commonplace, they would also have to be similar, and then a single article could cover all (but not no article on all). When the topics have notable differences, they should have separate articles. Perhaps at the end of the event, the results will be similar to other heat waves, and the article content can be merged. Until then, having a separate article for the developing story is appropriate. Dhaluza 10:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Severe weather happens all of the time. When century-old records are broken and sources are provided for unusual effects, notability is established. Alansohn 22:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is no requirement for a subject to be an extreme example to be notable. Extremes are notable, but Notability only requires that people take notice, and this event has crossed well over that threshold. WP would be rather worthless if it only had articles on the best and worst of each subject. Dhaluza 10:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having lived through it, it may be difficult to be entirely objective although a weather phenomenon resulting in multiple records falling, and much press seems to be notable. With records falling in the midwest and east, it'll probably be due a rename shortly. Carlossuarez46 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely. Considering the number of records it's breaking and/or establishing, it's very much a keeper. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Event seems notable enough for encyclopedic coverage and article is sourced. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weather varies. Iterator12n ^Talk 03:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article easily satisfies WP:NOTABILITY by having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject (arguments questioning a reporter's independence of God notwithstanding ;)) Evouga 06:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Wikipedia reports things that are reported to a significant degree in the news. Everyking 11:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Otherwise we might as well delete the entire list included in Heat_wave#Major_heat_waves. -- Loukinho 00:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2007 European heat wave and 2007 South Asian heat wave and just call it the 2007 heat wave or something like that. --PiMaster3 ^talk 18:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure that's sound. We're talking about three distinctive regions. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to see some source to verify the nominators statements, or even some certification in meteorology. Obviously heat waves are worth writing about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Heat_waves, and they have to be started sometime, there's enough to write about already, so keep it. Bassgoonist Talk 13:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is precisely what WP is especially good for--providing current encyclopedic content. WP:NOT#NEWS is not applicable, because the story has run through several news cycles. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL is also inapplicable, because Notabality has already been established--we don't have to wait to see how notable it ultimately becomes before writing an article. On a side note, I also find the dismissiveness of some of the comments disheartening--what has WP become? Dhaluza 01:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Edison's comments about genuinely notable weather events. — X ile 07:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, if WikiProject Australian Music wants to maintain it, they may do so upon request. Sr 13 06:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samples of music from Australia[edit]

This information could be used much more appropriately in a category. As a list, it's too difficult to regularly update, and is thus useless. Giggy _U^CP 02:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sample pages are not appropriate, how do we decide who is a good sample and who is not. Category: Australian Music and the page Music of Australia cover this topic just fine. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for something-or-other. Calgary 03:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stonr delete as per Clagary. Why does this page even exist? --linca^linca 03:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from mainspace. There may be an appropriate space for this in the Wikiproject Australian music space. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; currently this list is "List of Australian artists whose songs have been sampled", which as G1ggy says would be a very long list and probably unmanageable. I can see this being more suitable if it was changed to a "List of songs that have sampled Australian music". Then it could be grouped by decade to show the use of Australian music internationally. John Vandenberg 04:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I see this option being more suitable as a category (if I understand you correctly), as it would still be a very long list. Giggy _U^CP 04:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I misunderstood the purpose of this list. John Vandenberg 02:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 04:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a seperate encyclopedia topic. Include the samples in Music of Australia and be done with it.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a navigation page to lead readers to wikipedia pages that have samples of music that can be listened to. Therefore it appears to meet WP:LISTS. Assize 12:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like to maintain it? Category:Powderfinger songs could all go in there, and that's just a start. Giggy _U^CP 22:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not particularly, but then Wikipedia is a colloborative effort and somebody else might. If we start deleting pages because nobody wishes to look after them, then 99% of wikipedia should be on AfD. Whether I am interested in the page (and I'm not), or whether it is an interesting navagational aid is irrelevant. Objectively, the page meets WP:LISTS, and should stay. Assize 11:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Meeting WP:LISTS does not mean that this list belongs in an encyclopaedia. It's simply a catalogue of sounds - that is not encyclopaedic. It could be maintained as a project page, possibly as a category, but as an article it's simply nonsensical. While Australian music is certainly a valid topic for an article, "Sound clips of Australian music" is not. GassyGuy 19:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Meeting a WP guideline means it is encyclopedic and that it belongs, as guidelines are the consensus of the community. Afd is supposed to be about assessing pages against the guidelines. Which guideline is breached? Assize 12:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete non-encyclopaedic and utterly inane.Daverotherham 21:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article stands now, it would be better maintained as part of WikiProject Australian Music's own page. There certainly doesn't need to be a list of articles where one can hear samples of Australian music within the article space. GassyGuy 05:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inappropriate content for an encyclopaedia. —Moondyne 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or move into WikiProject Australia. This list is being one step away from a audio gallery to non-free music, and so should be a category like Category:The Beatles music samples. John Vandenberg 02:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously not suitable as an article, would be much better as a category. Lankiveil 11:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Cannot satisfy WP:NOT#DIR and appears to be a self-reference Orderinchaos 03:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Basically a recreation of CORPG. Phrasing is slightly different, but the references are the same. There is nothing really here to merge either. IronGargoyle 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive online roleplaying game[edit]

"CORPG" is a term invented by ArenaNet, the publishers of the game Guild Wars, to distinguish their game from MMORPGs. So far this term has not caught on in the industry. For a brief moment the game Fury was called a CORPG, but it was later changed to PvPRPG. I claim, therefore, that this is not a notable video game genre name because it has not been used by multiple independent third parties. The article on Guild Wars already mentions the genesis of the term and no individual article, that can never grow longer than stub length, is needed. Eric Sandholm 02:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Connell66 07:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recreated This page is basically a recreated version of the previously delted and redirected article CCORPG. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CORPG for the previous discussion. Delete and restore the prior redirect. Dugwiki 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, the situation prior to the present article's creation was: CORPG→Guild Wars and a redlink for competitive online roleplaying game. Eric Sandholm
- Deleting it as a re-creation does not apply since the content itself is not a fork. (I never even knew an older version had existed...ironically, the fact that two Wikipedians independently created the same article is an argument in favor of the article in my opinion, although I may not be able to cite a policy beyond WP:IAR to support my contention.) Tarinth 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, also WP:NEO and WP:N. Carlosguitar 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wasn't even aware that a previous article had been made, so my apologies if it is a re-creation of a previously created topic. I believe it's adequately referenced for a stub. The reason I created the article was because CORPG appeared to be a redirect to Guild Wars, which appeared to be inaccurate (the two terms are not synonymous). As shown in the reference cited, CORPG is used by outside media to categorize the genre (I'd suggest that what the companies dub themselves is somewhat less important). If it is decided that the article be deleted, I suggest completely deleting it (rather than maintaining a redirect) since I think it would cause more confusion than anything. Tarinth 15:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the previous redirect was because the term CORPG was already described in the Guild Wars article, and Guild Wars is frankly the primary source for the term. So people who might search for the term were redirected to that article. The article itself was deleted because of a lack of evidence that the term itself has any actual notability outside of being a marketing. I didn't notice any new citations in the current article that weren't in the previous incarnation, and so it doesn't look like that situation has changed. Dugwiki 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the citation to a July 2007 article is new since the last article was deleted. Tarinth 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't verify the citation you're talking about from here. But as a heads up if it's a blog it normally wouldn't be considered a reliable publisher.

Keep- The fact alone that in article in many media was written about his is proof enough gamers considered this a valid term. Two games already fit this genre. There are sources, and thus it seems valid enough per wikipedia's article standards.--149.150.236.15 01:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which "many media" are you referring to? There are only two citations in the article, one of which is the Guild Wars website which isn't an independent source and the other of which sounds like a blog (which wouldn't be a reliable publisher). Can you provide any reliable independent publishers talking about the term? Dugwiki 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How would you define blog? The editorial guidelines on the source state "We publish peer-reviewed articles on subjects ranging from the economics and content of online games, to speculative non-fiction by noted science fiction authors and futurists, as well as interviews and analysis of top guilds and clans." Tarinth 17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Carlosguitar 00:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as buzzword with no relevance outside of Guild Wars. From the Arenanet citation: "Rather than labeling Guild Wars an MMORPG, we prefer to call it a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game)." It's marketing speech. With a population of about 1.5, this 'genre' can be summed up within one or two sentences in the Guild Wars article with a single citation. QuagmireDog 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is destined to remain stub. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is impossible to see into the future... Mathmo ^Talk 07:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, media coverage of guildwars have picked up on their usage of the term. Thus it has clearly been valid enough for them to use and not automatically reject out of hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathmo (talk • contribs)
Strong Merge into Guild Wars. Term is only notable in connection with Guild Wars, cannot be expanded beyond a stub, but is well written and referenced. Seems like a classic case for a merge here. --User:Krator (t c) 10:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the event of a merge, are you proposing that other games that are now being associated with the term be given coverage within the Guild Wars article? Tarinth 11:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no other games that self-identify as CORPG. The gaming press--at least the established major sites--mention rather than use CORPG only in relation to Guild Wars. There is nothing else to cover besides what is already in the Guild Wars article. No merge is needed as there is nothing to merge. Eric Sandholm 12:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Sr 13 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chailianwala[edit]

A copied version of Battle of Chillianwala. Maybe a redirect but I'm not sure since the spelling is wrong Lenticel ^(talk) 02:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Both articles describe the same incident and the other one does a much better job at it. Also looks like this is written based on the other article Corpx 02:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oysterguitarist 02:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 04:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Spelling errors are best redirected in my opinion. --Charlene 06:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- I agree with Charlene. Redirects are cheap and useful. Reyk _YO! 07:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone else unless a Chailianwala article is possible.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Spelling errors should be redirected. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, seems to be a better fix to spelling errors. Carlosguitar 16:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Can I do the redirect or wait for the admin to fix this?--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as part of a larger spam campaign...the "production company" behind it only had a website in MySpace...hardly outer space!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akradecki (talk • contribs)

USS Nightfire Archangel Class[edit]

Non notable fictional spaceship. Judging from the external links and the author, there is also a COI here. Delete unless notability can be established and COI can be neutralised. J Milburn 02:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability for this ship and possible WP:COI for the creator based on the external links there Corpx 02:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is non-notable. It also appears as if it fails WP:COI. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly unnotable fanfic. Although one must admit the preview is ... compelling. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No assertion of notability for the fanfilm this is taken from, so it's hard to see how an element of the story could possibly be notable. JulesH 08:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite aside from the above, that this is a blatant Star Trek ripoff would fail copyright law as well. RGTraynor 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, if you can get it on a copyvio. Note, user behind this removed the AfD, I'll put the warning up on his talk page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so maybe not a copyvio, but this appears to be little more than the creation of a Star Trek fan - in short, fanfiction. Not notable. Delete stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My notion re: copyright violation is that the article and associated website talks about filming a "TV series" with a blatant Enterprise-ish ship and a Trek outline logo, and Paramount would be all over them like white on rice for it. Other than that, there's no copyvio. RGTraynor 14:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an anon IP has now removed the AFD notice from this. I'll investigate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an advertisement. 132.205.44.5 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Nightfire (TV Series and Movies), which should be deleted with this article. 132.205.44.5 22:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have prodded it, thanks for the heads up. J Milburn 22:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Damn, there's also an Nightfire (TV Series and Movie)... 132.205.44.5 22:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, dear God. Just tagged it as speedy A3. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - A3 doesn't really apply, but I guess that is just wonkery. As long as they all go in the end... J Milburn 22:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:NOT Geocities / free webhosting site. 70.55.88.11 03:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to The Prisoner in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article is just a list of loosely associated terms, it fails WP:NOT#DIR by design. Jay32183 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is pure trivia. Wikipedia is not the place to document every time anyone mentions anything in a tv show/movie/book Corpx 02:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced laundry list of trivia. --Haemo 02:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fails WP:TRIVIA horribly. Also, how many times must I say you can't have articles about references to contemporary movies and television shows in popular culture, because they themselves are popular culture! I don't care if it's from the 60's, it was popular culture then and it's popular culture now. Calgary 02:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced trivia. Oysterguitarist 02:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I recognize that The Prisoner, like The Honeymooners, has a loyal following, which is great, but in this case it's an obsession. The author seems to find reminders of a favorite show everywhere, seeing Number Six where others do not. Prisoner fans, print out the list... by hook or by crook, it's going to be deleted. Mandsford 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you the new Number Two? Is the WP:CABAL behind The Village? Clarityfiend 17:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jk Delete as fancruft. Clarityfiend 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am a fan of The Prisoner as well, but this list is filled with illusions of references in places they don't exist. Yes, there are references to The Prisoner. However, what legit ones are there are all unsourced. I could supply sources to those in particuliar, but that still doesn't make the article salvagable. Turlo Lomon 09:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These "articles" (scrappy unedited research notes in reality) are always bad, with a built in tendency to get worse over time. Hawkestone 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - interesting in it's own way, but not what Wikipedia is for. WegianWarrior 14:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship Approach to Systems Development[edit]

This is a very long article. I'm not sure quite what it's about, because it's rather thick with jargon, but my best guess is that it's an advertisement of some kind. As far as I can tell, it doesn't assert notability, and it lacks reliable sources. Prod removed by creator without comment. FisherQueen (Talk) 01:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure what it is, but it looks like WP:OR or a WP:HOWTO Corpx 02:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question On what do you base your opinion? RASD is a software RAD methodology used by many Fortune 500 companies. This is my first post. I may need help in writing the article, but the methodology is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsme01 (talk • contribs)

Answer (1) I cannot tell what this is, and the phrase 'software RAD methodology' doesn't mean anything to me. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and articles need to be understandable to the layperson. (2) I cannot see any assertion that this software RAD methodology meets the notability requirements. (3) There are no independent sources cited that would confirm the information. To avoid deletion, you would need to rewrite the article so that a general audience can understand it, explaining why this software RAD methodology is important, and providing sources - multiple sources independent of the company that have written about this software RAD methodology. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just read the article, and I still have no idea what it's talking about. I'm guessing that this mightmeet the criteria for deletion simply because it seem to be a piece of copywritten trade-related promotional paraphernalia. Still, I'm not voting because I still don't really understand it. To make things easier for us, and simply because wikipedia is meant to be accessible to the general public, I ask that anyone who understands the article, please edit it accordingly, and if you can't be bothered to do that, at least tell us what on earth it's talking about. Calgary 02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A link has been added to define a RAD. I will add additional links for clarity. Please click on the RAD, RUP, SDLC link for additional clarity. RASD is a software methodology useful for implementing package applications. If you were a software development professional, you would probably immediately understand its worth. Please refrain from deleting until the article can be fully posted over the next few days. It would be a disservice to the software community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsme01 (talk • contribs)

