< November 13	November 15 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was Merge. The article is now a redirect to Catscratch#The Humans. --Angelo (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chumpy Chumps[edit]

Minor characters and a poor article overall. --RandomOrca2 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Catscratch and delete. Even the author agrees that these are minor characters, so there's no clear claim of notability here. Phil Bridger 08:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Just to note that you can't merge & delete. For copyright reasons, articles that are merged must remain as redirects. The edit summary of the destination article needs to note the source. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - Being a poor article is a reason for a cleanup tag, not a deletion. Minor characters can be appropriately redirected to the main topic's article page. Rray 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Rray's comment, above. --- FrankTobia (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GRBerry 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elke The Stallion[edit]

Article created by single-purpose account on a woman who is asserted to have notability because she's modelled and been in videos. Tagged for notability and sources for months. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, quite likely WP:AUTO. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment -stallions are also typically male. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO, barring reputable references. --- FrankTobia (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Make Clocks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article seems to have been made as part of a walled garden. Band's notability, argued for in the first AfD, was based at least partly on some internet magazine whose site no longer exists. First AfD seems awfully weak, having only the article creator/former band member, and 2 PRODders who felt guilty. No sources given in article except for an AMG link. First few ghits that come up are for the band website, Myspace, and (guess what) Wikipedia. Fails WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless further evidence can be brought to light. I scrolled through each of the 213 unique google hits that I got on this band and found only one reliable source that gave more than trivial coverage (playdates, for instance): a single album review (I've added it to the EL on the article). I also went through the review sites list from WP:ALBUM and did a search on the band at each of them. Pop Matters, the review I added to the article, was the only one that had a listing for the band (aside from AMG). Notability does not seem to be there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inasmuch as the band's notability has not been shown. Google is a wonderful thing, but the number of hits creates the illusion of notability. As noted above, when you click through "there's no there there." Xymmax (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community informatics at the ischools and library schools[edit]

This reads as original research and fails to establish notability. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an meaningless list. An article on "community informatics" as a subject is certainly possible, conceivably accompanied by a list of schools offering concentrations in it--if any actually do. Using the article for , first, a complete list of the type of library school that self-indulgently calls itself an "i-school" and then a list of others, together with some of the courses they teach, is absurd. There are some equally bad list of schools teaching a particular subject elsewhere, and they'd probably justify some discussion here. We'll get to them after this one. There might be a point to a world-wide list of library schools--though the article Library school has a perfectly good external link to an authoritative US list, I am not sure there is any world-wide one readily available. This is not the way to do it. DGG (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Biophys 02:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems mostly promotional. CitiCat^♫ 00:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dabo DAF[edit]

Delete unsourced article about a software program with no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't even any claim to notability on the Dabo website, i.e. no links to reviews, no customer list. Phil Bridger 09:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. Note that the author of the article has recreated the content in Dabo (desktop application framework), which I also think should be deleted. There are a few external links listed, but they aren't very good sources: discussion forums, 2 links to the same essay (by the software's creators) posted in 2 different places. Dawn bard 14:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Guard[edit]

Article has zero notability, no references, and is duplicative with the character section of the video game from which it came. Judgesurreal777 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:FICT into List of Warcraft characters (which itself probably needs to be split by the alphabet into four or five articles, but that's a cleanup issue). The guard doesn't seem to have enough independent notability to warrant a separate article, in the way that the characters as a whole do. —Quasirandom 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Quasirandom. Rray 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notabiliy. Pagra shtak 16:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 16:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In-game statistics (WP:NOT) and lack of out-of-universe context (WP:WAF). Marasmusine 16:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no out of universe info and unlikely that there will be some. Merge seems inappropriate, the article labels the Doomguard as a type of enemy rather than an individual character.Someone another (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that WP:NOT and WP:WAF direct us to delete the article and reading the L:ist of characters I also do not feel that a merge is correct. SorryGuy 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted, then redirected. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cow In Action[edit]

This seems to be an aborted version of an article that previously existed at Wikipedia under the title Cows In Action. Cows In Action is now a redirect to the author, Stephen Cole (writer). This article should probably be speedy-redirected to Stephen Cole, if not deleted automatically as a spelling mistake. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since Cows In Action already present and the singular version of the title does not serve any purpose -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Deleted twice by separate admins. As the article no longer exists (for the moment), this is a non-admin closure. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explosive flail[edit]

Hoax. Something from China, which came to Europe, and has no written documentation, and was dug up in Montana. Corvus cornix 22:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless reliable sources - and bloody good ones at that - are found. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a hoax. Martijn Hoekstra 23:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Tiptoety 23:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page speedy deleted twice now. Tiptoety 23:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Portal[edit]

As you can see, the Dark Portal has zero notability outside of the Warcraft Universe, and is a withered stub as its own article. It should be deleted since it has no references, no out of universe information, and is duplicative to the game articles which deal with the Dark Portal extensively already. Judgesurreal777 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--Silverhand^Talk 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for a separate article, no out-of-universe perspective. Pagra shtak 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirected to List of Friends episodes#Season 10: 2003-2004 in lieu of a delete. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The One After Joey and Rachel Kiss[edit]

Per Ryan Postlethwaite's "suggestion" I am putting this Friends-related article forward as a test case for deletion. I am not a member of the cabal that has been redirecting articles en masse for the last several months and telling people to go away and make their own wikia (I began redirecting these articles only tonight) -- rather I have taken the time to scrounge up sources for other Friends episode articles that do show a basic level of notability. Anyway, the subject of this article has no significant coverage in third-party sources and is merely a plot summary and an airdate -- something already covered in List of Friends episodes. Brad 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Only rarely do we need an entire article on a single episode of a half-hour t.v. show. We don't need it here. --Yamla 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the downsides of Wikipedia is the individual articles about episodes of TV shows that cropped up when Wikipedia was taking anything that it could get. They seldom get nominated, yet they're usually the worst offenders when it comes to "original research", they're not really notable, there's nothing encyclopedic about them. A lot of promising articles get deleted, while crap like this goes on and on. Start nominating. Mandsford 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a pretty dramatic change of wiki policy, I know of no discussion on this topic and it seems against current policy at least in terms of customary usage. If you could point me to anything that is a precedent for this I would be most interested.Moheroy 07:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on here and a guideline here. As I've just said on the Talk:Friends page, it's not about removing every episode article. Brad 08:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then this is a "test case" for what? I can easily see your point about individual episode articles in themselves, but if some episodes are notable, how are others not? I have no problem with a discussion of removing episode articles, I just have to question why this one alone? This sort of article is so prevalent, and has existed for such a long time, that I think what is being suggested here is a new policy. The notability guideline you site is not a discussion of this, it is instead the basic general guideline.Moheroy 08:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The notability guideline very definitely does apply to this, as it does to all other articles. Specific guidelines on individual topic areas are simply indicators of how the general guideline is interpreted. Episodes which are notable as episodes under the guideline can have articles, ones which are not notable should not. It's pretty simple really. Phil Bridger 09:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a TV episode, what will we have next? delete it please -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia has an awful lot of these articles, just look at the Simpsons and South Park. These have been here for a very long time.Moheroy 08:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument against deletion. Phil Bridger 09:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability under WP:EPISODE, WP:N. Phil Bridger 09:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Otherstuffexists can be a perfectly valid argument when a type of article is widely used and accepted, and an attempt is made to pick out a particular one of the many, for no individual reason. What is claimed to be particularly unnotable about this one? WP:EPISODE says "Create pages for outstanding episodes." I can not see how that can be a practical criterion--who is going to decide that? But its not a subject i think I can reasonably get too much involved in. However, this AfD is expectedly not about the article, the nomination gives this as a test case. But the discussion page at WP:EPISODE and the new discussion at [1] gives no indication that there is any actual consensus. Close this discussion and send them back to the policy page. Better, considering the wide interest in the general subject,and the disagreements on that page, it probably needs a community discussion. DGG (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been plenty of community discussion involved in creating the notability guideline. Why should there be more discussion about whether TV series episodes should be exempt from this? This is a general guideline that applies to all articles. Phil Bridger 20:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I mean a test case for Friends episode articles. I couldn't care less about other articles. Brad 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know whey people are surprised that we have articles about things that have been watched and bought by millions worldwide. Yeah, FICT; N, blah blah blah. There is potential for RSs if you look. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep with no prejudice to a merge; I think the article is poor, but WP:EPISODE specifically requests that editors do not place episodes for AfD, but instead to propose a merge discussion. Will ^(talk) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to merge; the plot summary and airdate are already present in List of Friends episodes. Brad (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-Park[edit]

This appears to be a neologism. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree it is a neologism. The two "sources" are not reliable. First source does not use the term micro park at all. The second source is a blog/wiki. Cool concept, bad stub. Keeper | 76 22:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. The term micropark does exist and is used by community activists and urban planning professionals, but it generally just means a small park with one key amenity (say, a fountain or playground), often developed on a single former property (e.g. a house lot). The meaning in the article is definitely not a general meaning although it may exist as such in more than one place. --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Pocket park. Bearian 01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. GRBerry 20:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software Piracy in Indonesia[edit]

Unsourced and unimproved essay by a single author Frescard 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: An article about software piracy in a country is definitely notable. What is lacking is the sources -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, microessay, unencyclopedical (SW piracy is a hardly Indonesia specific phenomenon). Pavel Vozenilek 11:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted. Page existed solely to say "there is [sic] no details". Pagra shtak 16:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smackdown vs raw 2009[edit]

Delete no indication of notability and WP:CRYSTAL Carlossuarez46 21:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could have been speedied, IMO. Keeper | 76 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought about it, but some people would find sufficient context there, and/or claimed an assertion of notability, less wikidrama for these fan-fanatic type pages going this route. Carlossuarez46 20:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there are no details available at this time, we shouldn't have a page. - DrWarpMind 03:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm forced to agree, if there are no details, then there's no need for an article to reference them. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Radio[edit]

Contested PROD. I am not sure how this article managed to survive for the couple months that it has been here, but it fails to assert any notability. Rjd0060 21:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, non-neutral, no independent sources, or any other sources for that matter. Easily confused with other "revolution radio" websites and at least one real radio station, so a notable article may exist under this title at some point in the future. I'm guessing the Ron Paul site (revolutionradio.org) would be the most likely, uh, candidate. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. JohnCD 22:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. Radio stations are frequently kept in AfD, but I don't see a valid reason why this one should. The main problem is lack of reliable sources outside of the weblink provided to the radio station's homepage. Also, some bad faith editing seems to be happening, as the prod and AfD tags are being removed without reason or discussion. Keeper | 76 23:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrestrial radio stations, yes. Shoutcast streams, generally not. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, seems to be using Wikipedia for ad space -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFD typically keeps terrestrial radio stations that are duly licensed by their country's broadcast regulator. We don't generally keep individual Shoutcast streams unless actual encyclopedic notability can be demonstrated, and I don't see any here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 07:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trace (psycholinguistics)[edit]

Spedily deleted once by me; when I nominated for speedy deletion for the second time, with the reason of "Blatant promotional, see sentences like "If the prediction turns out to be 100% accurate, then the model must be a useful theory about the stock market. TRACE is just like this [...]", it was transformed to proposed deletion. However, creator objects to deletion on the talk age, so this process is more appropriate. Delete unless re-written. - Mike Rosoft 21:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The citations in the article establish that the topic is notable and an article can be written about it. The present article seems to have been written by a well-informed author who isn't fully acquainted with Wikipedia's policies, but it's far from unfixable, and contains much good information that would take another editor, particularly a non-specialist, a long time to rewrite from scratch. I think deleting this kind of contribution may discourage experts from writing for Wikipedia (cf. this essay). EALacey 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Informative and important for people who know anything about linguistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.6.215 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clear example of an article which needs cleanup rather than deletion. Phil Bridger 09:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caption competition[edit]

Non-notable type of Net game, article has been tagged for improvement since April, needs sourcing. Caknuck 21:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are lots of ghits for the phrase, the ghits don't seem to discuss the concept itself, leading me to doubt notability. Right now the article is little more than a dictdef.--Fabrictramp 21:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't even good as a listing in a dictionary. Mandsford 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Today's image is Image:NRV.png. But the question is, has anyone covered caption competitions in a reliable source (instead of just heaving them)? If nobody can find such material to expand past a dictdef, then delete. MER-C 05:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sitivi Liva[edit]

Anon blanked the page claiming that it's a hoax, that no such person exists. It *is* unreferenced, and given the hoax claim, really needs references if it is going to remain. TexasAndroid 21:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google searching for "Sitivi Liva" -wikipedia produces no useful hits, and there are no hits at all for "Sitivi Liva" on Google News Search. The Valencia CF article doesn't mention them as having a "Junior Squad", and I can't find anything about one on the club's official website. Even if this person does exist, we have no way of confirming any of the claims to notability in the article. EALacey 22:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - PeeJay 22:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good fake, but a fake none the less. м info 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Certainly the stuff about the All Whites is WP:BOLLOCKS - no player of that name has played for NZ. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The All Whites matches referred to didn't happen. Phil Bridger 10:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Krimpet for copyright violation. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred J. Cooper Memorial Organ[edit]

Philadelphia has the world's largest organ. This is not it. I fail to see how this is encyclopaedic; there is no claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add available WP:RS. The Cooper Organ apparently surpassed the was surpassed by Wanamaker Organ in 2006. [2] [3]. Even if it was is just one of the biggest, it has enough coverage to be notable. • Gene93k 04:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

correction (I read the info wrong). It is one of the biggest in the world and with enough 3rd party coverage to be notable. • Gene93k 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of [4]. Notable topic. No objection to new article in editor's on words based on available WP:RS. • Gene93k 10:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. eBooking is very common nowadays. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebooking[edit]

Does not assert notability. No references. Article is orphaned. Torc2 20:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - The term Ebooking is frequently used in relation to internet. If sufficient data and sources cannot be provided in this article, then I would suggest to merge the relevant data into E-Services or E-commerce and redirect the article, to any one of the two articles. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge into Ebooking. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-Booking[edit]

Does not assert notability. No references. Article is essentially orphaned. Torc2 20:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - Redirect to Ebooking if Ebooking survives AFD, else delete -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, though not resoundingly so. Kubigula (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zantrex[edit]

Unlike other diet pill entries, such as Relacore, Leptoprin, Cortislim and Trimspa - all of whom have received media coverage (abeit negative) for Federal Trade Commission rulings, this article does not establish notability other than being a brand of diet pill. The information used to assert notability is unsourced, or is simply marketing that was used by the manufacturer itself about its own product. Much of the information currently in the article is original research, and what information is sourced is attributed to a third party retailer^[5] - not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. As there is already an entry for Basic Research, the company purported to market this brand, any verfiable material on this page should be included as a subsection on that article. Quarte t 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There's some coverage to be found on this one, although it's mostly the company suing other companies. --Smashville^BONK! 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough news interest in the drug for it to be notable. Being sued (New York Times - Jul 6, 2003), Headline drug in an article about diet pill safety (BusinessWeek - Jan 25, 2006), sueing ( PR Newswire - ECNext - Jun 30, 2003 Press release), Britney Spears getting in the news associated with the drug (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel- Oct 10, 2003 and others), at least 5 useful google scholar hits. Although the article is a mess, it certainly seems notable enough - Peripitus (Talk) 07:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not signficant enough third party reliable sources independant of the subject to warrant (or create) an encyclopedia entry (WP:NN). Most of the verifiable information on this product seems to be weaker tie-ins with parent company (it's, for the most part, referenced after the words "makers of", "manufacturer of" during reports of lawsuits by or against the parent company, Basic Research or in other trivial media). Are we're going to give this product an advertisement (article) because a bottle of Zantrex-3 fell out of Britney Spears' purse in 2003? Notability is not the same as fame or popularity. --Komrade Kiev 14:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As stated by Peripitus, there does seem to be some useful information about the product, but it seems more related to the company than the product. I do not feel there is significant enough coverage as established by WP:N to have its own article. I do feel that all verifiable information could be added to the parent article, though. SorryGuy 20:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Business Week article is a non-trivial mention. This is probably the most notable OTC diet supplement available right now. Caknuck (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

वीरेन्द्रनगर[edit]

Article written in Nepali, has been tagged for translation since September. Per WP:PNT#वीरेन्द्रनगर, there already is an English page for this subject at Birendranagar, so translation is not necessary. Caknuck 20:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Decoratrix 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The artice isn't in English. This is the ENGLISH language Wikipedia Doc Strange 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article in English on this subject exists. We need not translate and keep this. --Malcolmxl5 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
संपादित करें So what's the article about, genius? Don't bother with trying to come up with a clever (and probably vulgar) answer. This is only up here because someone thought it would be fun to post something in Hindi. DeleteMandsford 23:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I nominated this article because I came across it while checking all of the articles created by an editor who was writing numerous articles about his immediate family. Per the process at WP:PNT, articles not translated (or not needing translation) after being listed for 2 weeks should come to AfD. Caknuck 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Birendranagar as an R from another language. 132.205.99.122 19:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why redirect? Does someone have a Nepali keyboard so they can type "वीरेन्द्रनगर"? I'm glad there's an article already about Birendranagar. Maybe this can be moved to the ne.wikipedia (which has an article with this title) that's more comprehensive than this Nepali version: [article]. Seems like a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 23:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- redirects are cheap. And if you didn't know what it was in English, but could type it anyways (or copy it off a webpage), you'll be directed to the right article. -- 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's the craziest thing I've read in a while. -- Mandsford (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate article per 132.205... Grand master ka 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: Speedily deleted without redirection. Empty, duplicate with Super Mario Stadium Baseball, nonsense title (see the period at the end). - Mike Rosoft 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Stadium Baseball.[edit]

There is already an article on the game at Super Mario Stadium Baseball . Amaryllis25 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Mario Stadium Baseball nancy 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Decoratrix 21:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was. Delete, not notable, nothing to merge into. Fram (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown Royals Football[edit]

No evidence has been presented to show that this is a notable high school sports team. It is extremely difficult to have a high school sports team be notable but this one definitely doesn't seem to be one of those rare exceptions. Metros 20:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not asserted nor evident. Decoratrix 21:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into/create article around this for Georgetown Junior-Senior High School. I could see this being a section in the article on the high school, but it doesn't warrant an article of its own. —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Axl (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per C.Fred. No sources cited. Caknuck (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -Razorflame (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, no merge target and no real reason given that there should be an article on the school. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 07:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Father[edit]

A film of no obvious importance. Sole source is a review which is quite amusingly droll about the lead's terrible acting - made me laugh, anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, almost no context. Mr.Z-man 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinarily strong keep, the review and other easily findable stuff (i.e. [6]) makes it clear that this is a significant film in South Korea.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's hope your enthusiasm carries over to making a better article. Mandsford 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stub. We have lots of stubs. What's the problem?--Nydas^(Talk) 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the problem is folks who don't actually care about an article, but want to extraordinarily strongly keep it out of principle. You've demonstrated why this will never be more than a stub. Mandsford 00:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to folks who delete is just because it's a stub? This seems to becoming more and more common. Crap articles get deleted because they're crap articles, rather than because the subject matter is bad. In this case, the external link contains plenty of material for expansion. And no, it is not my duty to go through the little blue number routine just to save a legitimate stub. --Nydas^(Talk) 01:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Currently it is delete. Will change to Keep if sufficient reliable sources are provided to prove notability -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This link establishes notability. And no, just because I want this article kept it doesn't mean I have to improve it. Phil Bridger 10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No indeed. You can vote keep every time it's AfDed as lacking any obvious merit, and if you don't fix the article in any way you may well get the option to do that a good few times. Not sure how that fits with the idea of the project bieng all about the content, though :-) Guy (Help!) 12:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's two votes for "won't someone please do something". Nobody gives a shit about this article. Some of us are willing to admit it. Mandsford 12:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy & Mandsford, I only said I don't have to improve it, not that I won't. If you had taken the trouble to look at the article you would have seen that I had already updated it to demonstrate notability before your latest comments. Phil Bridger 13:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since it appears that improvements are on the way. Mandsford 21:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since when do we delete reviewed films? Have those voting delete spent even a second trying to improve the article? How have they learned to read the future and predict that an article will always be a stub and since when was being a stub cause for deletion? Nick mallory 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answers: (1) When we don't see much of an article (2) No, not even a second. (3) We attended a seminar (4) Since deletion was left to editors. Mandsford 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needing improvement doesn't equate to needing deletion. Rray 23:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. As per If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. from WP:V, and all three criteria of WP:WEB. Sancho 18:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bit more to my decision that can be discerned from the simple explanation above... see the talk page for a more extensive discussion. Sancho 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The noob[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreation of deleted article, that somehow wasn't speedied. Same as before, no non-trivial sources from which an article can be written. Being nominated for some award (but not winning it) didn't save it last time, neither did the trivial coverage it receives. A copy of a couple of cartoon on gaming websites =/= "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators", as gaming websites are not respected third party sources for an encyclopedia. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

version at time of AFD nomination --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominators argument about notabilty websites is invalid, as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Examples#Popular culture and fiction. This article clearly falls within that group of Pop Culture and Fiction, and is expected to have sources considered "weak" by academic standards. The comment "A copy of a couple of cartoon on gaming websites =/= "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators", as gaming websites are not respected third party sources for an encyclopedia" is inflamatory and misleading in this context.Timmccloud 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears this is actually the third nomination. shoy (^words _words) 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominators argument about notabilty websites is invalid, as per the very article on reliable sources he quotes - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Examples#Popular culture and fiction. This article clearly falls within that group of Pop Culture and Fiction, and is expected to have sources considered "weak" by academic standards, and the comment "A copy of a couple of cartoon on gaming websites =/= "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators", as gaming websites are not respected third party sources for an encyclopedia" is inflamatory and misleading.Timmccloud 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My argument is wholly valid, as the link you have provided demonstrates. "it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources" (emphasis added). Those sources can only be used once notability has been established, not to establish notability. Also where's the evidence that the site is "respected". On one hand you ae suggesting that it's an unreliable source but we use it as there's not much more available, and on the other hand you're saying it's a "respected" site. You can't have it both ways, and I'd like to see evidence of "respected" and not just your personal conjecture please. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, I agree to disagree. The comic is notable because of it's a) worldwide audience, as seen by links in french, Norwegian and American websites, while being written by a british author (that's four countries if you need a count), b) it is notable for having been nominated for the WCCA, which is considered a notable institution by wikipedia standards, and therefore gains notariety by reflection, and c) it is notable based on longevity, which is rare in the webcomic field. That's three reasons, therefore I assert notability. Timmccloud 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, the facts disagree. Anything on the internet has a worldwide audience, and both the French and Norwegian links are 404. Got working links? It is not notable for having been nominated for an award, see WP:WEB. It would be notable if it had won an award, not just nominated. At present you're not presenting any new arguments or sources that weren't at the last AfD, which was a resounding delete. Notability isn't the only problem with this article anyway, it also fails WP:V which isn't negotiable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please check your facts again. Many of us concluded the AFD was a resounding Keep, and took it to an DRV, followed by an administrative review because of the bias on the AFD. And the link to the norwegian site works fine, it pulls up the PDF like it's supposed to - possibly your ISP is blocking it for some reason. So you can stop asserting that the link is broken, it works fine. Timmccloud 00:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My facts are perfectly straight, perhaps you'd like to see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? The AfD was a clear delete, which was endorsed at deletion review. You can scream "ZOMG admin abuse" as much as you like, but your whinging about an admin doesn't hold water. The link is working fine now, strange you didn't try and blame other people's technical incompetence much earlier when it was most definitely 404. Still, your poor attempt at point scoring doesn't change the fact that this comic isn't notable and fails WP:V. The magazine was brought up at the last AfD where the consensus was to delete, a decision endorsed at DRV despite whinging from certain quarters. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Independently reviewed and noted by reliable sources (see reviews section). On the recreation argument, see WP:CCC. On the sources argument, consensus exists that plot summaries generally do not require footnotes when the summary's purpose is to provide context and background for a notable topic. The fact that this is currently not well done is a surmountable problem and no ground for deletion, but a reason for improvement. User:Krator (t c) 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Consensus can change, but the guidelines and policies haven't and the article still fails them by a country mile as there are no sources. Taking the reviews in turn: blog - not a reliable source, and doesn't establish notability. Gaming website, hardly a reliable source and trivial coverage. Page does not exist, speaks for itself. Magazine (currently 404), strangely the one that was mentioned at the last AfD where the article was deleted. There is no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, contrary to your claim. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Just because a link is missing a year later, does not suggest the coverage was "non-notable". You also chose to ignore that the comic is one of the flagship comics on MMORPG.COM, which is a major gaming website with influence throught the MMORPG community. Also, notability can be found in the fact that of the 4 sites you mentioned, there is worldwide coverage in multiple languages, so notability can be asserted simply by the number of references.Timmccloud 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please provide a working link for your claim then. I see no evidence to back up your claim that it is a "flagship" comic. Notability cannot be asserted by the number of references, as they are blogs, 404 or trivial coverage. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Flagship" as in the sense that the noob was the first comic to be shown on MMORPG.COM, now there is about seven shown on that site. And I apologize for the anonymous editor who put the link in to MMORPG.COM two years ago, that they didn't put a "retrieved on yada yada" notation for your pleasure, but that's water under the bridge. Regardless, MMORPG.COM has over 1/2 a million MEMBERS, and has an alexia ranking in the low 4000's. That is a substantial amount of traffic, and that The Noob is one of only 7 webcomics in the world being highlighted there is notable in itself. Timmccloud 00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So nothing except conjecture then? You're still not bringing anything new to the table, perhaps you'd like to do it now? Verifiability trumps notability, so you're pissing in the wind with your current argument. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The primary reason for AFD last time was around the notablitly of the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, which was nominated for AFD as well. The AFD on The noob was completed before the WCCA - and the WCCA was upheld as notable, and by extension that assigns notability to this comic. This comic WAS put up for a speedy, and after protest the speedy was removed, allowing for a full AFD review. Please note also that the last time it went far beyond a simple AFD - the reviewing administrator was brought to a administrative review for ignoring what was clearly a consensus to keep. On the question of notability, this article shows reviews and worldwide coverage which is notable, the source material is still being published, showing continuty and persistance beyond normal "fly by night" webcomics which is notable, being nominated for international awards (WCCA) is notable, and the article itself has been trimmed of "fancruft" to fit encyclopedic content. You only need ONE catagory of notability, and this article meets the critera multiple times. Notability is asserted and established. Timmccloud 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which criteria do you think it meets? Bringing up the WCCA is irrelevant, as WP:WEB states "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" - it did not win an award. The closing administrator rightfully disregarded a off-Wiki canvassing campaign and vast amounts of WP:ILIKEIT single purpose accounts. Your timeline of events is false, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 15 shows deletion was endorsed as the consensus was to delete. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 7 shows it was endorsed yet again. So we're back here again, relying on the same trivial coverage on blogs, this comic is not notable. It wasn't notable at the last AfD, it wasn't notable at the first DRV and it wasn't notable at the second DRV, and there's no new information now is there? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I beg to disagree, I was involved in all of the AFD's and one of the AFD's came up as no consensus, so please get your facts straight. This is a notable comic with a worldwide audience, and I disagree with your opinions, as the facts are there, you just choose to intrepet them with a deletion mindset. I find it FASCINATING that this article has been around since the beginning of August, and three days after someone changes the name of the article, you jump on deleting the article. Where were you the last three months, if you are so worried about this article? I suspect you have a personal bias, i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I admit bias, not because of WP:ILIKEIT, but because my opinion of the facts finds this a notable comic. Timmccloud 00:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How are my facts not straight? I said "It wasn't notable at the last AfD" - straight fact. Since my initial nomination for deletion I have seen a copy of the last deleted version, hence my knowing this article is also a GFDL violation, and know this article contains nothing in the way of sources that wasn't present in the last AfD, which was a consensus to delete endorsed at deletion review. Where was I the last three months? As you point out, someone moved the article and as soon as that happened I became aware the article had been recreated. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still unsourcable without resorting to prohibited original research. I'd speedy under WP:CSD#G4 except that I see Splash has declined that already. This is an obvious recreation, and the closing admin needs to either restore the history needed for GFDL (if this comes to the wrong conclusion) or delete (if this comes to the correct conclusion). (The March deletion review was withdrawn; the February did endorse.) GRBerry 19:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please elucidate your objection on a GFDL basis, I have emails from the author giving permission for the article to exist under the GFDL. Timmccloud 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author of what exactly? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you even take the time to read the articles you nominate? Just in case you missed it, we are talking about The noob, and two of the first 9 words of the article is the name of the author of the Noob, Gianna Masetti. I have correspondance from Gianna to create the article and if you would like to see a sample of that permission, you can open the first image in the article and go to the image page [7] to see a sample of that permission. So once again, would you please state your GFDL concerns a little more clearly? Other than just making a blanket assertion that it doesn't meet GFDL? 02:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think you'll find Gianna has nothing to do with the GFDL problems for this article. Perhaps you'd like to read GFDL and WP:GFDL? In case you need a quick summary, all edits to Wikipedia articles must be attributed to their original authors, and this copy-and-paste recreation is a GFDL violation. To paraphrase you, do you even take the time to read things you talk about? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for finally being specific. If that is your problem, the rest of the history is at User:Timmccloud/The_noob. If you could find an appropriate administrator, then I'm sure the article history can be recovered from the copy in my userspace. Please note in the current article history that I am NOT the one who recreated It. If you have issues with the cut and paste of the article back into wiki space, please discuss it with User:Jonathan Allew, but please remember WP:BITE - don't bite the noobs when you give your constructive criticisim. Timmccloud 02:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not the full article history, that's yet another GFDL violation. Any article being worked on in userspace should be restored with the full article history intact. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, well then you need to take that issue up with the administrator Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} who did the restore in the first place. Good luck with that, he's the one we called to task in an administrative review. So, we can drop the GFDL issue then, since the history is available to administrators and it can be restored to repair the mistakes by a new editor and the failure to do a proper job by the deleting administrator. So now we can move back to discusiing the merits of the article, which I have already enumerated elsewhere, and stand by. Pity you weren't around the last time so you could have corrected the GFDL issue when it occured, instead of derailing this AFD with what turns out to be a repairable issue caused by mistakes. If the GFDL was an issue, why didn't you bring it up in the discussion page, so it could be fixed, instead of running full speed into an AFD? Is there some WP:IDONTLIKEIT about webcomics that has you all flustered? Timmccloud 02:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you read the timeline of events? It's on this very page. I discovered it was a GFDL violation after I nominated it for deletion, not before. I've nothing against webcomics, I simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT having the same arguments presented about an article about a non-notable webcomic that's full of unverifiable original research, when we've already had this discussion and you're bringing nothing new to the table. There are no new sources, there is no new information, this AfD is a prime example of process wankery that serves no useful purpose. Your article was deleted before, it's going to be deleted again, accept it and move on. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not only failign to fix the previous problems, but also a GFDL-violating copy-paste. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please elucidate your assertion of GFDL violation. As I personally have emails from the author which clearly state the existance and permission for this article to exist, I would like you to expand upon your assertion. Timmccloud 01:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author of what exactly? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that you are neither GRBerry or Jzg, whom both of these questions were addressed to, and that you simply copied and pasted the same comment twice. Interestingly enough, I acutally read both the articles and the commentary, so redundancy isn't necessary for me, but apparently I have to reiterate my points for you since you aren't getting them. My apologies. The authors name is Gianna Masetti, in case you missed it from the first sentance of the article we are discussing. Timmccloud 02:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see what has changed since the last AfD. Still no reliable sources or real assertion of notability. Per User:GRBerry above, this is an obvious recreation - indeed, it's actually got fewer sources than the previous version - and I don't see why it doesn't qualify under CSD G4. ELIMINATORJR 20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, one of the criticisims of the previous article was that it had too much "fancruft" - which was removed. Therefore the article is smaller, as requested. Timmccloud 00:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may have been trimmed, but it still doesn't address the main problem - notability and reliable 3rd party sources. ELIMINATORJR 00:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is pretty much the same as the previously deleted versions, but with less content and sources. The only sources that look like they might be reliable: Yahoo! Actualités and Pegasus Magazine (January 2007 page 4 ISSN 1890-0704) don't seem to exist anymore. It is still an excess of plot summary and character info, with little about why it is notable or real-world significance. Mr.Z-man 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please check your web browser and/or install of adobe acrobat reader - the pegasus magazine link opens a pdf - the article is on page 4 like the link says, and it opens up fine for me. You need to look in the middle of the page, it says "THE NOOB" in about 32 point font, it's hard to miss. I'm sorry that the editor who added the link to the french yahoo didn't note it as "retrieved on such and such date", nevertheless the link was active at one time, and The Noob was reviewed in the French Yahoo Portal. Timmccloud 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The keep arguments are not at all persuasive. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am persuaded of notability by the above arguments. -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you'd like to do something about the verifiability as well then? Seeing as that's more important that notability. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any verifiability problems in the article. -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where's the reliable sources for the entire article then? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources appear sufficiently reliable for the claims they are making. Which claims do you find suspect? -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all of them. There's hardly anything that's reliably sources, due to the lack of third party reliable sources. Without them, the notability argument isn't relevant. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This crusade against webcomics is an embarrasment to Wikipedia that has gotten it significant negative press coverage. -- Jtrainor (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jtrainor, for recognizing this crusade against webcomics for what it is. ONIH obviously has certain comics on his watchlist so he can AFD them and keep Wikipedia in his ideal image, even though we don't share it. Apparently he has never read WP:CCC, as shown by his repeated insistance that nothing has changed. Timmccloud (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shame on us for having policies and notability guidelines then! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that you feel the need to reply to every single keep entry with a snarky comment puts serious doubt on the good faith of this nomination. -- Jtrainor (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shame on me for re-nominating a recreated article that's been deleted by process and endorsed by deletion review, shame on me! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's wonderful One Night In Hackney! Since you admit being ashamed of your self, are you ready to recuse yourself from this discussion and leave it up to the process you tout so effectively to decide the fate of the article, or do you need to see your name on ever line with a sarcastic comment about the process? I'll make you a deal - I'll stop posting on this thread if you recuse yourself from the process, and I will do likewise. :D Timmccloud (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on previous experience you're unlikely to stop posting in this thread, and you're also likely to carry on long after the horse and stick are worn out. Your repeated defence of a policy failing article about a comic that fails notability guidelines shows your judgement on this issue to be somewhat suspect. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made the offer, you not only chose to ignore it, you instigated an edit dispute on the article to boot, the latter in a sign of bad faith, in my opinion. But we move on - allow me to introduce you to a concept One Night In Hackney₃₀₃, it's called Championing, and I am not embarrassed in the fact that I'm an advocate of this article, nor that I have spent time improving it from the original edit, nor am I unashamed of my opinions about the article. In all of the references above that you chose to include in this debate (thank you for looking them up by the way), I did not intstigate the debate, but I am entitled to my opinions, and believe that wikipeda should be inclusionary, and not exclusionary. The offer still stands by the way - recuse yourself, and I will too - unfortunately I doubt you have the ability. Timmccloud (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to point out the WP:ILIKEIT votes ignoring guidelines and policies you've been busy canvassing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Comics Choice Awards, MMORPG featuring.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 03:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It did not win an award, therefore it fails WP:WEB. Even ignoring notability, it still fails verifiability. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Honorable Mentions:The following webcomics deserve an Honourable Mention for being the runners-up in this year's WCCA nomination process. These are comics that many voters clearly felt were deserving of top accolades. As a result, the WCCA wants to honour them accordingly. Some are familiar names, but many are underdogs or lesser-known to mainstream webcomic readers. No matter how popular or undiscovered, though, all are deserving of the Honourable Mention:... The n00b (Gaming)..." http://www.ccawards.com/2005.htm --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 02:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:One Night In Hackney is now edit warring on the article, apparently in order to keep original research out. While he is obviously entitled to his edits and opinions, I feel the need to notify editors here that the version of the article they are reading may be tailored into a particular direction to influence their decisions. Note that I am not asserting a specific direction of the asserted bias, as some might argue it is/was written to influence editors to !vote keep (by including alleged OR), and others may argue it is/was the other way around (by removing alleged OR). User:Krator (t c) 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst edit-warring is never good, in what way is keeping OR out of an article a problem? ELIMINATORJR 12:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's great, but neither of the things Hackney is removing seem to me original research. Or, at least, one is cited to the official Blizzard website mentioning the comic. Both could use some cleanup in the statement in question (the second thing he's removing more accurately shows that people have named their characters after the strip, not that the author has encountered said characters, and the first thing doesn't support the prominence for games other than WoW, but in all cases the sourcing seems good. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means feel free to repair the article and restore the content, you would be the third person to try and restore the content that ONIH has repeatedly deleted. He seems to be taking a real interest in an article that he want's deleted. Timmccloud (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully explained how neither of the statements were supported by the references provided. Please provide citations that actually support the text, rather than this and this allegedly sourcing "The noob is very well known among the players of various online games like World of Warcraft, RuneScape, and other MMORPGs" and this allegedly supporting "The author of The noob commented at one point that she had encountered characters in World of Warcraft named after characters from the comic, evidencing the size of its sphere of influence". That's original research at its worst sorry. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were trivial to fix without deletion, and it was lazy and irresponsible of you to do otherwise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Phil, ONIH is out to destroy this article, easier to delete than fix. Timmccloud (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no. I'm trying to stop you making false claims and adding original research. How about the fact you've just sourced "Notably, it criticizes MMORPG staff for incompetence and also shows the perceived image of MMORPG players as inclined to act antagonistically with regard to seemingly minor infractions and situations in the virtual worlds in which they interact" with [8] and [9]? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Did it ever occur to you in your tirades that you might actually have a point every 15th time or so, and that someone may try to address them? Please explain the problem with the reference - I think it provides a clear link to two places in the comic where the MMORPG staff acts antagonisticly against the players for a seemingly minor infraction in the virtual world in which they interact. I added that reference because YOU put a citation warning there. Here is how it works - an editor tags the article, another editor trys to address the problem, and removes the tag. If you don't like the reference, you can a) correct it (like you did for the movie references - well done), b) bring the issue up on the discussion page for community consensus, c) politely contact the editor in question to work out a better way of doing it.

This is not original research as your NEW tags suggest, this is a webcomic; if there is a point you wish to make in the article, you give a link to a representation of the point. It is becoming painfully obvious ONIH that you haven't read many webcomic articles on wikipedia; normally I would suggest you do so, but there is the risk you would have a anurisim when you read the other articles, based on your opinion how "verifiabily" and "original resource" work, and I wouldn't want you to take that risk. Nor would I like to see you put warnings on the entire webcomic community here, as you are doing exceptionally well in marking up this article in specific. Believe it or not, I believe that your citation warnings are actually improving the article - which is how you should have approached the article in the first place, instead of jumping in with both feet to an AFD. Care to withdraw your AFD nomination for a two week period while you and I work on improving the article together? Contentiousness aside, in the article, you are pointing out some very relavant flaws, and some of us are trying to address them, all the while improving the article. Some times it take a true critic to bring out the best in all of us. Timmccloud (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research, it's the most blatant original research you could ever possibly see. This and this do not source "Notably, it criticizes MMORPG staff for incompetence and also shows the perceived image of MMORPG players as inclined to act antagonistically with regard to seemingly minor infractions and situations in the virtual worlds in which they interact". You are interpreting a primary source and drawing your own conclusions. Please read the "This page in a nutshell" section right at the top of policy Wikipedia:No original research, it shows exactly that it's original research. If, as you say, there are more articles failing policies in such a blatant manner then someone needs to take a flamethrower to them. Please bring your contributions into line with non-negotiable policies. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per timmccloud and jtraino. Mathmo ^Talk 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing admin: Please note on-wiki canvassing for keep comments by Timmccloud. See here. Mr.Z-man 21:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I understand, the main issues the nominator has are verifiability and notability. Notability is more than enough established by the 4 links provided. Even the nominator agreed to that in the comments above and put emphasis on verifability. However, the no-verifiability claim is eliminated by the comic being an actually published work. Any claim made in the article can be checked by perusing the actual page from an actual book from lulu publishers. WP:V's reluctancy to accept self-published sources only extends to claims about the subject. When Harry Potter article says Ron Weasley's hair is red, you don't need an academic work explicitly stating that, when you can quote the actual page it was written on. All information about Gianna Masetti herself cannot be backed by her own works, but information about the world and characters she created can, and should. • Maurog • 09:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not established per WP:Notability or WP:WEB, I did not agree the comic is notable please do not spread falsehoods. I qote from WP:Verifiability - "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it", so the verifiability is very much not met. Lulu publishers is a vanity publisher, and are not third-party. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are discussing the comic itself again. What does it need to verify beyond its own existence, which is established by the four notability links? The nominations for awards, launch date, mentions, format, color, everything is verified. The claims in the body of the article about characters can be verified by the published book itself. So what does it need to verify further? • Maurog • 10:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which four links are you talking about? The only links I can see source very little. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per there being no valid reason to delete. Verifiability does indeed trump notability, but what's to verify? It's a webcomic; it's right there on the Internet for all to see; it plainly exists so verifying its existence is not a problem. As for notability, I am sufficiently convinced of its notability by the foregoing keep comments. Rogue 9 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and page protect, no notability or importance verified by reputable third party sources. Lacks the multiple non-trivial independent sources necessary for verifiable, NPOV encyclopedia writing. My library searches have turned up no reputable sources, and we have no new information since the last AFD, Deletion review, etc. Delete it, protect the page from recreation, and stop wasting our time and our readers' time with this. --Dragonfiend (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I haven't seen a good argument as to why the current sources are not sufficiently notable to warrant notability for a web comic - certainly mention of honours for a comic award that is also verifiable (link supplied in this discussion) gives good cause for the comic to be notable and for the verifiability of the notability. Topazg (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been reviewed in Pegasus magazine, which qualifies as a secondary source, satisfying notability requirements. It's also published at an independent site. Buspar (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually hasn't been reviewed by that zine. I know, the article says that it has. --Dragonfiend (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Buspar. Furthermore notability doesn't have to be established, or have we elevated it to policy above all others? Once again the struggle between those who would clean up and those who would throw away rears its head. One day we will work out a better way to co-exist. What is the ultimate flaw with this article? And can people stop quoting that daft line from WP:V which some numbskull added regarding if no third party sources exist. That was never meant as a clear blue line, there was always intended a grey area, hence the use of the phrase "Wikipedia should not" rather than "Wikipedia must not". Should means it applies in general, must means it always applies. Some of us take care when we frame policy, knowing that WP:IAR applies. Could the people advocating deletion please explain how deletion of this article improves Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because there seems to be some confusion above, let's make clear that this comic did not win and was not nominated for one of the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. Checking the source, you can see that there are 29 comics listed with "WINNER!" after their titles. Those are winners. In each category you will see about five comics listed besides the ones with the "WINNER!" label. Those 90+ other listings represent nominees. The 29 "Honorable Mentions" are those that were runners-up for nominations, not runners-up for awards. --Dragonfiend (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I quoted the "honorable mention" text in full above, minus the list of other comics. I don't see confusion here...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 03:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is the text, in full:

Honorable Mentions
The following webcomics deserve an Honourable Mention for being the runners-up in this year's WCCA nomination process. These 
are comics that many voters clearly felt were deserving of top accolades. As a result, the WCCA wants to honour them 
accordingly. Some are familiar names, but many are underdogs or lesser-known to mainstream webcomic readers. No matter how 
popular or undiscovered, though, all are deserving of the Honourable Mention:

Alpha Shade (Colour), Beaver & Steve (Outstanding Comic), Butternut Squash (Environment Design), Checkerboard Nightmare 
(Comedic), Copper (Short Form), Count Your Sheep (Short Form), Flick (Sci-Fi), Gossamer Commons (Newcomer), Inverloch 
(Character Art), Megatokyo (Environment Design), Nine Planets without Intelligent Life (Sci-Fi), No Rest for the Wicked 
(Fantasy), Order of the Stick (Gaming, Writer), Perry Bible Fellowship (Colour), PVP (Outstanding Comic), Questionable Content 
(Reality, Writer), Reman Mythology (BW Art), Rob & Elliot (Newcomer), Scary Go Round (Colour), Sinfest (Short Form), Smile (BW 
Art), Something Positive (Outstanding Comic, Writer), Wapsi Square (Outstanding Comic),      The n00b (Gaming)     , The Saga
of Earthsong (Fantasy), Two Kinds (Fantasy), Venus Envy (Reality), VG Cats (Character Art, Artist), Zebra Girl (BW Art)

I added the spacing to highlight that the n00b was a recipiant of Honorable Mention. Timmccloud (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that should help prevent anyone from mistakenly thinking this comic was one of the final nominees, and will hopefully help the closing admin understand that "runners-up" in this case doesn't mean second place, but instead that this comic came in fifth or sixth or something in a single one of the many categories and did not actually recieve one of the 120+ nominations that year. So, we have an award which is not well-known, that this webcomic didn't win, that this webcomic wasn't second-place for, and that this webcomic wasn't even one of the final nominees for. --Dragonfiend (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sourcing guidelines , like all guidelines, are intended to be flexible, and they are so intended in order to accommodate articles like this. I am glad consensus has changed to the extent that this has become recognized. WP will probably become an outmoded medium eventually, as media do tend to fossiliise, but we should try to keep it alive and responsive a few decades longer. DGG (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are very, many webcomics so we need some criteria to distinguish those that merit inclusion from those that don't. This has has not won any awards and lacks the necessary reliable secondary sources to stand up notability. BlueValour (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, doubtful notability and clear conflict of interest. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reitek[edit]

As if it was not obvious, the author, User:Webreitek has told me by e-mail that he works in the marketing department of Reitek S.p.A. Clear COI. Is the company notable? -- RHaworth (Talk

Comment The company may (barely) be notable, but the only sources I'm seeing are PR repeaters - and press releases are not independent sources. The company has a website, but again - not an independent source. If news articles or independent coverage (a product review, perhaps?) can be found, then this subject may warrant a stub. The timeline, glossary (!) and non-english, non-sourced quotes (including the one about Youtube) would need to go. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, Reitek was already quoted into the Computer Telephony Integration article, close to most famous names as Avaya, Siemens and Cisco: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Telephony_Integration and this is a fact of indipendent Wikipedia source and market co-leadership in this industry.

