< November 18 November 20 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Berwick[edit]

Christopher Berwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. The "claim to fame" for this person (that he's the current "Count of Mystki-Rzym and head of the American branch of the Mystkowski noble family" is currently unverifiable. The sources listed don't mention him by name. There has been some discussion of the matter on the article's talk page, but no verifiable evidence has yet come to light. Right now, the article is original geneology research. Joyous! | Talk 23:53, 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.

FogBugz[edit]

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. NF24(radio me!) 23:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FogBugz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Advert Hu12 (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote KEEP, although the article could do with a good "de-fluffing". It's generally on any list of "the top contenders" in its field. e.g http://www.software-pointers.com/en-defecttracking-tools.html and http://ims.co.nz/blog/archive/2005/02/13/374.aspx and http://ask.metafilter.com/44377/Best-ticket-tracking-packages.Snori (talk) 01:53, 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolgrim[edit]

Dolgrim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable due to a complete lack of secondary reliable sources, a subject with solely an in universe context, solely plot information from a ficitonal source Pilotbob (talk) 23:37, 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 Concensus. Davewild (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rod of Seven Parts[edit]

Rod of Seven Parts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fictional stick or wand that fails WP:FICT. Has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate WP:FICT outside of the Greyhawk canon, and no primary sources to indicate if this artifact has any significance within it.--Gavin Collins (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Gavin Collins (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am not sure why you created this article in the first place; when you say it is the subject of an adventure book, do you mean a game guide? Is this a prop for a game, or is it the subject of literary fiction? If it is prop created for a game, how can it be notable, even within the game? Surely player in a role-playing game would not act out being a stick? Please clarify. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me guess. This is yet another article you are trying to delete without having any idea at all what it is about, correct? Given your comments, it seems I'd have to give a whole lot of exposition to explain the answers I would give to your questions, and this doesn't seem like the place for that. Would you do us all a favor and do some research before sending articles for deletion? Here's a suggestion, try an open dialogue with people on each article who know something about the subject *before* starting the AFD process, so that you can better understand the signficance of each item before proceeding, so that you can at least seem like you know what you're talking about. I'm sorry if that sounds uncivil, I intend it as a bit of harsh constructive criticism. You'll encounter less hostile opposition if you display less ignorance of the subject, I think. BOZ (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I necessarily agree with this nomination, but the article should be the place where the notability of the topic is fully demonstrated. In its present form it does fail to do so, at least for the readers who are not knowledgeable about D&D. I don't see any content explaining its importance (for the casual reader) in a literary series. The reader should not be required to drill down to the Adventure Path link to see what that means. Nor is the meaning or importance of the Age of Worms explained. What I do see is a lot of unexplained, campaign-specific information. — RJH (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My interpretation of BOZ's comments are that this article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. I would recomend to him that he read this guidance note *before* he creates stubs about subjects that have no notability outside of the Greyhawk canon, as they fall outside of the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I stopped creating new D&D related articles a long time ago (this one was from Feb 2006), when I realized how many delete-happy editors there were out there who love nothing more than to get rid of stuff they find useless, confusing, or uninteresting, using the wikipedia guidelines to justify their contempt. You're not the first, you won't be the last, but you've been the most persistent so far. Why waste my time and effort, when for some people it's far easier to destroy than it is to create? Still, I'll fight for what's already here as long as there are others who want to see the material stay. BOZ (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can understand your frustration as the RPG notability guidelines which would have helped you to create an article on significant topics have only been recently been created. My advice to you going forward is to channel your energy into creating several good articles, rather hundreds of stubs which fail the guidelines. Alternatively, there are lots of other Wiki's that will welcome the content of this stub such as fancruft.net. If this stub is transwikied, then we are in a win-win situtation. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks.  :) But the fact remains that I'm just not interested in creating any more D&D articles unless the notability guidelines are loosened to allow for things which have not recieved coverage in multiple independent/secondary sources. BOZ (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have to disagree in this instance. Compare with possibly the most famous rod of all - the one owned by Moses; note that an article featuring this artifact has not yet been attempted with good reason: it would require citations from specialist journals going back a hundred years or more to support its notability. By contrast, the Rod of Seven Parts, although it is probably based the more famous biblical artifact, has no notabilty because it derived from game guide. I can't imagine any college professors ever writing a paper on such a subject, because their is no source material to draw on, as the lack of hits on Google scholar shows. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Once again, you're mistaken. Please see Aaron's rod. Again, Gavin.collins is showing his unwillingness to do the tiniest bit of research before taking action, which is one of the main reasons why so many people have issues with his uninformed deletion sprees.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Better yet, Moses' rod actually does appear have its own article, as well. BOZ (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - In this instance, huh? :) Well, just as we have a WP:WAX page that indicates the importance of discussing the article in question rather than comparing it to other articles, so I have to raise an objection to your comparison with a real-life artifact with thousands of years of literary history. If your personal standard for notability is so high, no wonder you're so quick with the AfD and "Recommend deletion" buttons on your keyboard. I believe that there should be an article on Moses'/Aaron's Rod, and maybe I'll look into starting that, (and apparently there is one, as the two editors above indicate; further evidence of the haste to push for and justify deletion without considering what the reasearch would or reasonably could show - Z.) but that doesn't have anything to do with this matter, and I entirely disagree with your position in both this AfD and in general about the notability of fictional elements. I notice that in your reply to BOZ above you cite a proposed guideline that may or may not even cover this entry, and with good reason: there's nothing in Wikipedia that precludes an article like this from existing, particularly in light of the precedent that yourself and about 3 other editors appear bent on ignoring on a regular basis. Admittedly, your particular contributions have been a little more thoughtful than some of the near-mindless botting I've seen in these discussions, and I appreciate that, but I reject your statement that this item "has no notabilty because it derived from game guide." Apparently, other editors believe this entry can be sourced better than it now is, and how it stands at the moment has been quite enough to retain other articles on similar topics. We should not keep one article just because others like it exist, as I said above, but this doesn't mean that the reasons others are kept should not be applied to the latest discussion taking place. I re-iterate my opinion that this article should be kept, especially in light of the work others have committed to contributing to its improvement. I think it's in the intrest of the community to assume they're being honest about their ability to do so. It's high time we start paying attention to what the WP:N guideline actually says, the second sentence of which indicates that it "should be treated with common sense;" I haven't seen an over-abundance of that (from either side all the time, really). ◄Zahakiel► 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is more to doing research than looking things up on Google. Web Warlock (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the "real world significance" of Tyrfing, for instance? Can the "real world context" of the Sampo be established? Objects and characters in fiction do not have a "real world context" except possibly as an allegory. Your criteria are bunk. Freederick (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all fictional objects and characters have real world context; there just may not be adequate sources to allow for Wikipedia articles. Articles on fictional things need to be written from the perspective of the real world. Try reading Jason Vorhees, Pilot (Smallville), or Link (The Legend of Zelda) to see what is meant by "real world context". Jay32183 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This stub has more references to primary sources than it has any content, which suggest the topic has been researched exhaustively, but turned up no real-world information. I have done the research too, and found nothing (except mentions in passing) that would suggest this rod is notable outside of the game. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to get involved in any private feuds, but I do think we can usefully reflect on just how much total and utter *****, not to mention self-promotion, hoaxes, and so forth, gets contributed, and how necessary it is that somebody pull up the weeds, even if they occasionally pull up a flower without realising it. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is clearly not self-promotion or a hoax, nor are most of the articles that come up in these feuds. It's a matter of great debate whether it's really is necessary to delete good verifiable articles, especially if you'll start pulling "flower"s with them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having said which, it would be a shame to lose Webwarlock's careful sourcing in both TRS and other RPG publications; and I see that the article is part of a whole category, in which it is one of the most notable entries. Would it be possible to salvage the information as part of a lengthier single article with the title D&D magical items? --Paularblaster (talk) 02:21, 24 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 and salt the earth. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 06:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Miliefsky[edit]

Gary Miliefsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN security "researcher", created by a PR account for subject's company, edited extensively in contravention of WP:COI, makes unjustifiable claims ("world renowned" for invention of "clientless NAC", something Lockdown and Mirage would debate strongly --- founder of... Homeland Security? What?); only references I can find are PR-placed op-eds in trade press (anyone with a PR agent can place an op-ed). Should I tell you how I really feel? Delete. --- tqbf 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note --- disputed prod. --- tqbf 22:50, 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imprant tulsi[edit]