Yes, that's part of my concern. I understand that some wikipedia articles af primarily of interest to certain groups, but I'm pretty sure that articles should be written in a style that makes the information accessible to wikipedia's diverse audience I mean, I have trouble reading articles about mathematical formulas, but in that case the article is usually well-written, and it's my fault because I'm not exceptional with math. This article, however, is long-winded and pedantic, and so heavily leaden with jargon that I'd be surprised if anyone other than a software development professional would understand it. I'm also concerned that the article is only of significance to a very specific group (the afforementioned software community). In any case, I've found the justification for deletion. The article makes no assertion of notability, even within the software community. Even more to the point, it appears to be in pretty strong violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. So I'm going to have to go with ~~DELETE~~ Strong Delete Calgary 03:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have read the artical several times and i'm still not sure what it is. Oysterguitarist 02:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparent WP:VSCA, I know what software methodologies are, I'm not snowed by the jargon, and this is not a notable one. I think this guru.com page says all you need to know: Tracy Oden is a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) strategy, methodology, implementation and change management expert. She is the author of a CRM implementation methodology entitled The Relationship Approach to Systems Development (RASD)™. There are literally no other relevant results on Google Web, Google Books, Google News or Google News Archive. Widely used methodologies are written about endlessly in terms of case studies, how-tos and so forth. This one hasn't been. --Dhartung | Talk 03:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why there seems to be so much hostility, but RASD is very credible. The methodlogy has been around for many years and used by many companies. As Dhartung stated, I am the autor of the methdology. RASD was specifically designed to mitigate issues with COTS. I surely hope Wikipedia is more professional than my short experience seems to lend. I am sure the company will base its judgment on fact, not opinion. This will be my last post. Itsme01 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you've found the discussion hostile and unprofessional; I've tried really hard to make sure that the criteria we're basing the decision on are clear to you, and been very careful not to just use Wikipedia jargon that you might not be familiar with. The heart of the discussion is whether or not RASD is notable. What would really help show that RASD meets the notability criteria are some sources- articles about it in trade journals, magazines, even detailed reviews of it from significant software-related web sites. The question of comprehensibility is important but secondary; if we could verify that the subject is notable, we would be open to rewriting the article so that it can be understood by a more general audience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 04:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I don't know why I'm responding to this, as it does not relate directly to the AfD discussion, but here goes anyway: (1) What hostility? I haven't seen any hostility, only the wikipedia community at work (and working very well, mind you). (2) If you want more clarfication, I advise that you look at WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#GUIDE. These can be very helpful. (3) What company? Calgary 04:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Itsme01, I'm sure it is a credible system. I'm aware of many credible approaches, but the ones we are concerned with on Wikipedia (which is a community, not a company) are those that are notable, as attested to by independent third parties. Let me say that I was particularly struck that although the article attributes the origin of the system to Trinity Technologies, there is no mention of RASD on that company's website. I know that the software consultancy I worked for had its own homegrown system (openly adapted from the Microsoft Solutions Framework) and made sure potential clients knew it. I can also understand that a methodology is developed in-house by professionals who take it forward as their intellectual property. In either case, the notability of these methods (or lack thereof) is established by writings about the system in trade magazines and on websites and forums. It isn't hard to find discussion of Agile or Extreme programming, for example, because their practitioners can't stop writing (or arguing) about them. In this case, as accomplished an achievement as creating a methodology may be, this one hasn't yet found an audience, so far as we can see, beyond internal client communications. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is chock-full of gems like "During the RASD Plan Phase an RASD Enterprise Application Architecture (EAA) blueprint is created. This mission critical blueprint is is necessary to ensure enterprise application design to include global functionality, regional usability and localized flexibility" It's like something Dilbert's Pointy-Haired Boss character would write. If this is something that deserves an article, it sure as heck deserves a better one than this. Do people somewhere actually write things like this and keep a straight face? Another excerpt: "Enable the implementer to more succesfully consolidate and/or replace legacy systems in a more orderly and logical fashion. Mitigate bugs and defects throught the incremental and iterative development build and/or deploy process. It's like the world's dullest magnetic poetry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've ~~slept through~~ attended many meetings and PowerPoint seminars where language like that was not only acceptable, but expected. Surprisingly, in context, much of it tends to make sense. But our article shouldn't regurgitate slide show language, no. --Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like how much of it can be rearranged without any noticable difference in meaning. For example, would the bit I quoted above mean something different if it said "...global usability, regional flexibility, and localized functionality"? Or any combination thereof? I'm sorta glad I don't understand this article at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the best example of marketese mumbo-jumbo I've read in a while. Articles in the English Wikipedia should really be in Standard English, and they should be about things whose notability is clear and verified with attribution to reliable sources. Edited to add: I am a writer. I am a professional writer. If I handed in an project that was written like this, I would be fired on the spot. --Charlene 06:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 0 ghits, no sources, advert, not verifiable, original research, poor tone.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Spam. -- RHaworth 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An object lesson in why editors with a conflict of interest should not write articles. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement delete. A classic example of complete bollocks. Indeed, my pathetic attempt to state the obvious in abstract, padded malarkey seems dull and uninspired compared to this masterpiece. Perhaps this is BJAODN material. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per many of the above arguments, esp. User:Kim dent brown. I'll change my !vote if the article is substantially rewritten to be more comprehensible to the average reader. At the very minimum, it needs a clear novice-level introduction explaining the notability of the subject. The details could be in an expert section. But it shouldn't be a how to guide. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pile of VSCA. Iterator12n ^Talk 04:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the deletes above. Darrenhusted 12:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. IronGargoyle 15:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tame One[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No assertion of notability: Google test likely to be unreliable due to both bombing and the large number of possible meanings of the search term "Tame One". Vox Humana 8' 01:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability - Cant find anything that proves notability Corpx 02:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is claimed that he has worked with notable rap musicians, but this is not sourced.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Working with someone notable doesn't make you notable - if it did, we'd have an article for every single one of Dre's roadies!--Vox Humana 8' 11:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -shifting thru the hits gives the impression he is famous- I also find a lot of hits in my local (Norwegian) music press, and the reporters actually seems to think I should have heard of this one already. I've read WP:MUSIC and knows the demands there are really hard, but this "somewhat world-famous" feeling makes me think keep. Greswik 19:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -He has many solo releases and Artifacts (band) are very notableCosprings 00:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I googled the names of his albums and there were a fair few hits. Did any of them make the charts in the States? --Malcolmxl5 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as member of Artifacts (band) Giggy _U^CP 05:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Mohawk Valley M.U.N. Conference at Hamilton College[edit]

Non-notable student organization. No coverage in reliable sources, so the article fails WP:ORG and WP:V. Tone of the article is morel ike an advertisement than a neutral article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont see anything notable about this model UN. One of many out there Corpx 02:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No case for note made, mostly unencyclopedic in tone and what isn't is largely spent duplicating Model United Nations. MrZaius^talk 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Corpx said it's one of many out there. This one is no diffrent it's not notable. Oysterguitarist 02:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 03:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These things are always deleted, and this one is even worse than most due to a silly, unencyclopedic tone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Absolutely fails WP:RS Ohconfucius 10:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva International Model United Nations[edit]

Contested prod. NN Student group. Mystache 01:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may be "more" notable than most Model UN groups, but just barely, because it takes place in Geneva with the close cooperation of the UN and WTO and the attendees represent a broader international demographic than others, but I'm having trouble finding independent and reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above, this is definitely a bit more notable than, say, the Upper Mohawk Valley one. But still not enough for a real article, and there's still really no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. Absolutely fails WP:RS Ohconfucius 10:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient notability next to Model United Nations article. Iterator12n ^Talk 04:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Particularly after considering single purpose account involvement and arguments for deletion (WP:BIO). IronGargoyle 16:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Elliott[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius 01:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This person seems to have a successful career and has worked in the art departments of recognised productions, but notability required for an individual article has not been established through verifiable sources. The books are self-published through his own Aristata Publishing.[49] They have attracted minimal interest with only 22 Google hits, mostly book seller sites.[50] What emerges is a bronze medal, inclusion in year books and comic book work, which does not seem sufficient. The wording "featured in" and "can be seen in" does not instill confidence. Tyrenius 01:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the article and everything in it, I'm sorry to disagree with the nominating editor. I think he is notable. Callelinea 01:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tyrenius. Seems to be a reasonably successful illustrator, notability needs to be more firmly established. Modernist 03:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a CV or autobiography. He's a solid professional, but not an encyclopedic subject. Hawkestone 13:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is my first article on the Wikipedia, and I'm still adding/editing this page. To respond to the request for deletion, I have pulled some of my information from a TV inteview, magazine and newspaper articles that I am having trouble finding links to online. I will add the references without links to online versions of the articles. Also, this artist is very well known within the Fantasy Art and Illustration world. I would not describe the Spectrum books as "yearbooks", but a well established industry source for the most notable Fantasy artists. Additionally, the Spectum show at the NY Society of Illustrators was quite a prestigous event. Craig Elliott's work was shown in the same venue as Norman Rockwell and N C Wyeth. Additionally, Visual development is quite a different discipline than say, an animator or others who work in an art department. The visual development people actually conceptualize and create the movies from their art. Treasure Planet was nominated for an Academy Award for best Feature Animation. Since much of his work has been for Disney, I felt he was notable as an artist. And, yes, the Aprhodesia contest books are self-published but do not feature his work, but are only edited by him. The 4 Spectrum books, Treasure Planet: Voyage of Discovery, and the Harlan Ellison books were not. I am still figuring out how to create this page, please bear with me. How can I improve this article to make sure it reads more encyclopedic? Groupiegirl 16:43, 9 July 2007(UTC)
I went back and added all my magazine references from printed materials. Please see revised References section. I hope these will suffice as verifiable sources. I re-read the article and would like some suggestions for re-wording the "featured in" and "can be seen in". I'm not sure how else to word this to make it more acceptable. In response to Hawkstone, my article is not an autobiography, I am just an admirer of his work, and have seen his name in print in many magazines. As far as notability, it seems that an artist whose work has been used to design so many of Disney Feature Animation films (each of which have their own Wikipedia page) should have a reference to his/her life and work. Many other Disney artists and animators have entries in Wikipedia. It is sad that the actresses and actors who are part of these films are "famous" enough for Wikipedia pages, but the actual artists who create the films themselves are not deemed notable enough. I think that Craig Elliot is not only notable for his contributions to contemporary animated films, but also for his work as a fine artist and fantasy illustrator. Groupiegirl 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After doing a bit more research, I'd like to add these links as support. The following artists with Wikipedia pages are all considered contemporaries or producing art at (or arguably below, in some cases) the same level as Craig Elliott. Kinuko Y. Craft, Brom, Iain McCaig, Amy Brown, John Jude Palencar, Julie Bell, John Berkey, Thomas Blackshear, Frank Cho, Vincent Di Fate.Groupiegirl 20:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one last thing to add... I apologize for adding this page to the List of American Artists page- you can chalk that up to me being a newbie. But I don't think that this merits the entire entry to be deleted. I think it is more appropriate on the List of Illustrators along with the other contemporaries I listed above. Thanks!
Groupiegirl 22:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User's only edits are to this article and wikilinks to it. -- Tyrenius 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

KEEP. Craig Elliott could not be listed on IMDB.com if he was not a legitimate artist, which is more closely vetted than Wikipedia. He is a member of the Society of Illustrators, a highly respected membership that is referral-based from a longstanding list of great American artists. He is also one of the most sought-after visual development artist in Hollywood and I am confident Craig could provide you references from Disney, Pixar, Dream Works, ILM (Industrial Light & Magic), Bee Movie creator Jerry Seinfeld, Dream Works president/owner Jeffrey Katzenberg, talent Siegfried & Roy, actress Mayim Bialik (Blossom/Curb Your Enthusiasm), directors Ron Clements and John Musker and world-renowned illustrators who consider Craig Elliott to be one of their own comtemporaries including Frank Frazetta, Dave Dorman, Joe Chiodo, Kent Williams, Greg Hildebrandt, Brom, Julie Bell, etc. Craig Elliott is also affiliated with Hollywood's Gnomon School of Visual Effects and the Pasadena Arts Center, where he is a part-time instructor. (The Pasadena Arts Center, oft-cited as the best art school in the U.S. is a $36k/year school, who also carefully vets their instructors and would not hire a non-artist to teach their students.)-- User: Denise Dorman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denise Dorman (talk • contribs).

User's first edit. -- Tyrenius 18:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anybody can be listed on IMDb - anybody. You don't even need a credit. Being listed on IMDb is absolutely, positively, NO assertion of notability whatsoever. --Charlene 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re: IMDB -Being listed and having credit are 2 different things. If you look in the database, this person does have credits in addition to being listed. Submitted credits are verified by IMDB before they allow them to appear in the database.

From IMDB: [51]

Comment - I understand his work is in various magazines, are any of those magazines notable? That is to say, does he have any reviews or interviews in magazines that are clearly notable (say, they have wikipedia pages, or some other type of notability)? Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having just re-read the article, I can see that he has contributed to notable creations, but I still remain to be convinced that he has stood out in a way that has given him individual notability. Note also that reference "[11] Interview on Bianca Rossini Show [52]" goes to a page that does not mention him. Tyrenius 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO per nom Giggy _U^CP 05:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Groups (card game)[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:NOTE. No significant third party coverage of this item. Nv8200p talk 01:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be sourced entirely from the artifact itself. There isn't really any indication that this is more than a prototype or a one off. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability provided through sources. Corpx 02:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable. Oysterguitarist 02:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notale. Calgary 02:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds fascinating and I'd love to see more information. However in the absence of any sources this needs to go on someopne's 'to do' list, not the mainspace. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE and WP:ATT. Carlosguitar 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fain Hancock[edit]

Non notable artist, mention in the NY Times is clearly trivial at one line. Daniel J. Leivick 00:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , I disagree found her art in at least one museum. Added a few more references. Callelinea 01:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the links that you posted we can determine three things. One she participated in the SFhearts project and had here bio (probably auto bio) posted on their website, this is not an independent source, nor a particularly major project. Second we see that see that she had a show at the Napa Valley College art gallery also very minor as Napa Valley is a small community college not known for art exhibitions and not an indication of notability. Second we can see that she participated in a group show at the Bolinas Art Museum. Bolinas is very a small town close to were I live and participating in a group show their seven years ago really does not indicate any form of notability or importance. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, search of Google News Archive and Google Books turns up nothing establishing notability. An accomplished artist with some regional name recognition but hasn't won any major awards. NYT mentions her participating in a competitive workshop, but these are simply career/training/collaboration events for artists and not recognitions. Being an invited faculty artist at a workshop is not even by itself notability but may be an indicator of it. --Dhartung | Talk 04:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Valrith 20:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence or assertion of notability. being a professional artist is not enough. Johnbod 16:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Modernist 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dazeley[edit]

Appears to be a non notable child athlete, no sources provided in 8 months Daniel J. Leivick 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non - notable sports person - HarryHall86 01:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I think he is a notable sports person. I added some more references to the article. Callelinea 02:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the four added articles I would say that only the final two are independent sources (the first is from a shaving cream company that sponsors Dazeley). Of the independent sources neither actually focus on Pual Dazeley accept to say that he was beaten by Tom Bennett who doesn't have an article either. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. Oysterguitarist 02:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete olympic athletes are notable, commonwealth games athletes are not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The immediately above point isn't relevant, as he has only competed in the Junior Commonwealth Games. Hawkestone 13:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete If he did compete in the main Commonwealth games then would have supported keeping but as only the junior games and without coverage focused on him by independent sources it must be deleted. Davewild 17:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Schmidt[edit]