Press resources are all from indipendent journals and magazines, included the one (quoted) about Youtube (Corriere delle Comunicazioni 2007): it's even one of the same press sources cited by Dylogic.

Again, the timeline is very similar to Dylogic's one. And sorry but I can't see any glossary :-)

P.S. obviously, the company has a website. Like all the other companies' articles on Wikipedia.

P.P.S. and what about the external links? 18:32 15 November (UTC+1)

I beg your pardon but I'm not able to understand HTML language like: Steps to list an article for deletion 1. 2. 3. 4. —Preceding unsigned comments added by Webreitek (talk • contribs)

Comment. My search of Google, among other places, turned up only Press Releases and the company's website. I acknowledge that most every company has a website, and that's good - but, we can't use information from the website unless it's confirmed independently. The press comments included (bottom section) in this article might be suitable, but there are no links to verify that the sources of the quotes are indeed independent sources. Unfortunately, we can't use the Italian Wikipedia as a source, for the same reason that they can't use us. Do you have links or, at a minimum, publication dates and information (volume and issue, ISSN, etc)? By Glossary, I referred to the list of related terms under See Also - that list should be condensed and moved to the end of the article. The timeline information should be conensed and either mentioned as a milestone in the text of the article, or deleted. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ultraexactzz, I did not understand some senteces but now it's more clear. Thank you for your advices:

The External links section now indipendently confirms informations, as all the press resources (with details about number of volume, page and journal website as you suggested). I've shortened the "See also" list and moved it to the bottom, and I've also condensed the timeline. This article is very short: do you know if it's possible to not use the small Index box? Thank you. 15:53 16 Novembre (UTC+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webreitek (talk • contribs) 14:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.C.V.D.[edit]

The topic fails to assert both general notability and notability for films. There is only the Slate.com article which falls under the website's "Low Concept" category, defined to have "Dubious and far-fetched ideas". It talks about six minutes of YouTube footage of actor Jean Claude Van Damme parodying himself. However, it fails notability because there is a lack of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources (and considering that this was filed in the dubious-style section of Slate.com, it can't be too reliable). There's no indication that this is anything beyond a mere six-minute video clip. Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and there is nothing to really verify the existence of this supposed film. If it actually is being filmed and released, then the article can be properly created. Collectonian 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both notability guidelines listed above. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 15:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing both CRYSTAL & multiple sources. SkierRMH (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Melnik[edit]

Biography for a non notable author/musician. He used to be in a band where the other member left to join with someone notable. That band produced an album that was never released. Since then he has self-published a book through IUniverse. In addition there are a couple of competitions mention. Unfortunately, none of this meets WP:BIO and even if it did there is a dire lack of indepedent, reliable sources to back the article up with. Nuttah68 19:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independant, reliable sources found. Epbr123 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish grounds for HIS notability Victuallers (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sun and Moon (Middle-earth)[edit]

Non-notable and completely in-universe. Wikipedia policy requires topics of articles to be relevant outside of the body of fiction to be relevant - major Tolkien characters are usually notable, minor aspects of his universe are not. See WP:FICT, WP:N. Chardish 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was a prod contested by the creator of the article. - Chardish 19:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails to establish notability or present real-world context about these elements in the fictional universe. Best suited for a Middle-earth Wikia of some sort. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needless, trivial, no notability. Tarc 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... this isn't a terribly well-written article right now, and it needs its primary sources better specified and referenced and some more out-of-universe perspective, but it has what appears to be one real live academic reference, and as with other Tolkien subjects, there's a pretty good chance there are others out there. Pinball22 20:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not totally in doubt, as there appears to be a section of creation information, which if referenced would establish some notability. I say if there is doubt, which there is, don't delete. Judgesurreal777 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man in the Moon (Middle-earth) is leaning toward redirecting that article here; prodding this article while that merge was under consideration was premature. The subject seems to have some notability beyond the setting; although this particular article is in need of heavy cleanup, that's not cause for deletion. Powers ^T 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank-you for agreeing with me that prodding this article was premature. It will have an extremely chilling effect (reducing the freedom of discussion) if people feel that something as innocuous as suggesting a merge destination will produce a response of the suggested merge destination being nominated at AfD. I would be even happier if Chardish would also acknowledge this. Chardish, how do you feel about all this? Carcharoth 00:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Background to the nomination - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man in the Moon (Middle-earth) for the background to this. Two people suggested merging that article to this one, first Uthanc, and then me. Nine minutes after I suggested the merge, one of the 'delete' voters in that other discussion, Chardish, placed a prod tag on this article. See here for my noting of this in that discussion. When discussing merge destinations for a particular article, it is disruptive for participants in that discussion to prod the proposed merge destination article while the other discussion is still going on. If this isn't in a guideline somewhere, it should be. Carcharoth 00:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I call them like I see them - I don't go out of my way looking for non-notable articles to nominate for deletion, but if someone kindly links me to one, I'll nominate it for deletion. Process is important, but instead of arguing process, could you instead find sources that say that this topic is notable independently of Tolkien's work? - Chardish 02:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll help find the sources. Just to be clear: if you are aware of a discussion about an article going on in one location, you see nothing wrong with nominating that article for deletion without having the courtesy to inform people at the original discussion? Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment, not an exercise in tagging. If you had said at the original AfD that you had concerns about this article, then something could have been done about it. Did you consider discussing your concerns with anyone (you knew there was a discussion going on where you could have voiced your concerns), or do you think that communication should be done via prod tags, edit summaries and AfD nominations? What about the article talk page? Did you consider using that first? Why did you jump several possible stages and go straight to prod? Carcharoth 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Chardish, thanks for the message on my talk page. Please don't take the above personally. It is the general philosophy some people have of tagging and nominating for deletion without discussion that I'm unhappy with. Your nomination just brought that to the surface. As I said on my talk page, I'll try and stick to finding sources. For your part, I would hope that you might consider discussing things in future before tagging or nominating. Carcharoth 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No offense taken. Personally, I feel that nomination for deletion generates discussion and generally improves articles that get kept - I've found that of the articles I nominate for deletion, the ones that don't get deleted wind up being better articles. This is a side-effect, however - I don't nominate articles that I think can be saved via cleanup. (I do a lot of tagging of pages with cleanup tags, too.) - Chardish 06:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I can see merits on both sides, but (as I have previously discussed with Carcharoth) I am also concerned that some potential mergers are discussed without adequate assessment of the notability of the merge target. There is a danger of a lot of energy being expended on merging non-notable stubs into a non-notable list of trivia. Sometimes these mergers can produce a good article, but it should not be automatically assumed that merger solves the problem; the first question that needs to be asked is what level of detailed coverage of a subject can both establish notability and remain within the boundaries of WP:PLOT. In a situation where masses of trivial stubs have been created, it seems unlikely that all of them are worth keeping, even by merger. If AfDs prompt closer examination of that question, they serve a useful purpose ... and (as I have also suggested several times before to Carcharoth), projects such as M-E could greatly reduce the likelihood of outsiders tagging and nominating articles if they were more clearly making that sort of assessment themselves. The middle-earth project has recently made big strides in that direction, but that's partly because of piking from outside. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The assumption has never been that merging solves the problem. It just makes it easier to tackle larger articles in one go, instead of tens of smaller articles. And mergers can make articles better. See here, where another editor says: "Second, and more important, depending on the alleged grounds for deletion merger could solve the problem for both articles, e.g. in the case of notability or an article being little more than a definition." Also, I fear people are falling into the trap of thinking that each separate section or part of an article needs to be independently notable. It is only the article topic as a whole that needs to be notable. There is ample precedent for this. Also, as I said when you first got involved in this area, excessive amounts of AfD discussion and tagging and so on, detracts efforts from finding sources (as I did below). I recognise that you haven't made these nominations, but when I provide sources like I have here, I was thinking that you might have considered adding support? In the end, I think that low-level continuous improvement of a group of articles over several years is more productive and more efficient than a set of tagging and AfD nominations (as you encounter groups of articles) in an attempt to "poke" people into working harder and faster. You may see yourself as performing a valuable service by dispassionately finding these areas and tagging them and raising concerns, but the end goal should be improving things, not disrupting ongoing efforts to clean-up an area. Some of your contributions have been very helpful, but as you can see from several ANI threads, your approach leads to more drama than other approaches might. Do you think you might possibly think about considering whether to try another approach (such as adding sources or discussing with other editors, as opposed to tagging and nominating for deletion) and see if you get better results with less effort (ie. more efficiency)? Now, this post has turned out to be more about your approach than I intended, and so is out of place here. But equally, your post about general strategy is one that is better discussed on the WikiProject talk page. I find the best and most productive editors drop by WikiProject talk pages or article talk pages and try and discuss things before tagging or nominating. Carcharoth 13:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (edit conflict) I agree with your basic point, but the recent spate of fiction-related nominations can make it difficult to perform those assessments within the time constraints of the AfD discussions. I continue to maintain that it would have been more productive to try to establish a consensus for broad guidelines within the subject area rather than nominate apparently random articles for deletion. Not accusing you of doing so, BHG; it's just your comment that sparked this one. Powers ^T 13:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        LtPowers, you may not have noticed that establishing that consensus at WikiProject Middle-earth was exactly what I did, and new referencing guidelines are now in place. Carcharoth suggests that it is a good idea to drop by a wikiproject and discuss things, which I also did, for long enough to each a consensus on a number of points.
        Carcharoth, your point about notability of the merged article as a whole was exactly the one I was trying to make: the merged one may be notable, but it will not necessarily be notable, and I see far too many cases where the assumption is not tested and WP:PLOT is not considered. As above, my concern is that editors who ask for breathing space because they are overstretched may be spending their energies merging articles which should all be deleted.
        As to tagging, if an article is sub-standard, that can be changed over time, and one of the purposes of tagging articles is to note that the improvement is needed and to give time for that to be done. I hoped we had reached some sort of agreement about tagging substandard articles, but maybe not as much as I had thought. :( And I'm still concerned that there appears somewhere in the midst of this to be a trace of WP:OWNership, a resentment that anyone outside a project might have the temerity to identify deficiencies in articles within its scope. The quote from Jimbo Wales in WP:V is quite blunt on this subject, that unsourced material should simply be removed. He argues there that tagging is often far too lax an approach (particularly wrt to BLP cases, which of coure don't apply here), but I can see nothing to justify the view that unsourced material should remain in place without being tagged as such. I have no problem with an article remaining as a stub for ages if notability is demonstrated and the facts are referenced, but I'm rather fed up with the repeated suggestions from some quarters that verifiability and notability are something we should not even mention, because someone might address them some day.
        This is not myspace, it is an encyclopedia whose core principles include verfiability. Lack of verifiability should not missing word inserted later. be treated as a dirty secret which should go unmentioned in case some editors are offended by it, and there is too great a tendency to blame the messenger in these cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Some brief responses: (1) I think you mean "shouldn't be treateted as a dirty secret". (2) The Jimbo quote had an important qualifier that you forgot: "unless it can be sourced" - my view is that if you don't know whether it can be sourced, look for a source or ask those who do know. If you remove material that is later found to have been verifiable, then you haven't really helped. If you remove information that was libellous or misleading, then you have helped. But please do try and find out which it is before editing. (3) I am not shooting the messenger, I'm saying that the method of delivery (AfD) is more blunt and aggressive than discussion on talk pages or at WikiProjects. (4) Not asking for breathing time, but asking who determines at what pace things get done? You or the editors working on the articles? (5) Not 'ownership' - I have invited you several times to participate and get involved with helping, and that offer is, as always, open to anyone - anyone can edit. Not everyone can delete though, which is why people wanting deletion have to go through AfD. (6) No resentment. Pointing out deficiencies is always welcomed. There is no guarantee though that people will agree with you (or me for that matter). (7) The need for verifiability and notability - no disagreement from me there now (we've discussed this in the past), though I may disagree on your interpretation of notability. Tag away, but please discuss at the same time if people ask you to do so. Carcharoth 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        1)Yes, you're right about the typo.2) We've had this discussion before, when you supported IronGargoyle's second removal of ((unreferenced)) tags from about a hundred unreferenced articles. The people in a position to add sources are the people who know the subject, but a passing editor can note the lack of them. That's the fundamental problem here: the assumption that it it is rude or disruptive to mark an article as needing attention, or that this should only be one by an editor prepared to devote their energies to the subject. Nor does this necessarily need discussion: ((unreferenced)) means just that. 3) The bluntness is more in the receiving than in the delivery. Noting that something is unsourced or under-sourced should not be perceived as rude, unless editors place a very low priority on verifiability 4) Who determines the pace? Ultimately, the community. But as before, if the editors working on article want to remove the markers indicating that there is a problem, I think that it's right to assume that they don't want to fix it, and to put the article up for wider assessment. 5) As above, anyone can edit, but not everyone has to fix every problem, and it's the responsibility of whoever adds material to source it. 7) I am always ready to discuss whether any tags I have applied are accurate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Try to avoid assuming that an AfD nomination is anything other than a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. To quote fuddlemark: "Mate, keeping or deleting an article is not an insult to whatever the article's about. I'm not notable, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest." - Chardish 17:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As I said, BHG, I wasn't accusing you of doing (or failing to do) these things. Powers ^T 19:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources - four found so far, one in the article, other three to be added:
- Bolintineanu, Alexandra (2006). "Astronomy and Cosmology, Middle-earth" - an entry in the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia
- The Astronomy of Middle-earth: Astronomical Motifs and Motivations in the Work of J.R.R. Tolkien, a collection of papers presented by Kristine Larsen
  - from Larsen: "A Little Earth of His Own: Tolkien's Lunar Creation Myths." Tolkien 2005, Birmingham, UK. August 12, 2005.
- Kisor, Yvette L. "Elves (and Hobbits) always refer to the Sun as She": Some Notes on a Note in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien Studies - Volume 4, 2007, pp. 212-222
- Honnegger, Thomas "The Man in the Moon: Structural Depth in Tolkien", published in "Root and Branch" (2000), from Walking Tree Publishers book review.
Does this satisfy the nominator's concerns? Carcharoth 05:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article were re-written, based on those sources and using an out-of-universe perspective, possibly. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to describe fictional universes in their entirety. This means that the article should probably contain a brief overview of the importance of the Sun and Moon, and literary criticisms that explain why they are important to Tolkien's work. We are building an encyclopedia of general knowledge - knowing what to omit is equally as important as knowing what to include, and I think that it must be shown that content such as this is relevant to the real world and worth knowing by those unfamiliar with Tolkien's work. - Chardish 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I'll try and do a rewrite in the next few days. I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't room in Wikipedia for specialist (rather than generalist) knowledge - it seems to be the case that many areas already go beyond generalist knowledge into specialist knowledge. I agree that WP:PLOT and WP:WAF are important considerations when writing about a fictional topic. I'm also sure that we could have a long debate about what "relevant to the real world" means, and when something is "worth knowing", but this probably isn't the time or place. Carcharoth 06:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Chardish, I think you're demanding something that's both impossible in the time this AfD will run and beyond the scope of what AfD is meant for. We're here to decide if it's appropriate to have an article on this subject, and Carcharoth has shown that multiple independent sources exist, which means this subject is notable by our standards, and thus it is appropriate to have an article about it. AfD isn't meant to be a means for deleting articles on notable subjects just because they're not as well-written as we'd like; we're not on a deadline, and there's no need to demand that the article be perfect before the AfD is done. Also, we're making more than an encyclopedia of general knowledge... as the first pillar says, "It includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." There's no reason we shouldn't include something that's verifiable and notable just because it may not fall into the realm of general knowledge... it's not like we're going to run out of paper. Pinball22 13:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - indeed. if you think the article is badly written, slap a cleanup notice on it (or even better, clean it up), but don't bother afd with it. Incidentially, I don't even happen to think this particular article is extremely bad. Of course it can be improved, but compared to what passes as "bad" on Wikipedia, it is actually rather fair. dab (𒁳) 14:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~changed toSpeedy keep per sourcing and serious concerns with the potential that this was improperly nommed in the first place. K. Scott Bailey 06:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep. arguably merge to Middle-earth cosmology, but this can be discussed calmly off Afd. dab (𒁳) 14:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep for now in the hope that it can be rewritten per the sources mentioned, and demonstrate notability. There might be a decent article to be written on the subject, but this is not it, and a complete rewrite would probably be a better approach, but if editors prefer to start from here, let's give them a chance. However, if it's still like this in a few months, it should be a strong delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Middle-earth cosmology Will ^(talk) 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needing to be rewritten is not a valid reason for deletion. Rray 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the sources. If it's better merged somewhere, this can be discussed elsewhere. Uthanc (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver Tornado[edit]

Extremely minor character, mentioned only in passing in one issue of a limitedseres. Fails test for notability Konczewski 19:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Collectonian 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unless there's somewhere good to move it which I can't find (a List of minor Amalgam Comics characters, or similar). The only attempt at out-of-universe commentary, in the final sentence, seems to be original research. EALacey 20:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. Decoratrix 21:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 21:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: Speedily deleted - Hoax, patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 21:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

African Biting Waterlion Rose[edit]

Hoax article. Written in the style of a hoax and with 1 unrelated ghit for african biting watermelon rose and zero ghits for "Sir Edward Larcaster" - Q.E.D. nancy 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom Collectonian 19:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, complete bollocks. shoy (^words _words) 20:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS Doc Strange 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No-Consensus. We have no clear consensus on this one and there has been sufficient discussion to suggest that relisting this won't achieve anything. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ran Libeskind-Hadas[edit]

Contested PROD; in the PROD summary, I wrote, "Doesn't seem to meet the criteria at WP:PROF: professor at a small college, nothing about notable publications or awards or influence in the field. Last paragraph is almost entirely unencyclopedic (and documents activities that are worthy, but don't demonstrate any notability.)" These concerns still apply. Another editor added a citation to one of Libeskind-Hadas's papers (with no assertion that it is a particularly influential paper) and mentioned that Libeskind-Hadas has 36 publications, which is not an unusually large number for a computer science professor. Delete. SparsityProblem 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep This person is highly notable, having published significant papers in top flight (eg IEEE) journals in his field. More importantly his work is noted by other academics in his field. His work on nodule optimisation is very important as a breaktrhough in computer science of solutions to large scale circuitry design problems. By the way Harvey Mudd is a top tier west coast school as part of the Pomona Colleges. Decoratrix 21:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest familiarizing yourself with the guidelines at WP:PROF. Publishing papers in major journals is not in itself grounds for notability, per Wikipedia standards. Nor is being cited by other academics (though having written papers that are widely cited is). Nor is being a professor at a good school; Harvey Mudd is a good school, but not every professor at Harvey Mudd has a Wikipedia article devoted to them. I suspect that most professors at even Harvard University don't have biographical articles on Wikipedia. It's possible that Libeskind-Hadas may meet some of these guidelines, but the issue is that the article still does not assert that he does. SparsityProblem 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am familiar with the guidelines at WP:PROF which the subject meets. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the actual content of his papers and their significance. Decoratrix 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, there's no need for me to do that. The burden of proof is on the creator(s) of the article to demonstrate that the subject's papers have encyclopedic significance. That's how Wikipedia works. SparsityProblem 01:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the guidelines are guidelines, and are reasonably interpreted to mean that he need to have published sufficient papers in good journals to establish his work as being important--because publishing significant work in good journals is what professors do that makes them important. Being cited widely is how significant papers are recognized as being significant--thats what the word means in science. It's the criterion used in all academic subjects, though the details vary. The papers are not necessary or even usually individually of encyclopedic significance, we are writing about the man, and his encyclopedic significance is in his work as a whole, and it is judged by the way people in his field think of it--which they show by appointments, awards, and citations. That's how science article about scientists in Wikipedia work. DGG (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note three cited publications listed in ISI:

Ferrel I, Mettler A, Miller E, & Libeskind-Hadas R (2006) IEEE ACM T NETWORK 14:183-190 (3 citations)
Hartline JRK, Libeskind-Hadas R, Dresner KM, Drucker EW, & Ray KJ (2004) IEEE ACM T NETWORK 12:375-383 (1 citation)
Barden B, Libeskind-Hadas R, Davis J, & Williams W (1999) INFORM PROCESS LETT 70:13-16 (5 citations)

I realize that h-indices are particularly poor at judging CS clout due to the importanc of conference proceedings, but 1 & 3 citations suggest that these IEEE publications don't confer notability. Pete.Hurd 02:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think using Google scholar for h-indices works better than ISI, because it includes the conferences more consistently. Their data is not as clean, but can still be compared with other authors using the same data. By that measure, I make out his h-index to be 9. I would expect more like something at least in the high teens for most established full professors in CS at research universities, with many being higher than that. Though I am not convinced that h-indices measure the right thing: I'd be much more impressed by one paper cited 200 times than 10 papers cited 10 times each. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

further note weird, doing a general search, rather than a cited reference search on ISI (not how I usually search for citations) turns up more cited papers. 10 papers listed, citations: 3,0,1,0,22,0,6,5,2,0. The 22 citations paper is:

Libeskind-Hadas R & Melhem R (2002) Multicast routing and wavelength assignment in multihop optical networks IEEE-ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING 10:621-629

I still don't see notability. Pete.Hurd 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep I think the notability is borderline. He's a full professor at a good college, but it isn't a research university. He has a reasonable but not very high number of publications, cited a reasonable number of times. If the standard is more than the average professor, a full professor at a good college is already safely in the upper half, as it's the top of the three ranks. The current cleanest way to do a WoS search is neither a general author search nor a cited reference search, but to use the author finder in the general search part (the interface is in the process of changing over the next month or two to eliminate the general search/cited reference search distinction, and make it work more like Scopus--but the way will still be with the author finder. That is, when it works (compound names are sometimes a little weird). What I get, like Pete, is 10 items that WoS considers citable papers. sorting by "times cited", I get the counts Pete got. As Pete remarks, nothing works all that well for computer scientists, due to their manner of publication. Pete on balance doesnt think the record is notable, Harvey Mudd seems to think otherwise, and i don't think I can decide between them. DGG (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete He has an endowed chair, but it's an "Endowed Chair for effective teaching", which doesn't suggest any additional research impact over the typical prof, his publications aren't cited nearly enough to demonstrate the influence Decoratrix suggests his work has had, other than that, he has a typical number of publications and conference papers, and holding an NSF grant, which isn't atypical. If Harvey Mudd thinks he's notable, it seems to be for his teaching and undergraduate supervision. I don't see how he passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per Pete Hurd. Note that the NSF grant is for running an undergraduate research program. --Crusio 10:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One can be notable as a teacher, but i think it would involve significant award outside the university--just as any significant award for anything establishes notability. (there have been a very few afds here on this point, and I think they turned on that) A distinguished teaching chair would then not be enough--but if the NSF grant is for running a educational program there, perhaps it would count. Just perhaps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep. I feel that the provided academic record, in combination with the professor's endowed chair and role as acting Department Chair last year, is sufficient evidence of notability to merit a Wikipedia article. --Goobergunch|? 02:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Wikipedia is not an index of people with PhDs or professors at universities. He has nothing that makes him stand out from his peers. --DHeyward 06:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe his notability is established in the current article. -- Masterzora (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Pub record is nothing special and I see nothing else to make up for that in terms of notability. Not particularly known in algorithm design and analysis and complexity theory, which the article claims to be his primary research areas. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to foot fetishism. I'd do this, except the article is unreferenced, so I'm redirecting. Material can be merged when referenced.. Doc^g 11:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've been bold and changed the redirect to point to Non-penetrative sex, since IMO that's a more useful target given the current contents of the two articles. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Doc's remarks about merging with references (to either article) still apply. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foot job[edit]

This is going to be a more borderline AfD, but I do not think that this topic has any independent notability from foot fetishism. It warrants a mention there if someone can find a reliable source, but that's about it. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with foot fetishism. It's mildly conceivable that there might be potential for an encyclopedic article about this, but as it is, it's more or less a dicdef. SparsityProblem 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the internet, it seems this is popular in Japan. 132.205.99.122 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment is there a second party physical penis stimulation article to merge it to, if not, then Keep ? 132.205.99.122 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into foot fetishism. The article does suggest that it's sometimes part of foreplay among people without foot fetishes, but that's presumably true of any kind of penile stimulation. It's only in the context of foot fetishism that this is likely to be notable enough for a description. EALacey 20:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for the Merge into foot fetishism. 82.153.19.100 21:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge:foot fetishism. Tiptoety 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Pavel Vozenilek 11:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into foot fetishism. --Simon Speed 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per almost everyone else here. Rray 23:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into foot fetishism. --Man from the Ministry (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; do not merge. No reason for deletion or merge as Handjob already exists. Prior "merge" and "delete" votes have, variously, either no valid reasoning or no reasoning at all behind them. Badagnani (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 02:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrin Brooks-Meade[edit]

Contested speedy and prod. The reasoning however remains the same, this player is yet to make an appearance in a fully professional league and fails WP:BIO. Nuttah68 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that subject doesn't satisfy the professional league requirement under WP:BIO since Football League Two is semi-professional, but he appears to have a substantial number of mentions in secondary source material. --Sesameball^Talk 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. League two is fully professional, however, this player has never played at that level. Nuttah68 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, I thought he actually played a game for Darlington. --Sesameball^Talk 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Yes, it fails WP:BIO, does not have enough sources, but i still think it can be expanded and turned into a good article, but like i said it fails BIO, so. Tiptoety 23:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Peanut4 10:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "the same old history concerning WP:BIO". --Angelo 11:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no appearances at all for either Fulham F.C. or Darlington F.C., also his loan spell is due to expire in November. May only be emergency cover for first/second choice keepers. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and salt. - @pple complain 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeAM.com[edit]

Contested speedy, then prod. Non-notable company. No sources at all aside from company web site. Information. Google hits are almost all links to site itself, or to coupons for it on other sites. ((unsourced)) and ((verify)) tags are repeatedly removed without comment by original author. The article is a barely-changed copy-and-paste from this page. Appears to be effort to promote the company and nothing more - in other words, spam. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably speedily, per G4? The creating editor was informed of the problems and how to fix it in a section at EA, but failed to follow up on it. Adrian M. H. 19:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy was declined by another editor due to an unsubstantiated assertion of the company's market position. The original author has ignored all warnings and simply reverted them out. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was speedied twice previously [10]. Adrian M. H. 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, I move to delete and salt. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreation of deleted vanity/advertising article AnmaFinotera 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. as already-speedied spam. If it bobs up again, may need to salt. JohnCD 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like wiki spam to me. 82.153.19.100 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The original author removed the AfD notice from the article, and is now obviously acting in bad faith. The notice has been reverted. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm inclined to add my support to a salting of this title if this should be deleted once more, given the history of the article and the editor's actions. Adrian M. H. 00:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Update someone once again removed the AfD, though this time hiding behind an anonymous IP. The removal has been reverted. AnmaFinotera 14:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge with foot fetishism.--Kubigula (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foot girl[edit]

Possibly a non-notable neologism, and is kinda dicdef-ish. I suggest either a deletion or a redirect to foot fetishism. Could not be anything more than a stub. Google seems to just turn up porn, and no apparent reliable sources. Nothing in the mainspace links to it, either. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, and because it verges on POV by referring to adult women as "girls" outside quotation marks. SparsityProblem 19:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's acceptable in some informal situations to refer to young adult women, colloquially, esp. under the age of 25, as "girls".--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, an encyclopedic article should be written in a formal style, and colloquial language is almost never appropriate (except in some limited situations like quotations). SparsityProblem 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with foot model. I do agree that "girl" in this context is just industry jargon. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice there was a foot model article - that'd be an appropriate merge and redirect, but with emphasis on the different contexts of a "foot model" and a "foot girl".--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather merge to foot fetishism than foot model. It's not clear how important fetish modelling is compared to modelling for advertising, and devoting two-thirds of the foot model article to fetish modelling might be undue weight. I also suspect that reliable sources treating "foot girls" are more likely to be about foot fetishism in general than about foot modelling in general. EALacey 20:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point actually, as I kind of noted above.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foot model was good, quick thinking, but per EALacey and HisSpaceResearch, merging to foot fetishism seems most appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with foot fetishism. 82.153.19.100 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I support the foot fetishism merge with the relevant policy being WP:V as I do not really see any references. I also suspect that those found will be lean more heavily on foot fetishism. SorryGuy 20:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep and cleanup. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roadgeek[edit]

Page appears to be entirely original research, especially the Sites of interest section which makes up the bulk of the article. There are no sources given and I do not think that there will be enough (or any) independent third party sources found about the concept to justify an article under the the primary notability criteria. At present this article is non-notable roadcruft which I do not think it will be possible to improve upon. Guest9999 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Roadgeekdom is a popular enough hobby that I suspect coverage of it in reliable sources can be found. The sites of interest part should go, though, or be whittled down into a brief section of sourced examples of popular places for roadfans to go. Pinball22 17:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There actually is some newspaper coverage. See [11], [12], [13], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've actually heard of most of those "sites of interest" from third parties, but references are absolutely wanted, as the previous two commenters said. --Cubbi 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. —Scott5114 ↗ 01:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. --Station Attendant 03:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, per Scott5114 and Station Attendant. Concur keep per Pinball22 and Zagalejo statements. --Son 07:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The list is actually too short, but every entry showing now is to a WP article and each of those I checked provided a notability rationale. Until some discussions of the participants and their organizations are added, the list is what makes this an article, rather than a definition. I suspect that the list will eventually be long enough to require its own page. There is at least one FA on a California road, the Ridge Route, which has introduced many to a contender for Primo Road Geek. I'll add that.--Hjal 09:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the list that in anyway links it to the term in question. It is 100% original research a reliable source needs to be found linking the locations in the list with the term - or group of people the term describes. Just showing that a road is interesting is not enough to assume a group of people is who like interesting road are interested in it A + B does not always = C [[Guest9999 10:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I deleted the list as it is completely unsourced and - if the article is kept - the list should be based upon sources not the other way around. [[Guest9999 10:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Deleting the bulk of an article that you have nominated for deletion seems to violate process to me. Regardless of the AfD, the bulk deletion was improper. At least some of the linked articles clearly demonstrate that the listed roads have formal organizations dedicated to their history or maintenance and to enjoying their use for travel. Even if the specific people who wrote a book about a highway or formed an association of interchange admirers do not identify themselves as "Roadgeeks," that does not keep their existance from providing an example of the subject.---- Hjal (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - article's are often cleaned up during AfDs. There is one source in the entire section and that does not give any mention tof the term roadgeek or (as far as I can see) any people who might obsess about the area with out this information it is just synthesis. I am going to remove the section again as it is unsourced and the linking of the places to the group of people is original research. [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Actually looking at it, I think that the section on behaviour should also be removed, parts of it are completely unsourced and very likely to be original research, the rest is sourced to what appears to be a blog which does not qualify as a reliable source. [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep and clean up. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - @pple complain 16:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield elementary school[edit]