Imprant tulsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article in Hindi has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English since November 3 and no progress has been made on getting it translated into English. Yupik (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is from Pages needing translation into English:

Found this one in CAT:PNT. Some language which uses Devanagari script. -- Prince Kassad 23:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi. Survives a Google copyvio check. Does not exist on hi:Wikipedia. Cbdorsett 09:41, 10 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gia đình phật tử[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gia đình phật tử (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page was included on Pages needing translation into English already on November 3. 14 days are up and nothing's been done about this article in Vietnamese. Yupik (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is from Pages needing translation into English:

WP:PNT dialogue

The language of this article is Vietnamese (?). Fabrictramp 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Vietnamese. Don't know if it's worth translating or not though. -Yupik 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the text but I have no knowledge of Buddhism. This topic asserts notability, though, since Google shows 61,300 hits. @pple complain 04:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It means something like "Buddhist Youth Association", but there are more than one such. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied it to vi:Gia đình phật tử.  Andreas  (T) 01:11, 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 keep. John254 00:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Compulsives Anonymous[edit]

Sexual Compulsives Anonymous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article essentially fails every relevant policy in the book. First off, we have WP:NOT - in this case, the article is being used as an indiscriminate list of information ("slogans"?). As far as WP:RS go - there is only one non self-published reference. On the talk page, the fact that reliable sources exist was brought up, but most of the search results are from Google's automatic check of similar words ("compulsivity") and references from studies that simply cite SCA as a group in this field. POV wise this article is in terrible shape - not only is it being used as a battleground (evident from the prose and SCA affiliates threatening editors with libel charges), it reads more like a self-help and advertising brochure than an encyclopedic article. While I do not agree the organization is notable, as was stated on the help desk by User:Fredrick day: "the current version needs to be taken out the back...". -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 22:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - I said it might be notable but the current version needs (at the very least) to be stubbed and if WP:RS are not provided this article should be deleted.. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'd best delete the AA article also, if you think this 12 Step fellowship does not belong on Wikipedia. I'd like to see what all those alcoholics would do to you. As for taking SCA out in the back... that sounds like a threat to me. Charming.--141.155.57.125 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Though that isn't exactly applicable as Alcoholics Anonymous has 68 independent third-party references. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SCA has been in existence for 25 years, a little patience is appreciated. There are plenty of references. This obnoxious deletion and attack seems more like plain homophobia to me, another beating with a baseball bat by people who misunderstand and feel angry at things they do not understand. It is ok, there's always something to learn from other people. --141.155.57.125 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please log back into your account. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please review article on Homophobia when you make such references are taking someone out in the back and ... these comments are perceived as threats. And the attempt to delete this article (which actually does a good job of staying neutral) is also perceived as a threat, particularly as the other sexual recovery groups are not nominated for deletion, as this gay-friendly groups is.--Artistboynyc (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please learn to read - "person X needs to be taken out the back.." and "article X needs to be taken out the back" are entirely different statements. As for Homophobia, you seem to be making a rather large assumption about my sexuality. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Wikiproject LGBT should be informed of this? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 06:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Phil Bridger (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Damn those sneaky bastards, putting ads in books and in scientific journals. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And had you read those results, you would have found that most of those results either mention SCA in passing along with a host of other groups, are a advertisement put in a newspaper for workshops or classes, or are put out by SCA themselves. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 00:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SCA is notable, but it's worth mentioning that with many twelve-step groups these kinds of results can be misleading. In my experience (I've written articles on fifteen such groups) the majority of the results are not actually from articles discussing the group but rather listing it as one my many twelve-step groups, or it's simply listing contact information for it in a directory of support groups. There's enough material to write the article, but it's not as overwhelming as it might seem. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. Have you looked at the Google Books and Google Scholar results referenced above? And why to you link the phrase "few possible sources readily available from an Internet search" to WP:V, when WP:V says nothing about sources having to be readily available from an Internet search? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update I rewrote the article. I went through the Google Scholar, News Archive, and Books again and found a few things I missed last time (or didn't have access too). There is definitely not an abundance of material on the organization, but there's enough to scrape an article together. I used the outline that the SCA members made, and reworded the part about the prefrontal cortex so it hopefully won't be mistaken for a derogatory comment. All together the reading, researching, and writing took me over six hours -- consider this (and read WP:LEGAL) before threating to sue me in the future. Incidentally, I contacted the SCA international service office to see if there were plans to file against me. The person who returned my call seemed perplexed and said SCA had no intention to do anything like it. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 09:48, 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 Speedy delete per CSD:A3. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo Opera Company[edit]