Subjects are baseball players who have failed to achieve sufficient notability. Per precedent, ballplayers are not considered notable until they have reached the Major Leagues. Caknuck 00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment Since these are three different bios, it seems appropriate that each be listed on its own. I could see multiple listing for related street names, but each player has a different history. Nick Schmidt is the all-time strikeout leader for U of Arkansas, so I added it to the article, which satisfies assertion of notability. the_undertow ^talk 01:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.CraigMonroe 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- Caknuck 00:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Matt LaPorta - Being the 2005 SEC POY is notable. Also keep Nick Schmidt based on multiple 2nd team AA status. ~~I cant find any awards that give the other 2 distinction, so Delete for now.~~ Corpx 01:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - Matt LaPorta. I second that. He is linked to on the Florida Gators page as a notable alumni for being an All-American twice during his time in Gainesville. WTStoffs 02:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Casey Weathers- Casey was named a First Team All American by multiple outlets (see his page), pitched for Team USA, and was the 8th overall draft pick in the MLB Draft. I'm sorry, but there's no reason to delete this article and whoever nominated for deletion definitely doesn't follow college baseball. Wpride33
Keep per above.CraigMonroe 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent on James Simmons, Jonathan Gilmore, Joshua Smoker, Ben Revere, Blake Beavan and the others that I may have missed. Ballplayers need to make the major leagues. Montco 05:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that most, if not all of those are players who jumped from HS to the pros. Collegic level (especially D1) accomplishments give notability to a player Corpx 05:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precedence has no place here, as we are not trying to establish rules for future events. the_undertow ^talk 10:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To the contrary, AFD outcomes express the true state of affairs with respect to what is notable, and have frequently been a basis for labelling something as a notability guideline. Edison 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I don't agree. If X was deleted, then so should Y? That's precedent, and is not a valid argument. However, if you are saying that outcomes from previous AFDs have been used to set guidelines, that's a different idea. the_undertow ^talk 22:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete College sportsmen aren't notable. The sports criteria are clear on this. You have to play at the highest amateur level or in a professional league. Nick mallory 23:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, Kevin Durant or Greg Oden or Vince Young werent notable till they reached pro levels? Corpx 01:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the highest level of amateur baseball if not college baseball?Wpride33 02:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a very difficult situation. A baseball player in a similar situation as someone like Greg Oden is obviously noteable enough for an article, but there must be a line drawn somewhere. Otherwise, every minor league baseball player (which are in the thousands) will have his own article. I propose that only first round picks be considered noteable. Everyone else has to wait until they reach the majors. Anyway, first round picks are usually multiple record holders and winners of multiple awards. What do you guys think?--Truest blue 15:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles should remain because of their achievements at the college level, and now what they've done (or doing) at the minors. Corpx 15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing the line at first round picks is not a very good idea. The baseball draft is different than NBA or NFL in that the best players aren't necessarily taken first. Teams will draft based on signability, their class (juniors have more leverage than seniors because they can return to school), etc. I don't have a problem with deleting players like Parker that haven't played college baseball, but an ad-hoc approach needs to be taken to ensure that notable players that aren't first round picks are still included. Wpride33 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Truest blue and Wpride33. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's obviously a line somewhere and it doesn't appear that any of these nominations cross that line of non-notability. Obviously big leaguers should have their own article, but if amateur and minor league players have significant accomplishments (or press, which is why players like Phil Hughes, Justin Upton, Joba Chamberlain, and Evan Longoria have their own articles), they pass the notability test and should be included. - RPIRED 00:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So can we go ahead and delete the nominations for Weathers, Schmidt, and LaPorta? Wpride33 14:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that'd be up to the closing person or the nominator. I do think that Jarrod Parker should be deleted. Corpx 16:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incident.net[edit]

Article asserts that it is a well known French art collective, but no sources are provided. Large number of google hits but little to verify notability or content. Notability tag has been up for 8 months Daniel J. Leivick 00:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article must prove its notability through references, which is does not. Clearly violates WEB. the_undertow ^talk 00:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. Oysterguitarist 01:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly, as incident.net is more or less well known among arty bloggers and so forth (being on the net since '94 makes you part of the scenery, practically). But I found no real references on a search of Google Books or Google News Archive. I would have thought otherwise given its overall reputation. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely something I've heard of, but we can't play favourites. Delete as no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 18:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Unleashed (DS)[edit]

The page was originally prodded with the following rationale:

There doesn't need to be a page for the DS version of Godzilla: Unleashed. Even though the Wii and DS versions are different, they're the same game.

The proposed deletion was contested by the author, so the article has made its way here. In addition to the prod rationale, I will also add that the content is primarily redundant to that which is contained in Godzilla: Unleashed. A merge is not worth doing because: (1) all or most of the content is redundant, (2) none of the content in the DS article is sourced. So, delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need a separate article for the same video game on a different platform. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or we'll have separate pages for every platform for every game! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I agree that unsourced information should not be merged, but a simple redirect can take care of the situation. -- Whpq 18:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Self-published internet movie with no assertion of notability whatsoever, no reliable sources, no mainstream media attention, etc. If reliable sources demonstrating reliability and verifiability surface later, feel free to bring this to DRV. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 04:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist the Movie[edit]

"Zeitgeist The Movie is a film exploring the relationship between Christianity, 9/11 and the Federal Reserve Bank. It was released in 2007 on Google Video and is available for free distribution." That's swell, but the article lacks any information asserting that the film is at all notable. According to one of the article's main contributors, "there is huge word of mouth already. I will, and no doubt others will add sources proving noteriety as and when google caches the webpages into it's search lists." Until then, the "under construction" banner has been in place for five days, and I couldn't find any news sources about the film, or really any sources outside of hosts for the film and blogs insisting that everyone MUST WATCH IT. Maxa megalon 2000 05:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator's reasons - I started the article Zeitgeist the Movie. The reason I started the article is because everywhere I went on the Net I seemed to come across mentions of it and mini reviews of it, and I ended up watching the movie. I then came to wikipedia to read about the movie and discovered there wasn't an article. This suprised me greatly. So.... I started an article. I must say I find these arguments about notability a little pedantic. Just because the movie hasn't reached the COMMERCIAL sector yet in terms of reviews, it doesn't mean it hasn't achieved notablity. The Internet is changing things and almost 80,000 specific hits through google is certainly an achievemnet of notability. It's only a matter of time before the movie is mentioned and maybe even shown on a TV channel anmd talked about on mainstream commerical news. Just becuase a movie is released for free distribution and hosted by googe video doesn't mean it has less social and notability value than a hollywood movie. It also seems 'odd' that calls for it's deletion should be made so early, when the article is still under construction.Vexorg 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Vexorg has also !voted below --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! It is critical that people are given the chance to learn the informaiton in this movie. It may not be the most notworthy movie about the topics it covers, but it is unique in the fact that all the informaiton is contained in one source. I understand policies, however, sometimes there is a greater good that can be achieved by not policing Wikipedia with an iron fist. If this article is removed from Wikipedia, that will be just one more stab at destroying our rights and liberties. It's called suppression, oppression and repression. The major media corporations do everything they can to supress independent media. [53] Right now, the major media corporations are pressuring the FCC for control over the Internet. This could forever silence every source of alternate media on the Internet. ( MONDAY is the LAST DAY to stop it!!! ) I believe that Wikipedia falls into that category, does it not? Please let this article stay! When George Bush becomes a dictator, [54][55][56] I bet you'll wish you had let people find out about this so they could have done something to stop it! Wisepiglet 20:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Please read WP:SOAP. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & improve. While the thoughts in this movie are controversial, they do have merit, and since when does a topic have to be a commercial commodity for it to be relevant? The movie and it's website both urge people to go out and research for themselves the topics. The website point to their sources. I'm afraid that the populace it too frightened to believe anything that is not on network TV, so sad, yet another instance of the dumbing down of the American demographic.Esme2150 01:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Esme2150 — Esme2150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- We're not looking for the filmmakers' sources for the claims asserted in the movie so much as we're looking for reliable, independent sources that discuss the movie in general. Note that the sources we're looking for wouldn't need to agree with the movie's claims, but they would need to support the idea that the movie is receiving public attention. --Metropolitan90 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Public AttentionThis is what is so wrong about notability guidelines being used to argue for the article's deletion. Anyone can see there is considerable public attention already.Vexorg 00:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are U guys Crazy?! Why would U need sources for describing a movie that's popular and only recently released. The movie is the source, all the summary has to do is tell people what the Film is about. 09:41, 10 July 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.159.63 (talk • contribs) — 172.163.159.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per the article "released in 2007 on Google Video". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve Let's work together and make wikipedia better, not smaller. Let's improve the article, not delete it. I was tipped to see the movie, in the Netherlands by a friend of mine who works at a bank. We can debate for ages whether it is notable; I can assert it is being noted.  Xiutwel (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comment. Marcus1234 08:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as stated by Xiutwel that the movie is being noted. Since there are no compelling standards of notableness beyond a few interested people, the article deserves to stay, barring any other issues that may arise. Kanodin 09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)— Kanodin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Contrary to the above, there are compelling standards of notableness for Wikipedia, those being applicable here being the guidelines for films and web content. While there are references to this movie on the web, the question is whether there is sufficient evidence that the movie qualifies under either the film or web content notability criteria. So far, I can't confirm that it does. --Metropolitan90 10:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Criteria for notability do not include having been 'noted' by a Wikipedia editor. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- do not include having been 'noted' by a Wikipedia editor — if you would read more carefully, you might understand that I was making the point that it was noted not so much by me but by someone who works at one of the institutions described in the movie. Therefore I guess notability will be established sooner rather than later.  Xiutwel (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And as soon as notability is thus established the movie may merit an article. But not before. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The under construction beanner has only been up for 5 days and already it's up for deletion???? Isn't this a bit over zealous? Wikipedia is edited by people in their spare time. If you google this film under specific quotes "Zeitgeist The Movie" you get around 80,000 hits. Further, why should a film that has been released for free distribution and be publicised on the blog scene be handicapped against a film that's been released through a distributer and publicised with commercial help? There's a huge underground buzz about this movie.Vexorg 15:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per WP:AFD "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." Vexorg is the article creator and made substantial contributions to it.Naturally he/she is as entitled to express views here as anyone else. Edison 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is akin to myspace & youtube cruft; most of the ghits are from blogs & mirrors quoting the same thing ad nauseum. Of the 5 links #1 & 2 are primary source, #3 & 5 does not reference the film at all, and #4 is a google search... Therefore there's no 3rd party references given - nothing except primary sources. This simply does not meet the minimum standards for WP:NOTFILM and WP:WEB. SkierRMH 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Give it time to improveMark E 16:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to establish notability so delete as per WP:WEB with no prejudice to recreation if reliable sources are found. Davewild 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is beyond discussion that the article does not yet meet Wikipedia standards. Deleting however will not speed up its improvement. Please do not lynch articles but improve them.  Xiutwel (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I really don't see what the problem is. Why should it be so hastily deleted, and why should you be so intent on deleting it? I happen to value wikipedia because it has what I look for - in other words, I look up Zeitgeist, and there it is, and that makes me happy. Moreover I don't see how it's a negative addition to begin with - aren't there more important things to be done than trying to delete the article a week after it's been created? Finally, it informs on what the movie is about, and should anyone ask me what it's about I can easily link them to wikipedia - which I like. It's not like there's any problem with the neutrality of the article or anything of the sort. Give it time and let it 'meet your formal standards', as deleting will not solve anything but waste more time on it. Mithadon 18:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) — Mithadon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, Amendment is infinitely preferable to deletion. Instead of arguing for why it should be deleted, help amend it so that it meets the standards of wikipedia. This video is very important and the information about it needs to be there. 82.30.66.83 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Very informative movie and wiki entry. It tackles serious issues that need to be tackled.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Rom2k5 (talk • contribs) — User:Rom2k5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
KEEP I don't see the what all the fuss is about. "Zeitgeist - The Movie" is a well made, informative film. As other uses have said, the film tackles serious, somewhat grave and thought-provoking issues. If anything, this film highlights the current trend for productions of this kind on the internet and deserves to be noted. Paul S UK 23:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About the only notability that the film can come up with is word of mouth and google search counts, but these don't fall into our notability guidelines. Only keep arguments in place are either non-sequiturs or not holding the article to policy. This film, in short, isn't all that notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subsection to make editing easier / July 10[edit]

Delete Self published youtube nonsense. If self published books aren't usually notable, why should silly conspiracy mongering nonsense on 'google video'. If there's a video of someone's cat dancing 'released on google video' does that make it notable too? Nick mallory 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero outside 3rd party RSs to establish notability. No prejudice against future creation of an appropriate non-spammy article if it actually does get noticed by some RSs. DGG (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clean the sock drawer. Put the meat back in the meat locker. There is no coverage by any reliable sources. GassyGuy 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've never done any commenting on this before, but a friend of mine told me about the movie. It's two freaking hours long, and I got bored 40 minutes into it. I decided to look it up on wikipedia to find out what it was about, and found out it was up for deletion. I don't understand that at all. I've seen articles on the most inane and inconsequential topics here, and you guys want to delete an article that is actually useful? Regardless of whether it conforms to what you think of as notable, it's useful simply because it sums the movie up for those of us that don't want to sit for two hours and watch it. The whole point of wikipedia is that it's an open encyclopedia that covers *all* topics...try not to change that now.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.62.228 (talk • contribs) — 67.168.62.228 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

comment duh... "I've never done any commenting on this before"  Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting new argument above. I'm not sure it was the intention, but it seems to amount to: this is so unimportant it isn't worth viewing, and therefore we should have an article as a substitute, so nobody will need to see it.DGG (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Christ, guys, though I agree I'm not terribly convinced of notability at this point, deleting an article after a scant five days, while under construction, smacks of WP:BITE and is borderline incivility. Give the editor a chance to finish the article. If after time it is obvious that the article has not improved, renominate. Evouga 06:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim here is that, regardless of how good the article is, the subject matter does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Those in opposition of that claim have at minimum five days to present reliable sources proving otherwise and this discussion will close as a keep. However, while there are several keep arguments, most of them are of the "This article is useful!" or "You nominated this too soon!" nature and don't actually address the issues raised. GassyGuy 07:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not crystal balls either, we do not know how good an article will be until an editor has finished creating an article. Ripping an article out from under an editor is disruptive, detrimental to the encyclopedia, and uncivil, and I am within policy to object to his AfD on those grounds. Evouga 02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article won't be good because there are no third party sources covering the film. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"KEEP" Calling this article "YouTube nonsense" as "User:DGG" suggests is asinine as the user suggests that everything found on YouTube or similar self-broadcast is without merit (all political messages from politicians, all musicians, artist, and the like - EVERYONE that the creators of YouTube intended to serve - they assert that they are all without merit. The "DELETE" users also suggest that it is not notable unless a government has sponsored the content or approved it. We still live in a free society and free speech has not been outlawed yet. This film goes to great lengths to supports it's claims. The majority of those who want to delete this article are those who simply do not agree with it's findings - under their OPINION, not factual research. By that accord, those who do not agree with the current things found in the public life should just be deleted? Also the continual assertion that "There is No evidence" is false. By that accord, such publications that actually have no concrete evidence or merit for it's content, such as the bible and the 9/11 Commission report, should also be deleted. Cherry picking Wiki entries based on OPINION, not EVIDENCE, is fascism - not freedom. The excuse for deleting "I don't like YouTube, MySpace, and Google video" doesn't lie in problems with the film. If those that want this deleted prefer to protest MySpace, YouTube, and Google Video, may we all recommend they do so. Or, maybe they will feel more comfortable living in a more regulated country such as China. — Erico Mertz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- First off, I, for one, did not make that assertion that it requires government sponsorship or approval. Second, you are taking statements out of context: there is no evidence of notability is the correct statement. Try again. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB , WP:A , and WP:NOTFILM . A low budget independent sensational conspiracy film, even one not shown in theaters, can indeed become notable, by getting discussed substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, or by winning notable film industry awards. This one has done none of the above. The closing administrator should note that many of the keep votes came from recently created accounts with few or no previous edits, and failed to state a reason other than the person likes it, or itt is a well made film. Edison 14:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This film is mentioned in countless forums (I note someone has attempted to count them)Regardless of the "merits" of the film, it deserves a entry in wiki just by notoriety alone .Mr zendal 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC){— Mr zendal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment It is extremely easy for a group seeking to promote an extreme point of view or a conspiracy theory or any moonbeam madness to "mention it in countless forums." Google counts are easily gamed. It is also easy to promote this AFD by various means and have people who have never contributed to Wikipedia (welcome to all, and I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia!) jump in and create accounts to !vote to keep it. It is somewhat harder to get substantial published notice in reliable independent publications which have editorial review, as required by our notability guidelines. Edison 13:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Godwin's Law Film which is self-published on Google Videos with no evidence of notability. Has a fair few Google hits, but these all appear to lead to forums or blogs - there seem to be no reliable independent sources, without which a good article cannot be written. I'll happily change my opinion if anyone can show how this film satisfies any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (films) or Wikipedia:Notability (web) but none of the keep votes has yet attempted to do so. Iain99 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I believe you misunderstand this law. The law asserts that, after a certain amount of time, people will call their adversaries "Nazi". This is completely different from asserting that Nazi's as well as the New World Order seem to have the same group of bankers behind them, controlling events. This is not name-calling, it is historical research. It may be flawed, but it is not name-calling.