Demolished elementary school with no notability asserted and no sources. Prod removed by anon without comment. shoy (^words _words) 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While apparently not notable for an individual article, the school could be mentioned at the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board article, which currently says almost nothing about the district's elementary schools. Perhaps that article should discuss the "capital plan" that resulted in Fairfield's closure. EALacey 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good proposal EALacey. but delete anyway Victuallers 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No opinion on mention in other article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arthur 18:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 Angry Men (play)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn) Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 12 Angry Men (play)[edit] Pointless article, everything is already stated in 12 Angry Men. Delete. Fangz the Wolf 16:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Keep Notable, since it came before the film. Doc Strange 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The fact that a movie is based on it doesn't make it less notable... was famous before the movie and continues to be performed as/read as literature as a play. Pinball22 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Close. The article is in PROD, it should not be here in AfD. Nonetheless, keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] keep don't be silly. Artw 18:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy keep. Extremely notable play. The presence of an article about one of the film adaptations is irrelevant. However, I do reccomend changing the film article title to 12 Angry Men (film) and making the play the main and initial article on this subject. 23skidoo 18:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] comment I realize and understand the importance of this play, but this article doesn't really touch it. It touches the 1997 adaption film more than anything. It should be expanded or deleted. Fangz the Wolf 18:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] It should be expanded Get typing then. Lugnuts 18:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] CLOSE THIS Fangz the Wolf 18:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy keep As above Maelwys 19:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of English words difficult to translate into French[edit] List of English words difficult to translate into French (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Although it's an interesting subject, I am not convinced that it is encyclopedic, nor is it at all sourced. I believe it to be original research. Does the community agree? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] FWIW, I agree. Delete. shoy (^words _words) 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] "Difficult" is subjective. Delete as OR. GlassCobra 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - I agree. Definite original research. Rudget _zŋ 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete in its current version. There is no criteria for inclusion on the list (making it WP:OR in my mind), and from my understanding of French at least some of the tranlsations are not problematic. There are also multiple versions of French throughout the world, some with greater capability to translate concepts. The lead itself mentions 'particular languages', not French and English, and there is no source for either why the words are difficult or the suggested translation. Further, wikipedia is not a dictionary and not an indiscriminate collection of information. If the list could be sourced as to why the translations are difficult, that page could be of merit but as is I don't see the page as eligible for wikipedia. WLU 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete WP:OR violation...this is opinion Doc Strange 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete unless sources can be found for every single entry. And really, this should be one entry in a list of English words difficult to translate into every language. Daniel Case 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: OR. Article would find it difficult to satisfy WP:V -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Besides all the problems others have noted, it violates (as currently written) "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook". EALacey 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as purely subjective. All words are difficult to translate unless you know the corresponding word/phrase in the other language, in which case it's easy. Nuttah68 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Translation all depend on our translation skill. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as subjective OR. And where are the "fried apples"? -- But\|seriously\|folks 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete interesting to think about but not encyclopedic. JJL 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Supprime (I think that's French for Delete) for all of the well-stated reasons above. --Hnsampat 21:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Agree with nom. This is a subjective list, in fact, I think most advanced speakers of French would say that most of those words or terms are not all that difficult to translate. It is basically WP:OR, with no WP:RS, and no real way to WP:V the claim that they are difficult to translate. Ariel♥Gold 04:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GRBerry 20:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 2007 New Hampshire General Court Session[edit] Violation of WP:NOT#INFO Delete This is a Secret ^account 16:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: The article fails WP:NOT#INFO 2.9.4 and does not seem to convey anything meaningful to the general reader -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Provisional delete: The article as written doesn't even explain what it's about. It's possible that I may change to keep if both context and a claim to notability are added; both are currently lacking. Sarcasticidealist 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep how douse listing the members of the New Hampshire legislature fall under WP:NOT#INFO it douse not have an faq, Plot summarie, Lyrics, or Statistics, it seems that your main argument is that since "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" you can discriminate against information you don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.40.211 (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] That isn't a list of all the members, it's how they voted on two laws, that's stats right there. This is a Secret ^account 15:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete As much as I hate to get rid of something that mentions Jeff Fontas (he's a buddy of mine that goes to school with me), this definitely fails WP:NOT#INFO. GlassCobra 06:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] *Keep. The article could use some work but it certainly does not fail WP:NOT, at least not under any understanding I have. The material herein is possibly very useful to a user and cannot be easily merged into another article. JodyB_talk 18:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. This is only about two votes on a report. I misread it above. JodyB_talk 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I had to look quite hard to find that this was the NH legislature. The article might be converted to a proper list, with the names linked to articles on those concerned. However we already have categories for NH senators and NH representatives. These do not distinguish theose of the 2007 session from earlier ones, but the recent consensus has been against categories for "current senators" etc. because the categories become obsolete. I do not know whether all members of the General Court have (or even need) articles, but there might be merit in conversion to a proper list. In any event the voting columns need to be explained, and a brief introductory text provided. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Demoniac Dance[edit] Demoniac Dance (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) non-notable book which has not even been written. Merkinsmum 16:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wouldn't be notable in itself anyway, but not even written yet.Merkinsmum 16:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. Not even best-selling authors get wiki pages for books they haven't yet written. should be deleted immediately. Drunkenmonkey111 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, as crystalballery. Once release information is out, if the author is notable, no prejudice to recreating the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. JohnCD 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Alfonso Bonzo[edit] Alfonso Bonzo (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Failed PROD; unnotable book that does not seem to stand on its own beyond having a "famous" author. Collectonian 16:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. There was a (spinoff-generating) TV series adapted from the book. Timeineurope 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Notable book and notable TV adaptation. Note that notable doesn't mean that it has to be very famous or have a major impact on children's literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Connolly (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep for the reasons stated above. I remember this when growing up. 82.153.19.100 21:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Notable, I remember the TV show when I was young. Lugnuts 08:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Yeah, I remember this and I imagine most UK-based people of a certain age would too. I seem to recall a catchy theme tune as well...? Richard of York 20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Menzoberranzan. Interested editors may want to evaluate further if and what content is worthwile to merge. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bregan D'aerthe[edit] Bregan D'aerthe (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable fictional character. Little is written about this chracter outside of its universe, so too few substantial secondary sources are available to write a sustainable, verifiable WikiPedia article on this subject. Mikeblas 16:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 16:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Of course, the nominator might want to read the article he's nominating, since the first line clearly indicates that it's a fictional group, as opposed to a fictional character. One could suspect a cut-and-paste nomination here. -- GJD (Talk to me\|Damage I've done) 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Question. Are nominations with typos inherently invalid? If so, let me know and I'll open another AfD for this article as the subject remains non-notable, despite my error. -- Mikeblas 02:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Procedural errors do not negate the intent of an action. Jay32183 05:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge to Menzoberranzan with some significant trimming and referencing. Pinball22 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] A Merge to Menzoberranzan would be adequate, I think. Also an admonition to Mikeblas to at least try to get the details of an article correct when nominating it for deletion. Powers ^T 23:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Menzoberranzan also has no secondary sources, merging solves nothing. Jay32183 01:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. A current lack of secondary sources doesn't necessarily mean that such sources don't exist... Menzoberranzan has appeared in sufficiently many books that it's likely to be sourceable. Pinball22 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] But it does mean that the article should be aggressively deleted, WP:PROVEIT. No sources in the article and no sources existing makes no difference to some one reading the article. If sources exist, go get them. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. Jay32183 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge to Menzoberranzan as suggested above. Secondary sources are not necessary for every element of an otherwise referenced work, as primary sources (the texts themselves) do exist for the already-established topic. Merging accomplishes this without loss of information. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] My point against the merger is that neither article has secondary sources. Both should be deleted, merging is a waste of time and effort. Jay32183 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] That is an issue for another AfD; as long as Menzoberranzan exists, this article is suitable for a merger with it. If you would like to add Menzoberranzan to this discussion, there are avenues for that, although you're likely going to run into a Faerun situation. Until and unless that happens, the merger proposal is quite valid. ◄Zahakiel ► 05:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] No it isn't. Not all AFDs have to happen at once, and you need to learn to recognize what articles meet the requirements. You never merge articles when the result is something that will have to be deleted. The deletion of that article may not be up for discussion here, but the appropriateness of a merger is. The merge is inappropriate and a waste of time. The merger is simply an attempt to save content not worth saving. Jay32183 14:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] If you wish to instruct me in the art of AfDing, you'll need to cite some policy that says, "You never merge articles when the result is something that will have to be deleted," and then you also need to support that by showing me where your objective evidence is that this will even be the case. I've never seen such a statement. The "content not worth saving" comment is also simply your opinion, and one that has not been supported in the least by the precedent set by previous and frequent AfDs of this kind of material (and see a couple very recent examples here and here. While we aren't to keep articles just because others exist (i.e., WP:WAX) there is something to be said for repeated examples of consensus. So then, please do not confuse your current inclinations with the way things are done on this website; that, not mergers, not even AfDs, is a waste of energy. You assume one article "should be deleted" and then claim that merging this one into it will be a waste of time... that's an overt attempt to circumvent established process. ◄Zahakiel ► 15:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Content not worth saving is not an opinion. There are zero reliable sources for real world context. By definition the content is not acceptable for Wikipedia. The only thing that matters in this discussion is whether there are reliable secondary sources to provide real world context. If there are, keep; if there aren't, delete. There aren't, so this article should be deleted. Jay32183 23:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The statement "This article is not worth saving" is an opinion. I'm sorry if I somehow mis-spoke above or didn't make that clear enough. Now, you may think you're basing your opinion on facts, but it's an opinion, and one (as I said before) not currently supported by the majority of AfD contributing editors, including myself. Let's just leave it at that and see what happens in this case. ◄Zahakiel ► 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] That is not an opinion. If you want this article saved you should not be contributing to Wikipedia. This article is in complete disregard for policy and guideline for no reason at all. You have no fact to back up anything your saying. There are no possible valid arguments for "keep" or "merge" because "unsourcable" is not a fixable issue. There are no sources for this or any article that it could be merged into. You also shouldn't be offended when people nominate article for AFD for failing inclusion criteria. "There are no sources but we should keep the article anyway" is what you're claiming, and it is the worst argument one can present in an AFD. Merging won't make this problem go away. The problem needs to be fixed, not brushed aside. Jay32183 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge per the guidelines in WP:FICT into Menzoberranzan. Individual character does not seem to have established independent notability; the setting, otoh, looks to have been mentioned enough in reviews that notability can be established by someone with enough subject knowledge and time to do so. —Quasirandom 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge per almost everyone else here. Rray 00:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as there are no sensible reasons for keeping or merging. There are no primary sources that can be cited to verify the source of this article, so copying and pasting this article else where is just moving the problem of identifying the source of this article elsewhere. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability of this fictional group. Lastly, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT; this suggests to me that this article would be better of at fancruft.net.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as fairly comprehensive article about aspect of notable game. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of stereotypical names[edit] List of stereotypical names (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Unreferenced, no real assertion of notability, and little prospect of expansion to an encyclopaedic article. Jeodesic 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, completely original research, no clear inclusion criteria. shoy (^words _words) 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - as original research. No citation of sources, and who is suppose to define a "stereotypical name"? Rudget _zŋ 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Blatant OR -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. It's original research. Majoreditor 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per above. "Ect" is short for "Ectetera" Mandsford 00:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete This is one of the relatively few remaining lists on WP that actually does justify the label of "indiscriminate".DGG (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Butchered From Inside[edit] Nomination withdrawn with no other delete votes. Butchered From Inside (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) NN "hacker magazine" with no sourcing, no assertion of notability, and more pixels for logo than for text. The original author is clearly an committed editor, but I can't find any reliable sources (news or elsewhere) to vouch for this publication's notability. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Neutral I could go either way on this one. Given that its a somewhat niche market, I think the question is as much, is this group/site/publication notable within their community (e.g. hackers)? Stick their name in quotes and Google down on the English Google, and it seems borderline. Could this AfD remain open until a few Italian speakers can review this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butchered_From_Inside and some Italian Google/news research on the group? I have a feeling it will probably end as a delete anyway, but we don't have to be in any rush, really. • Lawrence Cohen 18:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Asking for my benefit, doesn't this get tangled up in WP:LOCALFAME? Lots of NN things are notable among hackers. --- tqbf 18:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Obviously, as one of the authors and editors of the magazine, keep. May I point out that BFI is the first, foremost and most long-lived hacking e-zine in Italy, that it has published various paper editions, that it is being translated in English and in Spanish to overcome the language barrier, that is widely renown for being a difficult venue with criteria as stringent as Phrack (which in particular to the nominator are well-known :) ), and that some well known, published software such as KSTAT (Kernel Security Therapy Anti-Trolls) have been published and developed on it? --Raistlin 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Can you cite sources for those claims (the equivalence with Phrack, the recognition as "foremost hacking zine in Italy")? Why are you editing an article about a small e-zine you edit? WP:COI. Thanks for the response. --- tqbf 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] As for WP:COI I exercised great caution :) and as you may see, other people edited the article, so evidently they don't find it too biased or wrong. You are correct, creating that article was one of my first edits on Wikipedia, today I would probably avoid it - still, as neutrally as I can, I find it totally reasonable even today. As for the recognition, I suppose I won't find easily any non-Italian sources to point out. The BFI staff has been interviewed a number of times by in-print media, I can probably find online or pdf versions of that if you want to establish notoriety. I can remember, for instance, a 2004 interview on "ICT Security", the only Italian printed magazine on, well, you may guess the topic... :) It is reproduced in txt format here [14]. Google search gives more than 1000 hits in the long form of the name, more than 500 by looking for BFI S0ftpj. I am pretty sure that any Italian wikipedian can crosscheck and verify notability. I will yield to your collective opinion, of course. --Raistlin 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] BTW: content from S0ftpj, tipically published on BFI, is cited in at least 4 books. [15] --Raistlin 22:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Cited as "nice mag" on Phrack [16], cited on VX Heavens [17], and in mixed other archives such as [18] --Raistlin 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Can you get those into the WP article? I think we're converging on keep. --- tqbf 20:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Done, cross-check pls :) --Raistlin (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Mystra (goddess)[edit] Mystra (goddess) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable fictional character. This article is written in-universe. The character is not covered by substantial primary sources, so creating a sustainable wikipedia article will be impossible. Mikeblas 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep and cleanup Lots of good information here, it just needs to be dramatically cleaned up to be presented from an out-of-universe pov Maelwys 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Yet another nomination of a quite notable (though fictional) character. A Google search for the specific search object "Mystra D&D" returns 19,000 hits. While this is not a sure-fire test of notability, there's a lower-bound there somewhere, and I'm pretty sure it's below 19K on a very limiting text string. These are becoming quite routine, and nom. might do well to try to dialogue with members of this project before sending the next bale to AfD. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Google hits mean absolutely nothing because there is no guarantee that anything list is reliable or provides significant coverage. Significant coverage is a part of being notable and Google hits can't demonstrate that because it doesn't matter how much of the text is actually devoted to the topic if it's mentioned at least once. Jay32183 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: Google hits do not mean "absolutely nothing;" they are simply not a guaranteed measure, which is what I said in my previous statement. No doubt, a lot (maybe even the majority) of those hits are fansites and forums, but it strains credibility to imagine for a moment that the many thousands of pages mentioning this character (remember, the 19,000 was only from one specific search term) do so only once or in passing. As I pointed out, there's a lower bound somewhere. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Google hits are completely meaningless!! Fiond reliable sources or you have no point. Jay32183 01:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] So... your statement "Google hits are completely meaningless!!!" links to a page that says, and I quote, "using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is." That is, admittedly, used in a cautionary statement about their usefulness, (i.e., "no guarantee," which I've been saying all along anyway) but your choice of wiki-link was, well, disingenuous. I don't have any particular interest in this topic, so someone else will have to take up your challenge to WP:PROVEIT, but to say (however loudly) that this character has no notability is just silly. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] To demonstrate notability you need the guarantee. A subject is presumed notable when it has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. That has not been demonstrated in this case, therefore, the article should be deleted. Jay32183 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Actually, no; to carefully read the WP:N guideline, (and yes, it's a guideline) we find, "secondary sources [...] provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." In other words, Notability is not as black-and-white as you're making it out to be; several factors must be taken into account. A large amount of primary sourcing (and there are, indeed, such sources, namely the multiple books in which I believe this character appears) contributes a great deal toward depth of coverage and quality. I know you like the WP:PROVEIT button, but if your argument is about the "notability" of Mystra, there's some flexibility allowed, supported by strong precedent, that relegates your "the article should be deleted" position to a matter of opinion rather than policy. For the record, I think your opinion has merit as a general rule. I just happen to disagree with it in this particular case. ◄Zahakiel ► 05:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] My issue isn't the "multiple" part, it's the "significant coverage" part. There is no significant coverage beyond plot summary, WP:PLOT. We don't disagree, you are wrong. Jay32183 14:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] No, no... "plot summary" has nothing to do with character descriptions, and if you think I'm "wrong," then of course we disagree. ◄Zahakiel ► 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Character descriptions are plot summaries if they can be sourced to just the story. It's a plot summary with a character specific slant. There needs to be real world information, and there needs to be sources for that information. No evidence for such sources existing has been provided. Disagreements are about opinions. I am not disagreeing with an opinion you have, I'm telling you that you are factually incorrect. Jay32183 23:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] And I'm disagreeing with you about that :) A plot summary is (...wait for it now...) a summary of a plot in a work of fiction. A character description, particularly when featured in more than one plot, is not a "plot summary." I'm just giving you definitions, and of course you're quite free to disagree with these particular facts. You can take it, you can leave it; it's not going to change the consensus that is being quite reasonably sustained against a small group of 3 or 4 editors who robotically seek out and vote "delete" regarding works like this. Since we're hardly talking about the subject of this article anymore, I'm just going to leave it here... but I wonder if you're going to learn anything from the continuing keep results or if you're just going to keep on plowing ahead. Time will tell. ◄Zahakiel ► 00:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] It doesn't matter if you call it a plot summary or not. There is no real world context in the article, and there never will be because there aren't any sources. The reason all of the pages get deleted is that they are violation of every one of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Try reading WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:FIVE, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF rather than making up your own rules in an AFD. Jay32183 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] As I said before, this is not something I'm going to argue with you about, because you're ripe for a soapbox at this point... but I am curious about something you just said. What are "all these pages" that you think are being deleted? As far as I can see, the fantasy articles routinely nominated by this particular nominator are almost as routinely kept, not deleted (I mean, seriously, the guy couldn't even see the problem with nominating Rincewind for AfD!). If I thought it'd make a difference to the agenda here, I would supply a large number of examples, but since we are assigning homework to each other, first let me point out that I never said there weren't any sources (and I have no intention of conceding that ridiculous point) and second I'd like you to take a look at WP:CONSENSUS. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I think you're confusing me with someone else -- I didn't nominate Rincewind for AfD. -- Mikeblas 16:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] No, actually. I'm talking about this statement here. I know you didn't make the nomination. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] You still don't have a valid reason to keep this article. You are hurting Wikipedia by being unwilling to delete unsourced articles. Jay32183 07:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Listen, friend, it's okay to disagree about content in AfDs. It happens every day, but you're inching closer and closer to the WP:CIVIL line (specifically the rudeness example) by your statements that I am "hurting" Wikipedia by opposing your view, (the sky is not going to fall if you don't get your way) and more obviously that I "should not be contributing to Wikipedia" in another AfD in which we're both involved. Let's keep this about content, and if we have nothing further to say about that, let's keep it to ourselves, shall we? ◄Zahakiel ► 14:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] There are no secondary sources to establish notability, that means the subject does not get an article. There is no opinion there. There is a fact and a logical conclusion. There is absolutely no reason to keep the article, unless you start talking about things other than the content, which don't matter. It doesn't matter that people put in effort, it doesn't matter how important the character is to the plot, and it doesn't matter how many people find the information interesting. Take advantage of Wikia rather than trying to make Wikipedia a fan site. -- Jay32183 (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete - as angrily written directly above. Find reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (and, also, not just some website) if you wish to demonstrate notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - plenty of references, more will be found, character spans multiple books. The article needs clean up, not deletion. Or is Wikipedia running out of space that the handfull of K this article is using up? Web Warlock 13:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Unfortunately, all the references in the article are primary sources --they're from TSR and WoTC. It's substantial, verifiable secondary sources which make a subject notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. -- Mikeblas 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Here's one that I didn't even use a search engine for: [19].--134.139.11.192 (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Here's another from Stanford University: [20].--134.139.11.192 (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Neither appears to be a reliable source. The first doesn't seem to exhibit much editorial control from its submitters, although it does have more control than a wiki. Although the second one is hosted on the Stanford University servers, it is a person website of either a student or faculty memeber. It is self published, not actually controlled by the university. They don't comply with WP:RS. Jay32183 (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Zahakiel and WebWarlock. BOZ (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as the well-organized article does contain references and concerns a character from a notable and influential game. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] That's not what matters and you are well aware of that. Jay32183 (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability of this stock character. All of the citations are of no value; they are there to reinforce the heavy in universe perspective, which provides no real-world context. Most importantly, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT; this suggests to me that this article would be better off being fanwikied to fancruft.net.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Is there a place where this article could be transwikied to? While I agree that she is a non-notable fictional character without many (if any) secondary sources, it seems like List of Forgotten Realms deities links to dozens of similar articles. I'm not comfortable with setting a precedent here that allows the nuking of all other character pages without giving interested fans a chance to sort this out and consider saving them somewhere else. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] A transwiki still results in the page being deleted from Wikipedia. We aren't going to tell a compatible wiki that they can't have the content unless the reason for deletion is a legal one. Jay32183 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I am not against deletion at all if it wasn't that for when articles are deleted, normally no-one can easily access the information any longer to save it to his own fan wiki / wikia, and most people unaware of the AfD don't even know that the information even existed once. It is good that WP cleans out all the nn fiction articles, but I really struggle to recommend straight-out deletion for legacy articles that were created when the notability guidelines were not as strict. As I am (irrationally) hopeful that this article and its siblings should be allowed a reasonable chance to find a new home somewhere, I would at best recommend a redirect or better just let the AfD run its course. (Seems like it's heading towards no consensus). – sgeureka ^t•c 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Just ask the closing admin, they'll always temp restore for a transwiki. Jay32183 (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Notable fictional character.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GRBerry 20:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Crystaliris-bluechevron[edit] Crystaliris-bluechevron (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This article is joke/hoax. I've watched all ten season of Stargate SG-1, and the four seasons of Atlantis, and I'm positive there is no mention of this. The only non-Wikipedia-Mirror link that shows up on a Google search is for a Gateworld.net forum discussion (http://forum.gateworld.net/archive/index.php/t-22381.html). Ank329 02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. RMHED 01:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was speedy delete and salt: CSD G4, recreation of previously deleted material. Article is substantially similar to first AfD'ed article. Since article is showing frequent recreation, protect against further creation. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Suparno Satpathy[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Suparno Satpathy Articles for deletion/Suparno Satpathy (2nd nomination) Suparno Satpathy (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) WP:NN as an un-elected politician. Only notability seems to be grandson of a notable. Toddst1 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Poorly written (which is fixable) but has had opportunity to provide cited sources on previous AfD and did not do so. No notability asserted or proven. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - lack of sources, notability not asserted. Snigbrook 16:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] ~~Delete~~. While some assertions of notability are made, they come up short of WP:BIO. This is compounded by the lack of sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hold on. There was a previous AfD of this article. I'm comparing text, and if there's no great change, it's subject to speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] This article is substantially similar (or if anything, inferior) to the version deleted in May. Accordingly, this is eligible for speedy deletion under G4 and will be so deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete and then redirect. Lack of verifiability prevents merger. GRBerry 03:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Binford Tools[edit] Binford Tools (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete - no reliable sources establish the real-world notability of this fictional company. At most it merits a sentence in the article for the TV show. Otto4711 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide secondary sources. Jay32183 16:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Applying WP:FICT here, and it doesn't exist outside of Home Improvement or for that matter Toy Story. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Tool Time or Home Improvement and merge a sentence or two into the target. Pinball22 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Smerge and redirect to Tool Time. The bit about the real-world branded tools is interesting and rings a bell but I can't find anything to source it. It's a plausible search term, though, and Binford Tools "memorabilia" like baseball caps are occasionally seen in the DIY world. --Dhartung \| Talk 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep it. It can be improved. There is a page that lists some (all?) of the 'Binford tools' that appear in the show, as well as there are pages that show the use in other films. There are pictures of a 'Binford' toolbox and a logo. I just don't know how to get it all together (put a photo here; may I do that at all...) and if I get into it and 'improve' the article, do you really keep it? I'd rather waste my time on something productive. The issue is that there aren't any sources. Effort will not fix that problem. Jay32183 01:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect per Pinball22. The fact that there is a page loaded with fancruft does not justify it existing here. JuJube 15:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 charts provided are not what the guidelines are looking for with a national chart. Metros (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Juteblue[edit] Juteblue (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) A nicely presented article, but showing no sign of meeting WP:BAND. sources are trivial or meta–. tomasz. 15:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. No evidence that the band passes any of the music notability criteria. The cited sources provide only trivial coverage, except possibly for the interview on KTEQ, a college radio station. Most of the content is almost certainly unverifiable, unless that interview was extraordinarily detailed. EALacey 19:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete, NN. Even an interview on a college radio station means nothing for notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Do not delete. "Creek" was a top-10 hit on Soundclick, which is a national music chart, meeting a requirement for music notability criteria. "Songs About Cars" also charted well, and is specifically noted as a Soundclick Top-100 Song on the band's music page. The college radio program consisted of a one-hour concert followed by two hours of interview, which was very detailed. I have a copy of it on my hard drive, as it was available for download from "The Core" website until recently when "The Core" was cancelled. Classicgamingnight 10:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There were roughly twice as many delete comments as keeps (counting Drunkenmonkey111's "pie-in-the-sky" as a delete), and the keeps were very unconvincing (WP:CRYSTAL, and "tenacity" from an anonymous IP address) while the deletes gave more concrete reasons for the deletion: lack of coverage in reliable sources making it difficult to sort encyclopedic information from conflict-of-interest spin. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Dance of the Goblins[edit] Dance of the Goblins (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) not sufficient notability for its own page. Merkinsmum 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] As above. (When googling, add the author's name, as there are things with the same name that are probably more notable.) IMDB etc used as references and other misleading claims.Merkinsmum 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. A film version is in production, scheduled for release on 1 May. Timeineurope 18:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] After watching Dragon's Den, it's clear that this film version is 'Pie-in-the-sky' stuff. ie-it's not going to happen anytime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkenmonkey111 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] There's self confessedly no funding for this film at present, so it's WP:CRYSTAL. First-timer's films are rarely listed before they're actually made. If it actually ever comes out in a notable form, feel free to re-create.Merkinsmum 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Also, practically self published- published by a publisher that has only produced a few separate books, hers and his own, and only a very limited amount sold.Merkinsmum 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, per above. I wish her luck with the film but until it's made, fails WP:BK. -- DatRoot 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Article is also clearly routinely edited by the book's author put positive spin MrMarmite 12:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak Keep Just for the author's tenacity really. Never read the book, but I'm not sure if it's worthy of its own page having only sold a few hundred copies. 82.34.216.33 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I don't think 'author's tenacity' can be a reason for an article, otherwise an awful lot of determined myspace bands would have an article.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metros (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Zamballa (W.I.T.C.H. TV series)[edit] Zamballa (W.I.T.C.H. TV series) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) The article does not appear to be notable per Notability (fiction), and Notability and undue weight. That is, it isn't sufficiently notable as no secondary sources are provided. Actually no sources are provided. Also, the article should not read as in-universe but rather have a real-world perspective. Overall, the article reads like fancruft. Wassupwestcoast 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom and WP:FICT. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Unreferenced with no evidence of real-world notability. — pd_THOR ^{\| =/\=} \| 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nateash Conlet[edit] Nateash Conlet (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Either a not notable six-year old television personality or a hoax. One ghit[21], Wikipedia, of course! Malcolmxl5 15:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. - not notable, no independent sources. JohnCD 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete no sources. Epbr123 19:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only first book written, so trilogy does not yet exist. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Goblin Trilogy[edit] The Goblin Trilogy (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) not sufficiently notable for its own entry in Wikipedia. Little to no coverage of the trilogy/these books individually in mainstream press. Author has her own entry.Merkinsmum 15:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Two of the books books also had their own articles so I'm nominating them separately.Merkinsmum 15:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] It gets worse. Two out of three books in this spoken-of-on-the-internet 'trilogy' haven't even been written yet, see Demoniac Dance.Merkinsmum 16:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: I first brought it up that the trilogy wasn't notable when the first one wasn't even written. After a year, it still doesn't seem notable, and the notability still doesn't seem to hold up. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Clarification - the last part of my argument was that a movie with a prominent actor was being filmed, but it doesn't seem like the film is in production after a year. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Self-confessedly not enough funds to produce it too, and struggling/failing to secure them.Merkinsmum (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] No, you brought it up when the first book was written and the film was in discussion. Just to clarrify. The book is widely available from various ares such as WHSmith, Amazon.co.uk, certain libraries and so forth. The author is an establised author with a range of books available and the book has been subject to reviews in online groups and the books have been featured in local medias and has had air time on the BBC albeit with a negative result. ~ ~Alosel~ \| ^(Talk) 21:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: until the book(s) are published more widely and garner reviews by professional critics, ie. in the national press. -- Drunkenmonkey111 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] It will help when two of them are published or written at all.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. All three articles on the individual books have now been deleted, two by AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance of the Goblins and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demoniac Dance) and the third speedily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep per WP:HEY, as a notable high school with notable alumni, a notable former teacher, a visit from the Head of State of the nation, and significant size. Bearian 01:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nowra High School[edit] Nowra High School (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Contested PROD. This high school doesn't assert any notability. Rjd0060 15:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep — Satisfies my personal H.S. notability criteria. — RJH (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Fails WIKIPEDIA criteria (the only criteria that counts here). No claims to notibility, no sources to show what makes it notable. And before anyone says it, high schools are not automatically notable. TJ Spyke 22:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Like most secondary schools its notable. I found an Australian politician who taught here and I didnt search long. No refs Template removed and cat added. Next please. Victuallers 23:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as non-notable. No sources on school's notability, and not much chance of finding any. A potentially notable staff member from the 70s does not strike me as unusual or noteworthy; notability isn't inherited. CRGreathouse (t \| c) 17:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete non-notable. Not all high schools are notable. Having a politician who taught there does not make it notable. The notability is for the politician. It's not enough. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." Arthur 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep As Victualllers has shown , information can be found--probably on every high school. Thus it makes sense to keep them all.DGG (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as per Victuallers and DGG. It's become obvious that sources are available online for nearly every high school, at least in wealthier countries. Noroton 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, obviously. We don't delete on article quality, we tag and improve. The question is not whether the article contains enough sources but whether there are enough sources available to meet WP:N; and there are. The high school is, also, a significant institution in its community. TerriersFan 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] John J. Mawn[edit] John J. Mawn (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails WP:BIO. This guy's major claim to fame seems to be having worked as an advisor on one Elvis film. Almost all of the sources provided are obituaries, some of them are duplicates and mention him only in passing, and still other don't mention him at all! Completely non-notable. —dustmite 15:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The article says he was inducted into a hall of fame. Timeineurope 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment He was inducted into the Arkansas River Historical Society Hall of Fame, which, with all due respect, is not exactly a benchmark for notability. If you take a look at the web page, you'll find that the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to "honor those persons who have performed significant and outstanding service in the development of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System". This certainly does not satisfy WP:N. This fellow was, at very best, a local celebrity. —dustmite 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete there seems to be no usable RS besides a local obituary (without an exact link). The editor's usual meticulous original research in primary sources about a totally insignificant person. Might be publishable, but not here. DGG (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete another in an unfortunately long series of non-notable local history obituaries by a user who seems not to be listening to some pretty plaintive calls. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Epbr123 19:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as per a combo of every delete stated so far Esskater11 00:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Not a single source (that isn't an obituary) that covers him primarily, or even substantially. Nburden ^(T) 07:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep.This is an unusual life story which shows imagination and originality. There is no support for this kind of article here. Selecting articles is a highly subjective process; following rigid rules at all costs will eliminate some good selections. Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#A7 notability. Pedro : Chat 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nurse jones[edit] Nurse jones (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Sorry, but Wikipedia is not for memorials. Little assertion of notability. The only external link relates to a different Nurse Jones. -- RHaworth (Talk \| contribs) 14:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, with deepest sympathies to the family. Unfortunately, the article really doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies, including Verifiability and reliable sources. If there were articles or news coverage on the subject that might prove her notability, then those sources should be referenced in the article. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete article created by spa. As noted by nom, the link provided (hosted by BBC, user submitted content) is a poem by a "grateful patient of nurse Ethel Lydia Jones", the article is putatively about "Ian'a Jones". Article says she's survived by two sisters, one of whom is "Iwan Heil Jones", after dropping the odd middle name, a couple of "Iwan Jones" turn up on google search, all men. Googling "Nurse Jones" results in porn hits, googling "Ian'a Jones". results in hits for "Ian A. Jones"es. Claims about contributions unsupported, delete as failing WP:V. Pete.Hurd 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Would hedge an A7, but there's some notability assertion in there (service notes, though I'm not sure that's valid). Deepest condolences to the family, but regretfully, we're not an obit site. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per all above. Photo on article is unsourced and no licensing information - but appears to be a man's face poorly photoshopped onto a nurse's body. I presume this whole article is a subtle practcal joke at someone's expense. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] ...come to think of it, you're right. My !vote stands, but now as a hoax. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kristjan Kasearu & Paradise Crew[edit] Kristjan Kasearu & Paradise Crew (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Was prod'ed for being non-notable, but the Eurovision contest in big. I wanted to bring it here for discussion.--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 14:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment You know, it might be notable for Estonia. The biggest band in a nation, even if it's a smaller nation, might be notable in different ways than the typical band. I can find no evidence of that in english, though my search was only a cursory one. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. They weren't 7th in Eurovision contest, they were 7th in national finals. No one has heard of them before or after, home page has been closed as unpaid. -- Sander Säde 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. and Sander Säde. JohnCD 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. WP:MUSIC says that an "ensemble [...] is notable if it [...] [h]as [...] placed in a major music competition". The Estonian national final of the Eurovision Song Contest is a major music competition. Timeineurope 19:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] comment - 7th doesn't count as "placed", does it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 statistics probably could meet WP:V in another appropriate article, so if such an article is found, undeletion and redirection might well be useful. But the actual topic of the article does not appear meet WP:V after a great deal of effort so deletion is required. (As to the relevance of other arguments: the WP:NEO argument is correct and significant for deletion; the "too many contributions" argument actually counts in favor of deletion if there has been a lot of effort without finding good sources; the "it's useful" argument is weak for keeping but strong for redirecting and merging after a suitable topic is identified; and lack of independent reliable sources about the topic (notability) is also a significant arguement for deletion.) GRBerry 03:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Big Four pageants[edit] Big Four pageants (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This article is relatively useful and has involved a lot of work, but I still can't get across the No OR & Verifiability principles in relation to this article so finally decided to bring it to afd. I can't say I'm strongly in favour of deletion, but it just doesn't seem to meet general inclusion criteria. Keep in mind that the term itself was created by a fan site. There are a fair few google hits but most of them are mirrors and rubbish [22]. The Google News Archive has nothing on the topic [23]. I'm interested in seeing what others think, but at the moment I'm favouring deletion. *PageantUpdater talk • contribs* 09:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep There's been way too many contributions to delete it now. It is also very informative. -- Lancini87 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep The major flaw of the article might be the lack of citation or notes (i.e. verifiability). But this could be worked out since majority of the article is made up of statistics. The main challenge here is the fact that the article, by nature, is a collection of different information and data, hence, when you google it, you might just find a page that bears just one element of Big Four pageants, if not just a mirror site. Being a term coined by a pageant site is not enough reason to delete this article. One might be surprised as to how some mundane words which we have gradually considered as formal ones came from slang terms and other word corruptions.Joey80 01:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Wikipedia isn't for things made up one day in a pageant marketing team meeting. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that indicate that these four pageants are notable as a whole. Also runs afoul of WP:NEO. Otto4711 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Lancini and Joey. I agree that it needs to be sourced. Mandsford 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lancini's arguments are that people put effort into it and that it's useful, neither of which are substantive arguments. Joey's argument notes that the article has serious verifiability issues. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that identify these pageants as being significant as a unit, which sourcing problems you acknowledge. What is the basis then for keeping this article? Otto4711 05:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as a neologism. Niether of the sites linked to as sources use the phrase "Big Four" or define what the "grand slam" is. Unless the term is picked up and used by notable sources and becomes widely excepted, it is not material for wikipedia. Pastordavid 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Podesta Group[edit] Podesta Group (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non notable lobbying business. A Google search of the company name brings up less than 200 results. Article reads like an advertisement. William Graham ^talk 04:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Non-notable. - Rjd0060 04:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: The page has sources, but I myself have checked search engines on this article and have brought up nothing important or notable about this article. Does not seem like an encyclopedia article to me. BeanoJosh 05:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Worth keeping. Sources and more relevant data have been added to the article. Sententia 21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Two thirds of the article's content is a copy-paste from the firms website. --William Graham ^talk 04:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Noticed when researching that a Google search of the company's former names (Podesta Associates, podesta.com and PodesetaMattoon) yields significantly more results. Podesta Group itself seems to have only been around since Jan 07, so it is expected that there would be few results. Taking into account their entire history, the results are far greater in number. Also holds true for a Nexis search.--Sententia 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete without prejudice. Either copyvio or WP:COI, per William Graham. The only non-trivial or non-self-generated source listed among the external links is a Wired puff piece that was about the former partnership. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - To be fair, the copy/paste portion I was talking about was a big list of clients that was edited down to 'selected clients'. Although it still seems pretty large and like an advert. I do agree that it seems like there seems to be some WP:COI going on. --William Graham ^talk 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Adding a list of clients to an article strikes me as not the sort of thing you'd expect to find in an encyclopedia article; we are not a Martindale-Hubbell style business directory. It also raises some WP:BLP-ish issues, if not falling within the scope of that policy exactly. Do these institutions want to publicize the fact that they hired a Washington lobbying firm? Assuming for the sake of argument that they gave this business to use their names in its promotional website, it doesn't necessarily cover Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I agree that the list is the wrong format, so I cleaned it up. A lobbying firm's list of clients defines the firm - very different than a law office, where key clients are still important but less definitive of who they are. There's no privacy concern. A lobbyist's clients are by law public information, they're widely available, and anyone who cares about the subject knows where to find them. Plus as you note they're on the firm website. We defer to legitimate privacy concerns, not the spin that companies wish to have. But believe me, if any company felt that Podesta mentioning them as a client was the wrong kind of spin it would not be on the firm website. The abbreviated list of clients is also useful because it shows the notability of that firm. You don't get clients like that without being a high powered, important firm.Wikidemo 00:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - if John Podesta is notable, isn't the Podesta Group, his main business, notable? John Podesta, as former chief of staff to President Clinton and founder of Center for American Progress, is certainly notable. Scarykitty 16:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Majoreditor 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Obvious keep. Setting references aside for the moment it's clearly a significant lobbying firm and major player in Washington, with a long list of important clients. If we're going to have encyclopedic coverage of the subject of lobbying, this is a firm people need to know about. That is the definition of relevance. Sources prove relevance but they are not the same thing as relevance. Lobbying is a field where there are fewer articles written about notable subjects because lobbyists create the news and deliberately stay out of it, newspapers have considerable conflicts of interest and difficulty writing about lobbyists, and people are simply not that interested in reading news of the subject. However, this article does have major sources, certainly manyfold more than would be necessary for any general application of WP:CORP. Articles specifically about this group in New York Times, Wired, and Washington Post (X2), one of the fifty top lobbying firms in Washington? It makes one wonder why this afd is even here.Wikidemo 00:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps there should be an article about the business, if its public activities can be documented in independent third party sources. We do have the article on John Podesta, which may be the best place to cover it for now, especially since his firm seems to be in a state of flux recently. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GRBerry 20:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Paradise Pavillion[edit] Paradise Pavillion (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable mall in Wisconsin, fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Somebody forgot to add the AfD template, which I've done. - Rjd0060 05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Damned Twinkle... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: NN mall (it exists...so what?). - Rjd0060 05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although there are more keeps than deletes, it's not a !vote and both sides present good arguments and I don't think that either side outweighs the other. Seraphim ^Whipp (Non-admin closure) 14:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kangaroo word[edit] Kangaroo word (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Minor word game. Article doesn't assert notability, and there are only a few mentions on a Google search, including one teacher who claims he made it up in 1996. SilkTork SilkyTalk 13:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Google News Archive shows that the term has been used for some time, but doesn't suggest that more than a dictionary definition could be written on the topic, while the list included in the current article seems to qualify as indiscriminate information. I'll admit to finding it entertaining, though. Incidentally, I think the teacher is only claiming to have invented a flashcard game based on the "internal synonyms" (my phrase), not to have discovered them himself. EALacey 14:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep I think someone coming across this term would want a definition and a fair few examples. I found it interesting myself. While palindromes have a more distinguished history, I don't see that they are intrinsically more notable than this (histroically, yes). Drmaik 19:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, this is recognized by "Ask Oxford"[24] and is in several wordplay/lexophilia books. I am certain I played a version of it (probably in Games magazine) in the 1980s, but it was not called by this name, so the concept has been around longer. --Dhartung \| Talk 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Actually, some of those results go back to the 1950s and 1960s. AKA "marsupial" or "marsupial word". --Dhartung \| Talk 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep We have articles about portmanteaus, palindromes, acronyms, and so forth. Mandsford 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per all arguments to WP:V Sancho 18:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bootstrapping (science fiction)[edit] Bootstrapping (science fiction) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) The article does not give any indication where this concept is used, or defined, outside the fictional literature. No secondary sources are given. To me, it seems that this is at best original research, maybe abstracted from the plot of Uplift Universe (but also that is not clear). PROD was contested. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 13:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The article does not cite anyone as actually having used this term. If sources can be found for the term, my recommendation is to merge into biological uplift; the concept of "bootstrapping" only seems to exist as a contrast with "uplift", and I can't see the potential in it for an independent article. EALacey 13:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment** - I have heard the term several times in science fictional contexts, but unfortunately I'm away from home (and my reference material) at the moment. May even pre-date Brin (Gordon R. Dickson's Dorsai!, maybe?). Someone out there in Wikiland must have a copy of Peter Nicholls' encyclopedia handy... Grutness...wha? 00:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Earlier than I thought - vintage 1940s Heinlein, in fact. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep - outside of references at a WorldCon panel, sources may be difficult to come by. Bearian 01:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - No sources and no indication that this concept is common enough in science fiction and independent of specific contexts. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - neologism, unsourced, fails WP:V which is policy. BlueValour (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Four Points by Sheraton (Dubai)[edit] Four Points by Sheraton (Dubai) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Originally speedied, but undeleted on request at DRV, followed by numerous requests to overturn the speedy. Thus it is a job for AfD. Please consider the comments already made there. Splash - tk 13:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Splash linked to the revision of the log page which has only the closed DRV discussion. Here's a link to the revision before that where the DRV discussion can be read. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I think there's a larger issue that needs to be grappled with here. There are a number of articles with titles along the lines of "Tallest buildings in City X". Take a look at List of tallest buildings in Dubai, for example. Now, the only thing notable about this building is that it is on the list of tallest buildings in Dubai Yes, there is a standard cutoff established by Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers. However, it now seems that there are a boatload of articles on skyscrapers which may not have any more claim to notability than their height. There are apparently nearly 900 articles on skyscrapers. I know that this argument falls into the What about article x? category of WP:AADD. Nonetheless, there's not much point in deleting just this article and letting the others remain. If we feel that articles of this type should not be on Wikipedia, then let's nominate the whole lot of them and establish a notability guideline for buildings. Until then, I guess we have to Keep this article. --Richard 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] In summary, correct me if I'm wrong, but your saying because other articles exist this one should as well. And you know this is an argument to be avoided in AfDs as well. This AfD is about this building article and not others. Luke! 