 Xiutwel (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have two points to make. 1) The article has had 11 edits in the last three days. It is not "currently in the middle of an expansion or major revamping." 2) Even if the article were actually under construction, there is not enough verifiable information on or reputable coverage of the film. Many here are arguing that coverage will be added when it is made available, but that argument only supports the deletion of the article until such coverage exists, especially considering there is no guarantee that such coverage ever will exist. This is not a bias against Internet films, it is a bias against nonnotable films. Regardless of the film's content, there must be notable and reputable coverage of a film, or a person, or any other topic, to indicate that an article is merited. No amount of Google hits or forum mentions can address this issue. --Maxamegalon2000 17:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Maxa megalon says "No amount of Google hits or forum mentions can address this issue" - This is so wrong and is eactly what's wrong with wikipedia notablity criteria. Forums and blogs are the "word of mouth" of the Internet, IOW, the world community. Why should media that is distributed through the grass roots of the community and achieve great notablity on that community be penalised in comparison to a commercially released film that is reviews on websites that review commerically released films. Zeitgeist The Movie has probably been seen and talked about far more than many commercially relased films. Almost 80,000 specif hits on google IS notable coverage of a film. Further it is unfair to say 1) The article has had 11 edits in the last three days. It is not "currently in the middle of an expansion or major revamping." -If it had 11 edits in the last 3 months then it might be fair comment. but 3 days? There does seem to be a move to delete this article rather hastily. The article has only just been created. it's understable that the content of the film is controversial and understandablwe that certain quarters might want not want the issues discussed or even broadcast. howevr the filem has achieved considerable world community noteriety and the article should definitely be kept.Vexorg 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Certainly deleting it now because it has no satisfactory evidence of notability would not prevent recreation of the article later if it gets written up by nationally known film critics or political or religious experts, or becomes otherwise notable. Google hits and the fact that it is viewable on YouTube or Google Video are not sufficient. Wikipedia is not here to publicize someone's independent documentary. But once it becomes independantly notable it could have an article. The standards for films are pretty rigorous (but that can always be itself edited). It doesn't even have to be fair , accurate, true, or rational to be notable enough for an article. Edison 18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment So one nationally known film critic has weight over 80,000 forum and blog entries? This is so wrong. it's also wrong people are comparing Zeitgeist The Movie to the usual nonsense clips that are usually put on Google Video aor You-Tube. This is a proper film. it is 2 hours along. It shoudln't be penalised becuase the make decided to release it on googele video Distribution of media in this way is the future.Vexorg

Comment This is not the place to discuss Wikipedia policy. This article falls afoul of it. If you'd like to change the policies themselves, please open those discussions in the proper fora. As it stands, yes, a reliable source carries more weight than all the lovely little Internet posters you can find. You call it the new "word of mouth" of the Internet, but I'd point out that the old word of mouth is hardly an acceptable source for encyclopaedias, either. GassyGuy 19:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not so against discussing guidelines or policies in AFD's because lots of policies and guidelines cite AFD outcomes as justifications for their existence. Policies and guidelines describe what is rather than what ought to be in terms of what gets kept or deleted. The length of something hardly is any evidence of its notability.I doubt they "decided" to release it on Google Video rather than in theaters like the equally controversial documentaries by Michael Moore or Al Gore. And few would call "one nationally known film critic" sufficient. Multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage are needed. Lots of students make "proper films" that are 2 hours long, and are not notable. The first 5 minutes of this are very slickly and professionally edited, then it is like a slide show with an offscreen announcer reciting a long list of "facts" of extremely doubtful validity. Edison 19:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GassyGuy says "I'd point out that the old word of mouth is hardly an acceptable source for encyclopaedias, either" - Surely the point of an Encyclopedia is to be there when someone who has heard of something and wants to "Look it up" to find out more. A huge plus point of wikiedpia and that anyone can take part in compiling it is that it allows for much more entries than a traditional commerical encyclopedia like Brittanica or Encatra could find the resources to allow.

As I said, the very reason I started the article is becuase I was most suprised that Wikipedia didn't already have one. Further, lots ofstudents may release 2 hour films which never see the light of day. but if a student released a film that has aquired the wrod of mouth notoreity that Zeitgeist the Movie has aquired then IMO it definitely qualifies to have an entry in wikipedia. The only defense those who wish to see the article deleted sems to be that the movie hasn't yet had a review by a known move reviewer. So what? The movie is real, it is well known across the world and is being talked about acrioss the world. It's especially over zealous IMO to call for something to be deletd when the article has only just ben started and is under construction. And just becuase it hasn't had 40,000 edits in 2 hours doesn't mean it's not still under construction either.Vexorg 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the last six hours, this AfD page has been edited 26 times. The article's page has been edited zero times. --Maxa megalon 2000 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what to say. The article has been edited zero times in six hours? And your point is? Vexorg 21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point is, that if there were reliable and valid references, they could have been added in 6 hours. For many AFDs I have found and added sufficient references (when they exist) that other editors have changed their "Deletes" to "Keeps" and the articles were kept, somewhat improved. Wikipedia is not a site for promoting fauxumentaries no matter how fervently someone wants to promote it, when it has not gained notability to satisfy the primary notability guideline or the one for films. If we had a guideline for internet memes, some catchy bit of video fluff which "spreads by word of mouth" or which is an internet phenomenon, or a viral video, might seek to be kept on that basis (like Obama Girl, which had over half a dozen reliable independent coverages besides the present 2.7 million downloads. This work seems too ponderous to be internet fluff. "Memes" are not generally over 2 hours long. Edison 13:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am not going to spend much time on articles, as long as there is a lynch-mob around. So I suggest we first finish this debate, eh?

 Xiutwel (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment promoting fauxumentaries... First of all, Edison, I thank you for speaking candidly about your motivation. I would like to know even more, and I invite you to explain in more detail why you object to such 'promoting': is it (a) the name of wikipedia which is at stake, or is it (b) the unwarrented spread of evil thoughts which you do not want wikipedia to contribute to?
In any case, I do not see why wikipedia would not describe even evil thoughts when they exist and are notable. We have an article on the September 11, 2001 attacks which, unintentionally, could be interpreted as 'praise' for Al Qaeda for having succesfully attacked the World's mightiest Nation, renowned for its Governments' policies bullying less mighty nations. No offense, but I think Al Qaeda would love the article, since they loved the attack. We write the article nonetheless.
Similarly, it is not our job to prove this documentary wrong or misguided, just to describe its existence and its consequences as much independently as possible. You may feel it's not worth our while. Such is your right. But if you would like to talk others out of making that article anyhow, please try your very best to convince them.
I've made my points about NOTE and RS further down.

 Xiutwel (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response on my talk page

 Xiutwel (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subsection to make editing easier / July 11[edit]

Delete, per Iain99. All objections here are objections to Wikipedia policy rather than attempts to establish notability or site reliable sources. Scott.wheeler 00:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article seems to be getting attention of editors who want to improve the article, presumably by also adding evidence of notability, perhaps we shouldn't prematurely delete the article until it is clear that it cannot be redeemed? If the article for Sicko had been hastily written with no verifiable sources, the article would be flagged for cleanup, not deleted. I don't see why good faith to continue building the article can't be assumed in this case, until there is clear evidence otherwise. Evouga 02:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why AfDs run for upto 5 days, to give people a chance to reference and improve --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 03:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I reiterate, that per WP standards, nobody here has said that they will be bringing the article up to standards; they've simply been complaining about what those standards are. The fact that none of the objections come from established editors also smacks of meat-puppetry. (b) If this had happened for Sicko there would have been a quick rush to add links to wp:reliable sources since they are numerous. Scott.wheeler 10:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubts about the good faith of the article's creators - the problem is, as I alluded to above, that in spite of their good will, the article simply cannot be improved unless and until the film is noted by some reputable sources. A good article would include things like: What sort of critical reception has the film had? What has its impact on the public view of 9/11 been? What counter-arguments have been made in response to its claims? As Wikipedia doesn't publish original research or the views of random people on web forums, nothing can be written about these things - in fact nothing can be written about the film at all beside the bare fact that it exists and maybe a brief summary of its content, which does not make for an encyclopaedia article. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia has standards of notability in the first place - to ensure that there's actually enough to write an article with. Iain99 11:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable, independent, non-blog sources; the only claim to notability is a "specific google search"! --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "reliable sources" to establish formal notability may not have found time to write about it yet. This wiki article is only a week old, the movie has only been released for a month, without the 12-months-in-advance Hollywood announcing aparatus Coming soon in a theatre near you. Please soul-search yourself if you needed the article to be deleted if you actually liked the contents in stead of detested it, and let's give it some time, folks!  Xiutwel (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, by the same token, what's the big deal in deleting it now and recreating at a later date if and when the references are there? --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: why do you need this article to be deleted for about a year, and only have it undeleted then? What purpose would that serve? The "big deal" is: all that time wikipedia editors would not be able to contribute to the article. We would have to start from scratch then. Please tell me, why would you want us to waste that time?
Please see: Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. ^{WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY}
And also: WP:NOTCENSORED.  Xiutwel (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about NOTCENSORED, but here it is a nonsequitur - we are not censoring the article, we are discussing removal due to a lack of notability. If we were into censorship, don't you think it would have vanished withing a few moments of creation? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & improve. The content sounds interesting and it seems like early days. Kimindex 11:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC) — Kimindex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. It's a bit young to delete it already - give it time and see what it evolves into. 82.27.18.166 12:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC) — 82.27.18.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I searched to see if this has any reliable source coverage, such as on Google News and got zero results. --Aude (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please do not use SOCKS to "influence" the outcome. It's silly. This is not a vote, it is the merit of the arguments that counts. So, please everybody: respond to my comment above "wikipedia is not a burocracy" and "why would WP be better off when the article is deleted in stead of improved over time".
Note to admin: please do not use the usage of socks as an argument for deletion; it is not relevant since this is not a vote, and hypothetically, it could even be socks used by trolls to disturb this debate. Thanks!  Xiutwel (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a new film and the wiki article is only 1 week old. The lynch-mob rush to delete this article has been noted and it's not unreasonble to understand why certain quarters would want references to a film with controversial content cemsored. WP:NOTCENSORED However baised objections to criticisms of traditional mythology aside why can't the article grow with the notablity of the film? Big budget commerical films have the beneift of payola into mainstream review houses which essentially means a commerical bias to media which gains early wiki notability. Zeitgeist ( and no doubit other independent media )has a handicap here. Had zeitgeist ( with exactly the same content ) been relased through a big commerical distributer the sources of notability would be there from the start.Vexorg 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comment to Xiutwel above in re the censorship factor. And you are correct - it sure would have a nice little boost if this were commercially distributed - but, it's not. It's got an uphill battle if it wants to be notable, and we are not the means to promote it and/or make it notable. Life is hard. For what it's worth, though, if it does fall within WP:N, I have no prejudice to changing my vote and/or the recreation of the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's clear that while some objectors to the article are doing so in good faith to wiki guidelines, it's every clear that some are trying to censor the article because of it's content.Vexorg 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. It's always easier to assume a major conspiracy against you, rather than actually finding the sources for your article! --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 22:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's also worth noting that while I was undertaking a major edit an ojector to the article at 02:35, 11 July 2007 GMT actually ripped both the WP:LOCK ((inuse)) tag AND the ((Underconstruction)) tag from the article citing them as inappropriate!!!Vexorg 16:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's also worth noting the article hasn't changed much [57] since I "ripped" the tags out (How did you know I made a ripping sound when I pressed 'Save page'?) --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untruth - Firstly - I was making a major edit to the page at the time you removed the INUSE and UNDERCONSTRUCTION tags from the article. I don't think anyone wil largue that removing those tags wasn't good wiki behaviour as there was absolutely no reason to do so. Particularly as the last edit was only 8 minutes before you ripped the tags amd there had been a lot of editign over the previous 2 hours. Secondly - Yuo've only got to look at the Edit History to the substantial changes made since I pu t the tags back and carried on. I usgt say there is definitely some hate and over zealousness in getting the article deleted.Vexorg 02:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not Notable. Not reliable. Not Encyclopedic. --Tbeatty 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subsection to make editing easier / July 12[edit]

Keep, I think the reason that people want this article deleted lies more with the fact that the movie opposes their views than any actual desire to see a "cleaner" article. It's still marked as under construction - give the author time to clean up the article. Wikipedia isn't about crushing opposing viewpoints. Again, this wouldn't even be an issue if the movie wasn't so controversial. The fact that this discussion is taking place on such a grand scale puts it in the "notable" category. 65.80.203.42 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Based on edit you are either editing another user's comments, or else voting twice under different names. Both are poor form - please desist. Iain99 23:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I agree that this wouldn't be an issue if the movie wasn't so controversial; I doubt anyone would be voting "keep". There's simply no valid assertion of notability. --Maxa megalon 2000 21:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it controversial at all. It would seem the people who want it deleted are more likely to find it controversial. If it wasn't so controversial I very much doubt there's be a ;ynch mob to get it deleted so quickly.Vexorg 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that - I personally think that the movie is rather silly and quite boring. That said, it's currently something people want to be able to look up information about. Couldn't deletion be considered in a month or two when everyone on earth has forgotten about it? This whole thing is just creating more controversy leading to more people wanting to see the movie leading to more people wanting the article deleted leading to more people protesting - - over and over ad nauseum. Why not let it lie and give the author time to clean it up....and then if the film proves itself to be notable it won't be because of a massive controversy on Wikipedia. 65.80.203.42 22:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The web notability criteria notes three independently sufficient conditions for website notability (WP:WEB). I wish to bring attention to the third criteria: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for: trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)". Also note that the criteria for reliable sources does not apply to notability, just on citation of facts. I noticed that there are two websites that give coverage to the online film: http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/zeitgeist-the-movie/659/ and http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/00460 . As far as I can tell, neither of these sites are personal blogs. Aude above believes that Google News and the criteria of reliable source should be used to determine if a website is notable. However, the third criteria above does not demand that any sources meet these criteria. If these two sites are not trivial, then notability is established. Also is there something to be said about Google hosting the ~2 hours of this video? Kanodin 21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being a Google Video release is certainly not fulfillment of any notability criterion, and almost every "keep" so far seems to either be a "ignore policy and wait around for awhile", a vote by probable meatpuppets, or personal attacks on the possible (and likely irrelevant) private motivations of people wishing to delete the article. About the best argument to keep I see here is by User:Kanodin, who tries to cite two possibly non-trivial websites. However, the atheistnation link will not load on my computer and the URL name certainly doesn't sound very reliable, and the rinf website clearly appears to be a conspiracy theory website by content, and alone, I really don't see how its capable of making a well-referenced and factual article. Also, Google Video looks pretty close to a user-submitted content site to me. Homestarmy 22:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would www.atheistnation.net ( which loads fine here btw ) not sound a reliable URL and is there any reason why it shouldn't be any less reliable than a site like http://www.wayofthemaster.com/ for example?? And why would a website ( rinf.com ) that deals with theories on world events other than what the gevernment tell us be automatically 'incapable of making a well-referenced and factual article' ?? Those assertations are absolutely baseless and show a biased point of view.Vexorg 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I got to it on the second try. It sounded unreliable because the name sounded like so many other atheististic apologetics sites that i've seen out there, and actually being able to see it hasn't changed my mind. I can't even find a clearly labelled place on the site that even says who runs it and how many people are involved, the welcome banner only has one name on it, it may just be a personal website who's owner has put in various user-input features for all I can tell. Not being able to tell exactly who owns and/or maintains a site is generally a bad sign when it comes to reliability of a website for referencing purposes. Nextly, the reason I had "I really don't see" in my sentence about rinf wasn't just because I enjoy seeing all the funtastic words I type show up on the screen when I click save, I had those qualifiers there because like it or not, I really do not understand how this website can be trusted to be high-quality and trustworthy enough to serve as the sole reliable source of an article. You may find my assertions concerning my own state of mind baseless, but there's nothing in your reply that gives me anything new to go on suggesting that this conspiracy website actually is trustworthy and reliable. Homestarmy 23:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to Kanodin for at least trying to make a case. Unfortunately though, the links you've mentioned aren't very helpful. I'm afraid I'm not sure about the importance of either site, but they're both very trivial mentions anyway. The Atheist Nation page just has a mirror of the Google Video with no editorial comment whatsoever, and the rinf site has three sentences which appear to be lifted from a badly written press release. What's needed are reasonably in depth articles about the film, so that there is at least a possibility of writing a proper article based on them as I said above. And Google Video is a user-generated content site which allows anybody to upload clips - even two hours worth. Iain99 22:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. Simple appearance on Google Video does not web notability make. All Google hits are blogs or the video itself, nothing with a news story or review. MSJapan 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article, what external links there are, the discussion page and this ADF... delete, notability for inclusion not established. See Wikipedia:Notability (films), as well as the more general Wikipedia:NotabilityAs an aside; one reference - and that goes to an wikipedia article? WegianWarrior 07:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment (keep) We are clearly not reaching consensus on deletion at all. There are 2 guidelines at stake:
- notability: since the film is very new, notability cannot yet be established by reliable sources, which is understandable. Considering the interest in this deletion page, and the vast amount of bloggers talking about such a new film, I would assume that notability will be a matter of time, as it was with Loose Change. It would seem counterproductive to delete for this aspect.
- reliable sources: currently, the only reliable sources are unfortunately the primary sources of the video and the maker's website. This is acceptable, though it is undesirable. Nonetheless I feel an article can be written which is helpful to visitors and looks good on wikipedia. And please remember: WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, the guidelines are a tool to reach consensus more easily, not to be used in stead of reaching consensus. "Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."  Xiutwel (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a pretty strong consensus here between regular editors. The overwhelming majority of the objections (aside from yours, and I believe I saw one other regular editor) are not from previous WP contributors. Your arguments in favor of preserving the page are also still essentially, "We should ignore WP policy, because there seems to be a lot of interest in this." That, however, thusfar has not convinced me or the other regular editors that a sweeping exception is merited. Scott.wheeler 11:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(aside from yours, and I believe I saw one other regular editor) ... Maybe you would like to make a list of editors you researched, to make your claim more transparant? I feel it's silly to be so burocratic about the notability guideline already within a month after an internet-release. If this film is not notable in a year, then you may have a point. I think the harm in scaring away newcomers is greater than the merit of deleting now in order to conform to guidelines: I myself started on a single subject on nl: and since have become more and more enthousiastic for wikipedia.
A guideline is an average of all cases, and not necessarily appropriate in any given example. It cannot replace the merit of consensus-building, and I see too little effort to do so from the delete-votes. And who says newcomers have less to say than oldies?
In any case, if the verdict would be delete I would request userfication of the article. Now I'm taking a wikibreak ! See you all in August.

 Xiutwel (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll post a tally in a new section. It is accepted within the Wikipedia community that long-term members have more influence on its direction, evidenced, for example, by the way that board elections are done. Scott.wheeler 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This film makes enough claims supported by half-truths or absolute falsehoods that it may well get critical (in the harsher sense of the word) notice in reliable sites. Or the mainstream media may ignore it so it withers on the vine, because they know that to attack it is to show it is notable. Then the article can be recreated. Wikipedia is not here to serve as part of someone's initial publicity campaign to promote something which hasa not yet become notable. As an example of the kind of coverage it may get, the James Randi Educational Foundation's blog, [58] a "skeptical " debunking site, had some posts by bloggers debunking the film. (I do not feel the JREF, as a blog, is an adequate site to show notability.) The JREF shows how it repeated or copied material from "Loose Change", from an anti-Judeo-Christian conspiracy site, and from a site opposing the Federal Reserve and income taxes, and stating that it repeated falsehoods about how there is no law requiring US citizens to pay a federal tax from other sites, and linking to sites which debunk this. It also has material debunking the attacks on Judeo-Christianity. (Funny how they were careful not to attack Islam or Mohammed). All sections of it have some truths mixed with some falsehoods and some halftruths. Some of the howlers pointed out are how the film implies that in Biblical times the Jews, Egyptians, etc used the English words "sun" and "son." If the film ever becomes notable, then the Wikipedia article can also have a debunking function, in order to be NPOV. Edison 15:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ( not a publicity campaign ) - In respomse to Edison aboev who says "Wikipedia is not here to serve as part of someone's initial publicity campaign to promote something which hasa not yet become notable" I would just like to clarify that my interest in creating and improving the article has nothing whatsoever to do with any publicity campaign. I have no Connection with the film or its makers at all. I am simply a Wiki Editor who saw the film and was suprised the film wasn't already on Wiki.Vexorg 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI do not mean to imply that your efforts to create and keep an article about the film are anything other than a good faith effort to have an article about an interesting film. As I said, it is not impossible that it might become notable in the future. But there are tens of thousands of nonnotable films created each year by students or special interest groups, and it is contrary to WP:N and WP:FILM to have articles to provide publicity for them, until they have become otherwise notable. Edison 04:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP i was looking for more info/ links. no doubt the us government *cough Nazi's* will have it closed down soon enough anyway, the page defiantly needs to stay!!— 203.113.238.154 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Shame that I can't call Godwin here. =( --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was questioned earlier in this topic whether or not a concensus has been reached and that I list which entries I inspected. As this entry has grown it has become difficult to maintain an overview, so I've made a summary list. (CONTENT DELETED HERE; SEE COMMENT BELOW --Metropolitan90 19:44, 12 July 2007.) Scott.wheeler 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the summary list prepared by Scott.wheeler per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion, which states, "Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of recommendations, however much you may think that this helps the process." In my experience, compiling a "vote count" during the AfD discussion period is generally disfavored by administrators. If this is no longer correct, Scott's summary list is in the edit history and can be restored if needed. --Metropolitan90 19:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I have just looked at the so called 'Overview' by ScScott.wheeler in the edit history and rather than being an overview it's actually a biased conclusion. Especially with comments like "As most or all of the non-registered or non-editor opinions are likely meat puppets" - So Scott.wheeler considers the consensus to be strongly in favour of deletion because Scott.wheeler makes a baseless allegation that a lot of those in favour of keeping are 'meatpuppets' ??? Metropolitan90 was correct in deleting this bias. I have also changed the title to this section as there is no "overview of opinions thus far" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexorg (talk • contribs)

Hi Metropolitan90 -- that's fine. It's there in the history if anyone cares to look. That came up in another comment of mine that was replied to and I hadn't previously seen that guideline. Vexorg, I don't believe that it's particularly crazy to assume that many of the users which have created accounts just to register their opinions in this debate were directed here by some online forum. You're naturally free to assume otherwise. However, more to the point is that WP does tend to see the opinions of established editors as more relevant than those who have not previously contributed to the project, regardless of if those accounts were created in good faith or otherwise. Scott.wheeler 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Article has a big banner proclaiming it is being nominated for delation and there; a link to this discussion page. It's also highly likely that people using Wikipedia have seen the abnner and have come here to voice their opinion. I can understand, dut to human Nature that regular/established editors are going to hold more sway, but really surely it's the argument that matters not whose making it? This also extends to the notoriety issue. Thousands of people are talking about the film all over the Internet through blogs. this is grass roots word of mouth. yet if a couple of people who write film reviews sunddely publish a review on teh film becuase they themselves might have seen the popularity in the blogs all of asudden it meets Wikipedia notability. Which essentially means that 70,000 people talking of it means nothing, but 70,002 and it's OK. remember over 250,000 have seen the film. And people are still arguing that there's no notability?Vexorg 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely about the argument that matters, not who's making it. But there hasn't been a good argument for keeping the article that doesn't require an abandonment of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. When a new user, clearly unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines, makes a single contribution to Wikipedia, and that single contribution is to argue that we should ignore our policies and guidelines to keep an article on a subject that the new user is passionate about and just knows will become notable in just a few weeks, how on earth are we supposed to justify giving their argument any weight compared to those of established editors? Also, notability is not the same thing as popularity. What can be said about this film beyond a plot summary? The article is almost 20,000 bytes, but nothing after the first paragraph would be part of a proper article on this film; all we'd be left with is "This is a film, and this is what it's about. Here's how many Google hits it has." All of that could be said about pretty much any film released. "Snake coughs up entire hippo" has more views and more Google hits too; should we have an article on that video as well? --Maxa megalon 2000 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- There are established editors arguung to keep the article though. notable is subjective, which obviously makes the discussion harder to resolve, but comparing it to a google video on a "snake coughing up a hippo" is IMO a false analogy when trying to aergue down the inroads the film has made over netVexorg 02:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe, maybe not. But riddle me this: why is it notable? What makes this video notable? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What makes it notable? Thousands and thousands of people talking about and the film. The immense word of mouth about the film that's what. As Xiutwel says below 3 film 'proffessors talk about the film and it's got authority, 300,000 oridnary people talk about it and is hasn't. This is panering to Argument_from_authority. Vexorg 16:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zim 06 23:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)←[reply]

subsection to make editing easier / July 15[edit]

Delete per (picks one at semi-random) Edison. CWC 04:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subsection to make editing easier / July 13[edit]

KEEP. I created this movie. I am currently updating the sources. I was not made aware of this Article until recently.

About 20% of the sources are now posted as of 7/12/07. Zeitgeist took 6 months to research. I do not think there is any reason for its deletion. You will find that this work is more researched and sourced than 75% of the Articles on Wikipedia. I will have the elements totally sourced in a few days. Thank you. Peter J. zeitgeistmovie.com --Zeitgeist filmmaker 3:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — Zeitgeist filmmaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi. I think you may be confused. The call for sourcing is not for sources for the information presented in the film, but for sources for information about the film; things like reviews and news articles published by reliable sources are necessary to show the notability of the film. As I mentioned at the article's talk page, adding content from the film to the article does nothing to address the concerns raised in this deletion discussion. While a brief discussion of the film's message may be appropriate, the article should be about the film's production, reaction to the film, and things like that. The film's content is largely irrelevant to this deletion discussion, and would almost certainly be substantially shortened if the article is kept or restored. --Maxa megalon 2000 04:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist filmmaker, I appreciate your film-making accomplishments and efforts to produce a complete reference list. However, I'm afraid I have to agree with Maxa's last comment. The deletion turns on the film's notability, not about its veracity. Zeitgeist filmmaker, a smart defense against deletion is to inspire and report independent and nontrivial news attributions so that the movies satisfies WP:WEB, which I believe is the appropriate criteria in this case. Conducting more research to strengthen the film's thesis is great, but it is unfortunately irrelevant to this particular issue. There is a dearth of news covering the film/website, so establishing notability has been rather difficult. If you have any connections with people in news, now would be the time to engineer a professional review. I also should note (if it has not been made explicit before), that a deletion caused by a notability deficit can be overcome in the future. If it turns out that "Zeitgeist The Movie" fails Wikipedia's notability standards, the movie may meet those standards in the future. Deletion does not have to be forever, but an article on Wikipedia should not be a plug to generate notability. Kanodin 09:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I know people are really dependent on outside "authority" to know whether they are right. It is really a pity to freely give our power away to some "authority". It is so tragic that people would call this movie notable if 3 professors would look at the video and call it a bunch of crap, where as when 300.000 ordinary people look at it, like it and even write a wikipedia article on it, it is not notable.
It is no big deal to delete the article, have it userfied, improve it and undelete it when the time has come. But it's so sad, so tragic. Ironically, this giving away of power which is happening right here on this page, is exactly the mechnanism described in the very film Zeitgeist the Movie: in stead of relying on our own beliefs and truths, we copy the truths of "authority", i.e. the church, the bankers, the government leaders.
It's probably meant to be this way, and I'm sure these are the last convulsions of the ruling paradigm and times are changing for the better!
Greetings from the beach!

 Xiutwel (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC) PS I agree it's not the sources for the film that are at stake in this discussion on deletion.[reply]

But that's what Wikipedia (or in fact any encyclopedia) is, by definition. Saying that it's sad that WP relying on outside reliable sources is tragic is like looking at a sandwich and saying that it's sad that they always make them with bread. I think it's great that there is an arena for flourishing opinions and an open forum for debate on the internet; it's just that Wikipedia isn't that place. This seems to be the fundamental disconnect in this debate; it's really not about the subject matter of the film (I've not watched it.), but rather what Wikipedia is. The debate hasn't really been much of one because it's essentially been, "We're sorry, independent of the content of the film, at present it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion." while the "keeps" assert, "But lot's of people are interested. The rules are silly." I should note that such rules are not fixed in stone; they may be changed through community processes, but the place to change them is in the guideline discussions, not in a specific article's deletion debate. Scott.wheeler 13:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but Scott, Xiutwel is right. The argument on notability rests upon Argument_from_authority. thousands and thouasands of ordinary people are talking about and reviewing this film and that means nothing? yet 2 or 3 people who earn money by reviewing films make comment on it and all of a sudden...VOILA!!.... it's now notable. This is the tag from WP:NOTFILM

((subcat guideline))

note it says.... "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" - The occasional exception page says..

When editing Wikipedia, you should use common sense, build consensus, and focus on improving or maintaining the project. If the rules would prevent this, ignore them.

- For me common sense says that deleting this article would be so wrong. The content of the film and teh method of distribution of the film notwithstanding, the immense world of mouth this film has generated is more than enoguh for notability.Vexorg 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not doing it well by lawyering. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An aside, Vexorg: please read about what "ignore all rules" means. Failing to understand this brings about faulty arguments such as yours. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to understand this brings about faulty arguments I just read the "ignore all rules" page and... tend to agree with Vexorg, so, Dennis the Tiger, please point out what you mean exactly, in stead of rawring a bit vaguely.