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes...here's the thing. If you consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists, you will find that there is a guideline for how tall a building should be in order to be included in a list. The data cutoff point should be between 150 ft (46 m) and 250 ft (76 m) for cities with small skylines. Examples include Providence, RI, Bellevue, WA, and Oakland, CA. For cities with medium skylines, the cutoff point should be 300 ft (91 m). Cities with fairly large skylines should use the 400 ft (122 m) cutoff point. Examples include San Francisco, CA, Miami, FL, Seattle, WA and Los Angeles, CA. For cities that have extremely broad, expansive skylines, the cutoff point should be 500 ft (152 m) (the lower limit of a skyscraper). Examples include Chicago, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and New York City. The building in question is 166 m (545 ft) which is appropriate for a city with a small skyline but not for one with a medium skyline. Where would you classify Dubai? Anyway, the point is that there seems to be a tendency to create an article for every building that makes it onto one of the "tallest buildings" lists. That's the overarching question that needs to be addressed: should we have an article for every building that is on a "tallest building" list? If so, then this article is an obvious "keep". If not, what are the "notability" criteria for a building? A listing in Emporis? My recommendation is "Keep this article but move the debate over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers or WT:N. --Richard 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Dubai would be classified as a large skyline, and actually since this building is over 500 ft, it would be appropriate for such a city with a large skyline. This notability discussion has been brought up before at WT:N, but with inconclusive results. The discussion could be brought up at WP:SKYSCRAPERS; however, so far the general consensus for the project has been to create buildings for every page needed for a list to become featured. Rai-me 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The notability criterion for buildings is at WP:N. Let's not have yet more guidelines totally removed from the question of sourcing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep and set up a notability guideline for buildings, ~~per discussion at DRV.~~ Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I understand that there may a problem in the system with regards to featured lists however, a red-linked article on the List of tallest buildings in Dubai article's quest to being featured seems to be a discussion for another venue and not here where we are talking about a specific article. Basic notability is the basis on which articles are judged upon. Just because another article exists doesn't mean this one should. SkyScraperpage.com seems like another Emporis-like page. A listing/directory. Luke! 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I disagree. Notability is not the only basis to judge articles. There are articles like Welland estate (check history) that are notable (in that case, a notorious murder), but the same article was written in a manner that was severely detracted from its quality. This particular article for deletion is reasonably well-written, is informative and it asserts its notability clearly. Cheers. Disagree, there are more components to SkyscraperPage than the diagrams. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] In addition, wouldn't tallest buildings lists be unencyclopedic if SkyscraperPage and Emporis were directories? Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Sometimes we need to keep articles with factual information for the context they appear in. ~ trialsanderrors 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, and establish a notability guideline for buildings and structures per Richard and Hydrogen Iodide. ~~per discussion at DRV.~~ Rai-me 18:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - 28th tallest building in the city is not very notable. Kind of a slippery slope here, kind of lets the door open to 75th, 76th, etc. tallest building articles. The claim to be being one of the tallest hotel-only buildings is ambiguous as well. What about the other tallest hotel-only buildings in between this one and the Burj Al Arab, which claims that it is the tallest building to be used exclusively as a hotel. Luke! 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The building is the 4th-tallest all-hotel building (excluding the not yet opened Rose Tower) in a city with 286 high-rise buildings and another 327 under construction. To me, that is a valid claim of notability. And, as Hydrogen Iodide stated on the DRV, it will be very unlikely that the 76th-tallest building in a city will have an article, as most lists only go down to the 30th or 40th tallest. Rai-me 21:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Please see this. This limits the amount of building articles that are created. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete The fact that you have to add two qualifiers (not just hotel but all hotel), and even then it's not actually the tallest, is too much of a stretch. It reminds me too much of the Ballad of Irving. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] A claim of notability is a claim, even though it includes qualifiers. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I think that the claim of being all-hotel may even be more notable than being only a hotel tower. It is becoming increasingly rare for very tall buildings to be constructed as solely hotel properties; most contain some (or contain mostly) residential units along with a hotel. The fact that this 160 m+ building is being used exclusively as a hotel, and is one of tallest such buildings in the city, is notable. Rai-me 02:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as above. Eusebeus 01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Richard.Huang7776 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, whether or not "28th-tallest" is a viable assertion of notability, assertion of notability is not enough at AfD. Here, actual notability must be demonstrated, by showing that significant quantities of reliable, independent material exist, upon which an article can be based. I can't find any significant amount of sourcing about either the building or the business, and no more has been provided at this discussion or in the article. I can of course be persuaded to change my mind upon a showing that substantial sourcing is available. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - As Hydrogen Iodide has stated below, several sources and a History section have been added to the article. Rai-me 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Given your comment, I did review the sources, but I still don't see it. One is a press release, which is not reliable or independent, and the rest really don't provide substantial information (some are only a list of statistics, the rest provide very little). I just don't see that an article is needed here, the few factoids available could easily be included on a list. There's simply not enough material available that a full article could ever be written. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment As an aside to the above, if a featuring process is requiring the creation of articles on non-notable subjects, that process needs changing, but that has zero bearing on whether any such article should be kept or deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep I think we've always considered very large buildings notable. Dubai is now famous for its buildings, and many of them will be individually notable There would probably be sufficient information in local sources, and sourceability not source sis all that is necessary. There are many classes of things we assume to be notable -- there is perhaps a conflict with the general two-RS criterion, but the conclusion is that the rules in fact do conflict, and in practice we decide on a reasonable basis. There have been long discussions ever since I came here on which takes priority, and i have sen a complete absence of agreement. The attempts to unify the rules were in fact all rejected, as no one found an acceptable way to harmonize them that satisfied a consensus. Seraphimblade gives his opinion on how they conflict should be treated. As for me, i don;t have an answer, but i do not think WP generally has accepted his. (At the very least we have certainly rejected that twoRS in every instance proves notability--see the discussions on BLP, for example--not that i want to get into that point here.) . DGG (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Just for clarification, I don't agree with any "two-source" rule myself, nor did my comment anywhere mention two sources. Two trivial or name-drop mentions are not good enough, while in some cases one highly-comprehensive source may be. The question to ask is "Could we ever write a substantial, comprehensive article on this subject using only material drawn from independent, reliable sources?" To me, the answer here appears to be "no", and lacking that it's just a directory entry. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Being the "28th-tallest" building in a particular city is nowhere near notable. If there were evidence that the building was notable for something else, height might be a contributing factor but it is not, in my opinion, sufficient to support a stand-alone article. As Seraphimblade says above, there are no significant sources that do anything beyond confirming the existance of the building. Wikipedia is not a directory - we do not include everything that exists just because we can show that it exists. Rossami (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment, article has been expanded with a history section and more sources. cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, but in my opinion the added content is travel-log trivia. I still don't see a sustainable encyclopedia article here. Rossami (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Please explain how that history section is unencyclopedic, as I don't see how it's trivia. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 08:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, please explain how the addition is trivia. The new section is well-referenced with websites that go beyond confirming the existence/statistics of the building, and provides information on the development of the building over three years. How is this trivia? Rai-me 05:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm not disputing the truth of the additions, merely arguing that the details of the building's construction do not constitute history in my opinion. That is the sort of detail that you'd see in a trade journal or travel brochure, not an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Sourcing is adequate and the article meets our content policies. I have difficulty picturing the reader who encounters this article and wishes they hadn't. Given that I don't understand how deleting it would improve Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Murderbirds[edit] The Murderbirds (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Please see revisions and review. Nonnotable indie band that hasn't yet released an album. One brief review on an obscure website does not equal notability, and the other sources are all MySpace and the like. NawlinWiki 12:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Bláthnaid 13:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Borderline case for speedy deletion, but probably avoids it by citing one independent review. EALacey 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 16:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete as spam. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 00:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete this and the album articles. GRBerry 03:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Esimple[edit] Esimple (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non notable band. Google (Esimple + Costa Rica) only shows about 800 hits, many being myspace or youtube related. -- LaNicoya •Talk• 07:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Neutral. The article doesn't do a good job of asserting notability, but following links from the Spanish Wikipedia article indicates that they've received some media coverage. This article calls them "los hijos célebres del rock and roll herediano". However, most of the others seem to give them only passing mentions. I've really no idea what counts as notable in the Costa Rica music scene. EALacey 13:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. There are several articles devoted to albums by this band that should also be deleted if the Esimple article goes. EALacey 00:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Even if it doesn't, those articles should probably be merged into the parent per WP:MUSIC. Take Esimple: Macguiversh (2007) for example—there's not much there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak delete My Spanish is rudimentary at best, so I will swiftly change my opinion if somebody can produce reliable sourcing for this. :) However, I did a search on the band and its latest release to see if it had generated talk in newspapers, journals, what have you. Once Google eliminated "omitted some entries very similar", there were 44 hits and not a reliable source among them. The claim of "constant media exposure" seems dubious. I did a search on the first punk rock festival, and came up only with self-referential hits. Among the only potential sources at the Spanish version of the article, we have a newspaper that would be excluded for listing dates & times only ([25]. Nacion gives them some coverage—including a review of their album, the only really substantial article I found (see Google's fun translation of that here)—but most mentions are trivial and it does not seem to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Nothing there that gives the impression of passing WP:MUSIC. Caknuck (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keith Macpherson[edit] Keith Macpherson (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete also-ran on Canadian idol and has little else on which to pin notability Carlossuarez46 06:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Not nearly notable enough.Alberon 10:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep -- notability is more a function of reliable sources than success. It reflects reader interest and ensures we have enough information to source reliable articles. Quick searches of Google News and Google News Archive for "Keith Macpherson"+idol finds multiple media sources to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles's criteria #1: Google News: 3 items Google News Archive: 53 news items The article already had two acceptable references when it was nominated: CTV Television Network^[26], Winnipeg Sun^[27] --A. B. ^(talk) 13:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The criterion actually requires the musician to be the subject of the multiple non-trivial published works. If the musician is mentioned in an article whose main subject is really a TV show or another musician, then I don't think it meets the threshhold. If the work is titled something like, "Keith performs, does great on Canadian Idol show!" then this is very different from "Keith performs, impresses millions!" One is probably about the show, the other unequivocally about the performance. (Note: I was only able to pull up one of those three Google News articles; it was a local newspaper article strictly about local musicians playing in local venues - not meeting the threshold.) I think this guy falls below the threshold in general; delete. Deltopia 15:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Television-related deletions, Canada-related deletions, and Bands and musicians-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 14:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Not nearly notable enough for me. Let him live a little, love a little, lose a little. Then - maybe. Bombycil 16:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The references that A. B. notes above are multiple, non-trivial, and independent of the musician. That satisfies criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. Keep. --Paul Erik 05:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete non-notable docboat 13:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Has had multiple, non-trivial, and independent coverage. Epbr123 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete - no proof of any notability outside of his appearance on the TV show. In cases like this, we merge any useful content to the TV show, until perhaps such time as the individual does something important on his own. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The article does not yet reflect it, but there is notability being established separate from Canadian Idol, as Macpherson gains media attention as part of the duo Keith and Renée. Example 1 Example 2 We could argue whether this belongs in a different article altogether, Keith and Renée, but I think it would be reasonable to incorporate information both about the duo and about Macpherson's Idol-related attention into the article Keith Macpherson. --Paul Erik 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per User:Epbr123 JForget 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep I have cleaned up the references that already sat in the article and those mentioned here. The news references are sufficient to establish notability of the performer in the context of both Canadian Idol and the Easily Amused group. My feeling is that the Easily Amused group should be built as a subsection of this biographical article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - no tangible achievements and is not the subject of multiple reliable sources so fails WP:N. BlueValour (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep because of this, and this, both of which are used in the article. Sancho 18:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge to Canadian Idol Season 4, like most articles of reality show contestants especially one that didn't even cut the top-20, do not keep, are there any sources that is not a local newspaper, which I don't consider significant, or because of his American Idol activies, no. I also recommend for this AFD be closed a little later to consider my proposal. This is a Secret ^account 20:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was No consensus to delete --JForget 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of BloggingHeads.tv contributors[edit] List of BloggingHeads.tv contributors (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Article fails WP:NOT. most have their own article, as does BloggingHeads.tv. Hu12 05:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - List is of contributors to a specific program, so whether they have articles of their own is irrelevant. (the purpose is not to illustrate the individuals, but for a collective list of those who have appeared on the video blog) Furthermore, the article does not fail WP:NOT, there are many references provided for notability, and information is better displayed in this medium than integrated in large quantities to BloggingHeads.tv article. (which is what would necessarily happen if deleted) For all these reasons and more, keeping is the best option. Cardsplayer4life 06:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:LC points 2 and 7. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - BloggingHeads.tv is notable, and therefore list of on air contributors to episodes is notable. Does not fail above mentioned tests, and integration into main article after deletion would cause many problems. Liveforever22 08:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Actually, notability is not automatically inherited. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sgeureka is correct, notability is not inherited. WP:NOTINHERITED--Hu12 16:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Neutral although I lean to delete. I am not familiar with BloggingHeads.tv, and although the list is well formatted, I usually !vote delete for imdb-like lists and prefer external links to such lists. But since I don't know an external site that offers the same kind of information, I abstain from !voting for now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgeureka (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 November 2007 Delete per my nom.--Hu12 16:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Seems informative and a well structured wikipedia article. It should definitely stay. DiegoGirl 19:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment The guidelines seem excessively vague when it comes to these lists - can see a case for both delete and keep. That said, here's one thing that bothers me about it: The external links throughout the article, with a dedicated column for them, seem somewhat spammy. I say do with them what's done for the author name - just link to articles about them when applicable, or redlink or don't link when they're not. MrZaius^talk 14:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Seems like a decently useful list of notable subjects. No harm in it's existence, and doesn't violate any policies by its inclusion that I can see. • Lawrence Cohen 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Useful page. -asx- 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result wasdelete. DS 18:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Carson DePalma[edit] Probable hoax; prod removed. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. WP:NN, if not a WP:HOAX. Zero g-hit, no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 12:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Can't find any sources on anything in this article, which, given what the article claims for the man, his life, his book, etc., should have many more. Other details jar, too (witness the middle daughter's name change between the beginning and end of the article). Delete as a likely hoax. tomasz. 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Hoax. Katr67 16:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 17:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bill St. James[edit] Probable hoax, prod removed. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. No WP:RS. IMDb link is not this guy or even anyone similarly named. --Evb-wiki 16:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Hoax. Katr67 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 16:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was speedy deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Victory World Outreach Center[edit] Victory World Outreach Center (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) I am not convinced that this church meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Prod removed by creator after good-faith addition of sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Only external link is the church's Myspace link, that does not bode well. No other information given, I can't even tell if this is a megachurch. If I'm wrong, please change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete - looks like a single-purpose account made the article. No sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as too minor, too small, and non-notable church. Sole church in a small denomination. Meets in a blue and white tent. Bearian 01:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as the author I beleive this article does not meet wikipedia's notability requirements.Ltwin 18 November 2007 The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Keep as per User:DGG and User:Alexandersaro rationales based on published sources and also per non-consensus for deletion. --JForget 01:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kurdushum[edit] Kurdushum (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Vanity page, no real hits on google: http://66.249.93.99/search?hl=en&q=Kurdushum&btnG=Google+Search Page was created by a new user: Special:Contributions/Alexandersaro -- Cat ^chi? 18:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Delete Notability not established. -- Dougie WII 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Every existing thing on wikipedia has and deserves its own article. secondly the Elamite texts being largely undeciphered therefore the elamite world is still unknown to many peoples especially to those who have a weak knowledge of history. thirdly the content of the decipehred elamite texts have been published in relatively recent time another reason why google has few hits for it. Alexandersaro 19:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Also the current spelling does not apparently have notable google hits. The more common spelling is Kurdusum, which gets more hits especially on google scholar and google books. Alexandersaro 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kurdusum: 2 Google hits (one being a spam site). Bare mention on google scholar 2 google scholar hits. Once the Elamite texts are deciphered (per article), the page can be recreated. -- Cat ^chi? 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC) And what about here?!: 5 Google books hits! Alexandersaro 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] What I need is one web page on kurdusum. Doesn't seem to be notable and it feels it is a non popular alternate name for a place. We may already have an article for that. -- Cat ^chi? 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Keeep on the basis of published sources. We decidedly do NOT need web sources, print RSs are absolutely sufficient--and arguably better. The articles and the books are more than sufficient. The language does not have to be deciphered tfor the inscriptions to be notable. The question of the correct name, is an editing matter entirely, as would be a posible merge. DGG (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep From precedent, geographical locations have inherent notability. Claim of vanity makes no sense, I'm pretty sure this wasn’t posted by a 2600 year old Elamite. And when the topic is history from 2 1/2 millenia ago, one should expect that sources (such as the one mentioned in the article) would be books, not webpages. Edward321 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. As Edward321 points out, it's well established that places and place names, including those from antiquity, are notable. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Notability well established by Google books links referenced above. Phil Bridger 11:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 last delete comment is correct about the meaning of "deadbeat," but after moving the article, anyone can turn deadbeat into a disambiguation page. Cool Hand Luke 20:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Deadbeat[edit] Deadbeat (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete. NN; Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. EndlessDan 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Scott Monteith and his work as Deadbeat have been covered by reliable sources, e.g. Stylus Magazine[28] and Pitchfork[29]. Patzak 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, but move to Scott Montieth. Seems to meet WP:MUSIC to me. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep and move to Scott Montieth per Patzak and Stifle. Bláthnaid 13:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete there are much more notable meanings of deadbeat. 132.205.99.122 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no notability established, no third-party sources. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Genevieve Goings[edit] Genevieve Goings (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Neutral - incompleted AfD nomination (note that I am not the nominator) – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Close - There is no argument here to support deletion. Nominator left nary a clue. --Evb-wiki 13:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Ordinarily, I would say summarily close this as a failed nomination, but I think I can figure out that the nominator meant to suggest that this should be deleted as a minor musician whose article fails to make out a convincing case for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - If deleted, it should be redirected to Choo-Choo Soul. --Evb-wiki 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect sounds like a good idea to me. If her solo efforts pan out, she may develop sufficient notability for a distinct article, but at the moment her notability seems connected with Choo Choo Soul. Reliable sources can, of course, prove me wrong. :) I haven't found any, though. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect - My first impression was why not keep it, but now I see that the article's been there long enough that someone with more information about her career has had a chance to add it. --Steve Foerster (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - minor musician whose article fails to make out a convincing case for notability. I am the nominator, accidentally failed to list reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefoxx111 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Saicurtis[edit] Saicurtis (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Doesn't seem to be notable enough to have own article. thisisace 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. There is an entire category dedicated to these... that and I had a Zoid as a kid. Oh Snap 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 03:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep We don't delete everything that's missing secondary sources. Eixo 09:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Actually, we do. WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS. Jay32183 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Actually, no we don't - an article lacking secondary sources does not mean secondary sources do not exist. Lack of sources in the article is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Burden of evidence for providing sources is on those wish to add, restore, or retain material, not on those wishing to remove material. WP:PROVEIT. Not listing any secondary sources and no secondary sources existing makes no difference to the people who read Wikipedia. Jay32183 05:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. and Jay32183. JohnCD 12:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete No reason to have individual articles on each toy, I feel that an aggregate article will suffice. Nickcich (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphim ^Whipp (Non-admin closure) 15:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lyn Z[edit] Lyn Z (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This article is attracting a lot of vandalism and edits which have real BLP issues at the moment, mostly due to her recent marriage to Gerard Way of My Chemical Romance. As such, the article was protected earlier tonight by me. That said, I am uncertain of the notability of Lyn-Z. She has been a member of a non notable band, and of a fairly major band. Mindless Self Indulgence, her major band, receives a lot of press attention, but I can find no articles that talk of her in terms that are anything other than a passing to moderate mention in articles about the band, or articles about her marriage. Is this enough? I am neutral. J Milburn 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep. I would give her a pass as a permanent member of a notable band, especially since there are now news stories about the marriage that can at least verify biographical data. If there are BLP issues we have WP:BLPN. --Dhartung \| Talk 03:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 04:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bangalori_urdu[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Bangalori urdu Bangalori_urdu (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Original research. "Bangalori Urdu" or "South Dakhni" phrase search on Google yields only the Wikipedia article. Even "Bangalore Urdu" string on Google fails to generate any links that talk of such a slang. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 12:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as OR unless sources can be produced. JohnCD 12:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep or Move relevant material to Dakhni. There does seem to be such a language variety, and the article should either be tagged with needing references, or the information moved into Dakhni. If we deleted everything without references, a lot of wikipedia would have to go. It's actually remarkably similar to Hyderabadi Urdu which has been around for over a year and has a nicely formatted wordlist, but apart from that is not much better. Drmaik 19:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Original research without any reliable references. utcursch \| talk 08:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was userfy. I am moving to Aecis' sandbox using the same name. After updating and sourcing it may be moved back to the mainspace without prejudice. The taget page is User:Aecis/List of nationality transfers in football (soccer) -JodyB_talk 15:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of nationality transfers in football (soccer)[edit] List of nationality transfers in football (soccer) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Contested PROD. To me it's not worth to stay here, as it is an indiscrimante collection of unsourced and unverified information; later, talking of "nationality transfer" is kind of a straining, as many of the players listed in this article actually represented both their native and their adoptive land. And, finally, I think this can be more easily (and correctly) managed by a category rather than such a list. Angelo 11:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. JohnCD 12:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 13:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep I was going to say delete, but whilst it is poorly sourced, I think it is an intersting list (though with the addition of players who have represented Ireland, it might go way over the 30kb limit!) and not exactly indiscriminate. Perhaps it could be better done by splitting the list between (a) players who represented one country at youth level and another at senior level (e.g. Ryan Giggs) and (b) players who were born in one country but represent another, but on the whole I think it is worthwhile. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] A pedant writes: Ryan Giggs did not represent a country other than Wales at youth level. He played for England Schools, but any boy who attends a school in England is eligible for that team, it has nothing to do with nationality....... ChrisTheDude 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ahhh. Caught in my own web. How about Frédéric Kanouté then :) пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'll give you that one :-) ChrisTheDude 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - see List of football players with dual nationality, which I am editing and referencing on one of my subpages. GiantSnowman 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, as the prod's contester. If there are verifiability issues with this article (and the nom may have a point in that), they need to be fixed through sourcing, not through outright deletion. If the criteria for inclusion in this list are incorrect or too vague, they need to be finetuned through discussion on the article's talk page. If there are people included in this list who shouldn't be there, they should obviously be removed. And as far as listcruft is concerned ("an indiscrimante collection of ... information" in the nom), I disagree. Nationality transfer is a topic in football. Many important footballing countries try to expand the number of players they can field by immigration. See Olisadebe in Poland, Asamoah in Germany, Da Silva in Brazil, Collautti in Israel, Deco in Portugal, Pernia in Spain, or the attempts to have Solomon Kalou, Jonathan De Guzman and Leonardo acquire Dutch citizenship, to make them qualify for the Dutch national team. See also the parent list List of nationality transfers in sport and the sister lists List of nationality transfers in athletics and List of nationality transfers in chess. A ecis^Brievenbus 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I'm inclined towards delete but am ready to be persuaded to keep it. Primarily I don't have a clue what this means. It tells me what this doesn't include but not what could be included. I don't know why the likes of Andy O'Brien couldn't be on this list. I'm also worried this could be WP:OR but do think in general this list could be relevant to some extent. Convince me and I'll vote keep. Peanut4 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] This list is for football players who have acquired the citizenship of another country in order to represent the national football team of that country. In doing so, they have lost the right to represent their native country, under FIFA rules. Someone like Deco, for instance, who was born and raised in Brazil. In 1997, at the age of 20, he moved to Portugal, to play for a Portuguese football club. After a number of years in Portugal, he acquired Portuguese citizenship, and he now plays for the Portugal national football team. Another example: since the end of communism, a number of Eastern European football clubs have signed Brazilian football players. Several of them have acquired the citizenship of the country where they were playing and now play for the national team of the country (e.g. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Hungary, Macedonia and Poland). What this list doesn't include is players who were born with dual citizenship, because of parentage. They didn't make a nationality transfer, because they already had the nationality of the country they now represent. I assume that this was the reason why Andy O'Brien could not be included. He could, however, be included in the List of football players with dual nationality. Is the scope of the list a bit clearer now? If not, please let me know. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] A little clearer. Though I reckon the article itself should have a full explanation. It's far too confusing otherwise. Peanut4 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] If the list is kept, then it needs a lot of work on it. Either that, or the full explanation. See my note on the talk page regarding Shaun Maloney, Mauro Camoranesi, Emmanuel Olisadebe for starters. Peanut4 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as a list which appears - despite my initial fear that it wouldn't be - to be manageably maintained. I'd suggest a different title, although I'm not quite sure what that should be, and a double-check of the one entry in the UEFA list who seems not to have any original nationality (as in: under what circumstances can someone with no nationality have changed it?). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I've fixed Balep N'Dumbouk (source). Aec·is·away ^talk 12:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, per nom. At the moment this is a list of unsourced, unverified and confused data, most of which I'm pretty sure doesn't conform to the criteria listed at the top. With so many criteria, most if not all players need some sort of reference. This list may have a place in wikipedia but not in its current form. -- Peanut4 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] move to sandbox and fix, then keep. I was one of the starters of this dynamic list, and worked considerably on it. The purpose was to list footballers who changed country in order to play for a national team for which he had not always been eligible. I believe it is a relevant topic which should be covered. However, it has gone way out of hand, so I personally gave up stopped watchlisting it a while ago. The main issues are: 1. the name may not be technically correct. 2. many entries deviate from the scope. 3. lack of sources. Nonetheless, I believe that these problems are solveable. The list is maintainable. However, it probably doesn't deserve to be in the main namespace before the issues have been sorted out, given that the fixup won't happen in the immediate future (within a few days). Punkmorten (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I think that's an appropriate, sensible and responsible reply. If fully sourced and given full criteria of what to include and what not to include (not just what not to) I would vote keep. Peanut4 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I too endorse Punkmorten's suggestion/proposal to userfy the list. I would also suggest userfying List of nationality transfers in sport, List of nationality transfers in athletics and List of nationality transfers in chess, because the issues raised during this AFD also apply to those lists. Aecis·(away) ^talk 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Punkmorten's suggestion. This is an encyclopedic subject for a list, and should ultimately be kept; it just needs some cleanup and a great deal of sourcing, which can be done in userspace. Terraxos (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or keep for now. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 4koma Manga Kingdom[edit] 4koma Manga Kingdom (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Effectively unverifiable, with no third party coverage in 12 unique ghits. MER-C 10:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. AnteaterZot 10:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Oy, here's a pretty tangle. This manga article needs some serious cleaning up and wikifying and sourcing (and finishing translating into actual English), and I note that it's never been tagged as part of the relevant WikiProject, which means they've never been notified that it needs help. The ghits count in the nomination are not complete -- searching on 4コマまんが王国, the Japanese title, gives 982 hits even with -wikipedia, and given the number of bookstore hits, it seems likely there's third-party reviews among them (ETA: among the hits, given how much it's sold, I meant). (Interestingly, there are no ghits for "Yonkoma Manga Kingdom," which is the translation I would expect.) There's no way for anyone who doesn't read Japanese to adequately evaluate the notability and verifiability of the subject. So: Keep, notify WP:MANGA, and give them six months to work on it; if they don't improve it by then, then bring it back for another AfD. — Quasirandom 21:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I've tagged the article for cleanup, added a stub tag and some categories, put a wikiproject template on the talk page, and added an entry to the project's list of cleanup requests. And, here, plead again to give the people who can work on it a chance. — Quasirandom 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] For that matter, the fact that it's been continuously published for 16 years suggests that it's popular enough that some sort of third-party sources would have discussed it. — Quasirandom 02:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. — Fg2 10:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. This seems to have been published long enough to be interesting and notable as a manga series, and while there may be few English sources, that's not enough - need to show no Japanese sources. --Gwern (contribs) 21:30 16 November 2007 (GMT) Keep if sources are added Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is not notability here at all. A merge would add undue amounts of material to the district article relative to the other schools. -JodyB_talk 15:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Shapleigh Memorial School[edit] Shapleigh Memorial School (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable elementary school; somebody spent more than the usual effort to write the page so I felt prod tagging was inappropriate. AnteaterZot 10:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete It is a well written page, but there are no claims to notability. Alberon 11:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge/redirect to Maine School Administrative District 57 per established precedent. TerriersFan 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment The article needs references to assert its notability. Otherwise I think merge/redirect would be the best solution. LordHarris (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge as per Terriers Fan would be the most appropriate solution. A word of encouragement to the creator may also be appropriate. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was speedily deleted by acclamation. A test page would be the charitable explanation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ishtiaq hussain[edit] Ishtiaq hussain (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Mixture of hoax and non-notable person, most of the article is pasted from Mark Ballard. Would have speedied but not sure it fits any of the criteria. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck 09:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete I think it qualifies as vandalism. Alberon 11:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete - Tagged for vandalism, as even after removing most of the material pasted straight from Mark Ballard, what's left is still text from that article with place names and dates changed. Could also be considered as a page created purely to disparage its subject - if real. --DAJF 11:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete - This is vandalism. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Fraters Armigeri Hospitalis[edit] Fraters Armigeri Hospitalis (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) I doubt the notability of this 16 members organization; the long section on its assumed history does not mention the organization at all and the name is wrong latin (Fraters instead of Fratres). jergen 09:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: 217.166.84.130 (talk · contribs) removed the afd-notice from the article [30]. --jergen 11:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Every organisation started small Jergen, besides that we are indeed on this moment an 16 active members but we represent on this moment already around a 150 different families due to our Historic research. In the year 1931 an Dutch Historian did do an research in Holland alone by what he came to the amazing conclusion that in Holland their were an 45.000 families alone who’s ancestors did belong to the lower nobility in Holland but who’s descendants were not recognized by the High Council of Nobility. Is it not strange that an “inherited right” suddenly vanishes? Like our website explains it, we make an statement and fight as an Entity for our rights. But how large our group will become, or how many families we represent (maybe your own family?) is on this moment not to tell. But if you say size matters, than I dare to say we represent an 5.000 members as when we reached that amount we will approach than the different Institutes of Nobility again. Besides that Jergen, you already have an say in the German Wikipedia so in this case I don't think here is your place to write this comment. J. Sieroversche —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.84.130 (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The history section is all about the Knights Hospitaller, the Knights Templar and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and if there's any verifiable sourced information here that's missing from those articles it should be merged. The organisation which this article is about was founded in 2006, has 16 members and a complete lack of notability. Looks like a bit of da-Vinci-Code-cruft to me. Phil Bridger 10:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, thanks. AnteaterZot 10:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. and Phil Bridger. JohnCD 11:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Although history proof you wrong concerning the notability and I disagree on the point that how it seems we only are allowed to have an article when we reached our 5000 active membership goal, I am tired of this discussion. So yes please delete it and remember that if anyone ever wants to write an article about us again, we hold the copyright. Sieroversche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.84.130 (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: See WP:COPYRIGHT and our policy about legal threats. shoy (^words _words) 13:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - without more specific citations, sounds too much like one of the Mimic orders. [31] Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: My deepest appoligy for my reaction on yesterday by the way but I was suddenly confronted that an article that I just 15 minutes before started to write was already on the list for deletion on the German site and than also certainly confronted that the same person also nominated my other articles for deletion. Of course I do agree with the Experts of Wikipedia what articles have an value to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia. In this we conform ourselves to the opinion of the majority. Sieroversche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.84.130 (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: see discussion or talkpage at the main article Much is said and the general opinion is clear but first let us say we are not claiming to be a mimic order of knighthood or nobility. We don´t ask money and never will be as it goes against our policy. What than? Please see the discussionpage that i will open now to make it clear. Sieroversche. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metros (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] St Mungo's Primary School[edit] St Mungo's Primary School (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Elementary school without assertion of notability. PROD was contested with requets to list the article on AfD. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete non notable. AnteaterZot 10:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - for some reason the nominator notified me instead of the author of the article. My only involvement here was to be the admin who removed the prod tag. Will someone please notify the proper party(ies)? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I notified you because you contested the PROD. The article authors had already been notified of the PROD, but I will notify them of the AfD too. --B. Wolterding 13:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] OK, great; thanks. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Turnip I'd probably delete all primary schools but, since there's no consensus to do that, there's little point in treating his one differently. Shrug.--Doc^g 14:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] But what about all the reliable sources? (Not that those kind of things ever convinced me, but mileage may vary.) The school was (trivially) mentioned in the Record just last month, in connection with Alistair McKever. A redirect to an lovely annotated list of primary schools in Glasgow would be less bother, and it wouldn't have needed an AfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Please feel free to create that list. --B. Wolterding 08:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] WP:OUTCOMES isn't a guideline, just a list. If you feel the article should be kept, please vote for keep. (I don't think the article should be kept, though.) I'm fine with the idea of a list. CRGreathouse (t \| c) 18:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as non-notable, A7-able. CRGreathouse (t \| c) 18:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete if a primary school is notable, then the notable matters are the first things mentioned in a stub. So this one isn't notable, it doesn't meet WP:N and it doesnt meet WP:ORG.Ga rr ie 03:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:NOT#GUIDE. GlassCobra 23:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Items in super smash bros[edit] Items in super smash bros (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This is game guide content not suitable for Wikipedia. A list of every item isn't notable and is just list/fancruft and clutter. RobJ1981 08:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. AnteaterZot 10:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Typical examples might be worthwhile as inline mentions in the articles for each of the games, but a list like this doesn't work as its own article. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Minutiative game-guide content that doesn't satisfy WP:N. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete listcruft. Doc Strange 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, game guide content. Pagra shtak 18:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Arctic shark[edit] Arctic shark (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete as a hoax; arctic shark is not a common synonym for any shark species (google finds one or two refs to greenland sharks, but this is rare). Latin name and picture are for a great white shark, although the genus in the taxobox and binomial authority are new to science. Originally included many obviously false claims, but the author removed them when article was prodded. TeaDrinker 07:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: If there is no species known as Arctic shark, can the information in the Arctic shark article be changed to contain "probably" relevant info like this? -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, fails WP:V. To Amarrq: No, unless the question of arctic sharks is notable. --Dhartung \| Talk 10:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. The article referenced by Amarrg is about "sharks in the arctic", not any species called "Arctic shark". JohnCD 12:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete This article was previously deleted as nonsense back on the 7th. Improbcat 13:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete Per G4: Recreation of deleted material. Martijn Hoekstra 16:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. If a reliable source says the term is used in reference to the Greenland shark, redirect it there. --Evb-wiki 16:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete G4 per Martijn. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - G4 ((db-recreated)) does not apply to article that were previously speedily deleted. --Evb-wiki 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] My bad. I saw that in the log too, Evb. I picked a fine time to stop drinking coffee. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Just let the AFD run for a definitive decision... it doesn't really meet any CSD. --W.marsh 18:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] My mistake, the last time it went into AfD, but was closed as speedy I think. Martijn Hoekstra 19:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete A hoax cobbled from elements of Greenland sharks and great white sharks. Acroterion _(talk) 01:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:NOT a guide --JForget 01:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Make up brushes[edit] Make up brushes (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This page is an essay or how-to guide, contrary to WP:NOT The article is entirely WP:OR and impossible to WP:V Mayalld 07:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. and WP:NOT#GUIDE. JohnCD 11:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per above; no Wikipedia-appropriate information except possibly for list of appropriate standard brushes, which still would need WP:V to even be moved (maybe to Cosmetics) instead of deleted. --Closeapple 13:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. This looks like a howto. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Pharmacy Spirits[edit] Pharmacy Spirits (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Contested Prod, so here we are: No allmusic.com for either "Pharmacy Spirits" or "The Bad Sects", and can't find anything (including the external links in the article) that gives any evidence of anything but online and very local activities[32][33][34], so doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC--no assertion of charts, awards, major releases, or wide geography tours/gigs. Ravenna1961 07:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. JohnCD 12:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom, unless reliable sources can be produced to verify notability. I wasn't able to find anything, either. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The band is the most prominent in Lincoln's local scene, and it was notable enough for those sources. LouisHesse 05:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Unable to even find them on the label website. Only the myspace link references the band. Gtstricky 20:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 so as to purge article history for when a genuine article is created. DS 16:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ugigi[edit] Hoax or mistaken/muddled location and history Rexparry sydney 06:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep with rewrite: Ugigi is a place on Lake Tanganyika where Henry Morton Stanley met up with David Livingstone in Africa as per this. Another reference is here. Apart from this, I could not find any other place called Ugigi. The current contents of the article seem to be a hoax. I would suggest to modify the article to reflect the correct location of Ugigi and keep it -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 05:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hypnocraze[edit] Neologism. The only reference is Urban Dictionary and that's not a reliable source. eaolson 05:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 projectspace. Mr.Z-man 04:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of two-letter combinations[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/List of two-letter combinations Articles for deletion/List of all two-letter combinations List of two-letter combinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Unencyclopedic and of questionable worth. Fails WP:N, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Userify it somewhere if it's that important to the project; otherwise, I don't see why it's any more worthwhile than List of n-letter combinations for any n. Chardish 05:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Incredibly indiscriminate. eaolson 05:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Of use primarily to scrabble players and domain squatters. --Dhartung \| Talk 05:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Utterly pointless page Mayalld 09:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete: Non-notable, Of no use to Wikipedia -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Move to user space or project space. This list is useful for keeping track of which letter combinations don't have an article yet (most likely a disambiguation page for the relevant acronyms), and in many cases perhaps they should. In that case it wouldn't be different from the many "lists of missing articles" we have lying around. --Itub 12:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Move-It could be moved to places such as project pages or user pages just for reference and for leisure reading.Comment-SupportsItubPOV on moving the page to an disambiguation page.--Quek157 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong move. This page was originally in the Wikipedia namespace, but for some inexplicable reason it was moved back into the main space right after a RM succeeded in moving it to the WP namespace ([35]). It has some minor maintenance use for Wikipedia. SnowFire 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Move per Snowfire. The page does have some usefulness as a maintenance tool. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Move into Wikipedia namespace, per previous precedent with all the other lists of this type. 132.205.99.122 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] See Wikipedia talk:TLAs from AAA to DZZ. 132.205.99.122 20:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - this list should have been moved to the Wikipedia namespace in Sept 2005... 132.205.99.122 20:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Move or delete. This article has no encyclopedic content. Do people not know how to come up with two letter combinations on their own? Would anyone look at the page and say, "I did not know that that was a two-letter combo"? The same goes for the articles that are listed at the bottom: single-digit-single-letter (0A–9Z), single-letter-single-digit (A0–Z9), single-letter-double-digit (A00–Z99), and two-letters (AA–ZZ). If someone wants to keep the page for maintainence reasons, fine, but it is not an article. --Jjamison (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Murder, She Wrote: The Complete First Season[edit] Murder, She Wrote: The Complete First Season (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Wikipedia is not a sales catalog, and WP:SPAM. Includes prices for USA, Canada, UK, and Australia, with text copied directly from the actual promotional text on the covers. The existing List of Murder, She Wrote episodes contains all the episodes. Nominating all the related non-notable commercial releases for the same reason; Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Second Season Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Third Season Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Fourth Season Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Fifth Season Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Sixth Season Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Seventh Season Murder, She Wrote: Seasons One, Two & Three Masaruemoto 05:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Speedy delete as copyright violation for the back cover text; failing that, delete because Wikipedia is not an advertising catalog and those sets are not notable independently of the series. - Chardish 05:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as WP:SPAM Mayalld 10:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete all - the important information is already included in a table in Murder, She Wrote and there is nothing so unusual about these DVDs as to require separate articles for each season. Otto4711 13:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete all per nom. I can't believe I didn't nominate these myself. Brad 15:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete of all. When i saw this, i laughed so hard that Dr Pepper came out of my nose. No other tv show has their DVDs as articles. This is advertising...even if these DVDs WERE unsual, it would be noted in the actuall Murder, She Wrote article. Doc Strange 17:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete all. DVD releases are addressed in the main show article (see, for example, Twin Peaks). The individual releases are not notable enough to justify their own articles. 23skidoo 18:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete all per everyone else here. Rray 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 West Wight Potter 15[edit] West Wight Potter 15 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Boat with no claim of notabilty Delete-- This is a Secret ^account 05:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete cute but no. Kwsn (Ni!) 05:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Yeah... not really notable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete for failing notability; possibly speedy. - Chardish 05:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Sorry, nice boat but is not notable enough to sail with Wikipedia -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Not notable. Possible Speedy Delete for not even asserting notability? --DAJF 13:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In its place, I'll leave a redirect to Software industry. — Scientizzle 16:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Software company[edit] Software company (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Seems like a useless list, especially since Category: Software companies already exists. Also per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_software_companies. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 04:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I would suggest a redirect to Software industry -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Keeping CCC in mind, I see no difference from the consensus already reached. - Rjd0060 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The article consists only of a dictionary definition and a list. Good idea to redirect to Software industry. Phil Bridger 10:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Software industry seems sensible. the wub "?!" 15:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] keep - i think this is a fairly notable concept. the article is terrible, but I think something could be made of it eventually. a redirect until then isn't a problem. ^Law/_Disorder 20:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Question. But do you think Software company will ever merit a separate aricle from Software industry? Phil Bridger 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete this, it seems pointless. 82.153.19.100 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, per others. Radagast83 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Phil Bridger :-) Stwalkerster talk 21:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Justin Sargent[edit] Justin Sargent (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This article is about a candidate for the Wisconsin State Assembly (the lower legislative house in Wisconsin). He would first become notable if he wins, making this a Crystal ball right now. Royalbroil 04:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Per the nom and it reads like a political advertisement, or a voice over for a TV campaign ad. - Rjd0060 05:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete nn SCUBA instructor. JJL 05:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, fails WP:BIO qualifications for politicians. shoeofdeath (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Osceola County School For The Arts[edit] Osceola County School For The Arts (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This school is not Notable J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Doesn't appear to assert any notability. Another school that is just there. - Rjd0060 04:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete nn school. JJL 05:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Neutral:I checked the WP Schools project and unfortunately they do not seem to have a guideline for Notability. Having said that, I see that there are three FA articles on schools and a lot of schools have been featured as DYKs. So, in my opinion, deletion of the article would be a bit harsh, but I would also want to ensure that the school is notable. Hence, I have pinged the Project members for their opinion on this and their inputs would be useful. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Its a secondary school and although new it shows some attempts at notability. I have added to the article. Oh and well done User:Amar ... better than shooting from the hip! Victuallers 15:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete as lacking any notability. ^Law/_Disorder 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Neutral. The school does not appear to assert notability, but it does seem unusual and perhaps sources can be found. I wish the project members luck finding such material. CRGreathouse (t \| c) 13:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Article has been improved thanks to the efforts of Victuallers. It is a high school and the article on it can pass WP:N if it doesn't now, article includes some independent and reliable sources, and a search reveals more such as [36]. Things like It has been an "A" school in the grading system that uses the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test as its standard, and is also a "5 Star" school would help enhance notability further if they were sourced, I am working on that. Camaron1 \| Chris 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I took out the unsourced History section. I think it looks better. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Accomplishments of the school and its alumni, supported by reliable and verifiable sources, satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sony Ericsson K550im[edit] Sony Ericsson K550im (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable cellular phone. This is just a catalog entry. Expired ((prod)) was removed by User:Athaenara with the comment "Removed Template:Prod. I don't know what the standard is for these - see Template:Sony Ericsson phones - but this can go to WP:AFD if necessary.", so here it is. Mikeblas 04:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Non notable; I personally don't like these cell phone articles anyways. 98.4% of them aren't notable. - Rjd0060 04:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as per nom and Rjd, though I'm not sure about that 98.4% figure. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 05:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: HA, well, that number is an educated guess. I know some phones are notable, but those are the select few. - Rjd0060 07:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as per nom. It may be worthy of a footnote in the K550 if it is an upgrade for it. 82.153.19.100 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Orgonophilia[edit] Orgonophilia (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Prod tag removed, so here we are: Zero google hits, and highly suspect claims in text--hoax, WP:OR, and/or neologism Ravenna1961 04:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] As the socks have pointed out, the Google test is not infallible, especially with obscure medical terms. However, if Richard Burton was indeed publicly known to have a fascination with filing cabinets, I'm quite certain Google would have some knowledge of that, but none can be found. Ravenna1961 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Per nom. Probably a hoax with Zero G-Hits. - Rjd0060 04:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete clear hoax. JJL 05:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep No evidence offered that this is a hoax. Article is well written and supported by published sources. Quick Google search reveals lists of many unusual personality disorders, many of which are far more improbable sounding than Orgonophilia and have no internet presence other than in aformentioned lists.Johnson Archbold 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Johnson Archbold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Keep The point made above by Johnson Archbold is born out. See link: http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/philias.html. There is much recorded knowledge that has yet to be recorded on-line. Google hits are an inadequate yard-stick. Evelyn Jones 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Evelyn Jones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Comment I am unable to find Orgonophilia there. In addition, I checked the Stanislavski reference using "Search Inside This Book" at Amazon.com [37]. I was unable to find the terms "filing", "cabinet", "Richard", or "Burton" (but could find a number of other terms, like "Shakespeare" and "Grisha", so the search appears to be working properly). I would also like to see the source for this checked: "Field Marshall Alan Brooke, who was Chief of the Imperial General Staff during the Second World War, was a notable orgonophiliac. During his time as Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Brooke had frequent rows with Winston Churchill over strategy that would trigger an orgonophilic episode. In order to recover, Brooke took to sharing his bed with a three-draw, oak Globe Wernicke filing cabinet. When Brook accompanied Churchill abroad, it was impossible for him to take his beloved Globe Wernicke with him. However, he was able to find succour when asleep with a single-draw card index system." I say again Speedy delete as clear (and ongoing) hoax. JJL 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep I would like to say Delete, not least because having read the author's own sanctimonious comments on the discussion page he sounds like a windbag who doesn’t really get Wikipedia. However, the reference to the book Psychology by Martin, Carlson & Buskist checks out. Also, the points raised above about internet navel-gazing are valid. Many web references quoted on Wikipedia articles are either unreliable or no longer accessible.The Cropter 1661 20:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Croppter 1661 (talk • contribs) — The Croppter 1661 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Delete as questionably sourced at best. One would think that such a condition, especially when experienced by such luminaries as Richard Burton, would have some online documentation somewhere. This looks like bollocks to me. (I'd suggest that we look very carefully at this edit by Evelyn Jones (talk · contribs), as well; that didn't turn up Googling either.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. I wrote the article so I appreciate that I am not impartial. However, I would like to say that the "discussion" here is ludicrous. It consists entirely of conjecture, innuendo and suspicion. Only two contributors have even bothered to investigate the source material, and only person has actually read one of the books referred to in the article. Do any of you understand the concept of evidence? Furthermore, not one of you would appear to have any clinical knowledge of psychology or psychiatry. Do any of you know the meaning of the term “peer review”? What is the point of this encylopedia if the only measure of it's veracity is how many articles are thrown up by Google? Celron Donate 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Celeron Donate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Delete per WP:HOAX, WP:SOCK and indeed WP:BEANS. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] keep - article was quite obviously written by Rowan Atkinson and I claim my $5. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Sheffield Steel. Cobbled together from other Wikipedia articles, BTW, for example the "Association with panic attacks" section comes from the Agoraphobia article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Cobbled together might give the wrong impression. I was impressed by the style, invention and attention to detail. Still a delete, of course. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Congratulations on a hoax that was better-planned than the usual hoax. It is nicely written. It sounds as if it might be true. There really is a book by Martin, Carlson and Buskist, all real people, about psychology, so there's the illusion of a "reliable source". Add to that a helping hand from "The Cropter" who is there to assure us that it "checks out". The only thing that you couldn't resolve was the lack of any mention of this condition anywhere outside of your article. When the story started falling apart, the answer was that google isn't 100% reliable, your critics don't understand evidence or psychology, etc. At least you were successful in causing all of us to spend some time trying to verify something that sounded as if it might be true. "And I woulda gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!" Too bad we can't pull of the mask to see who you really are. Mandsford 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Look at it this way--it shows the ability to write real articles, if you care to try that instead.DGG (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I agree with you entirely. My thoughts have been that it's a lot of talent wasted on a practical joke. Note to author-- use your powers for good, not for evil Mandsford 21:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. This has to be a hoax. It is, however, one of the more creative and amusing hoaxes I've seen on Wikipedia, so it gets credit for that at least. Terraxos (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Creating a redirect and/or expanding Indian Civil Service#Contemporary Indian Civil Service to discuss the exam might be decent ideas. GRBerry 03:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Indian civil services coaching centres[edit] Indian civil services coaching centres (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Very problematic article, might even be an ad but it's hard to tell. Dougie WII 20:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Severe POV problems and formatting. But that isn't a reason to delete, that's a reason to improve. Mbisanz 23:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 03:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Unless there are some reliable sources added and some work with the POV prior to the close of this discussion. (Especially the sources though!). - Rjd0060 04:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Looks like an ad. Moreover the article Indian civil services coaching centres could not possibly contain any other encyclopedic content, to allow it to remain. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Obviously needs major cleanup, but the subject itself is notable and verifiable, as a quick Google search will show. Phil Bridger 10:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. I've no idea why some of the people have voted Keep. The article's first version was clearly an disguised advertisement for a coaching class in Chennai. Minus that ad, the article is just a redundant copy of Indian Civil Service. Since Wikipedia is not a directory, we don't need to have a list of Indian civil services coaching centres. utcursch \| talk 07:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Matt Friesen (musician)[edit] Matt Friesen (musician) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Matt Friesen (musician) appears to be about a nn musician. Can't establish meeting WP:BIO via Google search. Google hits for +"Matt Friesen" +"The Bad Plus" +"Matt Friesen" +Halloween +"Matt Friesen" +Love-cars +"Matt Friesen" +"These Modern Socks" Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Doesn't appear to be notable, nor does it assert importance. - Rjd0060 04:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: This "probable" WP:RS article talks about him. And according to the article Halloween, Alaska, two tracks from his band seem to have been featured in Fox television series The O.C., which however needs to be verified. WP:MUSIC provides the following notability guidelines for musicians. I have pinged WP:MUSIC project for comments -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment The guidelines at MUSIC indicate what is an assertion of notability, or what may create a presumption that substantial sourcing can be found. If it can be demonstrated that such sourcing does not in fact exist, the article still should be deleted. Conversely, if it can be demonstrated that substantial amounts of reliable source material exist on a musician or band which does not otherwise pass any MUSIC guidelines, the article still should be kept. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Material could easily be merged into band article if important.Victuallers 10:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The reference provided by Amar is about the band, not the individual musician. He is only mentioned in passing. Phil Bridger 10:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: per nn.True theory 11:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete — non-notable subject, no references, nothing that stands out. Turgidson 02:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after Merge. I see that the material has already been inclued into the suggested merge target. Under the GFDL we are obliged to preserve the history for attributation so a redirect is the only possible close here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Man in the Moon (Middle-earth)[edit] Man in the Moon (Middle-earth) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Contested prod. This is an article about a fictionalized character within a fictional setting, with no secondary sources and no claim to real-world notability. Powers ^T 03:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)— Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Neverpitch is mass voting on every AFD as a keep using the same rationale. vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT[reply] Delete No sources, no claim of real world notability. TJ Spyke 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Per nom and TJ Spyke. Ravenna1961 04:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --- tqbf 04:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Per above (notability especially). - Rjd0060 04:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, purely in-universe and lacking notability outside of Tolkien's work. - Chardish 05:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Non notable -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge to Sun and Moon (Middle-earth). By itself it may not be that important, but if it's covered in an article which discusses the Sun and the Moon in Tolkien's writings, fine. Uthanc 12:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge to Sun and Moon (Middle-earth), per Uthanc (some of the material is already there). By itself, there is not enough here to sustain an article, so merging is the logical choice. In future, if prods in this area are contested, please consider leaving a note at the WikiProject talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth). We are currently tidying up a lot of other areas, but should have time to deal with individual articles without needing a full five-day discussion at AfD. Carcharoth 15:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note that Chardish (talk · contribs) appears to have responded to the above by placing a prod tag on Sun and Moon (Middle-earth). I understand that people do want to raise their concerns, but there are less aggressive ways to do so. Please consider discussing things before placing prod tags, and please consider discussing before responding to a removed prod tag with an AfD nomination. Taken to its logical conclusion, you will end up placing a prod tag on Middle-earth. A balance has to be struck, yes, but there is room in Wikipedia (even taking notability into account) for more than just J. R. R. Tolkien and Middle-earth and The Lord of the Rings. Disrupting ongoing clean-up work is not the best way to find the right balance of sourced and well-written articles. Carcharoth 16:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. It is my belief that the number of unauthorized books written about Tolkien's world, such as The Complete Guide to Middle-earth by Robert Foster (which, indeed, has an entry on the Man in the Moon), makes lots of in-universe elements and characters notable, since they thus have been dealt with by multiple independent non-trivial sources. If not kept, this one should be merged into Sun & Moon, as suggested above. 96T 18:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge I suggest merging into Sun and Moon (Middle-earth) as this does present some information which I think is worth keeping, but is not notable enough to merit its own page. In response to Carcharoth (talk · contribs), I would be tempted to merge this into Middle-earth but that article is already long enough, maybe a section in there on Middle-earth folklore would be a suitable place for this and Sun and Moon (Middle-earth). 82.153.19.100 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - merge is still appropriate, but I thought people here might be interested in this: Honnegger, Thomas "The Man in the Moon: Structural Depth in Tolkien", published in "Root and Branch" (2000), from Walking Tree Publishers book review. From that review, we have: "The article "The Man in the Moon: Structural Depth in Tolkien" is divided into two parts. In the first half the author gives an extensive and detailled overview of all the occurences of the Man in the Moon; from the medieval thief of a thornbush (with perhaps Biblical references) to the English nursery rhyme of the 19th century. In the second half Thomas Honegger analyses the way Tolkien elaborated on the original Middle English poem. He focusses on the two poems (and their different versions) Tolkien wrote about the 'man in the moon who came down too soon'. It is a pity that the appearance in Tolkien's Roverandom is only mentioned in passing. Like most roo-diggers, the author could not resist having a guess at why Tolkien used this particular piece of folklore; "a construction of a missing linking tradition between medieval and modern Man in the Moon poems"." This is also relevant to The Man in the Moon Stayed Up Too Late and Man in the Moon (the real Moon this time!), though the literary analysis is probably best put at Sun and Moon (Middle-earth), with a brief mention at Man in the Moon, while a short summary of the poem can probably go at List of poems by J. R. R. Tolkien. Carcharoth 06:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] merge (either into the Sun & Moon article, or as merge target for the Man-in-the-Moon poems). Why do people keep putting perfectly obvious merge candidates on Afd? dab (𒁳) 10:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete since the article fails to assert both notability and provide real-world context of the fictional topic. It's purely in-universe. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] And a merge to an article that includes out-of-universe context will fix that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, no secondary data exists on the page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] If secondary information was added, would that overcome your concerns? From the link you provide, I see "a critical analysis of the subject" would count as secondary information. Surely "Honnegger, Thomas "The Man in the Moon: Structural Depth in Tolkien", published in "Root and Branch" (2000)" counts as a critical analysis of the subject? A merger is still the best option in my opinion, but if it is an out-of-universe persepctive you are after, it is easily possible to mention the book titles: The Lord of the Rings, the relevant History of Middle-earth volumes (such as The Book of Lost Tales), The Silmarillion (for the Tilion references) and Roverandom for that mention. From what I can remember, the editorial notes to Roverandom, by Hammond and Scull, talk about the Man in the Moon in Roverandom, and the possible relationships to the Middle-earth stories and poems about the Man in the Moon. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Mark Anderson (Security)[edit] Mark Anderson (Security) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable BLP created by an SPA (only other edit was to the now-defunct, non-notable company the subject cofounded). No sourcing, stub content. --- tqbf 03:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: I don't think this is notable. Also, there are no third party reliable sources. - Rjd0060 04:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Notability. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. per NN, BLP. not to mention vanity. True theory 11:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete as no assertion of notability for a BLP. Bearian 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. per NN, BLP. --Raistlin (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. non-notable, can't find any good references for assertion of notability. --Othtim (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Matt Friesen[edit] Matt Friesen (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Apparently software company president and hockey team manager/founder that dopes not meet WP:BIO. (This article hijacked an article about a musician. I moved the musician to his own article.) 18 Google hits for +"Matt Friesen" +hockey. +"Matt Friesen" +thirdi. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: President of a non notable company, no reason to keep. - Rjd0060 04:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Not notable - no evidence shown Victuallers 09:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Thoroughly not notable, as well as very rude indeed. Terminate with extreme prejudice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: not-notable in any regard. lacks independent sourcing. probably vanity, but that's neither here nor there. True theory 11:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Goon shower[edit] Goon shower (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Extensive original research. None of the references establish notability. Alksub 03:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The only sources are Wikipedia and "DrinkingGameRules.com". No evidence of notability. Powers ^T 03:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete No assertion of notability. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: yeah...um...... WP:N and WP:NFT. - Rjd0060 04:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] NO DELETE : Legitimate term supported by 4 sources... more to come as found!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.94.180 (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment those sources don't even mention this game. Some of them are concerned with another game that involves the same drink and some of them are concerned with the drink itself. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as per WP:MADEUP. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 05:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 07:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete Sources do not back up what is stated. spryde \| talk 10:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] You would have to be joking if you think those sources for the most part dont back up what it said... this is beginning to look like a witch hunt, making up things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.94.180 (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I should not do this but what the hell, it is 6am and I am out of coffee... Ref 1. We don't use WP as a reference. Ref 2. No mention of goon, pouring stuff on your head, etc. Not relevant. Ref 3. No mention of goon, not a reliable source, not relevent. Ref 4. See 1 Ref 5. Not a reliable source. Relevant but not verifiable. Based on the above, I stand by my comment. Allow me to go comment on the other 'Goon' AfD... spryde \| talk 11:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hahah then we better close this place up, because a great deal of entries have the same faults with them! The fact is a goon shower is a word used by people, not a 'friends' thing, its a word used by a reasonable amount of people. Hell on the advice of a friend Ive even added origins to Spain, which is legitimate. This seems like nitpicking what is a great entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.94.180 (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Reply this goon shower business is making me excited. ever heard of a golden shower? is this sort of the frat boy equivalent? basically your entry is lame as is. if you're certain this article belongs, why not listen to the feedback you've received and make the necessary changes in order to establish its legitimacy? no sense in defending yourself against spryde when the claims are true. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability to start with. This should have been reviewed before the article was listed because it helps avoid situations like this. the time you've spent trying to negate editors and their arguements should be spent either fixing this article or finding a new subject that would be culturally/intellectually suitable. If you want this article to be a keep do your reading, make the changes, and stop being silly. True theory 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. per above. (also, it's boring)True theory 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Made up, unreferenced, all of the above... - Eron^Talk 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Standard issue frat boy drivel. - Richfife 16:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up at four in the morning in the frat house under the influence of far too much alcohol and other intoxicants. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Tony Fox. JavaTenor 14:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, there are no reliable sources to back this article up. Pastordavid 21:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The problem with this 'source' argument is that many articles listed here have even less sources or worse yet, NONE, yet they aernt deleted. While because this is a relatively new term, so its difficult to source, we make an exception to the rule and decide to delete it (mind you the related concepts HAVE been sourced, any disputing this is jus ridiculous). Im seeing a distinct lack of consistency here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.94.180 (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wayne Hoffman[edit] Wayne Hoffman (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Delete I really don't think Wayne Hoffman is notable enough to get a page. He ony appeared on a reality show, he didn't make it close to the end, and he has no appearances elsewhere. The only thing on the page is that he was on the show, which can be seen on the show's page. --Crazy4metallica 03:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Assertion of notability very weak. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Not notable per BIO. - Rjd0060 04:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: The page was started by Wayne Hoffman himself and most of the contributions were done by him (and someone who seems associated with him) and the tone was very promotional. I took out everything that was unreferenced which left the page as it is now. I agree that the notability is weak and since the page was only set up for promotion by Hoffman (and no other contributions have been made) i agree it should be deleted. harlock_jds 12:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Yep, I'm with the pack on this one. -- Mike (Kicking222) 03:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was snowball delete - hoax Grutness...wha? 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Winnie the Pooh (1953 film)[edit] Winnie the Pooh (1953 film) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This appears to be a hoax. No such film is listed on imdb.com, or in any film reference book I've checked. Google search reveals nothing. Cast list is a dead giveaway this article is just a joke. Hal Raglan 02:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete This isn't relevant. Simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp75motorsports (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete It doesn't appear to be a real movie. Both IMDB links lead to either Alice in Wonderland or Peter Pan. --Crazy4metallica 03:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Hoax. Deor 03:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as hoax. No supporting references anywhere. --DAJF 03:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per above. The article was actually created with an unreferenced tag. Zagalejo^^^ 04:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Hoax. - Rjd0060 04:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 07:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. This isn't a real movie. I get nothing on Google about it, nothing on imdb, and no mention on A.A. Milne's imdb page. So yeah, a delete. According to that same page, the first motion picture made of Pooh was made in 1966. Doc Strange 17:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] DELETE hopefully someone will black list User:Blacknack111 for creating this hoax not very appreciated!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggrfan (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:SNOWBALL -- clearly a hoax. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Nahunta, Georgia. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Raybon, Georgia[edit] Raybon, Georgia (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Failed PROD (Neverpitch removal). Original PROD note: No claim of notability. From what I've found via a quick web search, Raybon isn't a town in and of itself, but a suburb or community within Nahunta. While a city in and of itself would be a speedy keep, AfDing as it could be mentioned in the Nahunta article. Collectonian 02:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] So why go through this deletion process? Just redirect it to Nahunta, Georgia.--Neverpitch 03:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge and redirect to Nahunta, Georgia. Powers ^T 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I have to agree - Raybon is an unincorporated community and is really not notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. While some unincorporated communities are okay on Wikipedia (Waynesville, Georgia because ZIP Code 31566 is 'Waynesville, Georgia'), Raybon has no ZIP code, it is definitely not a city or a town, and it is not a notable community. Merge and redirect to Nahunta, Georgia. Jaxfl 03:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge and Redirect the page: Next time, please be bold if you feel comfortable. - Rjd0060 04:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect Done Redirected to Nahunta. I looked like hell and there does not appear to be anything notable about this locale. Since it doesn't appear to be a place according to the census bureau, the boldness was appropriate. spryde \| talk 10:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete and move here (disambiguation) to here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Here[edit] Here (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This page is a dictionary definition with some generally irrelevant fluff added, the type that could be written about any word. I don't see much potential for expansion, and think that the legitimate parts of the article can be dealt with concisely at Here (disambiguation). It should be deleted, and the disambiguation page moved here to replace it. To expand on the above... the entire "In science" and "In Religion and philosophy" sections should probably be removed even if the article is kept. The etymology and further cogitation on the meaning of "here" have some merit as sections, if the article as a whole was deemed worthy of keeping... but I'm not convinced that this is a word with a history (and hence, encyclopedic content) like Truthiness, and articles are generally supposed to have more than just usage instructions. I think that most of it can be handled at deixis/deitic expression, and hence I've linked the term in the intro at Here (disambiguation), along with referencing the Old English roots and adding to the See also section. SnowFire 02:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or usage guide. Powers ^T 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Move Here (disambiguation) here (where?). I just mean that this here page would be a good place to have a disambiguation page here. Are were clear? --W.marsh 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Obviously falls under WP:NOT. Maybe redirect to the dab page?? - Rjd0060 04:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete and move in the dab page, per all. — Swpb^talk.edits 05:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Here (disambiguation). Or, as suggested, move that page to here. This has the link to wikitionary, and also to deixis. I was going to suggest that, but then noticed it's already there. Thanks. Drmaik 05:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. This article has been the subject of at least one previous deletion discussion, based on essentially the same concern. Here is one of the core items of the English lexicon, and poses grammatical and usage issues that go beyond what a dictionary can cover. Note that we do not yet have an article on place deixis, but what we have here is a start. - -- Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. If you think there's anything worth merging from this article to the deixis article, then an alternate suggestion could be to move the current Here to Here (word), and then redirect that to deixis. That way, the GFDL will be preserved and all. However, I do still think that this topic would be better covered at the deixis article than here, and deixis is linked right in the first line of the disambiguation page. -- SnowFire (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect or merge I agree with User:Drmaik here (no pun intended) on the redirect. Here does not need its own page. I suggest it be merged into a kinda hybrid between here and there or into a section within the article location. Beast of traal T C _ 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Khazid'hea[edit] Khazid'hea (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Another Neverpitch PROD removal. Original PROD note: Non-notable fictional object. This is another article, primarily in-universe, about a weapon in a game. Lacks notability and references. At best, belongs in an article on Forgotten Realms weapons with a short summary. Collectonian 02:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. More disruptive and irrational deletionism.--Neverpitch 03:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)— Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. While the rationale was different on this one, Neverpitch is mass voting on over 25 AFD's as a keep using the same rationale. vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT[reply] Delete: Non notable. I guess it could be merged into the appropriate Dungeons & Dragons area, but if it isn't, I won't lose any sleep. - Rjd0060 04:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete How is this nomination disruptive? The weirdness of the name should make searching for sources easy. I just did, found nothing beyond a handful of fansites, and the vast majority of these only mention it in passing anyway. AnteaterZot 10:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. A detailed in-universe plot description without any third-party reliable sources does not an encyclopedic article make. — pd_THOR ^{\| =/\=} \| 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Faerûn[edit] Faerûn (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Tagged as lacking notability for a month. Primarily in-universe article that has no notability on its own. Collectonian 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong keep. Perfectly valid subarticle of Forgotten Realms. Powers ^T 03:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong keep. This has to be the third most notable Forgotten Realms article, right after "Forgotten Realms" and "Drizzt Do'Urden."--Neverpitch 03:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Merge: Somewhere, and delete (or redirect) the article. It really isn't notable outside the game view, so it should be incorporated in one of those articles. - Rjd0060 04:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] "Attack removed"--Neverpitch 04:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] That isn't a nice thing to say to somebody who disagrees with you. Its also a personal attack, which clearly demonstrates your understanding of policy here. - Rjd0060 05:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Oh, I understand policy all right; I'm just not a mindless conformist.--Neverpitch 06:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Please note that I do not condone the striking out of my comments. If you find them striken out, know that it was not my doing, and that I continue to stand by them.--Neverpitch 06:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Personal attacks don't do our position on this AfD any favors. Powers ^T 12:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as a pretty high-level concept in a widely noted, longstanding cultural interest. I'm well aware that "but other stuff exists" is on the list of no-no arguments, but I really can think of dozens of articles less important than this one. How many books have to be published in a setting, spanning how many years, before it becomes noteworthy? Given the wide array of source material, I have little doubt this article can be maintained and upkept. That said, Northwest Faerûn might be a bit much. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep most notable gaming universe setting MLA 10:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep This is probably the single most famous Dungeons & Dragons world. Hundreds of novels and books, by many notable authors, have been written about it. It is widely-acknowledged among those who follow fantasy fiction as one of the largest, in terms of pages of source material, fictional worlds ever created. —Lowellian (reply) 10:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong keep, article needs improvement, not deletion. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, notable. There are enough sources out there for this one, someone just needs to take the time and add them to the article. No reason for deletion. User:Krator (t c) 13:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, per all other keep votes. BOZ 15:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The setting for approximately a gazillion notable novels and video games, and probably the best-known area in the whole gigantic D&D universe. Pinball22 15:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - possibly the most written about fictional universe in existence, or at least in the top three. Ben W Bell talk 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - and snowball close; there is no chance of this topic getting deleted with the current sampling. Article needs cleanup and better sourcing, but it's hugely notable; no problems for which there aren't remedies. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - The length of time something has been tagged for notability has no relevance to whether or not it should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't working under a deadline. In-universe content can be fixed, so this isn't a valid reason for deletion either. While I understand that notability isn't inherited, breaking subtopics of articles about notable subjects into their own articles is often useful. Rray 06:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - per all above. The article needs to be improved. Web Warlock 13:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —Powers ^T 13:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With respect to the nominator, many of the editors here do believe that it is notable and that the notability is derived from reliable sources. Troubling material can be re-worded and improved to sound more encylopedic to address the concerns. Seraphim ^Whipp (Non-admin closure) 15:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Pirates versus Ninjas[edit] Pirates versus Ninjas (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Article is unsalvageablely unencylopedic. Text is entirely conjecture about a nonnotable internet meme. Sets unreasonable standard for other topics on Wikipedia. Cumulus Clouds 02:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep and Improve The "Pirate vs" Ninja"-conflict is a very well known and often referenced internet meme. The article definitly needs improvement though. ~ Felcis 03:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Alright, well, in that case put it in Internet Meme or Meme or put a single line into Pirate or Ninja that explains this was once a catchphrase. Having an entire article dedicated to what can essentially be reduced to a one sentence explanation is damaging to the value of all other articles on this encyclopedia. Cumulus Clouds 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Arrr You mean that, by their mere presence, pirates and ninjas will invisibly permeate every other article in the Wikipedia? All two million of them? That truly is Awesome Power! Colonel Warden 08:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. All Things Considered and Wired are reliable third-party sources. Powers ^T 03:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep and Improve The topic definitely seems notable enough to have a page, but it needs some serious improvement. --Crazy4metallica 04:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] In reference to this article's notability, I'd like to point out that the only pages that link to it are from other articles "see also" sections, which tends to refute the idea that this cliche needs its own article. Cumulus Clouds 23:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak Keep: Barely notable. Needs a whole lot of work. If it remains in this condition, and another AfD starts down the road, I'll say delete. - Rjd0060 04:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete; Internet memes need more than a couple mentions to achieve real-world notability. Article is seriously deficient. Seems to attempt to describe a neologism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardish (talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] To quote from National Public Radio: "... the pirate vs. ninja debate (PvN for short) which has engaged the Internet in a world wide war for at least a decade, maybe more ..." Not exactly a neologism. Powers ^T 12:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete or merge with the PvP article; if it has notability, it seems to be contained as an in-joke kind of thing to fans of the comic. VZG 06:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hardly; PvP is referencing the larger meme. Powers ^T 12:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep This is quite notable and has become more so since Pirates of the Carribean and International Talk Like a Pirate Day. Colonel Warden 15:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Those things are relevant to Pirates, but they express only a tenuous relation to the article in question and do so only by way of the word Pirates. Cumulus Clouds 02:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Needs cleanup, but worth keeping, especially with things like the Pirates vs Ninjas Dodgeball game coming out. aeonite —Preceding comment was added at 16:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] In the event the Keep vote is overwhelmed or ignored, I would recommend rolling this content into the Pirates_Vs._Ninjas_Dodgeball article, since that too has a dearth of content and both pages would benefit from the inclusion of the other. aeonite 08:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep it's an internet meme, but it's a notable internet meme Doc Strange 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The "Pirates vs Ninjas" meme may be notable, but it doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article for it since there's nothing else you can say about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumulus Clouds (talk • contribs) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Appears to pass muster for notability. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Notable or not, there's no way to expand this article without making it a list dedicated solely to references in popular culture (which composes the bulk of it now anyway). There is a serious lack of research and news sources which would be citeable in this instance and so it would be nearly impossible to ever bring this article out of stub-class. Cumulus Clouds 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep and Improve The extent of this debate alone should indicate that there is enough interest in keeping the entry. If people are looking for information on it, then let them find it. Plenty of more offensive articles out there. Could definitely be cleaned up and improved, however, no argument there. --Mansquito 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note that I have recently added some citations to the article, hopefully improving it. aeonite 20:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep as notable Internet meme. Rray 00:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete I don't know anything about the PvN except from the Facebook application. In any case, I am sceptical about the composition and very doubtful about the relevance of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.241.166 (talk • contribs) I'll give it a month and then I'm resubmitting this nomination. -- Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] You'd need to find some better reasons. See WP:DEADLINE and WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete--no reliable sources, lots of unsourced claims/original research (such as the "Why pirates and ninjas?" section). If not deleted, it should be trimmed to keep only the sourced material and stubbed. I don't even see sourcing for the article's premise in its lead. Robert K S (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. All Things Considered and Wired are reliable third-party sources. Powers ^T 03:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeonite (talk • contribs) [reply] But all of the sources you're quoting only say that "Pirates v. Ninjas is a meme." Eliminating everything else makes this article one sentence long and that's hardly something worth keeping. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] My purpose in citing this was merely to point out LtPowers' statement that offered a counterpoint to this one. The argument here wasn't what those sources said, only that they weren't reliable. Which LtPowers believes (and I agree) is false. The content of the sources is another issue. aeonite (talk) Also if you're the "Michael "Aeon" Fiegel" that wrote the article in the first reference, my understanding of WP:OR is that you aren't allowed to cite your own work on Wikipedia to advance your own viewpoint. I'm open to other intepretations on that, but it just seems a little shady to me. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I am. The link in question (to Hobotrashcan) was one of two to that site that was already on the page, not put there by me. However, I chose the wrong one - the one I meant to cite was the first one, to which my article was a counterpoint. I will make the correction (in my eyes) now and if reversion is decided upon then I accept that. aeonite (talk) Just for reference, I think WP:OR#Citing_oneself covers this, and the issue would seem to be not be my (mistaken, now corrected) self-citation but whether HoboTrashCan is considered a "reliable publication." I have no opinion on that matter though I suspect the general consensus would be mixed. aeonite (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Definite keep. I came to wiki looking for Pirates vs. Ninjas because they sell PvN toys even, and wanted to know what it was about. Important article. javin (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.85.195 (talk • contribs) How could this article have explained anything to you that wouldn't have intuitively occured already? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Definite delete. I came here just out of curiosity, assuming if it had a wiki page, it must have some interesting content. The content currently is essentially, "some guy on the internet wondered which are cooler, pirates or ninjas". The page has absolutely no content. If you feel so strongly about keeping it, please fill in more info - reference these PvN toys, talk about the facebook game, and fill it in with pictures. As it is now, though, a page that says "pirates vs ninjas is an internet phenomenon" is just a worthless stub, and dilutes WP. Lenrodman (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Michael Bullock[edit] Michael Bullock (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Nom - previously speedied, unsourced, non-notable regional kick boxer. Rklawton 02:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: I don't see any assertion of notability. - Rjd0060 04:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Looks CSDA7 to me, but delete the slow way this time 'round, so we can CSDG4 the next... Pete.Hurd 05:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - CSD does not apply as it asserts notability (champion of sport). Delete as there are very few references and none appear to be reliable. spryde \| talk 10:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] comment Fair enough, the claim may save it from CSDA7, but I'm also sticking with non-notable. The league he's Canadian featherweight champion in ("World Kickboxing League") is a redlink, casting some shadow on of notability of the title. Googling for -"World Kickboxing League" "Michael Bullock"- [38] yields 2 ghits: the wikipedia article at issue, and a mirror of the article at tamilmovies.net (!?). Googling -"World Kickboxing League" "Mike Bullock"- [39] returns zero ghits. Pete.Hurd 18:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Not disagreeing with you. Just pointing out why the CSD would be declined :-D spryde \| talk 19:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Aye, and I'm not disagreeing with your non-disagreement, just thought I'd give it another look in light of the claim of notability (that I somehow missed the first time out) and report back with a subsequent comment. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - has anyone noticed that the unsourced "World Kickboxing League" doesn't list a Super-featherweight division? Also, deleted versions of this article indicates he achieved these accomplishments at the age of 14. Rklawton 20:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I googled "World Kickboxing League" but one of the links rudely resized my browser and blared extremely badly recorded heavymetal out my speakers (I've since been in a heavy rotation of Black Sabbath trying to recover). Perhaps you could post a link to the site, so that others don't go wherever I did. I did notice that this is the only article on en.wikipedia to include the string "World Kickboxing League" (there's a userpage and a list of martial arts organizations with a redlink for WKL on jp.wikipedia), so no AfD for the organization's page. Pete.Hurd 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Delete and protect. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 2 Much[edit] 2 Much (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Nom - speeded once already; fails WP:BAND. Rklawton 01:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Per nom (doesn't meet BAND). - Rjd0060 04:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: I got a little turned around on this one... It almost meets criteria 6 for ensembles in WP:BAND. But criteria 6 applies to members of the group... not founders and managers. Might meet criteria 11 because of the single on TRL and BET? -- Swerdnaneb 07:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, unless the article can be expanded with proper sourcing. Band does indeed fail WP:MUSIC, as far as I can determine after looking through google for a while. With only one album and no charts, it seems that criteria #1 and #11 are their best shots, but I can't find anything to satisfy either of those. If they release a 2nd album, they might be able to make a case, if Music World Music is a major indie label. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. If deleted then salt; it has been speedy'd three times already, and has had numerous contributors, anon and logged-in. On the other hand, perhaps that suggests fame? Rigadoun (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] comment Perhaps, but as WP:N specifies, "The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. This concept is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - @pple complain 05:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Paella king[edit] Paella king (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) WP:OR article about non-notable, unsourced paella competition. Also, WP:COOKBOOK. Hús ö nd 01:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Per the nom reason and all of those tags on the page (all of which I completely agree with). - Rjd0060 05:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: impressively unimportant non-notable topic with a nice recipe. docboat 13:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Looks like a hoax. --DAJF 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Ditto of Rjd0060 -- Signed by Wolvereness^{t c} 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Event fails WP:Notable and recipes should be placed in the Wikicookbook, not on Wikipedia as per WP:COOKBOOK.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 02:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Judytwoshoes[edit] Judytwoshoes (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Completely unreferenced article about a band. The bass player of the band was named "Bill Jackson" and the creator of the article is Wiljaxon so there may be a conflict of interest here. On the face of it, this fails WP:MUSIC. A google search for "Judytwoshoes" brings forth a large number of hits...none of which are this band. A search for "Judytwoshoes" and "Judie Burton" (the lead singer) garners a single hit, this article. IrishGuy ^talk 01:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wiljaxon writes: May I point out that the period we are talking about is 1978-early 80´s - therefore an internet search can be expected to give meagre results - especially considering the provincial nature of the music scene at that time. Having said that, there is some evidence, rather than nothing at all, put there by little known record companies. View the links that I mention on this page. The conflict of interest I believe does not really apply here because of the passage of time. I don´t believe in self-promotion or egotism, just putting the record straight. Or in this case, making a record at all! Far more notable than Judytwoshoes itself at that time was the Bristol music scene generally. Perhaps that is worthy of a page in Wikipedia, but then someone more authoritative than myself (ie music entrepreneur/producer) should write it. Yes I am new to Wikipedia but then ´we´ are invited to make pages! So there you are! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiljaxon (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wiljaxon writes: Yes I was involved but anyone is welcome to dispute the facts and edit the article. Wiljaxon writes: I have found ´internet´ proof that Judytwoshoes existed here: http://www.sugarshackrecords.co.uk/diary/history.htm Unfortunately they printed on the programme (from 1979) what a lot of people did in those days, namely ´Judy Two Shoes´, which is not how the band was ´marketed´. Wiljaxon writes: The motive for contributing this article is ´historical´. There is no attempt at advertising or self -promotion - we are talking about a ´phenomena´ that was extant almost 30 years ago! The Bristol music scene at that time was very active (and exciting) and reference has been made to other bands who were around at the time. It is unreferenced, that is because the article is new. It takes time to track things down, speak to people, and get them involved. Wiljaxon writes: Sorry to repeat myself, but maybe the reason is here: http://www.sugarshackrecords.co.uk/diary/history.htm Wiljaxon writes: It is true to say that compared with ´Blondie´ for example that the band was obscure. But on the other hand it was seen by hundreds if not thousands of people, as were the other local bands at the time. Also, I would not expect anyone to find a reference, on the ´internet´ to Judytwoshoes or any of the other bands of that time. I was surprised to find http://www.sugarshackrecords.co.uk/bands.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiljaxon (talk • contribs) Delete per nom. I also notice that the article seems to be serving a dual purpose as an image/sound gallery, which is currently taking up more room than the article itself. Green451 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wiljaxon writes: The motive was not to create an ´image or sound gallery´ - the pictures and sound files are there to complement the text. A good case could be made for reducing the number of files and photos, adding captions etc. But I think it would be a shame if this tiny bit of history should be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiljaxon (talk • contribs) Delete: Non notable and no ref's. - Rjd0060 05:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. and Green451. Not notable. JohnCD 12:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete eminently NN Mayalld 13:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom, unless reliable sources can be produced to verify notability per guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Unless reliable sources are produced to prove notability -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kimona (Naruto)[edit] Kimona (Naruto) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Hoax. Non-existent character in the Naruto series. As it is nothing more than fan-fiction, it fails WP:FICT, WP:V, and WP:MADEUP. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - obvious hoax. Doceirias 01:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Just a Mary Sue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.197.253 (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete and salt. This is the second one of these I've seen. Katsuhagi 01:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. The outcome of this AfD is obvious and there is not need to go through process for process's sake. See also WP:IAR. --Farix (Talk) 02:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: If you hadn't added the IAR link I would say it isn't SNOW because CSD specifically says no matter how obvious a hoax, doesn't apply. - Rjd0060 05:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I think you need to reread WP:SNOW, which states, "If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." Do you seriously think that this will result in any other outcome besides delete? You will also notice that I didn't cite any of the CSD because none of them apply (even though I think it should be included as one for something this obvious). --Farix (Talk) 12:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Well, I do know that SNOW is not part of policy. I do know that IAR is "policy" and BTW, I mean't no harm by the comment. So, relax. - Rjd0060 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Most of the official secondary characters in this series already have rather limited notability, but it's a hell of a lot more than most (if not all) fan characters. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] it's known out there... oh right delete with extreme prejudice Circeus 02:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete-- it's like they didn't even try to hide that they copy-pasted it. IzzyFerret 03:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Sasuke is not a notable - er, I mean, Kimona is fanfiction and we've always burned those with fire unless there was a lot of 3rd party interest in the fanfiction. --Gwern (contribs) 04:15 14 November 2007 (GMT) Delete: Per above. - Rjd0060 05:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete this has been seen before, although I can't remember the exact name; a hoax article that C&Ps from Sasuke Uchiha and doesn't even bother to change the kana for his name. The user should be blocked as a sockpuppet. JuJube 08:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps you're thinking of this AfD? That was just more of a case of copying the infobox, not the whole article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Missiles locked (delete) per WP:NOT, WP:V, and Hoax. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - get rid of this crapola. --MimiSard 13:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Wiki is not place for self-made fanfiction/game characters. Yakuzakyuu 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete For reasons already stated. -72.70.50.251 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete and strike with Chidori and or Rasengan This is a hoax. No such character. The fact that there are no images on this article makes it even more obvious.DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete and salt per all comments said above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete as per nom. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. (Duane543 17:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC))[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 02:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Poemedy[edit] Poemedy (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Unencyclopedic content Zginder 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong delete: The article describes a word that appears to be either made up or in such uncommon usage that it might as well be. A Google search for it reveals 95 uses of the word on the entire Internet, a pretty good indicator of a complete lack of notability. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - transwiki to wiktionary if it's not already there - it';s more their thing than ours by a long way. Note: It would have been useful if the nominator had actually given a reason for the nomination, rather than just adding his/her sig. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Move to Wiktionary Per Grutness. --Astroview120mm 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:NEO Skomorokh ^incite 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Very Strong Delete it sounds like a "made up" or less than common word of use. It may be a regional based word?Jayson 02:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: If I didn't strongly believe it was a hoax, I would say TransWiki. - Rjd0060 05:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. More sources needed, anyway. - @pple complain 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Elias Wen[edit] Elias Wen (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Oldest living clergyman in the Orthodox church doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Especially not as a former title. Smashville^BONK! 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] keep. A person who lived 110 years is certainly my be as notable as the fattest people in the world. BTW, clearly satisfies WP:BIO: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." `'Míkka >t 00:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a sufficient keep argument. Secondly, where are the independent secondary sources? There is one google news hit (which he is not the primary focus) and his paid obituary. Virtually every person that dies has an obituary like that. --Smashville^BONK! 00:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Conditional keep. If he fits into the scope of Oldest people and/or List of centenarians, then keep it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Per Dennis. Needs sources, appears notable. - Rjd0060 05:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] That's the point...there don't seem to be any sources because he doesn't seem to be notable. --Smashville^BONK! 20:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] My impression is that a lifespan of >100 years is unto itself notable. I could be wrong, granted, but is there any precedent that we have in either direction? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] According to the centenarian article, there are 450,000 worldwide. --Smashville^BONK! 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yow, that's a lotta people. Still, as it's conditional, my !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, as per nom. Are we going to have articles on the tallest, shortest and best pinochle playing Russian clergymen? Noroton 00:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] '"Keep The oldest living person in a notable occupation is probably notable, and the sources seem to show others think so. DGG (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Mikka. Rray 00:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Withdraw Nom...I can see the way this is headed...although I'm a bit disappointed...as I mentioned...I can't find any sources to verify any of the claims made...but...it seems that being really old is considered enough to meet WP:BIO --Smashville^BONK! 16:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 02:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jack Travers[edit] Jack Travers (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Notability still unestablished and article has no references at all. Tagged since April 2007. Hammer1980·^talk 00:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete no sources available. Epbr123 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete nn. `'Míkka >t 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: No reliable sources (or any for that matter) to verify notability. - Rjd0060 05:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The subject may well be notable, but there is not enough data to judge. My own research turns up nothing of note on Google. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 05:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 05:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Presume unnotable " there is not enough data to judge" Victuallers 09:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Even if sources were available, the mentioned facts do not establish notability (a book ranking 500,000 in sales on Amazon is not really that high at all). --Crusio 10:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak delete: He does seem to have written a book as per this but that is the only one of his books that I could find. Not sure if he is sufficiently notable by publishing just one book. Does not seem to pass the Basic and Additional criteria (for Creative Professionals) requirements of WP:BIO. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete falls far short of WP:BIO:Creative professionals, one book does not amount to the standard implied by "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." No reliable secondary sources provided with Jack Travers as subject, and no assertion of notability. Pete.Hurd 18:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete...notability claim is that he wrote a book and it was once in the top 500,000...? Can you imagine how many things would be notable if being in the top 500,000 was the threshold? --Smashville^BONK! 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator withdrew. Notability proven (being the oldest naturalized US citizen is apparently notable). - @pple complain 05:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Consuelo Moreno-López[edit] Consuelo Moreno-López (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Article has existed in stub form for over 2 years. No assertion of notability and no sources. Smashville^BONK! 00:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete, although people living >100 years are potentially notable, there is not enough evidence that she was widely noted, i.e., fails WP:BIO. `'Míkka >t 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Too little context to assert notability (other than the 100+ age). - Rjd0060 05:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: If what this says is true, then the oldest person to become a naturalized U.S. citizen is definitely notable. This needs to be verified and mentioned in the article though -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - The length of time an article has been a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Lack of sources is also not a valid reason for deletion. (It's the impossibility of finding and adding sources that's a valid deletion reason.) Amarrg has demonstrated that a valid source can be found. Rray 00:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Withdraw Nom. Apparently by the results of the other AfDs...being really old is enough to be included on Wikipedia. --Smashville^BONK! 16:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of references in Against the Day[edit] List of references in Against the Day (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) One big piece of original research: someone have read the book and collected various references to various bizarrely unrelated things: from historical events to unusual words. IMO a glaring example of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. `'Míkka >t 00:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as WP:OR and merge any useful info. to the book's page. JJL 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - This article was previously nominated for deletion and the result of that discussion was Keep. Cumulus Clouds 03:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment on comment. I reviewed the argument there and my objection still stands: no evidence provided that some reputable scholar undertook this kind of trivia-minig in this book, hence this is OR, of unconfirmed importance/notability, too. `'Míkka >t 03:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment; What is this article meant to be? Is it just a list of topics mentioned in a book, or is there some significance to this randomness that has been well-hidden by the editors of the list? Masaruemoto 04:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] As I understand this, this list was clipped out of the main article, just like it was done with various lists of trivia or "cultural references". BTW both trivia and "culturefs" are being mercilessly deleted from wikipedia now. `'Míkka >t 04:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: It is still OR. - Rjd0060 05:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete; Unless there is some significant connection between Oscar Wilde, Tetris, Dynamite, and Siberia that I don't know about, this is a list of loosely associated topics. Masaruemoto 05:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete and merge: As per WP:OR and merge any relevant content back to the book article -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 16:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Katarina Lilja[edit] Katarina Lilja (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This was sitting on prod but I think it needs a few more eyes before it should be deleted. The referenced band has a pretty comprehensive Wikipedia page as well as many of the other band members. theProject 01:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete: I think this subject is covered well enough in the bands page. I wouldn't object to a redirect though. - Rjd0060 05:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Therion (band), because her name is a plausible search term. Bláthnaid 13:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Speedy Deleted. Article appears to have been deleted multiple times and salted against recreation, all on 16 November. As the article is already deleted, I am closing this debate as a non-admin closure. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 05:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Faceviet[edit] Faceviet (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Taken from the expired prod category but I'm not sure it should be deleted immediately. Page appears to be about a near-clone of Facebook. theProject 17:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete No restrictions on later recreation. This thing could end up with a million Vietnamese users next year for all we know. Google has 55 hits, so for English Wikipedia its just not notable yet. No news hits in the archives or current news. And yes, its an apparent layout clone. Not that it matters for us and our purposes, but I didn't know Facebook was open source. • Lawrence Cohen 18:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 Angry Men (play)