 Xiutwel (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The impression I get is that Vexorg is using IAR to basically try and get his way - that is, he is wanting to promote the movie for one reason or another. Near as I can tell, it's because he likes it - which I do not begrudge, but WP:ILIKEIT and all that. That is one aspect of what I see. What else I see is something that I feel can be pointed out in the WIARN article by doing a side by side comparison, and I don't think that a point-by-point explanation is necessary - it is not my place to further analyze his arguments. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as notability, I have posted some external links including a Radio Interview. After this weekend I will have been on 3 radio stations doing interviews.(I will post them all when the archives are available ) There are about 25,000 views a day on this movie via google, not to mention the other format embed across the internet. Coupled with the original release, the main movie via google alone has gotten about 600,000 views since June 8th. This is no small number. Zeitgeist filmmaker

You raise good points, and the plug for reviews is there. The problem is that I'm not sure that any interviews on a radio show would constitute notability. Promotion, definitely, but not necessarily notability. If I remember right, this is one of the few exceptions to the "no notability by extension" rule - basically, if it hits an interview on the big time, you might *just* cross the line. The reviews... well, I'll leave that to somebody else's thoughts, as I'm not sure about how reviews fit into the picture. My !vote stands for now, but this'll also depend on what some of the others say on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: check WP:BIGNUMBER. A number of viewcounts is really not a good gauge of notability - not saying you'd do this, but frankly, I can achieve a big hitcount with wget and bash. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe 600,000 views, but it took me four sessions to plow through it, so the number of actual viewers might be a bit less. Several of us have said that IF it becomes notable, there can be an article, but the article may not be used to publicize it before it gets substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as of right now, it fails to have reliable sources. If it picks up notability and gains writeups in reliable sources, then by all means recreate the article. -- Whpq 18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely lacks notability.--MONGO 05:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MONGO, if you don't like the movie, well, take no notice. It "isn't notable", remember? (You must be really desparately clinging on to your 911-was-an-unpreventable-misfortune truth by your fingernails, when you take so much effort to have everything deleted which might suggest otherwise...) Cheers,

 Xiutwel (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (films), which is a well-established guideline to determine the notability of indy films like this one. First, the film is not widely distributed and has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Second, it's not historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: (i) has there been publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release; (ii)is the film deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release; (iii) has the film been given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release; or (iv)has the film been featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. Third, the film has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. Fourth, the film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive. And fifth, the film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. This film fails ALL of our notability requirements for film. Delete it. MortonDevonshire Yo · 21:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Morton. Since I have nothing to add to Morton's comment on why the article miserably fails inclusion, I'm going to address the keep votes. The reasons behind every keep vote so far are atrocious. They fall into three categories: A) I like this movie and don't want to see it deleted! B) The article is new and we shouldn't delete it yet! C) It is notable due to word of mouth and hits on Google. There is also another category of keep votes where the voters don't have any real reason to keep the article, so they just type "KEEP!" (note all caps and exclamation point), apparently because they think the loudest vote wins. Category A is already widely dismissed on Wikipedia, so I won't address those arguments. Category B fails to address the argument; the delete rationale is that the film fails our notability criteria for films, not that the article is bad. The point is that no matter what happens to this newly created article (if kept), the subject is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Category C also fails to address the inclusion requirement for films. Word of mouth and Google hits are non-existant notability requirements. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Entry for this FABULOUS movie! The movie is completely sourced. Don't censor!!! 22:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

KEEP: By deleting this movie from this site, you are prooving the creater of the movie correct. If anyone has a problem with what this movie stands for, you shouldn't try to ban it because freedom of speach and expression should be allowed to be practiced by anyone, especially on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.9.145 (talk) — 99.246.9.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

subsection to make editing easier / July 14[edit]

Keep because it is timely and there are many other articles that talk about current events, and also because this film makes points that are quite convincing and should be discussed. If they are wrong, then it would be a great article if it proves them to be wrong, and if any of the points in the film are correct then that should be shown. I would like to see a fair discussion of the major topics made in this film. Maybe that is beyond what can be done on a Wiki page, I don't know. I for came here because I saw the movie and I wanted an honest opinion of whether it was bunk or not. --Eurlim 22:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Morton and Pablo above. It seems lately that Wikipedia's policies are viewed as just suggestions, and this trend is ever growing. But hey, your contributions keep it going! Forget the fact that if we fail to maintain proper standards, this encyclopedia will not be taken seriously. Well, it seems many editors lately don't care about what is good for the project, or our reputation - they just like it! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This movie is a great documentation on where alot of our history comes from, it does not twist facts or logic and is very forthright. ARE WE IN CHINA? DO NOT CENSOR THIS ARTICLE! — 97.99.100.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:54, 14 July 2007

"KEEP" - it's really quite silly to censor this film. let people make up their own minds as to whether or not it is worthwhile. personally, i thought that there was great merit in this undertaking and i would definitely say that it was worth inclusion in wikipedia. wikipedia is not here to tell people what to think, but rather to provide a place where we can learn, and share information. once wikipedia sets foot down the path to censorship it will lose everything that makes it great.

please respect both wikipedia, and this film by allowing this entry.

thanks - P'u — P'uu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:15, 14 July 2007

Comment - for those who think that we are censoring the article, the answer is simple: no, we are not. I don't know if the above keep !votes have been keeping up with Wikipedia policy or this AFD, but we are stating that this film is not notable, not that it is to be censored. Read, and be enlightened, before making such baseless statements. Thank you. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ: the film is reasonably to be deemed notable, even if the preconditions which are stated in the guidelines are not literally met, yet. We are not a bureaucracy^{WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY}, please follow your heart in honesty when interpreting the "rules". Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The volume of activity on this page should prove how notable it is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.1.78 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 14 July 2007

Comment (keep) I must confess I've seen the video three times now, with different friends. I feel it's very well made. It gives one an overview while remaining easy to comprehend. I don't trust the details of the movie too much, but the broad line seems well researched.
Apropos, "This page is 74 kilobytes long." - not bad fellow wikipedians, 75000 chars 11000 words for a movie which would be "unnotable". I wish we could spend that time on improving articles instead of discussing deleting them. To all reading this, please be aware that there seems to a zealous "Zeitgeist the Movie article inquisition" forming that will probably keep starting discussions for deletion for this article in the future almost monthly, even when this debate results in "no consensus", hoping that one time it will go unnoticed, resulting in deletion, and a consensus to recreate the article will never re-emerge. So please bookmark the article and check regularly.  Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"KEEP" - I agree most of the others in this discussion, this page should be KEPT. Many improvements to this page could be made from the sources available on the film's home and I suspect that if the entry is permitted to stay on wikipedia, the relevant information will stay and the irrelevant will be purged, that's what wikipedia is for isn't it? Don't delete this article, it's too important, especially at this time in our history. As far as it's "Notability", I submit that this video has been viewed more than 455,000 times, and that's just the revised version. DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE - — Trekerboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment (keep) I expect wikipedia to have information on everything, there are certainly some not so notable listings such as the aconitase enzyme page, which I imagine was easy to get "notability" for, but will be read far fewer times than this page will.  Zim_06 ♫☻♥♪ (talk)

"KEEP" - This entry would be a an important source of reference for the documentary style movie.The movie, this entry, and all of its sources are relevant to ongoing debates about its many subjects. The only reason I can imagine for the dispute over this page is that people do not like to have certain information to be made publicly available, and may not suit their interests. In the spirit of free and open debate, please allow this page to be kept and allow readers to decide the credibility for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.1.78 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 July 2007

KEEP Morton may make a valid argument about notability of films, but that reference does not call for deletion of the page as an appropriate action. It just establishes the notability of the film. The film is indeed in flux and gathering wider acceptance. Additionally, many newspapers are going out of business due to the fact that news is ever more increasingly being produced and consumed by way of the Internet. It would be unfair, to say the least, for such a technologically advanced resource such as Wikipedia to force printed media reviews in order to establish notability, especially in cases where the information (this film) is controversial or widely outside the realms of popular opinion. I would consider that censorship; the very thing wikipedia should be fighting to prevent given the nature of user-contributed content. Khermans 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)khermans (Kristian Hermansen)[reply]

Comment by user Bef: Regardless of attitudes toward the content of the film, it is an attempt to inform the public of another perspective on many peoples core truths. To censor the film would be unproductive, if you disagree with the content and can refute it then work on constructing your own video which can directly refute the claims of this film.Bef 00:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP with 455,920 views of the new movie and even more for the older version this movie or subject definitly deservers a wikipedia entry, whenever things that are told in it, may be true or false.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaasje (talk • contribs) 00:12, 15 July 2007

~!~KEEP~!~ it, if any other pathetic religion can keap their non-sense speach about anything than you have no right to remove this one, cause at least it has sense and it speak truth abotu alot of stuff. If you really proof us that you are all about freedom of speach than keap this open, cause shuting it down woudl only proof us right anyway and you loose either way. Eckostream, July 14 2007 (Canada,Qc) — 66.131.240.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:40, 15 July 2007

~!~YOU CHOOSE~!~: Comments here support the film being published here on the basis of freedom and truth. I support truth news, and worry of suppression of truth, particularly the kind of topics that are presented in part two of the film: i.e. false flags and terror and suppression of people through government terror. It is important that work which questions government spin gets aired.

I looked at the notoriety criteria, and the film passes possibly one out of three, possibly not.

Unfortunately, the film is severely flawed and divisive for truth news seekers, and damages the credibility of such independent journalists in general. It is for an audience of apathetic unquestioning people.

It seems that people feel strongly that it should be published here, because it's truth news: I can understand that feeling, but it's not enough. It has to have merit, otherwise it will undermine truth. All that was published in part two of the film has been published already, but here put it together well, like a documentary with 'spiritual scholarship/authority'.

It juxtaposes in part 1 an account, contrary to the article,not merely of Christianity but all spiritual saviours, or messengers. It confuses theism or spiritual authority with dogma. That's where it's merit slumps, and is divisive for truth news. It appears to borrow wholesale from a book: The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Achrya S. And I see no criticism yet. It's not been allowed the time. So allow me here, now. Then, join with the question I raise, they are serious for outcome in reporting truth, if the film were to rise in popularity.

Now that book offers an interesting line of thought, but there's no attempt at criticism of the books' thesis, that all world religious accounts of saviours share the same myth, based in astrology and sun movements. Although the astrology numbers tie up well, there are glaring and deliberate mistakes, which amount to false propaganda. Not so much the fault of the film maker, they obviously took it up in a surge of belief - the kind they decry. But then they must answer questions concerning its scholarship. The matters are presented as important, but unfortunately that trivialises part two - the false flags. Vedantists, Muslims, Christians and other people of other books are fighting for truth and freedom too.

Let's take a closer look: e.g. concerning krishna: He was not born on the 25th: Krishna was born in the Rohini nakshatra, in the Hindu month of Bhadrapada, on the 8th day of the waning moon at midnight (about July). Yet he's included along with Jesus as an example of a fictitious myth. Yet they fail to observe and point out it doesn't actually fit the thesis of the 1st half of the film/ and the book. Quite ill-conceived. There will be many other glaring errors, but as I say presented as scholarship, served as propaganda.

It's not explicitly stated concisely, but inferred, that myths are human inventions, with no bearing in historic, or transcendental truth. Yet, transcendental events don't have to obey laws of nature, because the point is it is supernature. No mention of prophesies are made either. Or, that recurring myths are not necessarily historic falsities.

Christ and Krishna cannot be so easily dismissed as historical persons, and as sons of god or god in person. They are supposed to be freedom fighters, themselves!

It would be okay, but probably out of place in the film, for a film maker to portray their personal atheism, or other belief. Truth news activities about false flags, anti- neo capitalism and freedom fighting do not belong to atheists. An attempt a scholarly thesis by borrowing a flawed thesis of a scholar is a mistake, typical of arrogant scientists, arrogant government or naive believers

If you are a materialist, a nihilist, and if in spite of a secular/aethiest state have feeling for a unconditional spirituality, not based on dogma, the film does appear to offer slight possibility of spirit souls, which is oh so nice. But it can't unite us in spirit against world domination| we can't all be god - all be all-poweful. So what's to unite us? A oneness that doesn't exist?

The point of spirit is that it is eternal, and not the material body- mind, but transcends it, and all are joined in one. Now, if this is truth and all-powerful, why can't there be religious law, prophets, codes? Were all our forefathers, and muslims etc .. now, fools under the control of dogma? Spirit means we exist, what happens matters in the spirit of truth (the way it's done), and there is freedom from material domination; We are not here for the pursuit of material goals solely, but to live in dignity. Innocents are not to die for material goals....

Democracy is a set of rules; Ideology is Religion. The two are confused in this film, as they were in the warmakers with Iraq. It is not religion, but hypocrites who start unnecessary wars. Religion is science of spirit: it means, roughly, to recall the word, the thought of god.

I bear the film makers no ill feeling: I hope you can invite more contributors from religions to remake part one, which would have to change then quite radically. How could that fit in? Well, as I say religious people are concerned with truth and freedom. That is why Muslim societies, contrary to propaganda , have some of the most socially caring networks. Their governments, and the religious fanatics were fashioned by the west.

P.S> I was asked to save this from delete by email, after having offered constructive criticism. If a panel of experts in news and religion discuss this they might slag it off more than me. So be careful with notoriety - it may get more, but you may not like it. The film is not mature. First listen to the criticism, and think deeply. There is no harm. You are young. There are plenty of freedom fighters in god-fearing Palestine and Iraq. Go there. Listen carefully. Or you motivation may be questioned as seeking 5' of fame.

Truth news is so important for the material welfare of people, and their ability to LIVE with dignity. But I fear PC atheism is corrupting the efforts of all. It saddens me so very much. Funny that acrya S. is a hindu name, taken by western scholar of comparative religion and she can't even get the date of Krishna's birth, because it doesn't suit her thesis. Why is she sponsored by the government then? Seems truth doesn't matter to her, like many in the government. Noteriety or not, this film will have to take it's criticism, whilst intelligent, (truth seekers) exist!