The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn) Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12 Angry Men (play)[edit]

Pointless article, everything is already stated in 12 Angry Men. Delete. Fangz the Wolf 16:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notable, since it came before the film. Doc Strange 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a movie is based on it doesn't make it less notable... was famous before the movie and continues to be performed as/read as literature as a play. Pinball22 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. The article is in PROD, it should not be here in AfD. Nonetheless, keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep don't be silly. Artw 18:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Extremely notable play. The presence of an article about one of the film adaptations is irrelevant. However, I do reccomend changing the film article title to 12 Angry Men (film) and making the play the main and initial article on this subject. 23skidoo 18:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I realize and understand the importance of this play, but this article doesn't really touch it. It touches the 1997 adaption film more than anything. It should be expanded or deleted. Fangz the Wolf 18:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be expanded Get typing then. Lugnuts 18:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSE THIS Fangz the Wolf 18:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As above Maelwys 19:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words difficult to translate into French[edit]

Although it's an interesting subject, I am not convinced that it is encyclopedic, nor is it at all sourced. I believe it to be original research. Does the community agree? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree. Delete. shoy (^words _words) 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Difficult" is subjective. Delete as OR. GlassCobra 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. Definite original research. Rudget _zŋ 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current version. There is no criteria for inclusion on the list (making it WP:OR in my mind), and from my understanding of French at least some of the tranlsations are not problematic. There are also multiple versions of French throughout the world, some with greater capability to translate concepts. The lead itself mentions 'particular languages', not French and English, and there is no source for either why the words are difficult or the suggested translation. Further, wikipedia is not a dictionary and not an indiscriminate collection of information. If the list could be sourced as to why the translations are difficult, that page could be of merit but as is I don't see the page as eligible for wikipedia. WLU 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR violation...this is opinion Doc Strange 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found for every single entry. And really, this should be one entry in a list of English words difficult to translate into every language. Daniel Case 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR. Article would find it difficult to satisfy WP:V -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides all the problems others have noted, it violates (as currently written) "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook". EALacey 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as purely subjective. All words are difficult to translate unless you know the corresponding word/phrase in the other language, in which case it's easy. Nuttah68 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Translation all depend on our translation skill. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective OR. And where are the "fried apples"? -- But|seriously|folks 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting to think about but not encyclopedic. JJL 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supprime (I think that's French for Delete) for all of the well-stated reasons above. --Hnsampat 21:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. This is a subjective list, in fact, I think most advanced speakers of French would say that most of those words or terms are not all that difficult to translate. It is basically WP:OR, with no WP:RS, and no real way to WP:V the claim that they are difficult to translate. Ariel♥Gold 04:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. GRBerry 20:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 New Hampshire General Court Session[edit]

Violation of WP:NOT#INFO Delete This is a Secret ^account 16:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article fails WP:NOT#INFO 2.9.4 and does not seem to convey anything meaningful to the general reader -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional delete: The article as written doesn't even explain what it's about. It's possible that I may change to keep if both context and a claim to notability are added; both are currently lacking. Sarcasticidealist 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how douse listing the members of the New Hampshire legislature fall under WP:NOT#INFO it douse not have an faq, Plot summarie, Lyrics, or Statistics, it seems that your main argument is that since "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" you can discriminate against information you don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.40.211 (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't a list of all the members, it's how they voted on two laws, that's stats right there. This is a Secret ^account 15:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I hate to get rid of something that mentions Jeff Fontas (he's a buddy of mine that goes to school with me), this definitely fails WP:NOT#INFO. GlassCobra 06:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The article could use some work but it certainly does not fail WP:NOT, at least not under any understanding I have. The material herein is possibly very useful to a user and cannot be easily merged into another article. JodyB_talk 18:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is only about two votes on a report. I misread it above. JodyB_talk 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had to look quite hard to find that this was the NH legislature. The article might be converted to a proper list, with the names linked to articles on those concerned. However we already have categories for NH senators and NH representatives. These do not distinguish theose of the 2007 session from earlier ones, but the recent consensus has been against categories for "current senators" etc. because the categories become obsolete. I do not know whether all members of the General Court have (or even need) articles, but there might be merit in conversion to a proper list. In any event the voting columns need to be explained, and a brief introductory text provided. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demoniac Dance[edit]

non-notable book which has not even been written. Merkinsmum 16:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be notable in itself anyway, but not even written yet.Merkinsmum 16:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not even best-selling authors get wiki pages for books they haven't yet written. should be deleted immediately. Drunkenmonkey111 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as crystalballery. Once release information is out, if the author is notable, no prejudice to recreating the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JohnCD 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso Bonzo[edit]

Failed PROD; unnotable book that does not seem to stand on its own beyond having a "famous" author. Collectonian 16:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was a (spinoff-generating) TV series adapted from the book. Timeineurope 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable book and notable TV adaptation. Note that notable doesn't mean that it has to be very famous or have a major impact on children's literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Connolly (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above. I remember this when growing up. 82.153.19.100 21:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, I remember the TV show when I was young. Lugnuts 08:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, I remember this and I imagine most UK-based people of a certain age would too. I seem to recall a catchy theme tune as well...? Richard of York 20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Menzoberranzan. Interested editors may want to evaluate further if and what content is worthwile to merge. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bregan D'aerthe[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Little is written about this chracter outside of its universe, so too few substantial secondary sources are available to write a sustainable, verifiable WikiPedia article on this subject. Mikeblas 16:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 16:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course, the nominator might want to read the article he's nominating, since the first line clearly indicates that it's a fictional group, as opposed to a fictional character. One could suspect a cut-and-paste nomination here. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Are nominations with typos inherently invalid? If so, let me know and I'll open another AfD for this article as the subject remains non-notable, despite my error. -- Mikeblas 02:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Procedural errors do not negate the intent of an action. Jay32183 05:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Menzoberranzan with some significant trimming and referencing. Pinball22 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Merge to Menzoberranzan would be adequate, I think. Also an admonition to Mikeblas to at least try to get the details of an article correct when nominating it for deletion. Powers ^T 23:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Menzoberranzan also has no secondary sources, merging solves nothing. Jay32183 01:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. A current lack of secondary sources doesn't necessarily mean that such sources don't exist... Menzoberranzan has appeared in sufficiently many books that it's likely to be sourceable. Pinball22 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it does mean that the article should be aggressively deleted, WP:PROVEIT. No sources in the article and no sources existing makes no difference to some one reading the article. If sources exist, go get them. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. Jay32183 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Menzoberranzan as suggested above. Secondary sources are not necessary for every element of an otherwise referenced work, as primary sources (the texts themselves) do exist for the already-established topic. Merging accomplishes this without loss of information. ◄Zahakiel► 04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My point against the merger is that neither article has secondary sources. Both should be deleted, merging is a waste of time and effort. Jay32183 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is an issue for another AfD; as long as Menzoberranzan exists, this article is suitable for a merger with it. If you would like to add Menzoberranzan to this discussion, there are avenues for that, although you're likely going to run into a Faerun situation. Until and unless that happens, the merger proposal is quite valid. ◄Zahakiel► 05:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it isn't. Not all AFDs have to happen at once, and you need to learn to recognize what articles meet the requirements. You never merge articles when the result is something that will have to be deleted. The deletion of that article may not be up for discussion here, but the appropriateness of a merger is. The merge is inappropriate and a waste of time. The merger is simply an attempt to save content not worth saving. Jay32183 14:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you wish to instruct me in the art of AfDing, you'll need to cite some policy that says, "You never merge articles when the result is something that will have to be deleted," and then you also need to support that by showing me where your objective evidence is that this will even be the case. I've never seen such a statement. The "content not worth saving" comment is also simply your opinion, and one that has not been supported in the least by the precedent set by previous and frequent AfDs of this kind of material (and see a couple very recent examples here and here. While we aren't to keep articles just because others exist (i.e., WP:WAX) there is something to be said for repeated examples of consensus. So then, please do not confuse your current inclinations with the way things are done on this website; that, not mergers, not even AfDs, is a waste of energy. You assume one article "should be deleted" and then claim that merging this one into it will be a waste of time... that's an overt attempt to circumvent established process. ◄Zahakiel► 15:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Content not worth saving is not an opinion. There are zero reliable sources for real world context. By definition the content is not acceptable for Wikipedia. The only thing that matters in this discussion is whether there are reliable secondary sources to provide real world context. If there are, keep; if there aren't, delete. There aren't, so this article should be deleted. Jay32183 23:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The statement "This article is not worth saving" is an opinion. I'm sorry if I somehow mis-spoke above or didn't make that clear enough. Now, you may think you're basing your opinion on facts, but it's an opinion, and one (as I said before) not currently supported by the majority of AfD contributing editors, including myself. Let's just leave it at that and see what happens in this case. ◄Zahakiel ► 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That is not an opinion. If you want this article saved you should not be contributing to Wikipedia. This article is in complete disregard for policy and guideline for no reason at all. You have no fact to back up anything your saying. There are no possible valid arguments for "keep" or "merge" because "unsourcable" is not a fixable issue. There are no sources for this or any article that it could be merged into. You also shouldn't be offended when people nominate article for AFD for failing inclusion criteria. "There are no sources but we should keep the article anyway" is what you're claiming, and it is the worst argument one can present in an AFD. Merging won't make this problem go away. The problem needs to be fixed, not brushed aside. Jay32183 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the guidelines in WP:FICT into Menzoberranzan. Individual character does not seem to have established independent notability; the setting, otoh, looks to have been mentioned enough in reviews that notability can be established by someone with enough subject knowledge and time to do so. —Quasirandom 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per almost everyone else here. Rray 00:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no sensible reasons for keeping or merging. There are no primary sources that can be cited to verify the source of this article, so copying and pasting this article else where is just moving the problem of identifying the source of this article elsewhere. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability of this fictional group. Lastly, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT; this suggests to me that this article would be better of at fancruft.net.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as fairly comprehensive article about aspect of notable game. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete --JForget 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of stereotypical names[edit]

Unreferenced, no real assertion of notability, and little prospect of expansion to an encyclopaedic article. Jeodesic 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely original research, no clear inclusion criteria. shoy (^words _words) 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as original research. No citation of sources, and who is suppose to define a "stereotypical name"? Rudget _zŋ 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant OR -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's original research. Majoreditor 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. "Ect" is short for "Ectetera" Mandsford 00:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of the relatively few remaining lists on WP that actually does justify the label of "indiscriminate".DGG (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butchered From Inside[edit]

Nomination withdrawn with no other delete votes.

NN "hacker magazine" with no sourcing, no assertion of notability, and more pixels for logo than for text. The original author is clearly an committed editor, but I can't find any reliable sources (news or elsewhere) to vouch for this publication's notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I could go either way on this one. Given that its a somewhat niche market, I think the question is as much, is this group/site/publication notable within their community (e.g. hackers)? Stick their name in quotes and Google down on the English Google, and it seems borderline. Could this AfD remain open until a few Italian speakers can review this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butchered_From_Inside and some Italian Google/news research on the group? I have a feeling it will probably end as a delete anyway, but we don't have to be in any rush, really. • Lawrence Cohen 18:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for my benefit, doesn't this get tangled up in WP:LOCALFAME? Lots of NN things are notable among hackers. --- tqbf 18:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, as one of the authors and editors of the magazine, keep. May I point out that BFI is the first, foremost and most long-lived hacking e-zine in Italy, that it has published various paper editions, that it is being translated in English and in Spanish to overcome the language barrier, that is widely renown for being a difficult venue with criteria as stringent as Phrack (which in particular to the nominator are well-known :) ), and that some well known, published software such as KSTAT (Kernel Security Therapy Anti-Trolls) have been published and developed on it? --Raistlin 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite sources for those claims (the equivalence with Phrack, the recognition as "foremost hacking zine in Italy")?
Why are you editing an article about a small e-zine you edit? WP:COI.

Thanks for the response. --- tqbf 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:COI I exercised great caution :) and as you may see, other people edited the article, so evidently they don't find it too biased or wrong. You are correct, creating that article was one of my first edits on Wikipedia, today I would probably avoid it - still, as neutrally as I can, I find it totally reasonable even today. As for the recognition, I suppose I won't find easily any non-Italian sources to point out. The BFI staff has been interviewed a number of times by in-print media, I can probably find online or pdf versions of that if you want to establish notoriety. I can remember, for instance, a 2004 interview on "ICT Security", the only Italian printed magazine on, well, you may guess the topic... :) It is reproduced in txt format here [14]. Google search gives more than 1000 hits in the long form of the name, more than 500 by looking for BFI S0ftpj. I am pretty sure that any Italian wikipedian can crosscheck and verify notability. I will yield to your collective opinion, of course. --Raistlin 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: content from S0ftpj, tipically published on BFI, is cited in at least 4 books. [15] --Raistlin 22:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cited as "nice mag" on Phrack [16], cited on VX Heavens [17], and in mixed other archives such as [18] --Raistlin 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you get those into the WP article? I think we're converging on keep. --- tqbf 20:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, cross-check pls :) --Raistlin (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No-consensus --JForget 00:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystra (goddess)[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. This article is written in-universe. The character is not covered by substantial primary sources, so creating a sustainable wikipedia article will be impossible. Mikeblas 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup Lots of good information here, it just needs to be dramatically cleaned up to be presented from an out-of-universe pov Maelwys 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yet another nomination of a quite notable (though fictional) character. A Google search for the specific search object "Mystra D&D" returns 19,000 hits. While this is not a sure-fire test of notability, there's a lower-bound there somewhere, and I'm pretty sure it's below 19K on a very limiting text string. These are becoming quite routine, and nom. might do well to try to dialogue with members of this project before sending the next bale to AfD. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Google hits mean absolutely nothing because there is no guarantee that anything list is reliable or provides significant coverage. Significant coverage is a part of being notable and Google hits can't demonstrate that because it doesn't matter how much of the text is actually devoted to the topic if it's mentioned at least once. Jay32183 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Google hits do not mean "absolutely nothing;" they are simply not a guaranteed measure, which is what I said in my previous statement. No doubt, a lot (maybe even the majority) of those hits are fansites and forums, but it strains credibility to imagine for a moment that the many thousands of pages mentioning this character (remember, the 19,000 was only from one specific search term) do so only once or in passing. As I pointed out, there's a lower bound somewhere. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits are completely meaningless!! Fiond reliable sources or you have no point. Jay32183 01:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... your statement "Google hits are completely meaningless!!!" links to a page that says, and I quote, "using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is." That is, admittedly, used in a cautionary statement about their usefulness, (i.e., "no guarantee," which I've been saying all along anyway) but your choice of wiki-link was, well, disingenuous. I don't have any particular interest in this topic, so someone else will have to take up your challenge to WP:PROVEIT, but to say (however loudly) that this character has no notability is just silly. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate notability you need the guarantee. A subject is presumed notable when it has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. That has not been demonstrated in this case, therefore, the article should be deleted. Jay32183 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no; to carefully read the WP:N guideline, (and yes, it's a guideline) we find, "secondary sources [...] provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." In other words, Notability is not as black-and-white as you're making it out to be; several factors must be taken into account. A large amount of primary sourcing (and there are, indeed, such sources, namely the multiple books in which I believe this character appears) contributes a great deal toward depth of coverage and quality. I know you like the WP:PROVEIT button, but if your argument is about the "notability" of Mystra, there's some flexibility allowed, supported by strong precedent, that relegates your "the article should be deleted" position to a matter of opinion rather than policy. For the record, I think your opinion has merit as a general rule. I just happen to disagree with it in this particular case. ◄Zahakiel ► 05:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My issue isn't the "multiple" part, it's the "significant coverage" part. There is no significant coverage beyond plot summary, WP:PLOT. We don't disagree, you are wrong. Jay32183 14:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no... "plot summary" has nothing to do with character descriptions, and if you think I'm "wrong," then of course we disagree. ◄Zahakiel ► 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character descriptions are plot summaries if they can be sourced to just the story. It's a plot summary with a character specific slant. There needs to be real world information, and there needs to be sources for that information. No evidence for such sources existing has been provided. Disagreements are about opinions. I am not disagreeing with an opinion you have, I'm telling you that you are factually incorrect. Jay32183 23:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm disagreeing with you about that :) A plot summary is (...wait for it now...) a summary of a plot in a work of fiction. A character description, particularly when featured in more than one plot, is not a "plot summary." I'm just giving you definitions, and of course you're quite free to disagree with these particular facts. You can take it, you can leave it; it's not going to change the consensus that is being quite reasonably sustained against a small group of 3 or 4 editors who robotically seek out and vote "delete" regarding works like this. Since we're hardly talking about the subject of this article anymore, I'm just going to leave it here... but I wonder if you're going to learn anything from the continuing keep results or if you're just going to keep on plowing ahead. Time will tell. ◄Zahakiel ► 00:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you call it a plot summary or not. There is no real world context in the article, and there never will be because there aren't any sources. The reason all of the pages get deleted is that they are violation of every one of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Try reading WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:FIVE, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF rather than making up your own rules in an AFD. Jay32183 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, this is not something I'm going to argue with you about, because you're ripe for a soapbox at this point... but I am curious about something you just said. What are "all these pages" that you think are being deleted? As far as I can see, the fantasy articles routinely nominated by this particular nominator are almost as routinely kept, not deleted (I mean, seriously, the guy couldn't even see the problem with nominating Rincewind for AfD!). If I thought it'd make a difference to the agenda here, I would supply a large number of examples, but since we are assigning homework to each other, first let me point out that I never said there weren't any sources (and I have no intention of conceding that ridiculous point) and second I'd like you to take a look at WP:CONSENSUS. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing me with someone else -- I didn't nominate Rincewind for AfD. -- Mikeblas 16:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually. I'm talking about this statement here. I know you didn't make the nomination. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't have a valid reason to keep this article. You are hurting Wikipedia by being unwilling to delete unsourced articles. Jay32183 07:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, friend, it's okay to disagree about content in AfDs. It happens every day, but you're inching closer and closer to the WP:CIVIL line (specifically the rudeness example) by your statements that I am "hurting" Wikipedia by opposing your view, (the sky is not going to fall if you don't get your way) and more obviously that I "should not be contributing to Wikipedia" in another AfD in which we're both involved. Let's keep this about content, and if we have nothing further to say about that, let's keep it to ourselves, shall we? ◄Zahakiel ► 14:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no secondary sources to establish notability, that means the subject does not get an article. There is no opinion there. There is a fact and a logical conclusion. There is absolutely no reason to keep the article, unless you start talking about things other than the content, which don't matter. It doesn't matter that people put in effort, it doesn't matter how important the character is to the plot, and it doesn't matter how many people find the information interesting. Take advantage of Wikia rather than trying to make Wikipedia a fan site. -- Jay32183 (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - as angrily written directly above. Find reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (and, also, not just some website) if you wish to demonstrate notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of references, more will be found, character spans multiple books. The article needs clean up, not deletion. Or is Wikipedia running out of space that the handfull of K this article is using up? Web Warlock 13:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Unfortunately, all the references in the article are primary sources --they're from TSR and WoTC. It's substantial, verifiable secondary sources which make a subject notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. -- Mikeblas 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's one that I didn't even use a search engine for: [19].--134.139.11.192 (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's another from Stanford University: [20].--134.139.11.192 (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neither appears to be a reliable source. The first doesn't seem to exhibit much editorial control from its submitters, although it does have more control than a wiki. Although the second one is hosted on the Stanford University servers, it is a person website of either a student or faculty memeber. It is self published, not actually controlled by the university. They don't comply with WP:RS. Jay32183 (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zahakiel and WebWarlock. BOZ (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the well-organized article does contain references and concerns a character from a notable and influential game. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what matters and you are well aware of that. Jay32183 (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability of this stock character. All of the citations are of no value; they are there to reinforce the heavy in universe perspective, which provides no real-world context. Most importantly, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT; this suggests to me that this article would be better off being fanwikied to fancruft.net.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a place where this article could be transwikied to? While I agree that she is a non-notable fictional character without many (if any) secondary sources, it seems like List of Forgotten Realms deities links to dozens of similar articles. I'm not comfortable with setting a precedent here that allows the nuking of all other character pages without giving interested fans a chance to sort this out and consider saving them somewhere else. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A transwiki still results in the page being deleted from Wikipedia. We aren't going to tell a compatible wiki that they can't have the content unless the reason for deletion is a legal one. Jay32183 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not against deletion at all if it wasn't that for when articles are deleted, normally no-one can easily access the information any longer to save it to his own fan wiki / wikia, and most people unaware of the AfD don't even know that the information even existed once. It is good that WP cleans out all the nn fiction articles, but I really struggle to recommend straight-out deletion for legacy articles that were created when the notability guidelines were not as strict. As I am (irrationally) hopeful that this article and its siblings should be allowed a reasonable chance to find a new home somewhere, I would at best recommend a redirect or better just let the AfD run its course. (Seems like it's heading towards no consensus). – sgeureka ^t•c 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just ask the closing admin, they'll always temp restore for a transwiki. Jay32183 (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable fictional character.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. GRBerry 20:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystaliris-bluechevron[edit]

This article is joke/hoax. I've watched all ten season of Stargate SG-1, and the four seasons of Atlantis, and I'm positive there is no mention of this. The only non-Wikipedia-Mirror link that shows up on a Google search is for a Gateworld.net forum discussion (http://forum.gateworld.net/archive/index.php/t-22381.html). Ank329 02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RMHED 01:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete and salt: CSD G4, recreation of previously deleted material. Article is substantially similar to first AfD'ed article. Since article is showing frequent recreation, protect against further creation. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suparno Satpathy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:NN as an un-elected politician. Only notability seems to be grandson of a notable. Toddst1 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written (which is fixable) but has had opportunity to provide cited sources on previous AfD and did not do so. No notability asserted or proven. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of sources, notability not asserted. Snigbrook 16:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. While some assertions of notability are made, they come up short of WP:BIO. This is compounded by the lack of sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. There was a previous AfD of this article. I'm comparing text, and if there's no great change, it's subject to speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is substantially similar (or if anything, inferior) to the version deleted in May. Accordingly, this is eligible for speedy deletion under G4 and will be so deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and then redirect. Lack of verifiability prevents merger. GRBerry 03:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Binford Tools[edit]

Delete - no reliable sources establish the real-world notability of this fictional company. At most it merits a sentence in the article for the TV show. Otto4711 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide secondary sources. Jay32183 16:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Applying WP:FICT here, and it doesn't exist outside of Home Improvement or for that matter Toy Story. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tool Time or Home Improvement and merge a sentence or two into the target. Pinball22 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to Tool Time. The bit about the real-world branded tools is interesting and rings a bell but I can't find anything to source it. It's a plausible search term, though, and Binford Tools "memorabilia" like baseball caps are occasionally seen in the DIY world. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. It can be improved. There is a page that lists some (all?) of the 'Binford tools' that appear in the show, as well as there are pages that show the use in other films. There are pictures of a 'Binford' toolbox and a logo. I just don't know how to get it all together (put a photo here; may I do that at all...) and if I get into it and 'improve' the article, do you really keep it? I'd rather waste my time on something productive.
- The issue is that there aren't any sources. Effort will not fix that problem. Jay32183 01:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pinball22. The fact that there is a page loaded with fancruft does not justify it existing here. JuJube 15:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The charts provided are not what the guidelines are looking for with a national chart. Metros (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juteblue[edit]

A nicely presented article, but showing no sign of meeting WP:BAND. sources are trivial or meta–. tomasz. 15:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the band passes any of the music notability criteria. The cited sources provide only trivial coverage, except possibly for the interview on KTEQ, a college radio station. Most of the content is almost certainly unverifiable, unless that interview was extraordinarily detailed. EALacey 19:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, NN. Even an interview on a college radio station means nothing for notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. "Creek" was a top-10 hit on Soundclick, which is a national music chart, meeting a requirement for music notability criteria. "Songs About Cars" also charted well, and is specifically noted as a Soundclick Top-100 Song on the band's music page. The college radio program consisted of a one-hour concert followed by two hours of interview, which was very detailed. I have a copy of it on my hard drive, as it was available for download from "The Core" website until recently when "The Core" was cancelled. Classicgamingnight 10:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. There were roughly twice as many delete comments as keeps (counting Drunkenmonkey111's "pie-in-the-sky" as a delete), and the keeps were very unconvincing (WP:CRYSTAL, and "tenacity" from an anonymous IP address) while the deletes gave more concrete reasons for the deletion: lack of coverage in reliable sources making it difficult to sort encyclopedic information from conflict-of-interest spin. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dance of the Goblins[edit]

not sufficient notability for its own page. Merkinsmum 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above. (When googling, add the author's name, as there are things with the same name that are probably more notable.) IMDB etc used as references and other misleading claims.Merkinsmum 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A film version is in production, scheduled for release on 1 May. Timeineurope 18:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After watching Dragon's Den, it's clear that this film version is 'Pie-in-the-sky' stuff. ie-it's not going to happen anytime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkenmonkey111 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's self confessedly no funding for this film at present, so it's WP:CRYSTAL. First-timer's films are rarely listed before they're actually made. If it actually ever comes out in a notable form, feel free to re-create.Merkinsmum 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, practically self published- published by a publisher that has only produced a few separate books, hers and his own, and only a very limited amount sold.Merkinsmum 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. I wish her luck with the film but until it's made, fails WP:BK. -- DatRoot 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is also clearly routinely edited by the book's author put positive spin MrMarmite 12:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Just for the author's tenacity really. Never read the book, but I'm not sure if it's worthy of its own page having only sold a few hundred copies. 82.34.216.33 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 'author's tenacity' can be a reason for an article, otherwise an awful lot of determined myspace bands would have an article.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Metros (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zamballa (W.I.T.C.H. TV series)[edit]

The article does not appear to be notable per Notability (fiction), and Notability and undue weight. That is, it isn't sufficiently notable as no secondary sources are provided. Actually no sources are provided. Also, the article should not read as in-universe but rather have a real-world perspective. Overall, the article reads like fancruft. Wassupwestcoast 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:FICT. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced with no evidence of real-world notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nateash Conlet[edit]

Either a not notable six-year old television personality or a hoax. One ghit[21], Wikipedia, of course! Malcolmxl5 15:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - not notable, no independent sources. JohnCD 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources. Epbr123 19:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Only first book written, so trilogy does not yet exist. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Goblin Trilogy[edit]

not sufficiently notable for its own entry in Wikipedia.

Little to no coverage of the trilogy/these books individually in mainstream press. Author has her own entry.Merkinsmum 15:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the books books also had their own articles so I'm nominating them separately.Merkinsmum 15:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse. Two out of three books in this spoken-of-on-the-internet 'trilogy' haven't even been written yet, see Demoniac Dance.Merkinsmum 16:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I first brought it up that the trilogy wasn't notable when the first one wasn't even written. After a year, it still doesn't seem notable, and the notability still doesn't seem to hold up. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - the last part of my argument was that a movie with a prominent actor was being filmed, but it doesn't seem like the film is in production after a year. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-confessedly not enough funds to produce it too, and struggling/failing to secure them.Merkinsmum (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you brought it up when the first book was written and the film was in discussion. Just to clarrify. The book is widely available from various ares such as WHSmith, Amazon.co.uk, certain libraries and so forth. The author is an establised author with a range of books available and the book has been subject to reviews in online groups and the books have been featured in local medias and has had air time on the BBC albeit with a negative result. ~ ~Alosel~ | ^(Talk) 21:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: until the book(s) are published more widely and garner reviews by professional critics, ie. in the national press. -- Drunkenmonkey111 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will help when two of them are published or written at all.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All three articles on the individual books have now been deleted, two by AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance of the Goblins and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demoniac Dance) and the third speedily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per WP:HEY, as a notable high school with notable alumni, a notable former teacher, a visit from the Head of State of the nation, and significant size. Bearian 01:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowra High School[edit]

Contested PROD. This high school doesn't assert any notability. Rjd0060 15:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Satisfies my personal H.S. notability criteria. — RJH (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WIKIPEDIA criteria (the only criteria that counts here). No claims to notibility, no sources to show what makes it notable. And before anyone says it, high schools are not automatically notable. TJ Spyke 22:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like most secondary schools its notable. I found an Australian politician who taught here and I didnt search long. No refs Template removed and cat added. Next please. Victuallers 23:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No sources on school's notability, and not much chance of finding any. A potentially notable staff member from the 70s does not strike me as unusual or noteworthy; notability isn't inherited. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Not all high schools are notable. Having a politician who taught there does not make it notable. The notability is for the politician. It's not enough. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." Arthur 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Victualllers has shown , information can be found--probably on every high school. Thus it makes sense to keep them all.DGG (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Victuallers and DGG. It's become obvious that sources are available online for nearly every high school, at least in wealthier countries. Noroton 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. We don't delete on article quality, we tag and improve. The question is not whether the article contains enough sources but whether there are enough sources available to meet WP:N; and there are. The high school is, also, a significant institution in its community. TerriersFan 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Mawn[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. This guy's major claim to fame seems to be having worked as an advisor on one Elvis film. Almost all of the sources provided are obituaries, some of them are duplicates and mention him only in passing, and still other don't mention him at all! Completely non-notable. —dustmite 15:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article says he was inducted into a hall of fame. Timeineurope 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was inducted into the Arkansas River Historical Society Hall of Fame, which, with all due respect, is not exactly a benchmark for notability. If you take a look at the web page, you'll find that the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to "honor those persons who have performed significant and outstanding service in the development of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System". This certainly does not satisfy WP:N. This fellow was, at very best, a local celebrity. —dustmite 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there seems to be no usable RS besides a local obituary (without an exact link). The editor's usual meticulous original research in primary sources about a totally insignificant person. Might be publishable, but not here. DGG (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in an unfortunately long series of non-notable local history obituaries by a user who seems not to be listening to some pretty plaintive calls. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Epbr123 19:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per a combo of every delete stated so far Esskater11 00:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a single source (that isn't an obituary) that covers him primarily, or even substantially. Nburden ^(T) 07:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This is an unusual life story which shows imagination and originality. There is no support for this kind of article here. Selecting articles is a highly subjective process; following rigid rules at all costs will eliminate some good selections.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Deleted per WP:CSD#A7 notability. Pedro : Chat 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse jones[edit]

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not for memorials. Little assertion of notability. The only external link relates to a different Nurse Jones. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with deepest sympathies to the family. Unfortunately, the article really doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies, including Verifiability and reliable sources. If there were articles or news coverage on the subject that might prove her notability, then those sources should be referenced in the article. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article created by spa. As noted by nom, the link provided (hosted by BBC, user submitted content) is a poem by a "grateful patient of nurse Ethel Lydia Jones", the article is putatively about "Ian'a Jones". Article says she's survived by two sisters, one of whom is "Iwan Heil Jones", after dropping the odd middle name, a couple of "Iwan Jones" turn up on google search, all men. Googling "Nurse Jones" results in porn hits, googling "Ian'a Jones". results in hits for "Ian A. Jones"es. Claims about contributions unsupported, delete as failing WP:V. Pete.Hurd 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would hedge an A7, but there's some notability assertion in there (service notes, though I'm not sure that's valid). Deepest condolences to the family, but regretfully, we're not an obit site. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Photo on article is unsourced and no licensing information - but appears to be a man's face poorly photoshopped onto a nurse's body. I presume this whole article is a subtle practcal joke at someone's expense. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...come to think of it, you're right. My !vote stands, but now as a hoax. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristjan Kasearu & Paradise Crew[edit]

Was prod'ed for being non-notable, but the Eurovision contest in big. I wanted to bring it here for discussion.--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 14:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know, it might be notable for Estonia. The biggest band in a nation, even if it's a smaller nation, might be notable in different ways than the typical band. I can find no evidence of that in english, though my search was only a cursory one. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They weren't 7th in Eurovision contest, they were 7th in national finals. No one has heard of them before or after, home page has been closed as unpaid. -- Sander Säde 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Sander Säde. JohnCD 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MUSIC says that an "ensemble [...] is notable if it [...] [h]as [...] placed in a major music competition". The Estonian national final of the Eurovision Song Contest is a major music competition. Timeineurope 19:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - 7th doesn't count as "placed", does it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The statistics probably could meet WP:V in another appropriate article, so if such an article is found, undeletion and redirection might well be useful. But the actual topic of the article does not appear meet WP:V after a great deal of effort so deletion is required. (As to the relevance of other arguments: the WP:NEO argument is correct and significant for deletion; the "too many contributions" argument actually counts in favor of deletion if there has been a lot of effort without finding good sources; the "it's useful" argument is weak for keeping but strong for redirecting and merging after a suitable topic is identified; and lack of independent reliable sources about the topic (notability) is also a significant arguement for deletion.) GRBerry 03:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four pageants[edit]

This article is relatively useful and has involved a lot of work, but I still can't get across the No OR & Verifiability principles in relation to this article so finally decided to bring it to afd. I can't say I'm strongly in favour of deletion, but it just doesn't seem to meet general inclusion criteria. Keep in mind that the term itself was created by a fan site. There are a fair few google hits but most of them are mirrors and rubbish [22]. The Google News Archive has nothing on the topic [23]. I'm interested in seeing what others think, but at the moment I'm favouring deletion. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's been way too many contributions to delete it now. It is also very informative. -- Lancini87 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The major flaw of the article might be the lack of citation or notes (i.e. verifiability). But this could be worked out since majority of the article is made up of statistics. The main challenge here is the fact that the article, by nature, is a collection of different information and data, hence, when you google it, you might just find a page that bears just one element of Big Four pageants, if not just a mirror site. Being a term coined by a pageant site is not enough reason to delete this article. One might be surprised as to how some mundane words which we have gradually considered as formal ones came from slang terms and other word corruptions.Joey80 01:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia isn't for things made up one day in a pageant marketing team meeting. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that indicate that these four pageants are notable as a whole. Also runs afoul of WP:NEO. Otto4711 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lancini and Joey. I agree that it needs to be sourced. Mandsford 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lancini's arguments are that people put effort into it and that it's useful, neither of which are substantive arguments. Joey's argument notes that the article has serious verifiability issues. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that identify these pageants as being significant as a unit, which sourcing problems you acknowledge. What is the basis then for keeping this article? Otto4711 05:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. Niether of the sites linked to as sources use the phrase "Big Four" or define what the "grand slam" is. Unless the term is picked up and used by notable sources and becomes widely excepted, it is not material for wikipedia. Pastordavid 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus --JForget 00:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podesta Group[edit]

Non notable lobbying business. A Google search of the company name brings up less than 200 results. Article reads like an advertisement. William Graham ^talk 04:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. - Rjd0060 04:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The page has sources, but I myself have checked search engines on this article and have brought up nothing important or notable about this article. Does not seem like an encyclopedia article to me. BeanoJosh 05:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Worth keeping. Sources and more relevant data have been added to the article. Sententia 21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two thirds of the article's content is a copy-paste from the firms website. --William Graham ^talk 04:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Noticed when researching that a Google search of the company's former names (Podesta Associates, podesta.com and PodesetaMattoon) yields significantly more results. Podesta Group itself seems to have only been around since Jan 07, so it is expected that there would be few results. Taking into account their entire history, the results are far greater in number. Also holds true for a Nexis search.--Sententia 18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Either copyvio or WP:COI, per William Graham. The only non-trivial or non-self-generated source listed among the external links is a Wired puff piece that was about the former partnership. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be fair, the copy/paste portion I was talking about was a big list of clients that was edited down to 'selected clients'. Although it still seems pretty large and like an advert. I do agree that it seems like there seems to be some WP:COI going on. --William Graham ^talk 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Adding a list of clients to an article strikes me as not the sort of thing you'd expect to find in an encyclopedia article; we are not a Martindale-Hubbell style business directory. It also raises some WP:BLP-ish issues, if not falling within the scope of that policy exactly. Do these institutions want to publicize the fact that they hired a Washington lobbying firm? Assuming for the sake of argument that they gave this business to use their names in its promotional website, it doesn't necessarily cover Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list is the wrong format, so I cleaned it up. A lobbying firm's list of clients defines the firm - very different than a law office, where key clients are still important but less definitive of who they are. There's no privacy concern. A lobbyist's clients are by law public information, they're widely available, and anyone who cares about the subject knows where to find them. Plus as you note they're on the firm website. We defer to legitimate privacy concerns, not the spin that companies wish to have. But believe me, if any company felt that Podesta mentioning them as a client was the wrong kind of spin it would not be on the firm website. The abbreviated list of clients is also useful because it shows the notability of that firm. You don't get clients like that without being a high powered, important firm.Wikidemo 00:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if John Podesta is notable, isn't the Podesta Group, his main business, notable? John Podesta, as former chief of staff to President Clinton and founder of Center for American Progress, is certainly notable. Scarykitty 16:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Majoreditor 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Setting references aside for the moment it's clearly a significant lobbying firm and major player in Washington, with a long list of important clients. If we're going to have encyclopedic coverage of the subject of lobbying, this is a firm people need to know about. That is the definition of relevance. Sources prove relevance but they are not the same thing as relevance. Lobbying is a field where there are fewer articles written about notable subjects because lobbyists create the news and deliberately stay out of it, newspapers have considerable conflicts of interest and difficulty writing about lobbyists, and people are simply not that interested in reading news of the subject. However, this article does have major sources, certainly manyfold more than would be necessary for any general application of WP:CORP. Articles specifically about this group in New York Times, Wired, and Washington Post (X2), one of the fifty top lobbying firms in Washington? It makes one wonder why this afd is even here.Wikidemo 00:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there should be an article about the business, if its public activities can be documented in independent third party sources. We do have the article on John Podesta, which may be the best place to cover it for now, especially since his firm seems to be in a state of flux recently. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. GRBerry 20:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Pavillion[edit]

Non-notable mall in Wisconsin, fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody forgot to add the AfD template, which I've done. - Rjd0060 05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damned Twinkle... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN mall (it exists...so what?). - Rjd0060 05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Although there are more keeps than deletes, it's not a !vote and both sides present good arguments and I don't think that either side outweighs the other. Seraphim ^Whipp (Non-admin closure) 14:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo word[edit]

Minor word game. Article doesn't assert notability, and there are only a few mentions on a Google search, including one teacher who claims he made it up in 1996. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google News Archive shows that the term has been used for some time, but doesn't suggest that more than a dictionary definition could be written on the topic, while the list included in the current article seems to qualify as indiscriminate information. I'll admit to finding it entertaining, though. Incidentally, I think the teacher is only claiming to have invented a flashcard game based on the "internal synonyms" (my phrase), not to have discovered them himself. EALacey 14:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* I think someone coming across this term would want a definition and a fair few examples. I found it interesting myself. While palindromes have a more distinguished history, I don't see that they are intrinsically more notable than this (histroically, yes). Drmaik 19:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is recognized by "Ask Oxford"[24] and is in several wordplay/lexophilia books. I am certain I played a version of it (probably in Games magazine) in the 1980s, but it was not called by this name, so the concept has been around longer. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some of those results go back to the 1950s and 1960s. AKA "marsupial" or "marsupial word". --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles about portmanteaus, palindromes, acronyms, and so forth. Mandsford 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as per all arguments to WP:V Sancho 18:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bootstrapping (science fiction)[edit]

The article does not give any indication where this concept is used, or defined, outside the fictional literature. No secondary sources are given. To me, it seems that this is at best original research, maybe abstracted from the plot of Uplift Universe (but also that is not clear). PROD was contested. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 13:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not cite anyone as actually having used this term. If sources can be found for the term, my recommendation is to merge into biological uplift; the concept of "bootstrapping" only seems to exist as a contrast with "uplift", and I can't see the potential in it for an independent article. EALacey 13:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have heard the term several times in science fictional contexts, but unfortunately I'm away from home (and my reference material) at the moment. May even pre-date Brin (Gordon R. Dickson's Dorsai!, maybe?). Someone out there in Wikiland must have a copy of Peter Nicholls' encyclopedia handy... Grutness...wha? 00:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Earlier than I thought - vintage 1940s Heinlein, in fact. Grutness...wha? 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - outside of references at a WorldCon panel, sources may be difficult to come by. Bearian 01:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources and no indication that this concept is common enough in science fiction and independent of specific contexts. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism, unsourced, fails WP:V which is policy. BlueValour (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four Points by Sheraton (Dubai)[edit]

Originally speedied, but undeleted on request at DRV, followed by numerous requests to overturn the speedy. Thus it is a job for AfD. Please consider the comments already made there. Splash - tk 13:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splash linked to the revision of the log page which has only the closed DRV discussion. Here's a link to the revision before that where the DRV discussion can be read.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a larger issue that needs to be grappled with here. There are a number of articles with titles along the lines of "Tallest buildings in City X". Take a look at List of tallest buildings in Dubai, for example. Now, the only thing notable about this building is that it is on the list of tallest buildings in Dubai Yes, there is a standard cutoff established by Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers. However, it now seems that there are a boatload of articles on skyscrapers which may not have any more claim to notability than their height. There are apparently nearly 900 articles on skyscrapers. I know that this argument falls into the What about article x? category of WP:AADD. Nonetheless, there's not much point in deleting just this article and letting the others remain. If we feel that articles of this type should not be on Wikipedia, then let's nominate the whole lot of them and establish a notability guideline for buildings. Until then, I guess we have to Keep this article. --Richard 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, correct me if I'm wrong, but your saying because other articles exist this one should as well. And you know this is an argument to be avoided in AfDs as well. This AfD is about this building article and not others. Luke! 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...here's the thing. If you consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists, you will find that there is a guideline for how tall a building should be in order to be included in a list.

The data cutoff point should be between 150 ft (46 m) and 250 ft (76 m) for cities with small skylines. Examples include Providence, RI, Bellevue, WA, and Oakland, CA. For cities with medium skylines, the cutoff point should be 300 ft (91 m). Cities with fairly large skylines should use the 400 ft (122 m) cutoff point. Examples include San Francisco, CA, Miami, FL, Seattle, WA and Los Angeles, CA. For cities that have extremely broad, expansive skylines, the cutoff point should be 500 ft (152 m) (the lower limit of a skyscraper). Examples include Chicago, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and New York City.

The building in question is 166 m (545 ft) which is appropriate for a city with a small skyline but not for one with a medium skyline. Where would you classify Dubai?

Anyway, the point is that there seems to be a tendency to create an article for every building that makes it onto one of the "tallest buildings" lists. That's the overarching question that needs to be addressed: should we have an article for every building that is on a "tallest building" list? If so, then this article is an obvious "keep". If not, what are the "notability" criteria for a building? A listing in Emporis?