Bollybosh, UK — Bollbosh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:56, 15 July 2007

KEEP KEEP KEEP!!!! This entry NEEDS to be kept on Wikipedia. If it's removed then we've all given in to the forces that are presented in the Zeitgeist movie. Wether or not the movie is 100% accurate or not, at least most of the ideas presented are possible, highly likely to occur, if not entirely TRUE and PRESENT. The most important thing about this movie is that it makes the viewer stop and think and consider long-held beliefs or notions and contemplate the state of our world. THAT is the truth of this. THAT needs to be spread. Stop and think. Also, the reason religion is presented as it is in the movie is to illustrate not only the misunderstanding of some of our deepest held mythologies, but also to show that Religion has been used as a tool for the full length of the history of Mankind to Control, Deceive, and Manipulate. Stop and think. -USER: M the Mordant. mike@50footrobot.com

KEEP-- I found it informative and see no harm to keep it in here. Earthmaan1 — 76.226.140.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:59, 15 July 2007

Strong Delete. I have read through the entire AfD, the entire article and all it's references. I can certainly see some of the points made by the users in favor of keeping. However, that still doesn't change the fact that this is a clear violation of WP:FILM, WP:A, WP:COI and WP:WEB. I'm also troubled that the majority of the arguments to keep it are some variation on WP:ILIKEIT. Sorry, when Paramount comes asking for distribution rights, I'll change my mind. For now it's a delete. Trusilver 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "'Strong Comment Great documentary and very educational. While some of the material may offend some of my belief's or anothers, the documentary shares ideas and doesn't use opinionated comments as if they're facts. Also, from my understanding a video can legally contain copywritten material if it's a documentary. A Free documentary has no threat to Paramount, but possibly the information may threaten other institutions. Either way, i'd rather come to wikipedia for information. I would like to always feel that information on Wikipedia is not censured.
- Strong Comment User Trusilver "Sorry, when Paramount comes asking for distribution rights, I'll change my mind. For now it's a delete." - This is EXACTLY why deleting this article is wrong. Notablity based upon $$$$$. Wikipedia guidelines notwithstanding it is ridiculous that the addition of DOLLARS would make a difference upon the notability of this film and thus decide it's fate in this encyclopedia.Vexorg 02:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. No... that's exactly why it needs to be deleted. WP:NOTFILM outlines very lenient qualifications for a movie to have an article. As such, I have yet to hear a single argument that suggests that this movie passes that policy. In fact, all but two or three of the keep positions have been WP:ILIKEIT arguments. 80% of this entire AfD have been people who have little or no experience with Wikipedia or its policies explaining how something is notable when they don't even know what the project considers notable. Trusilver 03:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Either the information in the movie is (largely) accurate, in which case it makes the movie important enough to warrant its own page on wikipedia. OR the movie is mostly misguided and full of misleading information, in which case a wikipedia article is a good place to refute some/many of the claims of this otherwise popular movie. At this stage, it is not our job to judge the accuracy or the validity of the claims made. As it stands today, the page is well detailed and makes for interesting reading. Future wikipedians will be able to check it and correct it so that the visitors who have previously seen the movie and came here to know more about it can get what wikipedia is supposed to give: unbiased, accurate information. AugustinMa 01:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that someone wants to pull it down proves its validity".(Mark, Melbourne Australia)

KEEP It seems one of the comments above considers that the Wikipedia page for Zeitgeist the film is in violation of certain formatting standards of Wikipedia is only a temporary cause for deleting the page. The point of Wikipedia seems to be meant to provide progress from the point of congressional consensus in any realm that any Wikipedia pages focuses on. Thus the format of the Zeitgeist page can be changed. Also the input we have seen in regard to the film Zeitgeists' subjective focus MUST BE REVALUATED. If in fact the Zeitgeist page has any right on Wikipedia to share with users of Wikipedia the contextual information pertaining to the movie - censuring such information or altering it to meet political tendons would be a diservice to the whole website - not the Zeitgeist movie page itself. I do hope that Wikipedia is stong enough of a scholarly endeavor to keep politics out of the procession of its' pages. Now, let me have a little more space here to mention my personal affectations for the benefit of the subject matter in the film, rather than the logical incorporation of the page in Wikipedia that it seems to me the film has the right to maintain.

It seems that Zeitgeist does not deny the following ideological subjects their due relevance: freedom of speech, liberty, democracy, solidarity, and spirituality.

The first part, "The Greatest Story Ever Told", does not deny the propriety of religious beliefs, nor does it condemn those with religious beliefs to spectral irrelevance. It simply presents a new historical face - a new interpretation - to the same scriptures that the same history has given us all to contemplate and toy with. With due respect to all those with stroboscopic beliefs of every kind, I think the film Zeitgeist is a welcome addition to the pantheon of already established interpretations.

The second part, "All The World's A Stage", seems to confirm that the terrorist events of recent years have been orchestrated. That is all. The film does not blame those who orchestrated them, the film doesn't even try to comprehend who might have orchestrated them. It is essentially claiming that these events are not accidents and that we participant/observers must not fool ourselves into believing they are accidental. Whoever flew those planes had reasons - HOWEVER INSANE. In order to prevent future brutal acts of terrorism, human-kind must stop pretending that many significant but horrendous actions are accidental or tangental to those of the mainstream world.

The thrid part, Don't Mind The Men Behind The Curtain, shows nothing new. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism - this is the same story being told. These are relatively recent an local events, concerning the Federal Reserve and its right to control or influence the economy of the United States Of America. We, the citizens of this country have not been given an official story so far as to the origin of this institution, so it is not crazy that certain people are likely to simulate an answer of some sort.

I find the film Zeitgeist to be an extraordinary and exemplary example of the previously stated realms: freedom of speech, liberty, democracy, solidarity, and spirituality.

These are all presented and I must respectfully decline the validity of any requests to take down the page for Zeitgeist the film due to any subject matter unless it is now said, when and where the film denies these realms any particle of visibility. P.S. - this was written in a rush, as I have to rush off to work, thanks for reading for now, I will be back to edit in the morning - SolarJin 02:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT. i showed the flim to all my friends; they all told me not to ever do something like that again. why? because EVERYONES afraid of the truth. like people whos going to delete the post. tryna hide something that's inevitable. max-singapore

Delete - While I appreciate the work that went into the article (and into the sockpuppetry on this AfD), it is NN. I wouldn't have a problem with this being moved to user space, if that's appropriate. We just have to figure out which sock's user space to put it in. That could be a challenge. :) - Crockspot 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT!!! I have watched the movie 3 times, and these are my thoughts, If Wikipedia is the so called people’s free encyclopedia, then let it be just that, It’s very simple, Someone wrote a movie, hundreds of thousands have seen that movie and enjoyed that movie and want to put some information up about that movie. so let them, if your going to pull down this movie under lack of evidence, then I suggest you do 2 things, first watch the movie your self(if you have not already), secondly start pulling down all the other things you have on Wikipedia that have no evidence , such as Santa claws and Easter buddy, right? because their not really real either but you still have them on Wikipedia, and even if you do pull it down, people we start another one, or attack your site, or the whole movie will attract more attention because it will be known as the movie that was rejected by Wikipedia, which will only add to the movies claims. (Mark, Melbourne Australia) JULY 15 12:30PM

Keep It please, I really enjoy this type of entertainment venue. The kind that speaks purported truths and actually proves it in the process. Also, I believe that since this almighty website encyclopedia must include everything, it must include a well-watched / known movie about modern america and religious aspects. That being said, leaving this article which will most likely be updated with more sources and references will prove beneficial to people who wish a more indepth look at the facts and their sources in general. (Rob, IL, US) July 14, 10pm — 68.20.177.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:07, 15 July 2007

Keep this movie. If this is deleted, this only proves the point of this movie. This movie is a phenomenon and has caught on like wildfire because it has some substantial backing proof behind it. There are books by Manly P. Hall and other people about the secret societies and knowledge out there that are common knowledge. This movie takes many of these books and puts a very good dumbed down version for the masses. (I'm not saying the movie is dumb just that some people can't read through hundreds of books to get this material). This is without a doubt a keeper for Wikipedia. It has become a part of internet culture and I wouldn't doubt that this type of material catches on fire like the "Secret" did. [Steve from Ontario, Canada July 14th 2007] — 69.156.92.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:11, 15 July 2007

Keep (of course). I have never read 'the rules', as per notability, etc., and have only cursorily scanned the comments calling for deletion, which to me seem very parliamentary procedural-ish. If in fact the letter of the law is being violated here, then here also is an excellent example of the critical importance of jury nullification. Deferring to parliamentary procedure in this case might be technically correct, but it would also be morally incorrect - a crime, in other words. Suppression of the truth, or even just the attempt to get closer to the truth, in whatever guise, is abhorent. White knight errant 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) — White knight errant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep! Our society depends on it!

Pleae keep this! If you delete this then you are just another part of the problem. I can't beg you enough how much you need to keep this movie on here — 24.61.113.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:40, 15 July 2007

KEEP THIS MOVIE!!! Not only should it not be deleted, but this movie should be mandatory material for people to see. It's not pressing what people should beleive, but it's making overlooked facts known to the public.

KEEP IT! THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT MOVIE EVER MADE. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SEEN BY OVER 1,000,000 PEOPLE. ALL SAY THE SAME THING! YOU ARE LOSERS WITH OUT THE SPINE TO WIN!!!! THIS MOVIE IS WINNI8NG US THE BEST FUTURE WE EVER HAD ON THIS PLANET. I PLANNED THIS ALL AND KNOW WHAT I AM SAYING!!!)

TIM — Gooddoggy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:03, 15 July 2007

Keep

The issues raised here need to be discussed further. The facts presented match my own experience and research, and facts presented by scholars who are respected and knowledgeable in their fields. The creator of Zeitgeist presents a full set of resources/full bibliography, so the facts can be checked by anyone who is willing to spend the time educating themselves further. The sources used are to my knowledge reliable, the work is notable in its examination of the subject matter. Just because a few people don't like it doesn't make it untrue or unworthy or wider discussion.

It deserves wider viewing. Those who disagree with it are free to present their reasons why they don't, or simply just not watch it - but they have no right to deny anyone else from seeing it. - ldejongh — Ldejongh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:33, 15 July 2007

KEEP this movie - it is absolutely ridiculous to be considering removing it! This is a well-researched, beautifully produced, and important subject for consideration. We have religion pushed down our throats all our lives, and many of us have been considering and researching the subject ourselves for a long, long time. This is a concise summary of interesting facts and ideas, not a half-baked 'conspiracy theory'. Free speech is being threatened again, and it would indeed be a sad day if Wikipedia submitted to outside, bigoted pressure to remove it. In fact, I would be the last person to trust Wikipedia again as an internet research medium if it was removed. Fornequiem - Canada — 207.189.237.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:58, 15 July 2007

Keep, improve and discuss: I can't believe this is even an issue. With the rest of the other bull on here, these entries should be looked at for actual information of what the film is. Obviously it is worth discussing because of the strong response. How can you approve info on less important more offensive videos and music and not censor, but come to a subject such as this and decide to censor? It diserves, if not all in detail at least an explantion of what it is without opinionated statements but mere facts. In other words if you can not prove or disprove by looking at the actual sources that the arthur has given then do not display, nevertheless this diserves at least minimal explantion of what it is and more detailed info as it is researched. Afterall isn't that what wikipedia is about? I will seriously think twice about coming here for factual info if this is deleted. -swole

KEEP!! I am a big advocate of democracy and opinions, even opposing ones, but the references that support the movie are not only credible but substantial in volume. All of the sources that were used are written and published by credible authors and sources. This movie represents the original idea that was once this great nation of ours, before it was tainted with big business and politics that deter the "pursuit of happiness" of "we the people." In my opinion, to claim that it is a fallacy or otherwise, is to admit that one has not made reference to the subject matter. The truth is not only out there but Zeitgeist the Movie challenges you to question the references by reading them for yourself. I have yet to read a single posting that advocates deletion that is supported by proof that any part of the movie or it's sources are misrepresented or fiction. KEEP and DISCUSS!— Oigomas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:01, 15 July 2007

KEEP and discuss! I took the time to sit down and watch the entire movie online recently. The main information page here, on Zeitgeist the movie is beautiful! I found the film to be slow to begin, in fact if I were editing the film, I would get rid of the prologue. When the film gets into it's Parts 1,2,3, it really does a terrific job of bringing the arguments together. I found it fascinating. We see this information all around us in 'bits and pieces', but this film presents important historical references for the citizen who is striving to get an "overview" of history in the making. I can't think of any documentary film that has provided a more comprehensive and fascinating report on the three main subjects covered in Zeitgeist the movie. After seeing this film, the viewer should go out and buy a couple of important books: "Ricardo's Law" by Fred Harrison and "The Corruption of Economics" by Professor Mason Gaffney, if they want to understand, finally, who is manipulating the economy and why. > Sageflower

KEEP THIS ENTRY: I've seen the movie, and I think this wiki entry could become a very valuable entry. It's implicitly understood that a lot of people simply can't handle the truth (no pun intended to Jack Nicholson), but they've been spoonfed information for so long that's precisely why the media, the governments, and those few people that seem to control everything are where they are today and have the kind of power they do. They prey on the ignorance of the public at large, whom they consider nothing more than sheep. This movie, and this wiki entry could become one of the major turning points in human evolution, at least from our current perspectives and ability to see how things are heading. I agree with nearly every post so far, especially those that criticize Wikipedia for even considering taking this entry offline. If they do, you can rest assured it will reappear over and over again. Face it: you have to accept the truth sooner or later, for yourself, or someone else will shove it down your throat. -- br0adband — 70.173.180.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:34, 15 July 2007

KEEP THIS ENTRY - Any film that causes research and independent thinking should be encouraged. I admittedly do not agree with some of the things the film discusses, but it at minimum gives me ideas to ponder and research. I find the film extremely patriotic- it's about the people of the U.S. and not those in charge. It's about questioning events that just don't add up the way they are explained. Let people watch the film, read the wikipedia article, do their own research and make up their own minds! I would also like to mention that I was shown this film by 3 different people in less than a month! All sources were friends of mine, but all from different circles. In my opinion that makes it a notable film. I haven't heard this much buzz since Terminator 2 came out in theatres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.181.36 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 15 July 2007

KEEP: Surely a website with the sole purpose to provide information should not remove a piece of information, especially since that website allows such things as Goku, a cartoon character from the famous Dragon Ball series... and fails to include parodies which were purposely put in the cartoon series, such as the names Kakarotto, Vegeta, Radtiz (carrot, vegetable, radish) and that of the conspiracies of Babidi, the grandchild of Bibidi, to bring forth a powerful being named Buu... bibidi, babidi, buu, a parody of a Disney song), as well as other pieces of information that are not whole and complete with absolute "bonified" credible sources. Bryan, Ca — 208.127.23.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:59, 15 July 2007

KEEP! The movie is based on a lot of new information thats hasn't been available to a larger audience since the internet. I think it's fair to leave room for sceptism, but let the page run it's course and let the readers decide if this page belongs here or not, and give the a fair period of time to do so and to let the site and it's information proove it's point. I have seen enought Wikipedia entreis related to topics that are named and talked about in this film. This page deserves to be here, for the public to decide wether or not it is of value. This is Wikipedia right? The source of open information and information-sharing? Give this site a fair ammount of time to prove it's value.

Marcel, The Netherlands! — 82.215.44.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:45, 15 July 2007

KEEP this movie-entry. The film takes a controversial position but is well researched, and provides sources for the arguments it wishes to forward. At worst the director simply needs to update these on the page. I am convinced that there are people here asking for this to be deleted who are just radicalized right-wing Christians. They do not care about Wiki's policies, 'sources' or the truth. You may not like a particular argument but you must not try and CENSOR them!

If this movie is deleted, then the entry for a film like Godfrey Reggio's Powaqqatsi, should also be removed. Whilst quite different in narative style, it still makes factual claims, principally that the West is an economic and cultural parasite on Southern-hemisphere nations, and it makes this statement with no sources whatsover.

There are many other examples of how the right-wing attempts to discredit documentary film. I personaly don't care for his work but all of Michael Moore's films have been subjected to this kind of 'this is fiction and speculation, not credible documentary' criticism.

Paul Palo Alto — Paulr1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:36, 15 July 2007

KEEP: Whether or not the movie is absolute truth or not or even partial truth is irrelevant. It brings up questions, and that inspires people to research things for themselves. Which would and has greatly affected the "hits" and traffic of internet activity to the wikipedia website, as well as other websites which the believed purpose of such websites is to provide information. Since watching this movie I have researched just about every name they mention, every character and even events, every single item of which has led me to wikipedia an other sites, books, and other sources of information. I am not alone, several of my friends, colleagues and contacts, have done the same thing.

This item does not state itself as absolute truth, it does not state itself as fact. It questions, it promotes critical thinking. 208.127.23.107 00:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Bryan, California. — 208.127.23.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

. . .

I am an historian not living in the USA. Wikipedia is distinctive as a resource because it both contains long-standing history, and history in the making. Prior to the internet, history was told by the winners, while the losers told their grandchildren. In my country (New Zealand), the government, representing the winners, is now offically apologising to Maori (the 19th century losers) for the sins of its ancestors (the 19th century winners)under claims being adjudicated through the Treaty of Waitangi. As part of that treaty claim process the official history of the nation is being rewritten. I cite this to make a point. History is not always fact.