My recommendation is "Keep this article but move the debate over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers or WT:N.

--Richard 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai would be classified as a large skyline, and actually since this building is over 500 ft, it would be appropriate for such a city with a large skyline. This notability discussion has been brought up before at WT:N, but with inconclusive results. The discussion could be brought up at WP:SKYSCRAPERS; however, so far the general consensus for the project has been to create buildings for every page needed for a list to become featured. Rai-me 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability criterion for buildings is at WP:N. Let's not have yet more guidelines totally removed from the question of sourcing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and set up a notability guideline for buildings, ~~per discussion at DRV.~~ Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that there may a problem in the system with regards to featured lists however, a red-linked article on the List of tallest buildings in Dubai article's quest to being featured seems to be a discussion for another venue and not here where we are talking about a specific article.
  Basic notability is the basis on which articles are judged upon.
  Just because another article exists doesn't mean this one should.
  SkyScraperpage.com seems like another Emporis-like page. A listing/directory. Luke! 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. Notability is not the only basis to judge articles. There are articles like Welland estate (check history) that are notable (in that case, a notorious murder), but the same article was written in a manner that was severely detracted from its quality. This particular article for deletion is reasonably well-written, is informative and it asserts its notability clearly. Cheers.
  - Disagree, there are more components to SkyscraperPage than the diagrams. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition, wouldn't tallest buildings lists be unencyclopedic if SkyscraperPage and Emporis were directories? Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes we need to keep articles with factual information for the context they appear in. ~ trialsanderrors 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and establish a notability guideline for buildings and structures per Richard and Hydrogen Iodide. ~~per discussion at DRV.~~ Rai-me 18:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 28th tallest building in the city is not very notable. Kind of a slippery slope here, kind of lets the door open to 75th, 76th, etc. tallest building articles. The claim to be being one of the tallest hotel-only buildings is ambiguous as well. What about the other tallest hotel-only buildings in between this one and the Burj Al Arab, which claims that it is the tallest building to be used exclusively as a hotel. Luke! 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The building is the 4th-tallest all-hotel building (excluding the not yet opened Rose Tower) in a city with 286 high-rise buildings and another 327 under construction. To me, that is a valid claim of notability. And, as Hydrogen Iodide stated on the DRV, it will be very unlikely that the 76th-tallest building in a city will have an article, as most lists only go down to the 30th or 40th tallest. Rai-me 21:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see this. This limits the amount of building articles that are created. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that you have to add two qualifiers (not just hotel but all hotel), and even then it's not actually the tallest, is too much of a stretch. It reminds me too much of the Ballad of Irving. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A claim of notability is a claim, even though it includes qualifiers. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that the claim of being all-hotel may even be more notable than being only a hotel tower. It is becoming increasingly rare for very tall buildings to be constructed as solely hotel properties; most contain some (or contain mostly) residential units along with a hotel. The fact that this 160 m+ building is being used exclusively as a hotel, and is one of tallest such buildings in the city, is notable. Rai-me 02:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Eusebeus 01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard.Huang7776 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whether or not "28th-tallest" is a viable assertion of notability, assertion of notability is not enough at AfD. Here, actual notability must be demonstrated, by showing that significant quantities of reliable, independent material exist, upon which an article can be based. I can't find any significant amount of sourcing about either the building or the business, and no more has been provided at this discussion or in the article. I can of course be persuaded to change my mind upon a showing that substantial sourcing is available. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As Hydrogen Iodide has stated below, several sources and a History section have been added to the article. Rai-me 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Given your comment, I did review the sources, but I still don't see it. One is a press release, which is not reliable or independent, and the rest really don't provide substantial information (some are only a list of statistics, the rest provide very little). I just don't see that an article is needed here, the few factoids available could easily be included on a list. There's simply not enough material available that a full article could ever be written. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an aside to the above, if a featuring process is requiring the creation of articles on non-notable subjects, that process needs changing, but that has zero bearing on whether any such article should be kept or deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we've always considered very large buildings notable. Dubai is now famous for its buildings, and many of them will be individually notable There would probably be sufficient information in local sources, and sourceability not source sis all that is necessary. There are many classes of things we assume to be notable -- there is perhaps a conflict with the general two-RS criterion, but the conclusion is that the rules in fact do conflict, and in practice we decide on a reasonable basis. There have been long discussions ever since I came here on which takes priority, and i have sen a complete absence of agreement. The attempts to unify the rules were in fact all rejected, as no one found an acceptable way to harmonize them that satisfied a consensus. Seraphimblade gives his opinion on how they conflict should be treated. As for me, i don;t have an answer, but i do not think WP generally has accepted his. (At the very least we have certainly rejected that twoRS in every instance proves notability--see the discussions on BLP, for example--not that i want to get into that point here.) . DGG (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just for clarification, I don't agree with any "two-source" rule myself, nor did my comment anywhere mention two sources. Two trivial or name-drop mentions are not good enough, while in some cases one highly-comprehensive source may be. The question to ask is "Could we ever write a substantial, comprehensive article on this subject using only material drawn from independent, reliable sources?" To me, the answer here appears to be "no", and lacking that it's just a directory entry. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the "28th-tallest" building in a particular city is nowhere near notable. If there were evidence that the building was notable for something else, height might be a contributing factor but it is not, in my opinion, sufficient to support a stand-alone article. As Seraphimblade says above, there are no significant sources that do anything beyond confirming the existance of the building. Wikipedia is not a directory - we do not include everything that exists just because we can show that it exists. Rossami (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, article has been expanded with a history section and more sources. cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but in my opinion the added content is travel-log trivia. I still don't see a sustainable encyclopedia article here. Rossami (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please explain how that history section is unencyclopedic, as I don't see how it's trivia. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 08:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, please explain how the addition is trivia. The new section is well-referenced with websites that go beyond confirming the existence/statistics of the building, and provides information on the development of the building over three years. How is this trivia? Rai-me 05:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not disputing the truth of the additions, merely arguing that the details of the building's construction do not constitute history in my opinion. That is the sort of detail that you'd see in a trade journal or travel brochure, not an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing is adequate and the article meets our content policies. I have difficulty picturing the reader who encounters this article and wishes they hadn't. Given that I don't understand how deleting it would improve Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Murderbirds[edit]

Please see revisions and review.
Nonnotable indie band that hasn't yet released an album. One brief review on an obscure website does not equal notability, and the other sources are all MySpace and the like. NawlinWiki 12:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Bláthnaid 13:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Borderline case for speedy deletion, but probably avoids it by citing one independent review. EALacey 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 16:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as spam. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 00:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete this and the album articles. GRBerry 03:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esimple[edit]

Non notable band. Google (Esimple + Costa Rica) only shows about 800 hits, many being myspace or youtube related. -- LaNicoya •Talk• 07:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The article doesn't do a good job of asserting notability, but following links from the Spanish Wikipedia article indicates that they've received some media coverage. This article calls them "los hijos célebres del rock and roll herediano". However, most of the others seem to give them only passing mentions. I've really no idea what counts as notable in the Costa Rica music scene. EALacey 13:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are several articles devoted to albums by this band that should also be deleted if the Esimple article goes. EALacey 00:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Even if it doesn't, those articles should probably be merged into the parent per WP:MUSIC. Take Esimple: Macguiversh (2007) for example—there's not much there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete My Spanish is rudimentary at best, so I will swiftly change my opinion if somebody can produce reliable sourcing for this. :) However, I did a search on the band and its latest release to see if it had generated talk in newspapers, journals, what have you. Once Google eliminated "omitted some entries very similar", there were 44 hits and not a reliable source among them. The claim of "constant media exposure" seems dubious. I did a search on the first punk rock festival, and came up only with self-referential hits. Among the only potential sources at the Spanish version of the article, we have a newspaper that would be excluded for listing dates & times only ([25]. Nacion gives them some coverage—including a review of their album, the only really substantial article I found (see Google's fun translation of that here)—but most mentions are trivial and it does not seem to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing there that gives the impression of passing WP:MUSIC. Caknuck (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Macpherson[edit]

Delete also-ran on Canadian idol and has little else on which to pin notability Carlossuarez46 06:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not nearly notable enough.Alberon 10:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- notability is more a function of reliable sources than success. It reflects reader interest and ensures we have enough information to source reliable articles. Quick searches of Google News and Google News Archive for "Keith Macpherson"+idol finds multiple media sources to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles's criteria #1:
- Google News: 3 items
- Google News Archive: 53 news items
- The article already had two acceptable references when it was nominated: CTV Television Network^[26], Winnipeg Sun^[27]

--A. B. ^(talk) 13:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion actually requires the musician to be the subject of the multiple non-trivial published works. If the musician is mentioned in an article whose main subject is really a TV show or another musician, then I don't think it meets the threshhold. If the work is titled something like, "Keith performs, does great on Canadian Idol show!" then this is very different from "Keith performs, impresses millions!" One is probably about the show, the other unequivocally about the performance. (Note: I was only able to pull up one of those three Google News articles; it was a local newspaper article strictly about local musicians playing in local venues - not meeting the threshold.) I think this guy falls below the threshold in general; delete. Deltopia 15:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Television-related deletions, Canada-related deletions, and Bands and musicians-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 14:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not nearly notable enough for me. Let him live a little, love a little, lose a little. Then - maybe. Bombycil 16:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references that A. B. notes above are multiple, non-trivial, and independent of the musician. That satisfies criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. Keep. --Paul Erik 05:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable docboat 13:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has had multiple, non-trivial, and independent coverage. Epbr123 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no proof of any notability outside of his appearance on the TV show. In cases like this, we merge any useful content to the TV show, until perhaps such time as the individual does something important on his own. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not yet reflect it, but there is notability being established separate from Canadian Idol, as Macpherson gains media attention as part of the duo Keith and Renée. Example 1 Example 2 We could argue whether this belongs in a different article altogether, Keith and Renée, but I think it would be reasonable to incorporate information both about the duo and about Macpherson's Idol-related attention into the article Keith Macpherson. --Paul Erik 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Epbr123 JForget 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have cleaned up the references that already sat in the article and those mentioned here. The news references are sufficient to establish notability of the performer in the context of both Canadian Idol and the Easily Amused group. My feeling is that the Easily Amused group should be built as a subsection of this biographical article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no tangible achievements and is not the subject of multiple reliable sources so fails WP:N. BlueValour (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of this, and this, both of which are used in the article. Sancho 18:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Canadian Idol Season 4, like most articles of reality show contestants especially one that didn't even cut the top-20, do not keep, are there any sources that is not a local newspaper, which I don't consider significant, or because of his American Idol activies, no. I also recommend for this AFD be closed a little later to consider my proposal. This is a Secret ^account 20:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus to delete --JForget 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of BloggingHeads.tv contributors[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT. most have their own article, as does BloggingHeads.tv. Hu12 05:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - List is of contributors to a specific program, so whether they have articles of their own is irrelevant. (the purpose is not to illustrate the individuals, but for a collective list of those who have appeared on the video blog) Furthermore, the article does not fail WP:NOT, there are many references provided for notability, and information is better displayed in this medium than integrated in large quantities to BloggingHeads.tv article. (which is what would necessarily happen if deleted) For all these reasons and more, keeping is the best option. Cardsplayer4life 06:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC points 2 and 7. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BloggingHeads.tv is notable, and therefore list of on air contributors to episodes is notable. Does not fail above mentioned tests, and integration into main article after deletion would cause many problems. Liveforever22 08:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, notability is not automatically inherited. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sgeureka is correct, notability is not inherited. WP:NOTINHERITED--Hu12 16:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral although I lean to delete. I am not familiar with BloggingHeads.tv, and although the list is well formatted, I usually !vote delete for imdb-like lists and prefer external links to such lists. But since I don't know an external site that offers the same kind of information, I abstain from !voting for now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgeureka (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 November 2007
Delete per my nom.--Hu12 16:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems informative and a well structured wikipedia article. It should definitely stay. DiegoGirl 19:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guidelines seem excessively vague when it comes to these lists - can see a case for both delete and keep. That said, here's one thing that bothers me about it: The external links throughout the article, with a dedicated column for them, seem somewhat spammy. I say do with them what's done for the author name - just link to articles about them when applicable, or redlink or don't link when they're not. MrZaius^talk 14:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a decently useful list of notable subjects. No harm in it's existence, and doesn't violate any policies by its inclusion that I can see. • Lawrence Cohen 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful page. -asx- 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result wasdelete. DS 18:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carson DePalma[edit]

Probable hoax; prod removed. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NN, if not a WP:HOAX. Zero g-hit, no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 12:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any sources on anything in this article, which, given what the article claims for the man, his life, his book, etc., should have many more. Other details jar, too (witness the middle daughter's name change between the beginning and end of the article). Delete as a likely hoax. tomasz. 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Katr67 16:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. DS 17:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill St. James[edit]

Probable hoax, prod removed. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No WP:RS. IMDb link is not this guy or even anyone similarly named. --Evb-wiki 16:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Katr67 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 16:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victory World Outreach Center[edit]

I am not convinced that this church meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Prod removed by creator after good-faith addition of sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only external link is the church's Myspace link, that does not bode well. No other information given, I can't even tell if this is a megachurch. If I'm wrong, please change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - looks like a single-purpose account made the article. No sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too minor, too small, and non-notable church. Sole church in a small denomination. Meets in a blue and white tent. Bearian 01:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the author I beleive this article does not meet wikipedia's notability requirements.Ltwin 18 November 2007

The result was Keep as per User:DGG and User:Alexandersaro rationales based on published sources and also per non-consensus for deletion. --JForget 01:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdushum[edit]

Vanity page, no real hits on google: http://66.249.93.99/search?hl=en&q=Kurdushum&btnG=Google+Search

Page was created by a new user: Special:Contributions/Alexandersaro

-- Cat ^chi? 18:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Notability not established. -- Dougie WII 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every existing thing on wikipedia has and deserves its own article. secondly the Elamite texts being largely undeciphered therefore the elamite world is still unknown to many peoples especially to those who have a weak knowledge of history. thirdly the content of the decipehred elamite texts have been published in relatively recent time another reason why google has few hits for it. Alexandersaro 19:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the current spelling does not apparently have notable google hits. The more common spelling is Kurdusum, which gets more hits especially on google scholar and google books. Alexandersaro 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdusum: 2 Google hits (one being a spam site). Bare mention on google scholar 2 google scholar hits. Once the Elamite texts are deciphered (per article), the page can be recreated. -- Cat ^chi? 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And what about here?!: 5 Google books hits! Alexandersaro 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I need is one web page on kurdusum. Doesn't seem to be notable and it feels it is a non popular alternate name for a place. We may already have an article for that. -- Cat ^chi? 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Keeep on the basis of published sources. We decidedly do NOT need web sources, print RSs are absolutely sufficient--and arguably better. The articles and the books are more than sufficient. The language does not have to be deciphered tfor the inscriptions to be notable. The question of the correct name, is an editing matter entirely, as would be a posible merge. DGG (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep From precedent, geographical locations have inherent notability. Claim of vanity makes no sense, I'm pretty sure this wasn’t posted by a 2600 year old Elamite. And when the topic is history from 2 1/2 millenia ago, one should expect that sources (such as the one mentioned in the article) would be books, not webpages. Edward321 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Edward321 points out, it's well established that places and place names, including those from antiquity, are notable. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability well established by Google books links referenced above. Phil Bridger 11:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The last delete comment is correct about the meaning of "deadbeat," but after moving the article, anyone can turn deadbeat into a disambiguation page. Cool Hand Luke 20:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deadbeat[edit]

Delete. NN; Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. EndlessDan 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Scott Monteith and his work as Deadbeat have been covered by reliable sources, e.g. Stylus Magazine[28] and Pitchfork[29]. Patzak 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Scott Montieth. Seems to meet WP:MUSIC to me. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Scott Montieth per Patzak and Stifle. Bláthnaid 13:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are much more notable meanings of deadbeat. 132.205.99.122 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect, no notability established, no third-party sources. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Goings[edit]

Neutral - incompleted AfD nomination (note that I am not the nominator) – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close - There is no argument here to support deletion. Nominator left nary a clue. --Evb-wiki 13:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ordinarily, I would say summarily close this as a failed nomination, but I think I can figure out that the nominator meant to suggest that this should be deleted as a minor musician whose article fails to make out a convincing case for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If deleted, it should be redirected to Choo-Choo Soul. --Evb-wiki 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect sounds like a good idea to me. If her solo efforts pan out, she may develop sufficient notability for a distinct article, but at the moment her notability seems connected with Choo Choo Soul. Reliable sources can, of course, prove me wrong. :) I haven't found any, though. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - My first impression was why not keep it, but now I see that the article's been there long enough that someone with more information about her career has had a chance to add it. --Steve Foerster (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor musician whose article fails to make out a convincing case for notability. I am the nominator, accidentally failed to list reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefoxx111 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saicurtis[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable enough to have own article. thisisace 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is an entire category dedicated to these... that and I had a Zoid as a kid. Oh Snap 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 03:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't delete everything that's missing secondary sources. Eixo 09:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, we do. WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS. Jay32183 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, no we don't - an article lacking secondary sources does not mean secondary sources do not exist. Lack of sources in the article is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Burden of evidence for providing sources is on those wish to add, restore, or retain material, not on those wishing to remove material. WP:PROVEIT. Not listing any secondary sources and no secondary sources existing makes no difference to the people who read Wikipedia. Jay32183 05:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Jay32183. JohnCD 12:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to have individual articles on each toy, I feel that an aggregate article will suffice. Nickcich (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Seraphim ^Whipp (Non-admin closure) 15:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Z[edit]

This article is attracting a lot of vandalism and edits which have real BLP issues at the moment, mostly due to her recent marriage to Gerard Way of My Chemical Romance. As such, the article was protected earlier tonight by me. That said, I am uncertain of the notability of Lyn-Z. She has been a member of a non notable band, and of a fairly major band. Mindless Self Indulgence, her major band, receives a lot of press attention, but I can find no articles that talk of her in terms that are anything other than a passing to moderate mention in articles about the band, or articles about her marriage. Is this enough? I am neutral. J Milburn 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I would give her a pass as a permanent member of a notable band, especially since there are now news stories about the marriage that can at least verify biographical data. If there are BLP issues we have WP:BLPN. --Dhartung | Talk 03:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalori_urdu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bangalori urdu

Original research. "Bangalori Urdu" or "South Dakhni" phrase search on Google yields only the Wikipedia article. Even "Bangalore Urdu" string on Google fails to generate any links that talk of such a slang. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 12:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR unless sources can be produced. JohnCD 12:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Move relevant material to Dakhni. There does seem to be such a language variety, and the article should either be tagged with needing references, or the information moved into Dakhni. If we deleted everything without references, a lot of wikipedia would have to go. It's actually remarkably similar to Hyderabadi Urdu which has been around for over a year and has a nicely formatted wordlist, but apart from that is not much better. Drmaik 19:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research without any reliable references. utcursch | talk 08:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was userfy. I am moving to Aecis' sandbox using the same name. After updating and sourcing it may be moved back to the mainspace without prejudice. The taget page is User:Aecis/List of nationality transfers in football (soccer) -JodyB_talk 15:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of nationality transfers in football (soccer)[edit]

Contested PROD. To me it's not worth to stay here, as it is an indiscrimante collection of unsourced and unverified information; later, talking of "nationality transfer" is kind of a straining, as many of the players listed in this article actually represented both their native and their adoptive land. And, finally, I think this can be more easily (and correctly) managed by a category rather than such a list. Angelo 11:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JohnCD 12:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 13:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to say delete, but whilst it is poorly sourced, I think it is an intersting list (though with the addition of players who have represented Ireland, it might go way over the 30kb limit!) and not exactly indiscriminate. Perhaps it could be better done by splitting the list between (a) players who represented one country at youth level and another at senior level (e.g. Ryan Giggs) and (b) players who were born in one country but represent another, but on the whole I think it is worthwhile. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A pedant writes: Ryan Giggs did not represent a country other than Wales at youth level. He played for England Schools, but any boy who attends a school in England is eligible for that team, it has nothing to do with nationality....... ChrisTheDude 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahhh. Caught in my own web. How about Frédéric Kanouté then :) пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll give you that one :-) ChrisTheDude 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see List of football players with dual nationality, which I am editing and referencing on one of my subpages. GiantSnowman 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the prod's contester. If there are verifiability issues with this article (and the nom may have a point in that), they need to be fixed through sourcing, not through outright deletion. If the criteria for inclusion in this list are incorrect or too vague, they need to be finetuned through discussion on the article's talk page. If there are people included in this list who shouldn't be there, they should obviously be removed. And as far as listcruft is concerned ("an indiscrimante collection of ... information" in the nom), I disagree. Nationality transfer is a topic in football. Many important footballing countries try to expand the number of players they can field by immigration. See Olisadebe in Poland, Asamoah in Germany, Da Silva in Brazil, Collautti in Israel, Deco in Portugal, Pernia in Spain, or the attempts to have Solomon Kalou, Jonathan De Guzman and Leonardo acquire Dutch citizenship, to make them qualify for the Dutch national team. See also the parent list List of nationality transfers in sport and the sister lists List of nationality transfers in athletics and List of nationality transfers in chess. A ecis^Brievenbus 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm inclined towards delete but am ready to be persuaded to keep it. Primarily I don't have a clue what this means. It tells me what this doesn't include but not what could be included. I don't know why the likes of Andy O'Brien couldn't be on this list. I'm also worried this could be WP:OR but do think in general this list could be relevant to some extent. Convince me and I'll vote keep. Peanut4 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is for football players who have acquired the citizenship of another country in order to represent the national football team of that country. In doing so, they have lost the right to represent their native country, under FIFA rules. Someone like Deco, for instance, who was born and raised in Brazil. In 1997, at the age of 20, he moved to Portugal, to play for a Portuguese football club. After a number of years in Portugal, he acquired Portuguese citizenship, and he now plays for the Portugal national football team. Another example: since the end of communism, a number of Eastern European football clubs have signed Brazilian football players. Several of them have acquired the citizenship of the country where they were playing and now play for the national team of the country (e.g. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Hungary, Macedonia and Poland). What this list doesn't include is players who were born with dual citizenship, because of parentage. They didn't make a nationality transfer, because they already had the nationality of the country they now represent. I assume that this was the reason why Andy O'Brien could not be included. He could, however, be included in the List of football players with dual nationality. Is the scope of the list a bit clearer now? If not, please let me know. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A little clearer. Though I reckon the article itself should have a full explanation. It's far too confusing otherwise. Peanut4 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the list is kept, then it needs a lot of work on it. Either that, or the full explanation. See my note on the talk page regarding Shaun Maloney, Mauro Camoranesi, Emmanuel Olisadebe for starters. Peanut4 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list which appears - despite my initial fear that it wouldn't be - to be manageably maintained. I'd suggest a different title, although I'm not quite sure what that should be, and a double-check of the one entry in the UEFA list who seems not to have any original nationality (as in: under what circumstances can someone with no nationality have changed it?). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed Balep N'Dumbouk (source). Aec·is·away ^talk 12:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. At the moment this is a list of unsourced, unverified and confused data, most of which I'm pretty sure doesn't conform to the criteria listed at the top. With so many criteria, most if not all players need some sort of reference. This list may have a place in wikipedia but not in its current form. -- Peanut4 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
move to sandbox and fix, then keep. I was one of the starters of this dynamic list, and worked considerably on it. The purpose was to list footballers who changed country in order to play for a national team for which he had not always been eligible. I believe it is a relevant topic which should be covered. However, it has gone way out of hand, so I personally gave up stopped watchlisting it a while ago. The main issues are: 1. the name may not be technically correct. 2. many entries deviate from the scope. 3. lack of sources. Nonetheless, I believe that these problems are solveable. The list is maintainable. However, it probably doesn't deserve to be in the main namespace before the issues have been sorted out, given that the fixup won't happen in the immediate future (within a few days). Punkmorten (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that's an appropriate, sensible and responsible reply. If fully sourced and given full criteria of what to include and what not to include (not just what not to) I would vote keep. Peanut4 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I too endorse Punkmorten's suggestion/proposal to userfy the list. I would also suggest userfying List of nationality transfers in sport, List of nationality transfers in athletics and List of nationality transfers in chess, because the issues raised during this AFD also apply to those lists. Aecis·(away) ^talk 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Punkmorten's suggestion. This is an encyclopedic subject for a list, and should ultimately be kept; it just needs some cleanup and a great deal of sourcing, which can be done in userspace. Terraxos (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus or keep for now. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4koma Manga Kingdom[edit]

Effectively unverifiable, with no third party coverage in 12 unique ghits. MER-C 10:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AnteaterZot 10:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, here's a pretty tangle. This manga article needs some serious cleaning up and wikifying and sourcing (and finishing translating into actual English), and I note that it's never been tagged as part of the relevant WikiProject, which means they've never been notified that it needs help. The ghits count in the nomination are not complete -- searching on 4コマまんが王国, the Japanese title, gives 982 hits even with -wikipedia, and given the number of bookstore hits, it seems likely there's third-party reviews among them (ETA: among the hits, given how much it's sold, I meant). (Interestingly, there are no ghits for "Yonkoma Manga Kingdom," which is the translation I would expect.) There's no way for anyone who doesn't read Japanese to adequately evaluate the notability and verifiability of the subject. So: Keep, notify WP:MANGA, and give them six months to work on it; if they don't improve it by then, then bring it back for another AfD. — Quasirandom 21:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article for cleanup, added a stub tag and some categories, put a wikiproject template on the talk page, and added an entry to the project's list of cleanup requests. And, here, plead again to give the people who can work on it a chance. — Quasirandom 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, the fact that it's been continuously published for 16 years suggests that it's popular enough that some sort of third-party sources would have discussed it. — Quasirandom 02:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. — Fg2 10:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to have been published long enough to be interesting and notable as a manga series, and while there may be few English sources, that's not enough - need to show no Japanese sources. --Gwern (contribs) 21:30 16 November 2007 (GMT)
Keep if sources are added Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. There is not notability here at all. A merge would add undue amounts of material to the district article relative to the other schools. -JodyB_talk 15:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shapleigh Memorial School[edit]

Non-notable elementary school; somebody spent more than the usual effort to write the page so I felt prod tagging was inappropriate. AnteaterZot 10:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a well written page, but there are no claims to notability. Alberon 11:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Maine School Administrative District 57 per established precedent. TerriersFan 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article needs references to assert its notability. Otherwise I think merge/redirect would be the best solution. LordHarris (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Terriers Fan would be the most appropriate solution. A word of encouragement to the creator may also be appropriate. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted by acclamation. A test page would be the charitable explanation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ishtiaq hussain[edit]

Mixture of hoax and non-notable person, most of the article is pasted from Mark Ballard. Would have speedied but not sure it fits any of the criteria. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck 09:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I think it qualifies as vandalism. Alberon 11:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Tagged for vandalism, as even after removing most of the material pasted straight from Mark Ballard, what's left is still text from that article with place names and dates changed. Could also be considered as a page created purely to disparage its subject - if real. --DAJF 11:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This is vandalism. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fraters Armigeri Hospitalis[edit]

I doubt the notability of this 16 members organization; the long section on its assumed history does not mention the organization at all and the name is wrong latin (Fraters instead of Fratres). jergen 09:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 217.166.84.130 (talk · contribs) removed the afd-notice from the article [30]. --jergen 11:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every organisation started small Jergen, besides that we are indeed on this moment an 16 active members but we represent on this moment already around a 150 different families due to our Historic research. In the year 1931 an Dutch Historian did do an research in Holland alone by what he came to the amazing conclusion that in Holland their were an 45.000 families alone who’s ancestors did belong to the lower nobility in Holland but who’s descendants were not recognized by the High Council of Nobility. Is it not strange that an “inherited right” suddenly vanishes? Like our website explains it, we make an statement and fight as an Entity for our rights. But how large our group will become, or how many families we represent (maybe your own family?) is on this moment not to tell. But if you say size matters, than I dare to say we represent an 5.000 members as when we reached that amount we will approach than the different Institutes of Nobility again.

Besides that Jergen, you already have an say in the German Wikipedia so in this case I don't think here is your place to write this comment.

J. Sieroversche —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.84.130 (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The history section is all about the Knights Hospitaller, the Knights Templar and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and if there's any verifiable sourced information here that's missing from those articles it should be merged. The organisation which this article is about was founded in 2006, has 16 members and a complete lack of notability. Looks like a bit of da-Vinci-Code-cruft to me. Phil Bridger 10:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thanks. AnteaterZot 10:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Phil Bridger. JohnCD 11:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although history proof you wrong concerning the notability and I disagree on the point that how it seems we only are allowed to have an article when we reached our 5000 active membership goal, I am tired of this discussion. So yes please delete it and remember that if anyone ever wants to write an article about us again, we hold the copyright. Sieroversche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.84.130 (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See WP:COPYRIGHT and our policy about legal threats. shoy (^words _words) 13:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without more specific citations, sounds too much like one of the Mimic orders. [31] Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

My deepest appoligy for my reaction on yesterday by the way but I was suddenly confronted that an article that I just 15 minutes before started to write was already on the list for deletion on the German site and than also certainly confronted that the same person also nominated my other articles for deletion. Of course I do agree with the Experts of Wikipedia what articles have an value to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia. In this we conform ourselves to the opinion of the majority. Sieroversche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.84.130 (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: see discussion or talkpage at the main article

Much is said and the general opinion is clear but first let us say we are not claiming to be a mimic order of knighthood or nobility. We don´t ask money and never will be as it goes against our policy. What than? Please see the discussionpage that i will open now to make it clear. Sieroversche.

The result was delete. Metros (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Mungo's Primary School[edit]

Elementary school without assertion of notability. PROD was contested with requets to list the article on AfD. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. AnteaterZot 10:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for some reason the nominator notified me instead of the author of the article. My only involvement here was to be the admin who removed the prod tag. Will someone please notify the proper party(ies)? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I notified you because you contested the PROD. The article authors had already been notified of the PROD, but I will notify them of the AfD too. --B. Wolterding 13:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, great; thanks. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turnip I'd probably delete all primary schools but, since there's no consensus to do that, there's little point in treating his one differently. Shrug.--Doc^g 14:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what about all the reliable sources? (Not that those kind of things ever convinced me, but mileage may vary.) The school was (trivially) mentioned in the Record just last month, in connection with Alistair McKever. A redirect to an lovely annotated list of primary schools in Glasgow would be less bother, and it wouldn't have needed an AfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to create that list. --B. Wolterding 08:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES isn't a guideline, just a list. If you feel the article should be kept, please vote for keep. (I don't think the article should be kept, though.) I'm fine with the idea of a list. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, A7-able. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if a primary school is notable, then the notable matters are the first things mentioned in a stub. So this one isn't notable, it doesn't meet WP:N and it doesnt meet WP:ORG.Ga rr ie 03:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. GlassCobra 23:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Items in super smash bros[edit]

This is game guide content not suitable for Wikipedia. A list of every item isn't notable and is just list/fancruft and clutter. RobJ1981 08:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AnteaterZot 10:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Typical examples might be worthwhile as inline mentions in the articles for each of the games, but a list like this doesn't work as its own article. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minutiative game-guide content that doesn't satisfy WP:N. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. Doc Strange 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, game guide content. Pagra shtak 18:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 01:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic shark[edit]

Delete as a hoax; arctic shark is not a common synonym for any shark species (google finds one or two refs to greenland sharks, but this is rare). Latin name and picture are for a great white shark, although the genus in the taxobox and binomial authority are new to science. Originally included many obviously false claims, but the author removed them when article was prodded. TeaDrinker 07:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there is no species known as Arctic shark, can the information in the Arctic shark article be changed to contain "probably" relevant info like this? -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. To Amarrq: No, unless the question of arctic sharks is notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article referenced by Amarrg is about "sharks in the arctic", not any species called "Arctic shark". JohnCD 12:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was previously deleted as nonsense back on the 7th. Improbcat 13:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per G4: Recreation of deleted material. Martijn Hoekstra 16:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If a reliable source says the term is used in reference to the Greenland shark, redirect it there. --Evb-wiki 16:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 per Martijn. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - G4 ((db-recreated)) does not apply to article that were previously speedily deleted. --Evb-wiki 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad. I saw that in the log too, Evb. I picked a fine time to stop drinking coffee. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just let the AFD run for a definitive decision... it doesn't really meet any CSD. --W.marsh 18:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake, the last time it went into AfD, but was closed as speedy I think. Martijn Hoekstra 19:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A hoax cobbled from elements of Greenland sharks and great white sharks. Acroterion _(talk) 01:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per WP:NOT a guide --JForget 01:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make up brushes[edit]

This page is an essay or how-to guide, contrary to WP:NOT The article is entirely WP:OR and impossible to WP:V Mayalld 07:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and WP:NOT#GUIDE. JohnCD 11:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; no Wikipedia-appropriate information except possibly for list of appropriate standard brushes, which still would need WP:V to even be moved (maybe to Cosmetics) instead of deleted. --Closeapple 13:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a howto. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacy Spirits[edit]

Contested Prod, so here we are: No allmusic.com for either "Pharmacy Spirits" or "The Bad Sects", and can't find anything (including the external links in the article) that gives any evidence of anything but online and very local activities[32][33][34], so doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC--no assertion of charts, awards, major releases, or wide geography tours/gigs. Ravenna1961 07:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JohnCD 12:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless reliable sources can be produced to verify notability. I wasn't able to find anything, either. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band is the most prominent in Lincoln's local scene, and it was notable enough for those sources. LouisHesse 05:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unable to even find them on the label website. Only the myspace link references the band. Gtstricky 20:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete so as to purge article history for when a genuine article is created. DS 16:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugigi[edit]

Hoax or mistaken/muddled location and history Rexparry sydney 06:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with rewrite: Ugigi is a place on Lake Tanganyika where Henry Morton Stanley met up with David Livingstone in Africa as per this. Another reference is here. Apart from this, I could not find any other place called Ugigi. The current contents of the article seem to be a hoax. I would suggest to modify the article to reflect the correct location of Ugigi and keep it -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. DS 05:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnocraze[edit]

Neologism. The only reference is Urban Dictionary and that's not a reliable source. eaolson 05:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was move to projectspace. Mr.Z-man 04:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of two-letter combinations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of two-letter combinations

Articles for deletion/List of all two-letter combinations

Unencyclopedic and of questionable worth. Fails WP:N, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Userify it somewhere if it's that important to the project; otherwise, I don't see why it's any more worthwhile than List of n-letter combinations for any n. Chardish 05:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incredibly indiscriminate. eaolson 05:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of use primarily to scrabble players and domain squatters. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly pointless page Mayalld 09:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Non-notable, Of no use to Wikipedia -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user space or project space. This list is useful for keeping track of which letter combinations don't have an article yet (most likely a disambiguation page for the relevant acronyms), and in many cases perhaps they should. In that case it wouldn't be different from the many "lists of missing articles" we have lying around. --Itub 12:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move-It could be moved to places such as project pages or user pages just for reference and for leisure reading.Comment-SupportsItubPOV on moving the page to an disambiguation page.--Quek157 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong move. This page was originally in the Wikipedia namespace, but for some inexplicable reason it was moved back into the main space right after a RM succeeded in moving it to the WP namespace ([35]). It has some minor maintenance use for Wikipedia. SnowFire 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Snowfire. The page does have some usefulness as a maintenance tool. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move into Wikipedia namespace, per previous precedent with all the other lists of this type. 132.205.99.122 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia talk:TLAs from AAA to DZZ. 132.205.99.122 20:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - this list should have been moved to the Wikipedia namespace in Sept 2005... 132.205.99.122 20:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move or delete. This article has no encyclopedic content. Do people not know how to come up with two letter combinations on their own? Would anyone look at the page and say, "I did not know that that was a two-letter combo"? The same goes for the articles that are listed at the bottom: single-digit-single-letter (0A–9Z), single-letter-single-digit (A0–Z9), single-letter-double-digit (A00–Z99), and two-letters (AA–ZZ). If someone wants to keep the page for maintainence reasons, fine, but it is not an article. --Jjamison (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete all --JForget 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder, She Wrote: The Complete First Season[edit]

Wikipedia is not a sales catalog, and WP:SPAM. Includes prices for USA, Canada, UK, and Australia, with text copied directly from the actual promotional text on the covers. The existing List of Murder, She Wrote episodes contains all the episodes.

Nominating all the related non-notable commercial releases for the same reason;

Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Second Season
Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Third Season
Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Fourth Season
Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Fifth Season
Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Sixth Season
Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Seventh Season
Murder, She Wrote: Seasons One, Two & Three

Masaruemoto 05:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy delete as copyright violation for the back cover text; failing that, delete because Wikipedia is not an advertising catalog and those sets are not notable independently of the series. - Chardish 05:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SPAM Mayalld 10:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the important information is already included in a table in Murder, She Wrote and there is nothing so unusual about these DVDs as to require separate articles for each season. Otto4711 13:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I can't believe I didn't nominate these myself. Brad 15:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete of all. When i saw this, i laughed so hard that Dr Pepper came out of my nose. No other tv show has their DVDs as articles. This is advertising...even if these DVDs WERE unsual, it would be noted in the actuall Murder, She Wrote article. Doc Strange 17:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. DVD releases are addressed in the main show article (see, for example, Twin Peaks). The individual releases are not notable enough to justify their own articles. 23skidoo 18:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per everyone else here. Rray 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete

West Wight Potter 15[edit]

Boat with no claim of notabilty Delete-- This is a Secret ^account 05:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete cute but no. Kwsn (Ni!) 05:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah... not really notable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability; possibly speedy. - Chardish 05:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, nice boat but is not notable enough to sail with Wikipedia -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Possible Speedy Delete for not even asserting notability? --DAJF 13:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. In its place, I'll leave a redirect to Software industry. — Scientizzle 16:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software company[edit]

Seems like a useless list, especially since Category: Software companies already exists. Also per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_software_companies. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 04:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would suggest a redirect to Software industry -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Keeping CCC in mind, I see no difference from the consensus already reached. - Rjd0060 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article consists only of a dictionary definition and a list. Good idea to redirect to Software industry. Phil Bridger 10:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Software industry seems sensible. the wub "?!" 15:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - i think this is a fairly notable concept. the article is terrible, but I think something could be made of it eventually. a redirect until then isn't a problem. ^Law/_Disorder 20:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. But do you think Software company will ever merit a separate aricle from Software industry? Phil Bridger 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this, it seems pointless. 82.153.19.100 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per others. Radagast83 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Phil Bridger :-) Stwalkerster talk 21:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Sargent[edit]

This article is about a candidate for the Wisconsin State Assembly (the lower legislative house in Wisconsin). He would first become notable if he wins, making this a Crystal ball right now. Royalbroil 04:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom and it reads like a political advertisement, or a voice over for a TV campaign ad. - Rjd0060 05:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn SCUBA instructor. JJL 05:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO qualifications for politicians. shoeofdeath (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Davewild (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osceola County School For The Arts[edit]

This school is not Notable J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to assert any notability. Another school that is just there. - Rjd0060 04:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school. JJL 05:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral:I checked the WP Schools project and unfortunately they do not seem to have a guideline for Notability. Having said that, I see that there are three FA articles on schools and a lot of schools have been featured as DYKs. So, in my opinion, deletion of the article would be a bit harsh, but I would also want to ensure that the school is notable. Hence, I have pinged the Project members for their opinion on this and their inputs would be useful. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a secondary school and although new it shows some attempts at notability. I have added to the article. Oh and well done User:Amar ... better than shooting from the hip! Victuallers 15:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as lacking any notability. ^Law/_Disorder 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The school does not appear to assert notability, but it does seem unusual and perhaps sources can be found. I wish the project members luck finding such material. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been improved thanks to the efforts of Victuallers. It is a high school and the article on it can pass WP:N if it doesn't now, article includes some independent and reliable sources, and a search reveals more such as [36]. Things like It has been an "A" school in the grading system that uses the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test as its standard, and is also a "5 Star" school would help enhance notability further if they were sourced, I am working on that. Camaron1 | Chris 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I took out the unsourced History section. I think it looks better. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accomplishments of the school and its alumni, supported by reliable and verifiable sources, satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson K550im[edit]

Non-notable cellular phone. This is just a catalog entry. Expired ((prod)) was removed by User:Athaenara with the comment "Removed Template:Prod. I don't know what the standard is for these - see Template:Sony Ericsson phones - but this can go to WP:AFD if necessary.", so here it is. Mikeblas 04:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable; I personally don't like these cell phone articles anyways. 98.4% of them aren't notable. - Rjd0060 04:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Rjd, though I'm not sure about that 98.4% figure. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 05:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: HA, well, that number is an educated guess. I know some phones are notable, but those are the select few. - Rjd0060 07:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. It may be worthy of a footnote in the K550 if it is an upgrade for it. 82.153.19.100 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orgonophilia[edit]

Prod tag removed, so here we are: Zero google hits, and highly suspect claims in text--hoax, WP:OR, and/or neologism Ravenna1961 04:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the socks have pointed out, the Google test is not infallible, especially with obscure medical terms. However, if Richard Burton was indeed publicly known to have a fascination with filing cabinets, I'm quite certain Google would have some knowledge of that, but none can be found. Ravenna1961 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Probably a hoax with Zero G-Hits. - Rjd0060 04:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete clear hoax. JJL 05:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence offered that this is a hoax. Article is well written and supported by published sources. Quick Google search reveals lists of many unusual personality disorders, many of which are far more improbable sounding than Orgonophilia and have no internet presence other than in aformentioned lists.Johnson Archbold 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Johnson Archbold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The point made above by Johnson Archbold is born out. See link: http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/philias.html. There is much recorded knowledge that has yet to be recorded on-line. Google hits are an inadequate yard-stick. Evelyn Jones 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Evelyn Jones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment I am unable to find Orgonophilia there. In addition, I checked the Stanislavski reference using "Search Inside This Book" at Amazon.com [37]. I was unable to find the terms "filing", "cabinet", "Richard", or "Burton" (but could find a number of other terms, like "Shakespeare" and "Grisha", so the search appears to be working properly). I would also like to see the source for this checked: "Field Marshall Alan Brooke, who was Chief of the Imperial General Staff during the Second World War, was a notable orgonophiliac. During his time as Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Brooke had frequent rows with Winston Churchill over strategy that would trigger an orgonophilic episode. In order to recover, Brooke took to sharing his bed with a three-draw, oak Globe Wernicke filing cabinet. When Brook accompanied Churchill abroad, it was impossible for him to take his beloved Globe Wernicke with him. However, he was able to find succour when asleep with a single-draw card index system." I say again Speedy delete as clear (and ongoing) hoax. JJL 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to say Delete, not least because having read the author's own sanctimonious comments on the discussion page he sounds like a windbag who doesn’t really get Wikipedia. However, the reference to the book Psychology by Martin, Carlson & Buskist checks out. Also, the points raised above about internet navel-gazing are valid. Many web references quoted on Wikipedia articles are either unreliable or no longer accessible.The Cropter 1661 20:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Croppter 1661 (talk • contribs) — The Croppter 1661 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as questionably sourced at best. One would think that such a condition, especially when experienced by such luminaries as Richard Burton, would have some online documentation somewhere. This looks like bollocks to me. (I'd suggest that we look very carefully at this edit by Evelyn Jones (talk · contribs), as well; that didn't turn up Googling either.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wrote the article so I appreciate that I am not impartial. However, I would like to say that the "discussion" here is ludicrous. It consists entirely of conjecture, innuendo and suspicion. Only two contributors have even bothered to investigate the source material, and only person has actually read one of the books referred to in the article. Do any of you understand the concept of evidence? Furthermore, not one of you would appear to have any clinical knowledge of psychology or psychiatry. Do any of you know the meaning of the term “peer review”? What is the point of this encylopedia if the only measure of it's veracity is how many articles are thrown up by Google? Celron Donate 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Celeron Donate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX, WP:SOCK and indeed WP:BEANS. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - article was quite obviously written by Rowan Atkinson and I claim my $5. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sheffield Steel. Cobbled together from other Wikipedia articles, BTW, for example the "Association with panic attacks" section comes from the Agoraphobia article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cobbled together might give the wrong impression. I was impressed by the style, invention and attention to detail. Still a delete, of course. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Congratulations on a hoax that was better-planned than the usual hoax. It is nicely written. It sounds as if it might be true. There really is a book by Martin, Carlson and Buskist, all real people, about psychology, so there's the illusion of a "reliable source". Add to that a helping hand from "The Cropter" who is there to assure us that it "checks out". The only thing that you couldn't resolve was the lack of any mention of this condition anywhere outside of your article. When the story started falling apart, the answer was that google isn't 100% reliable, your critics don't understand evidence or psychology, etc. At least you were successful in causing all of us to spend some time trying to verify something that sounded as if it might be true. "And I woulda gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!" Too bad we can't pull of the mask to see who you really are. Mandsford 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it this way--it shows the ability to write real articles, if you care to try that instead.DGG (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you entirely. My thoughts have been that it's a lot of talent wasted on a practical joke. Note to author-- use your powers for good, not for evil Mandsford 21:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has to be a hoax. It is, however, one of the more creative and amusing hoaxes I've seen on Wikipedia, so it gets credit for that at least. Terraxos (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Creating a redirect and/or expanding Indian Civil Service#Contemporary Indian Civil Service to discuss the exam might be decent ideas. GRBerry 03:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian civil services coaching centres[edit]

Very problematic article, might even be an ad but it's hard to tell. Dougie WII 20:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Severe POV problems and formatting. But that isn't a reason to delete, that's a reason to improve. Mbisanz 23:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 03:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless there are some reliable sources added and some work with the POV prior to the close of this discussion. (Especially the sources though!). - Rjd0060 04:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like an ad. Moreover the article Indian civil services coaching centres could not possibly contain any other encyclopedic content, to allow it to remain. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously needs major cleanup, but the subject itself is notable and verifiable, as a quick Google search will show. Phil Bridger 10:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've no idea why some of the people have voted Keep. The article's first version was clearly an disguised advertisement for a coaching class in Chennai. Minus that ad, the article is just a redundant copy of Indian Civil Service. Since Wikipedia is not a directory, we don't need to have a list of Indian civil services coaching centres. utcursch | talk 07:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Friesen (musician)[edit]

Matt Friesen (musician) appears to be about a nn musician. Can't establish meeting WP:BIO via Google search.