The movie in question exemplifies the value of both the Internet and Wikipedia, in that it allows a forum not controlled by anyone, but most notably not controlled by the winners. The movie (or more accurately called a documentary - not unlike Edward R. Murrow's famous challenge to Joseph McCarthy) challenges history, starting from Christianity's rewrite when the Roman Emperor, Constantine I adopted Christianity as the official state religion and called a series of councils to officially define the Christian story, most notably First Council of Nicaea, the Wikipedia citation of which is worth reading. The points made by the movie in Part 1 appear generally consistent with my reading of that era in history, but like the red flag waved before the bull, probably were placed in this kind of a documentary for the wrong reason - the apparent alliance between a particular, growing form of religion in the United States generically called fundamentalism and domestic American politics.

Most disturbing in terms of the facts the film cites are those related to 911. It challenges the official history of 911 not through hyperventilating conspiracy charges, but use of the very same media which seems to have accepted an official line apparently inconsistent with its own video evidence. While the answers still need confirmation, the questions raised stand as valid and worthy of answering, not being shouted down.

In the internet age, distance is replaced by the speed of light. Likewise, time is compressed, especially for historical purposes. Wikipedia is not a place to debate the factual merits of the film, its author should provide a forum for that. But it is a place to document the phenomena, because the fact that hundreds of thousands of people (including myself) have now witnessed its allegations and rebuttal of the official story constitute a historical fact of some significance. The Wikipedia citation should state

(a) The name and the general content of the film.

(b) Citations of parts which are in opposition to the official approved explanation as to what happened

(c) critical questions of those citations if they do not stand up to an objective test

(d) supporting documentation where they do stand up to an objective test

Given the controversial nature of the entry, at least part should be protected by Wikipedia from vandalism by persons or institutions who wish to assert dogma or another official story.

Keep up the good work,

Akonga

New Zealand Akonga 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please KEEP this movie -- It was deleted off of youtube for various reasons . I assume because it brings forth some disturbing theories about religion and our government . SOme would say that it is a film that is not patriotic . Well deleting this is a form of censorship and to me that is being even less patriotic .I persoanlly feel this is a rather unique point of view and it should be watched . Hmm the worst it could do is to make you question the things we might think we know .The film is worth watching. Trust me the more you watch it the more it makes sense .It might even get you to wonder and go look up some of the source material your self .Its all there , go look it up in a library .

Scott Wisconsin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.211.161 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 15 July 2007

Please continue to make this page available. I had an email conversation with author of the movie while it was in its draft stage and was being viewed by those who knew about it. I had a problem with one of the quotes that the author had used and told him so and recommended that he thoroughly vet the quote. It was a quote I had been trying to vet for about 4 years. He took my suggestion and modified the quote to conform with what had been revealed by other researchers. I was very impressed with his forthrightness in doing so ! I recommend keeping the entry active as I suspect the "truth will out" !

Thank you,

Harvey W./Boston 68.162.211.161 00:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)— 68.162.211.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

PLEASE KEEP THIS MOVIE - If it is deleted you are depriving the public of the most essential truths.

Glen Australia — 122.26.118.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:03, 15 July 2007

KEEP ZEITGEIST'S ENTRY ALIVE - Wikipedia's sole purpose is to provide people with information. By deleting this article, Wikipedia is going against its own purpose. If people wish to view this article, then by all means they should be able to. Don't let this profound documentary go unnoticed - spread the word! Dale United Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.191.138 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 15 July 2007

KEEP THIS MOVIE - This is the absolute BEST movie on the subjects discussed. Everyone has the RIGHT to either view it or not. The fear we have in place in our society is because people don't know who the purpetrators of the fear is. I highly recommend the film and give it an all star rating. Please do not censor what people can or cannot read or see. Meria Meria.net — 24.121.20.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:43, 14 July 2007

"KEEP THIS!"

I live in Nor. Cal. am 28, M, I do not consent to this being deleted. Keep this. -Aa — 67.161.161.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:27, 15 July 2007

This information is absolutely critical to the advancement of our "on-the-brink" society. If there are items which need to be adjusted, give adequate time for people to make those adjustments. Don't can the whole deal because this material has the power to make people think in new ways and may prove a open can of worms to those who feel they are in control of the masses. Provide the service Wikipedia and KEEP THIS MATERIAL.

Ian M Cage.— 70.144.66.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:40, 14 July 2007

Keep the Zeitgeist movie entry. Everyone looks to Wikipedia for information on a number of topics. Zeitgeist is a very popular topic today and one that is likely to grow enormously in the coming months and years.

Undoubtedly, people who watch the film will be consulting Wikipedia more and more to get additional background on the movie, its creator, etc. Why would anyone want to suprress information or frustrate curiosity?

The question is not whether Zeitgeist is 'right', the question is whether or not the public will be seeking additional information about the film (and its viewpoints) and expecting to find it at Wikipedia. And we will, of course. — 76.102.13.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:51, 14 July 2007

"Keep": This entry must not be deleted, since it is a source and link to unbiased information, which otherwise is manipulated by mass media. — 217.43.37.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:18, 14 July 2007

Comment - you know, it's amazing how many people think that, by padding this with "keep" !votes and failing to read our policies in doing this, they don't actually produce any results. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel truly sorry for the reviewing admin. This thing has become the biggest dog and pony show I've ever seen on an AfD. Most of the people coming here are uninterested in the project itself and think that this entire thing is a vote. It took me an hour to read this and block out the scores of useless comments to get to the substantive discussions that actually mean something. This entire AfD is a poster child for WP:TRUTH. Trusilver 03:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subsection to make editing easier / July 15[edit]

Delete just chiming in again to note that this article still has no reliable sources which either assert or support notability. All of the !votes for keeping this article are not based on our guidelines, and should be accordingly dealt with by the reviewing admin. Very disappointing to see this sort of behavior on Wikipedia. --Haemo 03:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Attack of the redlinks if I ever saw one...Anywho, no evidence of notability, as has been mentioned many times. And as is oft stated on AFDs, notability must precede article creation. Arguments that not enough time has been given to the article are irrelevant; sufficient sources have not been found because they don't exist. If the "word of mouth" on this movie moves beyond internet forums and chat rooms and into actual news media, then maybe it can have an article. Someguy1221 04:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, it's not a matter of reliable sources or whatnot, but a matter of popularity. As this documentary has witnessed an explosion in views, it will only be a matter of time before it will be recreated if deleted. Trust me, I know people with far less fame with strongly standing Wikipedia articles. I know computer IC's that very few people have even heard of when compared to Zeitgeist that have Wikipedia articles. If these people, places & things with little public awareness should be allowed the right to articles, then why should Zeitgeist be denied this right? If you strike this article down, it will only bring negative reputation upon Wikipedia, & maybe even worse. As this documentary has hit such a high level of recognition in such a short time, it will only be a matter of time before more computer literate people become aware of Wikipedia deleting an article. Wikipedia can handle a Dynamic Denial of Service (or 'DDoS') attack from a single hacker, but imagine tens, hundreds, possibly thousands of hackers DDoSing Wikipedia at once. This can spell nothing good. Just leave the article up. --Atari2600a04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) — Atari2600a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Are you threatening the encyclopedia? --Haemo 04:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think he/she is. If I were an admin, I'd block this clown without thinking twice. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS MOVIE HAS BEEN SEEN BY 1,000,000 PEOPLE ACCORDING TO THE FIGURES FROM THE CREATOR. I would say that is a very large group to base my claims as a movie well worth researching and watching. The claims I make as to whether this movie is in fact the most important one ever seen just check the Google comments from viewers.

My claims can be backed up, can yours?

Put up or shut your mouthes?: Tim

This is what it means!

This is what Zeitgeist represents. Z=Freedom. Zeitgeist represents the last best chance for mankind to be free. It is the only tool I have ever found that puts it all in one place just as cop would present evidence to a district attorney. I suspect Mike R. had a hand in that. It gives us the easiest to understand presentation of the evidence I have ever found. It is the proof we have always needed to bring this scum down. Now that we have the proof in hand now we can shove it down their throats and make them admit it and do something about it. This is what has been needed and it is the best I have found. Attorney's especially should be gearing up for this. They also need to figure out what law will be like in a free world. Just think of the great opportunities in a free thinking world for everyone. Much less stress, better health care, Better chance for a good life. What is to think about? This revolution is a peaceful one, start the legal process now so you are ready. You now have the proof you have needed to start doing so. Can't you feel it coming, start taking your breaths of freedom, it will be here soon. If you saw me you would never in your life believe I was capable of this. I am a true antihero that the world has treated with disdain for the most part. Being alone mostly I had a lot of time to study many things and learned them well. I once read that Nostra Damus had predicted a time when there would be a fool who would cause the death of thousands. After that someone would come who would a time of peace that will last for a 1,000 years. I believe Al Gore is that man. It would be a time when man would achieve as never before. A time of total peace and advancement. I kind of figured it out that this would happen in my life time so I began to learn what I needed to know so I would recognize when it was time. I had seen your movie before and kept it in the back of my mind. I kept watching the political situation and realized it was now or never. I chose 4th of July weekend, July 1st as the best time. I knew they would be asleep at the wheel. I knew Craigslist provided the base population I needed and was the safest site with worldwide audience. I kept posting and was surprised that my adds stayed there for 6 days, no deletions. Then they started after I called in on Michael Malloy. By that time I had over 260,000 people who saw it. 200.000 more since I started the campaign. I knew it was already too late for them. On the 10th I had the battle posting adds everywhere asking for lawyers to investigate the crimes exhibited in the movie. Fortunately I was able to post faster than they could erase. When I had won in DC I knew we all had won! I know full well what I have done. No matter what happened to me I know I have done a very good thing.

Tim'

_________________

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Riseley[edit]

Non-notable comic author. No sources given, none found via Google. Content seems unverifiable. Huon 09:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one book listed in Amazon, ranked below 1 millionsths. His books are published by lulu.com , known vanity publisher. Ohconfucius 10:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Books that are vanity published don't really count as publications. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. I must say that's one cool-looking picture though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SalaSkan 11:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of sumo terms[edit]

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fill these out over at wiktionary and link to that if needed. No the existence of other glossary articles is not evidence that this should be kept. Only that their existence should be examined. Crossmr 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sumo is a full-fledged sport with a thousand years of history and is chock full of words confusing to the new or even not so new fan. It is difficult to come up with English equivalent words in articles, so the easiest way is to make a link to a sumo glossary to help people out. I started the glossary because it was designed to replace a lot to tiny one or two sentence articles that were being used to define sumo terms that came up in other articles. This glossary is necessary, if not more necessary than most sports' glossaries. And besides, a glossary is not a dictionary. Malnova 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a list of words and definitions. That is no different than a dictionary.--Crossmr 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is different from a dictionary in that it is a collection of related words and their definitions, rather than separate pages for each term/ --Yuu.david 08:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because glossaries are an integral part of wikipeida. If that was not the case, all of these would have to be deleted. While under discussion by various people, the opinion stated for deletion of this article does not seem to follow wikipolicy.XinJeisan 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of other articles is not a reason to keep this article. On its own it fails policy.--Crossmr 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't make the argument on its own. It follows Wikiepdia consensus and official policy. (See here, here, here, as well as Wikipedia:Contents). Consensus and policy is that glossaries are an integral part of wikipedia. XinJeisan 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fact is, many sports and other specific endeavors do have a specialized jargon that justifies their having an encyclopedia article. This page could certainly be expanded to cover the origins of the terms, but I don't think it merits deletion. If you wish to discuss the issue of glossaries on Wikipedia overall, then I suggest taking it up at the Village Pump. FrozenPurpleCube 22:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the page is currently unreferenced, which is a problem, but I assume one that can be resolved with sources. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this point is that, if referenced, the only valid referring body available is a dictionary. --Yuu.david 08:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful and encyclopedic. A glossary is a valid part of an article, and when an article and its glossary get big enough the glossary may be separated to improve readability. Fg2 01:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT doesn't trump policy. If words need definition that is the job of wiktionary.--Crossmr 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and well-done article. No reason to delete at all.MightyAtom 04:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:ILIKEIT doesn't trump policy.--Crossmr 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Explains sporting terms, not a dictionary-type article. Sources will not be a problem. Pawnkingthree 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have words, you have definitions. That is the extent of the article. It couldn't be anymore a dictionary. Whether they're sports words, or a list of words you thought up while sitting in the living room it amounts to the same thing. Wikipedia has a sister project for this very thing.--Crossmr 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is so much terminology in sumo, it requires a separate page. Image how huge the sumo article would be if everything was kept in one place. Groink 07:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we have inter-wiki links to wiktionary. It wouldn't change the size of the sumo article at all.--Crossmr 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly Keep Despite being simple to the point of uselessness (someone needs to add more) this article is valid under wikipedia standards, especially considering special circumstances, these being the fact that these terms are essentially equivalent to the explanation of, say, the fastball, and the fact that the article refers to another language, in which translation (usually the job of a dictionary, but necessary here) is required for understanding in English. Under the understanding propagated by the instigator of this discussion, all articles referencing terms in a different language would be suspect if a certain amount of history or explanatory information was not included; obviously not a possibility, but rather a waste of time. A better discussion would be the merger of this article with that of something like the kimarite article. --Yuu.david 08:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its not valid under wikipedia standars. That's my point. Its a dictionary, and policy dictates that we're not a dictionary. We have a dictionary wiki for that purpose, which can be linked from the article.--Crossmr 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Yuu.david is trying to say is that the English Wikitionary is for English words. It is not meant to be used for a glossary of words from a foreign language like Japanese. And this is not just me saying this... If you read Wikitionary's main page, section "Wikitionary in other language", you will see that it says only English words are allowed, and that foreign words should be placed in its appropriate Wikitionary. The problem with Japanese, however, is that it is a pictoral writing system and not arabic like English or French. The logic would be to put these terms in the Japanese Wikitionary, but then no English-reading person would be able to read kanji. Groink 07:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis baseball association[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable "tennis-baseball league," as it cites no references and the website it links to points to its non-notability. P.B. Pilhet 22:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is copied directly from a website, and does not have an encyclopedic style or subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LiamUK (talk • contribs).
Delete, "Originally created by Gym Joe, Me, and Zach Nicol in the parking lot at the place where we work" and no evidence that it has become any more notable since. Iain99 23:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Normally, WP:NFT would apply, but school != work - but under the circumstances, principle dictates that we are not for things made up at work (or after work), either. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wiki is not for things made up one day -- Whpq 18:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private equity firms[edit]

listcruft, unsourced, very few blue links - also see this WikiEN-l post. Will ^(talk) 23:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Private equity firms, which is on first glance appropriate and selective. This list article is, as I mentioned on wikien-l, bad. No sources, nearly all the links are redlinks, unverifyable, likely spam. Delete. Change any links to this article to links to the category. Georgewilliamherbert 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not: "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles."WolfKeeper 23:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of red links of many firms nobody has heard of. List is probably a copyvio from some directory to be so comprehensive. transfer of the blue linked to private equity#list of private equity firms, and redirect Ohconfucius 06:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE There are very few resources of this quality available to list private equity firms. Category:Private equity firms is a minimal list of firms many of which have been added by their respective employees. May want to remove the broken links. Wikipedia is not: "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic...Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." -comment added by Relocator100 (WolfKeeper 19:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

yeah but the Wikipedis is not a directory: Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business.WolfKeeper 19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and there's no source information or reference information available to even identify the long list of companies which are currently redlinks. We don't know if they're famous entries or significantly contribute to the list topic. Offhand, the ones in the blue links / in the category meet that definition. The others... we don't even know if they're real or imaginary, serious or scams. We can't have lists of that quality here. If there are no reference sources for them, they need to go. Georgewilliamherbert 21:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced list -- Whpq 18:33, 13 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.