Google hits for +"Matt Friesen" +"The Bad Plus"
+"Matt Friesen" +Halloween
+"Matt Friesen" +Love-cars
+"Matt Friesen" +"These Modern Socks" Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to be notable, nor does it assert importance. - Rjd0060 04:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This "probable" WP:RS article talks about him. And according to the article Halloween, Alaska, two tracks from his band seem to have been featured in Fox television series The O.C., which however needs to be verified. WP:MUSIC provides the following notability guidelines for musicians. I have pinged WP:MUSIC project for comments -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The guidelines at MUSIC indicate what is an assertion of notability, or what may create a presumption that substantial sourcing can be found. If it can be demonstrated that such sourcing does not in fact exist, the article still should be deleted. Conversely, if it can be demonstrated that substantial amounts of reliable source material exist on a musician or band which does not otherwise pass any MUSIC guidelines, the article still should be kept. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Material could easily be merged into band article if important.Victuallers 10:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reference provided by Amar is about the band, not the individual musician. He is only mentioned in passing. Phil Bridger 10:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nn.True theory 11:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable subject, no references, nothing that stands out. Turgidson 02:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect after Merge. I see that the material has already been inclued into the suggested merge target. Under the GFDL we are obliged to preserve the history for attributation so a redirect is the only possible close here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man in the Moon (Middle-earth)[edit]

Contested prod. This is an article about a fictionalized character within a fictional setting, with no secondary sources and no claim to real-world notability. Powers ^T 03:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)— Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Neverpitch is mass voting on every AFD as a keep using the same rationale. vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT[reply]
Delete No sources, no claim of real world notability. TJ Spyke 04:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and TJ Spyke. Ravenna1961 04:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- tqbf 04:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above (notability especially). - Rjd0060 04:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, purely in-universe and lacking notability outside of Tolkien's work. - Chardish 05:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sun and Moon (Middle-earth). By itself it may not be that important, but if it's covered in an article which discusses the Sun and the Moon in Tolkien's writings, fine. Uthanc 12:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sun and Moon (Middle-earth), per Uthanc (some of the material is already there). By itself, there is not enough here to sustain an article, so merging is the logical choice. In future, if prods in this area are contested, please consider leaving a note at the WikiProject talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth). We are currently tidying up a lot of other areas, but should have time to deal with individual articles without needing a full five-day discussion at AfD. Carcharoth 15:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Chardish (talk · contribs) appears to have responded to the above by placing a prod tag on Sun and Moon (Middle-earth). I understand that people do want to raise their concerns, but there are less aggressive ways to do so. Please consider discussing things before placing prod tags, and please consider discussing before responding to a removed prod tag with an AfD nomination. Taken to its logical conclusion, you will end up placing a prod tag on Middle-earth. A balance has to be struck, yes, but there is room in Wikipedia (even taking notability into account) for more than just J. R. R. Tolkien and Middle-earth and The Lord of the Rings. Disrupting ongoing clean-up work is not the best way to find the right balance of sourced and well-written articles. Carcharoth 16:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is my belief that the number of unauthorized books written about Tolkien's world, such as The Complete Guide to Middle-earth by Robert Foster (which, indeed, has an entry on the Man in the Moon), makes lots of in-universe elements and characters notable, since they thus have been dealt with by multiple independent non-trivial sources. If not kept, this one should be merged into Sun & Moon, as suggested above. 96T 18:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I suggest merging into Sun and Moon (Middle-earth) as this does present some information which I think is worth keeping, but is not notable enough to merit its own page. In response to Carcharoth (talk · contribs), I would be tempted to merge this into Middle-earth but that article is already long enough, maybe a section in there on Middle-earth folklore would be a suitable place for this and Sun and Moon (Middle-earth). 82.153.19.100 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - merge is still appropriate, but I thought people here might be interested in this: Honnegger, Thomas "The Man in the Moon: Structural Depth in Tolkien", published in "Root and Branch" (2000), from Walking Tree Publishers book review. From that review, we have:
"The article "The Man in the Moon: Structural Depth in Tolkien" is divided into two parts. In the first half the author gives an extensive and detailled overview of all the occurences of the Man in the Moon; from the medieval thief of a thornbush (with perhaps Biblical references) to the English nursery rhyme of the 19th century. In the second half Thomas Honegger analyses the way Tolkien elaborated on the original Middle English poem. He focusses on the two poems (and their different versions) Tolkien wrote about the 'man in the moon who came down too soon'. It is a pity that the appearance in Tolkien's Roverandom is only mentioned in passing. Like most roo-diggers, the author could not resist having a guess at why Tolkien used this particular piece of folklore; "a construction of a missing linking tradition between medieval and modern Man in the Moon poems"."
This is also relevant to The Man in the Moon Stayed Up Too Late and Man in the Moon (the real Moon this time!), though the literary analysis is probably best put at Sun and Moon (Middle-earth), with a brief mention at Man in the Moon, while a short summary of the poem can probably go at List of poems by J. R. R. Tolkien. Carcharoth 06:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge (either into the Sun & Moon article, or as merge target for the Man-in-the-Moon poems). Why do people keep putting perfectly obvious merge candidates on Afd? dab (𒁳) 10:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the article fails to assert both notability and provide real-world context of the fictional topic. It's purely in-universe. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And a merge to an article that includes out-of-universe context will fix that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary data exists on the page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If secondary information was added, would that overcome your concerns? From the link you provide, I see "a critical analysis of the subject" would count as secondary information. Surely "Honnegger, Thomas "The Man in the Moon: Structural Depth in Tolkien", published in "Root and Branch" (2000)" counts as a critical analysis of the subject? A merger is still the best option in my opinion, but if it is an out-of-universe persepctive you are after, it is easily possible to mention the book titles: The Lord of the Rings, the relevant History of Middle-earth volumes (such as The Book of Lost Tales), The Silmarillion (for the Tilion references) and Roverandom for that mention. From what I can remember, the editorial notes to Roverandom, by Hammond and Scull, talk about the Man in the Moon in Roverandom, and the possible relationships to the Middle-earth stories and poems about the Man in the Moon. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Anderson (Security)[edit]

Non-notable BLP created by an SPA (only other edit was to the now-defunct, non-notable company the subject cofounded). No sourcing, stub content. --- tqbf 03:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think this is notable. Also, there are no third party reliable sources. - Rjd0060 04:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per NN, BLP. not to mention vanity. True theory 11:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as no assertion of notability for a BLP. Bearian 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per NN, BLP. --Raistlin (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable, can't find any good references for assertion of notability. --Othtim (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Friesen[edit]

Apparently software company president and hockey team manager/founder that dopes not meet WP:BIO. (This article hijacked an article about a musician. I moved the musician to his own article.)

18 Google hits for +"Matt Friesen" +hockey.
+"Matt Friesen" +thirdi. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: President of a non notable company, no reason to keep. - Rjd0060 04:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable - no evidence shown Victuallers 09:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Thoroughly not notable, as well as very rude indeed. Terminate with extreme prejudice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not-notable in any regard. lacks independent sourcing. probably vanity, but that's neither here nor there. True theory 11:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 01:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goon shower[edit]

Extensive original research. None of the references establish notability. Alksub 03:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources are Wikipedia and "DrinkingGameRules.com". No evidence of notability. Powers ^T 03:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yeah...um...... WP:N and WP:NFT. - Rjd0060 04:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO DELETE : Legitimate term supported by 4 sources... more to come as found!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.94.180 (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those sources don't even mention this game. Some of them are concerned with another game that involves the same drink and some of them are concerned with the drink itself. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:MADEUP. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 05:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 07:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Sources do not back up what is stated. spryde | talk 10:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to be joking if you think those sources for the most part dont back up what it said... this is beginning to look like a witch hunt, making up things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.94.180 (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should not do this but what the hell, it is 6am and I am out of coffee...

Ref 1. We don't use WP as a reference.

Ref 2. No mention of goon, pouring stuff on your head, etc. Not relevant.

Ref 3. No mention of goon, not a reliable source, not relevent.

Ref 4. See 1

Ref 5. Not a reliable source. Relevant but not verifiable.

Based on the above, I stand by my comment. Allow me to go comment on the other 'Goon' AfD... spryde | talk 11:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahah then we better close this place up, because a great deal of entries have the same faults with them! The fact is a goon shower is a word used by people, not a 'friends' thing, its a word used by a reasonable amount of people. Hell on the advice of a friend Ive even added origins to Spain, which is legitimate. This seems like nitpicking what is a great entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.94.180 (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply this goon shower business is making me excited. ever heard of a golden shower? is this sort of the frat boy equivalent? basically your entry is lame as is. if you're certain this article belongs, why not listen to the feedback you've received and make the necessary changes in order to establish its legitimacy? no sense in defending yourself against spryde when the claims are true. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability to start with. This should have been reviewed before the article was listed because it helps avoid situations like this. the time you've spent trying to negate editors and their arguements should be spent either fixing this article or finding a new subject that would be culturally/intellectually suitable. If you want this article to be a keep do your reading, make the changes, and stop being silly. True theory 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per above. (also, it's boring)True theory 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made up, unreferenced, all of the above... - Eron^Talk 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Standard issue frat boy drivel. - Richfife 16:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up at four in the morning in the frat house under the influence of far too much alcohol and other intoxicants. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tony Fox. JavaTenor 14:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are no reliable sources to back this article up. Pastordavid 21:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this 'source' argument is that many articles listed here have even less sources or worse yet, NONE, yet they aernt deleted. While because this is a relatively new term, so its difficult to source, we make an exception to the rule and decide to delete it (mind you the related concepts HAVE been sourced, any disputing this is jus ridiculous). Im seeing a distinct lack of consistency here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.94.180 (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Hoffman[edit]

Delete I really don't think Wayne Hoffman is notable enough to get a page. He ony appeared on a reality show, he didn't make it close to the end, and he has no appearances elsewhere. The only thing on the page is that he was on the show, which can be seen on the show's page. --Crazy4metallica 03:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assertion of notability very weak. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable per BIO. - Rjd0060 04:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The page was started by Wayne Hoffman himself and most of the contributions were done by him (and someone who seems associated with him) and the tone was very promotional. I took out everything that was unreferenced which left the page as it is now. I agree that the notability is weak and since the page was only set up for promotion by Hoffman (and no other contributions have been made) i agree it should be deleted. harlock_jds 12:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, I'm with the pack on this one. -- Mike (Kicking222) 03:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was snowball delete - hoax Grutness...wha? 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winnie the Pooh (1953 film)[edit]

This appears to be a hoax. No such film is listed on imdb.com, or in any film reference book I've checked. Google search reveals nothing. Cast list is a dead giveaway this article is just a joke. Hal Raglan 02:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't relevant. Simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp75motorsports (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't appear to be a real movie. Both IMDB links lead to either Alice in Wonderland or Peter Pan. --Crazy4metallica 03:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Deor 03:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. No supporting references anywhere. --DAJF 03:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The article was actually created with an unreferenced tag. Zagalejo^^^ 04:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. - Rjd0060 04:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 07:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't a real movie. I get nothing on Google about it, nothing on imdb, and no mention on A.A. Milne's imdb page. So yeah, a delete. According to that same page, the first motion picture made of Pooh was made in 1966. Doc Strange 17:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE hopefully someone will black list User:Blacknack111 for creating this hoax not very appreciated!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggrfan (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOWBALL -- clearly a hoax. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merged to Nahunta, Georgia. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raybon, Georgia[edit]

Failed PROD (Neverpitch removal). Original PROD note: No claim of notability.

From what I've found via a quick web search, Raybon isn't a town in and of itself, but a suburb or community within Nahunta. While a city in and of itself would be a speedy keep, AfDing as it could be mentioned in the Nahunta article. Collectonian 02:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why go through this deletion process? Just redirect it to Nahunta, Georgia.--Neverpitch 03:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Nahunta, Georgia. Powers ^T 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree - Raybon is an unincorporated community and is really not notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. While some unincorporated communities are okay on Wikipedia (Waynesville, Georgia because ZIP Code 31566 is 'Waynesville, Georgia'), Raybon has no ZIP code, it is definitely not a city or a town, and it is not a notable community. Merge and redirect to Nahunta, Georgia. Jaxfl 03:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect the page: Next time, please be bold if you feel comfortable. - Rjd0060 04:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Done Redirected to Nahunta. I looked like hell and there does not appear to be anything notable about this locale. Since it doesn't appear to be a place according to the census bureau, the boldness was appropriate. spryde | talk 10:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and move here (disambiguation) to here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here[edit]

This page is a dictionary definition with some generally irrelevant fluff added, the type that could be written about any word. I don't see much potential for expansion, and think that the legitimate parts of the article can be dealt with concisely at Here (disambiguation). It should be deleted, and the disambiguation page moved here to replace it.

To expand on the above... the entire "In science" and "In Religion and philosophy" sections should probably be removed even if the article is kept. The etymology and further cogitation on the meaning of "here" have some merit as sections, if the article as a whole was deemed worthy of keeping... but I'm not convinced that this is a word with a history (and hence, encyclopedic content) like Truthiness, and articles are generally supposed to have more than just usage instructions. I think that most of it can be handled at deixis/deitic expression, and hence I've linked the term in the intro at Here (disambiguation), along with referencing the Old English roots and adding to the See also section. SnowFire 02:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or usage guide. Powers ^T 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move Here (disambiguation) here (where?). I just mean that this here page would be a good place to have a disambiguation page here. Are were clear? --W.marsh 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously falls under WP:NOT. Maybe redirect to the dab page?? - Rjd0060 04:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move in the dab page, per all. — Swpb^talk.edits 05:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Here (disambiguation). Or, as suggested, move that page to here. This has the link to wikitionary, and also to deixis. I was going to suggest that, but then noticed it's already there. Thanks. Drmaik 05:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has been the subject of at least one previous deletion discussion, based on essentially the same concern. Here is one of the core items of the English lexicon, and poses grammatical and usage issues that go beyond what a dictionary can cover. Note that we do not yet have an article on place deixis, but what we have here is a start. - -- Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you think there's anything worth merging from this article to the deixis article, then an alternate suggestion could be to move the current Here to Here (word), and then redirect that to deixis. That way, the GFDL will be preserved and all. However, I do still think that this topic would be better covered at the deixis article than here, and deixis is linked right in the first line of the disambiguation page. -- SnowFire (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge I agree with User:Drmaik here (no pun intended) on the redirect. Here does not need its own page. I suggest it be merged into a kinda hybrid between here and there or into a section within the article location. Beast of traal T C _ 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal[reply]

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khazid'hea[edit]

Another Neverpitch PROD removal. Original PROD note: Non-notable fictional object.

This is another article, primarily in-universe, about a weapon in a game. Lacks notability and references. At best, belongs in an article on Forgotten Realms weapons with a short summary. Collectonian 02:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More disruptive and irrational deletionism.--Neverpitch 03:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)— Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. While the rationale was different on this one, Neverpitch is mass voting on over 25 AFD's as a keep using the same rationale. vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT[reply]
Delete: Non notable. I guess it could be merged into the appropriate Dungeons & Dragons area, but if it isn't, I won't lose any sleep. - Rjd0060 04:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How is this nomination disruptive? The weirdness of the name should make searching for sources easy. I just did, found nothing beyond a handful of fansites, and the vast majority of these only mention it in passing anyway. AnteaterZot 10:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A detailed in-universe plot description without any third-party reliable sources does not an encyclopedic article make. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep --JForget 01:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faerûn[edit]

Tagged as lacking notability for a month. Primarily in-universe article that has no notability on its own. Collectonian 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Perfectly valid subarticle of Forgotten Realms. Powers ^T 03:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This has to be the third most notable Forgotten Realms article, right after "Forgotten Realms" and "Drizzt Do'Urden."--Neverpitch 03:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge: Somewhere, and delete (or redirect) the article. It really isn't notable outside the game view, so it should be incorporated in one of those articles. - Rjd0060 04:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Attack removed"--Neverpitch 04:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That isn't a nice thing to say to somebody who disagrees with you. Its also a personal attack, which clearly demonstrates your understanding of policy here. - Rjd0060 05:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand policy all right; I'm just not a mindless conformist.--Neverpitch 06:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note that I do not condone the striking out of my comments. If you find them striken out, know that it was not my doing, and that I continue to stand by them.--Neverpitch 06:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Personal attacks don't do our position on this AfD any favors. Powers ^T 12:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a pretty high-level concept in a widely noted, longstanding cultural interest. I'm well aware that "but other stuff exists" is on the list of no-no arguments, but I really can think of dozens of articles less important than this one. How many books have to be published in a setting, spanning how many years, before it becomes noteworthy? Given the wide array of source material, I have little doubt this article can be maintained and upkept. That said, Northwest Faerûn might be a bit much. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most notable gaming universe setting MLA 10:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is probably the single most famous Dungeons & Dragons world. Hundreds of novels and books, by many notable authors, have been written about it. It is widely-acknowledged among those who follow fantasy fiction as one of the largest, in terms of pages of source material, fictional worlds ever created. —Lowellian (reply) 10:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, article needs improvement, not deletion. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. There are enough sources out there for this one, someone just needs to take the time and add them to the article. No reason for deletion. User:Krator (t c) 13:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all other keep votes. BOZ 15:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The setting for approximately a gazillion notable novels and video games, and probably the best-known area in the whole gigantic D&D universe. Pinball22 15:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - possibly the most written about fictional universe in existence, or at least in the top three. Ben W Bell talk 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and snowball close; there is no chance of this topic getting deleted with the current sampling. Article needs cleanup and better sourcing, but it's hugely notable; no problems for which there aren't remedies. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The length of time something has been tagged for notability has no relevance to whether or not it should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't working under a deadline. In-universe content can be fixed, so this isn't a valid reason for deletion either. While I understand that notability isn't inherited, breaking subtopics of articles about notable subjects into their own articles is often useful. Rray 06:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all above. The article needs to be improved. Web Warlock 13:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —Powers ^T 13:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. With respect to the nominator, many of the editors here do believe that it is notable and that the notability is derived from reliable sources. Troubling material can be re-worded and improved to sound more encylopedic to address the concerns. Seraphim ^Whipp (Non-admin closure) 15:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates versus Ninjas[edit]

Article is unsalvageablely unencylopedic. Text is entirely conjecture about a nonnotable internet meme. Sets unreasonable standard for other topics on Wikipedia. Cumulus Clouds 02:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve The "Pirate vs" Ninja"-conflict is a very well known and often referenced internet meme. The article definitly needs improvement though. ~ Felcis 03:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well, in that case put it in Internet Meme or Meme or put a single line into Pirate or Ninja that explains this was once a catchphrase. Having an entire article dedicated to what can essentially be reduced to a one sentence explanation is damaging to the value of all other articles on this encyclopedia. Cumulus Clouds 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrr You mean that, by their mere presence, pirates and ninjas will invisibly permeate every other article in the Wikipedia? All two million of them? That truly is Awesome Power! Colonel Warden 08:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All Things Considered and Wired are reliable third-party sources. Powers ^T 03:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve The topic definitely seems notable enough to have a page, but it needs some serious improvement. --Crazy4metallica 04:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to this article's notability, I'd like to point out that the only pages that link to it are from other articles "see also" sections, which tends to refute the idea that this cliche needs its own article. Cumulus Clouds 23:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Barely notable. Needs a whole lot of work. If it remains in this condition, and another AfD starts down the road, I'll say delete. - Rjd0060 04:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Internet memes need more than a couple mentions to achieve real-world notability. Article is seriously deficient. Seems to attempt to describe a neologism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardish (talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote from National Public Radio: "... the pirate vs. ninja debate (PvN for short) which has engaged the Internet in a world wide war for at least a decade, maybe more ..." Not exactly a neologism. Powers ^T 12:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with the PvP article; if it has notability, it seems to be contained as an in-joke kind of thing to fans of the comic. VZG 06:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly; PvP is referencing the larger meme. Powers ^T 12:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is quite notable and has become more so since Pirates of the Carribean and International Talk Like a Pirate Day. Colonel Warden 15:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those things are relevant to Pirates, but they express only a tenuous relation to the article in question and do so only by way of the word Pirates. Cumulus Clouds 02:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs cleanup, but worth keeping, especially with things like the Pirates vs Ninjas Dodgeball game coming out. aeonite —Preceding comment was added at 16:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the event the Keep vote is overwhelmed or ignored, I would recommend rolling this content into the Pirates_Vs._Ninjas_Dodgeball article, since that too has a dearth of content and both pages would benefit from the inclusion of the other. aeonite 08:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's an internet meme, but it's a notable internet meme Doc Strange 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Pirates vs Ninjas" meme may be notable, but it doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article for it since there's nothing else you can say about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumulus Clouds (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass muster for notability. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable or not, there's no way to expand this article without making it a list dedicated solely to references in popular culture (which composes the bulk of it now anyway). There is a serious lack of research and news sources which would be citeable in this instance and so it would be nearly impossible to ever bring this article out of stub-class. Cumulus Clouds 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve The extent of this debate alone should indicate that there is enough interest in keeping the entry. If people are looking for information on it, then let them find it. Plenty of more offensive articles out there. Could definitely be cleaned up and improved, however, no argument there. --Mansquito 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have recently added some citations to the article, hopefully improving it. aeonite 20:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable Internet meme. Rray 00:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know anything about the PvN except from the Facebook application. In any case, I am sceptical about the composition and very doubtful about the relevance of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.241.166 (talk • contribs)

I'll give it a month and then I'm resubmitting this nomination. -- Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to find some better reasons. See WP:DEADLINE and WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--no reliable sources, lots of unsourced claims/original research (such as the "Why pirates and ninjas?" section). If not deleted, it should be trimmed to keep only the sourced material and stubbed. I don't even see sourcing for the article's premise in its lead. Robert K S (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All Things Considered and Wired are reliable third-party sources. Powers ^T 03:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeonite (talk • contribs) [reply]

But all of the sources you're quoting only say that "Pirates v. Ninjas is a meme." Eliminating everything else makes this article one sentence long and that's hardly something worth keeping. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose in citing this was merely to point out LtPowers' statement that offered a counterpoint to this one. The argument here wasn't what those sources said, only that they weren't reliable. Which LtPowers believes (and I agree) is false. The content of the sources is another issue. aeonite (talk)

Also if you're the "Michael "Aeon" Fiegel" that wrote the article in the first reference, my understanding of WP:OR is that you aren't allowed to cite your own work on Wikipedia to advance your own viewpoint. I'm open to other intepretations on that, but it just seems a little shady to me. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am. The link in question (to Hobotrashcan) was one of two to that site that was already on the page, not put there by me. However, I chose the wrong one - the one I meant to cite was the first one, to which my article was a counterpoint. I will make the correction (in my eyes) now and if reversion is decided upon then I accept that. aeonite (talk)

Just for reference, I think WP:OR#Citing_oneself covers this, and the issue would seem to be not be my (mistaken, now corrected) self-citation but whether HoboTrashCan is considered a "reliable publication." I have no opinion on that matter though I suspect the general consensus would be mixed. aeonite (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep. I came to wiki looking for Pirates vs. Ninjas because they sell PvN toys even, and wanted to know what it was about. Important article. javin (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.85.195 (talk • contribs)

How could this article have explained anything to you that wouldn't have intuitively occured already? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definite delete. I came here just out of curiosity, assuming if it had a wiki page, it must have some interesting content. The content currently is essentially, "some guy on the internet wondered which are cooler, pirates or ninjas". The page has absolutely no content. If you feel so strongly about keeping it, please fill in more info - reference these PvN toys, talk about the facebook game, and fill it in with pictures. As it is now, though, a page that says "pirates vs ninjas is an internet phenomenon" is just a worthless stub, and dilutes WP. Lenrodman (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bullock[edit]

Nom - previously speedied, unsourced, non-notable regional kick boxer. Rklawton 02:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see any assertion of notability. - Rjd0060 04:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks CSDA7 to me, but delete the slow way this time 'round, so we can CSDG4 the next... Pete.Hurd 05:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - CSD does not apply as it asserts notability (champion of sport). Delete as there are very few references and none appear to be reliable. spryde | talk 10:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Fair enough, the claim may save it from CSDA7, but I'm also sticking with non-notable. The league he's Canadian featherweight champion in ("World Kickboxing League") is a redlink, casting some shadow on of notability of the title. Googling for -"World Kickboxing League" "Michael Bullock"- [38] yields 2 ghits: the wikipedia article at issue, and a mirror of the article at tamilmovies.net (!?). Googling -"World Kickboxing League" "Mike Bullock"- [39] returns zero ghits. Pete.Hurd 18:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing with you. Just pointing out why the CSD would be declined :-D spryde | talk 19:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, and I'm not disagreeing with your non-disagreement, just thought I'd give it another look in light of the claim of notability (that I somehow missed the first time out) and report back with a subsequent comment. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - has anyone noticed that the unsourced "World Kickboxing League" doesn't list a Super-featherweight division? Also, deleted versions of this article indicates he achieved these accomplishments at the age of 14. Rklawton 20:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "World Kickboxing League" but one of the links rudely resized my browser and blared extremely badly recorded heavymetal out my speakers (I've since been in a heavy rotation of Black Sabbath trying to recover). Perhaps you could post a link to the site, so that others don't go wherever I did. I did notice that this is the only article on en.wikipedia to include the string "World Kickboxing League" (there's a userpage and a list of martial arts organizations with a redlink for WKL on jp.wikipedia), so no AfD for the organization's page. Pete.Hurd 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete and protect. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Much[edit]

Nom - speeded once already; fails WP:BAND. Rklawton 01:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom (doesn't meet BAND). - Rjd0060 04:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I got a little turned around on this one... It almost meets criteria 6 for ensembles in WP:BAND. But criteria 6 applies to members of the group... not founders and managers. Might meet criteria 11 because of the single on TRL and BET? -- Swerdnaneb 07:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the article can be expanded with proper sourcing. Band does indeed fail WP:MUSIC, as far as I can determine after looking through google for a while. With only one album and no charts, it seems that criteria #1 and #11 are their best shots, but I can't find anything to satisfy either of those. If they release a 2nd album, they might be able to make a case, if Music World Music is a major indie label. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If deleted then salt; it has been speedy'd three times already, and has had numerous contributors, anon and logged-in. On the other hand, perhaps that suggests fame? Rigadoun (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Perhaps, but as WP:N specifies, "The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. This concept is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. - @pple complain 05:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paella king[edit]

WP:OR article about non-notable, unsourced paella competition. Also, WP:COOKBOOK. Hús ö nd 01:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom reason and all of those tags on the page (all of which I completely agree with). - Rjd0060 05:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: impressively unimportant non-notable topic with a nice recipe. docboat 13:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a hoax. --DAJF 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ditto of Rjd0060 -- Signed by Wolvereness^{t c} 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Event fails WP:Notable and recipes should be placed in the Wikicookbook, not on Wikipedia as per WP:COOKBOOK.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 02:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judytwoshoes[edit]

Completely unreferenced article about a band. The bass player of the band was named "Bill Jackson" and the creator of the article is Wiljaxon so there may be a conflict of interest here. On the face of it, this fails WP:MUSIC. A google search for "Judytwoshoes" brings forth a large number of hits...none of which are this band. A search for "Judytwoshoes" and "Judie Burton" (the lead singer) garners a single hit, this article. IrishGuy ^talk 01:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiljaxon writes: May I point out that the period we are talking about is 1978-early 80´s - therefore an internet search can be expected to give meagre results - especially considering the provincial nature of the music scene at that time. Having said that, there is some evidence, rather than nothing at all, put there by little known record companies. View the links that I mention on this page. The conflict of interest I believe does not really apply here because of the passage of time. I don´t believe in self-promotion or egotism, just putting the record straight. Or in this case, making a record at all! Far more notable than Judytwoshoes itself at that time was the Bristol music scene generally. Perhaps that is worthy of a page in Wikipedia, but then someone more authoritative than myself (ie music entrepreneur/producer) should write it.

Yes I am new to Wikipedia but then ´we´ are invited to make pages! So there you are! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiljaxon (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiljaxon writes: Yes I was involved but anyone is welcome to dispute the facts and edit the article.

Wiljaxon writes: I have found ´internet´ proof that Judytwoshoes existed here: http://www.sugarshackrecords.co.uk/diary/history.htm Unfortunately they printed on the programme (from 1979) what a lot of people did in those days, namely ´Judy Two Shoes´, which is not how the band was ´marketed´.

Wiljaxon writes: The motive for contributing this article is ´historical´. There is no attempt at advertising or self -promotion - we are talking about a ´phenomena´ that was extant almost 30 years ago! The Bristol music scene at that time was very active (and exciting) and reference has been made to other bands who were around at the time. It is unreferenced, that is because the article is new. It takes time to track things down, speak to people, and get them involved.

Wiljaxon writes: Sorry to repeat myself, but maybe the reason is here: http://www.sugarshackrecords.co.uk/diary/history.htm

Wiljaxon writes: It is true to say that compared with ´Blondie´ for example that the band was obscure. But on the other hand it was seen by hundreds if not thousands of people, as were the other local bands at the time. Also, I would not expect anyone to find a reference, on the ´internet´ to Judytwoshoes or any of the other bands of that time. I was surprised to find http://www.sugarshackrecords.co.uk/bands.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiljaxon (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. I also notice that the article seems to be serving a dual purpose as an image/sound gallery, which is currently taking up more room than the article itself. Green451 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiljaxon writes: The motive was not to create an ´image or sound gallery´ - the pictures and sound files are there to complement the text. A good case could be made for reducing the number of files and photos, adding captions etc. But I think it would be a shame if this tiny bit of history should be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiljaxon (talk • contribs)

Delete: Non notable and no ref's. - Rjd0060 05:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Green451. Not notable. JohnCD 12:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete eminently NN Mayalld 13:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless reliable sources can be produced to verify notability per guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless reliable sources are produced to prove notability -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 01:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimona (Naruto)[edit]

Hoax. Non-existent character in the Naruto series. As it is nothing more than fan-fiction, it fails WP:FICT, WP:V, and WP:MADEUP. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious hoax. Doceirias 01:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a Mary Sue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.197.253 (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This is the second one of these I've seen. Katsuhagi 01:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. The outcome of this AfD is obvious and there is not need to go through process for process's sake. See also WP:IAR. --Farix (Talk) 02:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you hadn't added the IAR link I would say it isn't SNOW because CSD specifically says no matter how obvious a hoax, doesn't apply. - Rjd0060 05:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you need to reread WP:SNOW, which states, "If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." Do you seriously think that this will result in any other outcome besides delete? You will also notice that I didn't cite any of the CSD because none of them apply (even though I think it should be included as one for something this obvious). --Farix (Talk) 12:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do know that SNOW is not part of policy. I do know that IAR is "policy" and BTW, I mean't no harm by the comment. So, relax. - Rjd0060 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the official secondary characters in this series already have rather limited notability, but it's a hell of a lot more than most (if not all) fan characters. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it's known out there... oh right delete with extreme prejudice Circeus 02:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- it's like they didn't even try to hide that they copy-pasted it. IzzyFerret 03:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sasuke is not a notable - er, I mean, Kimona is fanfiction and we've always burned those with fire unless there was a lot of 3rd party interest in the fanfiction. --Gwern (contribs) 04:15 14 November 2007 (GMT)
Delete: Per above. - Rjd0060 05:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has been seen before, although I can't remember the exact name; a hoax article that C&Ps from Sasuke Uchiha and doesn't even bother to change the kana for his name. The user should be blocked as a sockpuppet. JuJube 08:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you're thinking of this AfD? That was just more of a case of copying the infobox, not the whole article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Missiles locked (delete) per WP:NOT, WP:V, and Hoax. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - get rid of this crapola. --MimiSard 13:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wiki is not place for self-made fanfiction/game characters. Yakuzakyuu 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons already stated. -72.70.50.251 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and strike with Chidori and or Rasengan This is a hoax. No such character. The fact that there are no images on this article makes it even more obvious.DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per all comments said above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per nom. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Duane543 17:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 02:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poemedy[edit]

Zginder 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: The article describes a word that appears to be either made up or in such uncommon usage that it might as well be. A Google search for it reveals 95 uses of the word on the entire Internet, a pretty good indicator of a complete lack of notability. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - transwiki to wiktionary if it's not already there - it';s more their thing than ours by a long way. Note: It would have been useful if the nominator had actually given a reason for the nomination, rather than just adding his/her sig. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary Per Grutness. --Astroview120mm 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO Skomorokh ^incite 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete it sounds like a "made up" or less than common word of use. It may be a regional based word?Jayson 02:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If I didn't strongly believe it was a hoax, I would say TransWiki. - Rjd0060 05:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. More sources needed, anyway. - @pple complain 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Wen[edit]

Oldest living clergyman in the Orthodox church doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Especially not as a former title. Smashville^BONK! 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. A person who lived 110 years is certainly my be as notable as the fattest people in the world. BTW, clearly satisfies WP:BIO: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." `'Míkka>t 00:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a sufficient keep argument. Secondly, where are the independent secondary sources? There is one google news hit (which he is not the primary focus) and his paid obituary. Virtually every person that dies has an obituary like that. --Smashville^BONK! 00:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep. If he fits into the scope of Oldest people and/or List of centenarians, then keep it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Dennis. Needs sources, appears notable. - Rjd0060 05:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point...there don't seem to be any sources because he doesn't seem to be notable. --Smashville^BONK! 20:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My impression is that a lifespan of >100 years is unto itself notable. I could be wrong, granted, but is there any precedent that we have in either direction? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the centenarian article, there are 450,000 worldwide. --Smashville^BONK! 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yow, that's a lotta people. Still, as it's conditional, my !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Are we going to have articles on the tallest, shortest and best pinochle playing Russian clergymen? Noroton 00:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'"Keep The oldest living person in a notable occupation is probably notable, and the sources seem to show others think so. DGG (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mikka. Rray 00:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nom...I can see the way this is headed...although I'm a bit disappointed...as I mentioned...I can't find any sources to verify any of the claims made...but...it seems that being really old is considered enough to meet WP:BIO --Smashville^BONK! 16:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete --JForget 02:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Travers[edit]

Notability still unestablished and article has no references at all. Tagged since April 2007. Hammer1980·^talk 00:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources available. Epbr123 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. `'Míkka >t 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources (or any for that matter) to verify notability. - Rjd0060 05:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject may well be notable, but there is not enough data to judge. My own research turns up nothing of note on Google. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 05:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 05:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Presume unnotable " there is not enough data to judge" Victuallers 09:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if sources were available, the mentioned facts do not establish notability (a book ranking 500,000 in sales on Amazon is not really that high at all). --Crusio 10:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: He does seem to have written a book as per this but that is the only one of his books that I could find. Not sure if he is sufficiently notable by publishing just one book. Does not seem to pass the Basic and Additional criteria (for Creative Professionals) requirements of WP:BIO. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete falls far short of WP:BIO:Creative professionals, one book does not amount to the standard implied by "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." No reliable secondary sources provided with Jack Travers as subject, and no assertion of notability. Pete.Hurd 18:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...notability claim is that he wrote a book and it was once in the top 500,000...? Can you imagine how many things would be notable if being in the top 500,000 was the threshold? --Smashville^BONK! 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nominator withdrew. Notability proven (being the oldest naturalized US citizen is apparently notable). - @pple complain 05:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consuelo Moreno-López[edit]

Article has existed in stub form for over 2 years. No assertion of notability and no sources. Smashville^BONK! 00:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, although people living >100 years are potentially notable, there is not enough evidence that she was widely noted, i.e., fails WP:BIO. `'Míkka >t 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too little context to assert notability (other than the 100+ age). - Rjd0060 05:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If what this says is true, then the oldest person to become a naturalized U.S. citizen is definitely notable. This needs to be verified and mentioned in the article though -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The length of time an article has been a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Lack of sources is also not a valid reason for deletion. (It's the impossibility of finding and adding sources that's a valid deletion reason.) Amarrg has demonstrated that a valid source can be found. Rray 00:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nom. Apparently by the results of the other AfDs...being really old is enough to be included on Wikipedia. --Smashville^BONK! 16:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of references in Against the Day[edit]

One big piece of original research: someone have read the book and collected various references to various bizarrely unrelated things: from historical events to unusual words. IMO a glaring example of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. `'Míkka >t 00:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and merge any useful info. to the book's page. JJL 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was previously nominated for deletion and the result of that discussion was Keep. Cumulus Clouds 03:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on comment. I reviewed the argument there and my objection still stands: no evidence provided that some reputable scholar undertook this kind of trivia-minig in this book, hence this is OR, of unconfirmed importance/notability, too. `'Míkka >t 03:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; What is this article meant to be? Is it just a list of topics mentioned in a book, or is there some significance to this randomness that has been well-hidden by the editors of the list? Masaruemoto 04:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand this, this list was clipped out of the main article, just like it was done with various lists of trivia or "cultural references". BTW both trivia and "culturefs" are being mercilessly deleted from wikipedia now. `'Míkka >t 04:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is still OR. - Rjd0060 05:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Unless there is some significant connection between Oscar Wilde, Tetris, Dynamite, and Siberia that I don't know about, this is a list of loosely associated topics. Masaruemoto 05:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge: As per WP:OR and merge any relevant content back to the book article -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect. — Scientizzle 16:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katarina Lilja[edit]

This was sitting on prod but I think it needs a few more eyes before it should be deleted. The referenced band has a pretty comprehensive Wikipedia page as well as many of the other band members. theProject 01:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think this subject is covered well enough in the bands page. I wouldn't object to a redirect though. - Rjd0060 05:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Therion (band), because her name is a plausible search term. Bláthnaid 13:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Deleted. Article appears to have been deleted multiple times and salted against recreation, all on 16 November. As the article is already deleted, I am closing this debate as a non-admin closure. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 05:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faceviet[edit]

Taken from the expired prod category but I'm not sure it should be deleted immediately. Page appears to be about a near-clone of Facebook. theProject 17:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No restrictions on later recreation. This thing could end up with a million Vietnamese users next year for all we know. Google has 55 hits, so for English Wikipedia its just not notable yet. No news hits in the archives or current news. And yes, its an apparent layout clone. Not that it matters for us and our purposes, but I didn't know Facebook was open source. • Lawrence Cohen 18:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]