Cairo Opera Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article in Arabic has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English since November 3 and no progress has been made on getting it translated into English. Yupik (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article had been properly tagged before I put it up for AfD. WP:PNT has quite a few Arabic articles on any given day awaiting translation, but no one seems to have the time to do them (and I don't know enough Arabic to make a difference). Perhaps any of you who understand Arabic could have a look at the articles we have left? Some of them have been hanging around for a long time already. -Yupik (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message at the Arabic Wikipedia seeking help in translating the text. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:54, 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. east.718 at 09:32, November 25, 2007

Futureperfect organization[edit]

Futureperfect organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no assertion of notability, non notable book and author. Contested speedy delete. No sources outside in-universe bio of author. Created by SPA account. Need I go on? Keeper | 76 22:08, 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 speedy delete, copyvio from [6]. Sniffing trails of deleted contributions does pay off, most of the time... Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

環宇財務顧問[edit]

環宇財務顧問 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English since October 30 and no progress has been made on getting it translated into English. Yupik (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion copied from Pages needing translation into English:

WP:PNT dialogue

The language of this article is unknown. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 11:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese. -Yupik 19:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has something to do with Lehman Brothers and a merger. -Yupik 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's about a company called Global Financial Services. (ChineseEnglish) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 10:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it up for deletion as nothing has been done with it. -Yupik (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you pronounce that anyway? --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In hanyu pinyin: huan2 yu2 cai2 wu4 gu4 wen4 (numbers for tones, since I can't find the proper letters fast enough). Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carers Alliance[edit]

Carers Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very new political party with no claim to notability as yet. Mayalld (talk) 21:49, 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) 06:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Jordan (singer)[edit]

Tom Jordan (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. No sources in article. No reliable sources found. Mdbrownmsw (talk) 21:15, 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. east.718 at 09:35, November 25, 2007

Queensland University of Technology Queer Collective[edit]

Queensland University of Technology Queer Collective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group. All references are to internal publications Mayalld (talk) 20:50, 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. east.718 at 09:35, November 25, 2007

Bush Island[edit]

Bush Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete This island isn't in the USGS names database - so it is either non-existant or quite un-noteworthy, and there is no claim that it is notable - islands are not inherently notable - so fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 09:36, November 25, 2007

The Holy Kiss[edit]

The Holy Kiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band article with one reliable source, thus surviving CSD A7. Still, fails WP:BAND. Delete. Xoloz (talk) 20:20, 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. east.718 at 09:36, November 25, 2007

Claudia A. Saad[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Claudia A. Saad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This person works as an advisor to a project. There is no notability established beyond this single role, and no reliable sourcs beyond the Sesame street page. (Here is the other discussion which was no consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Anderson .Obina (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 09:36, November 25, 2007

Debatepedia[edit]

Debatepedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Debatepedia. Was speedied once under WP:CSD#A7 . see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fwiki.idebate.org. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 19:52, 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 Redirect to Parapsychology. Consensus has been reached in favour of the fact that "Psiology" is an alternative term for "Parapsychology"; a mirror article would be a waste of time and resources. Anthøny 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psiology[edit]

Psiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:Neologism (and a failed one at that) Verdatum (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. merge/redirect reasoning above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree (and figured this out shortly after replying). Though I'm not sure how this is tipically taken care of (switching to a proposal for merge/redirect). Verdatum (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find the policy that I'm looking for, but I seem to recall that you can withdraw the nomination to delete, (the AfD will then close as a keep, not sure if you are allowed to do the close yourself, or if an admin is required, that's what I can't find). The merge and redirect can be done in normal any old user manner. It would just be bad form to do it with the AfD open. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Redirect to Parapsychology, don't merge. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:38, 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) 06:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zavvi store locations[edit]

Zavvi store locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory, see Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 19:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Straightforward breach of Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. I am the Afd proposer. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 19:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My apologies, it's my first Afd and I wasn't sure.... Thanks ! -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 20:09, 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 keep. John254 01:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquorum Auctioneers[edit]

Antiquorum Auctioneers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not quite a speedy-deletable ad, but it's sure addish. No real claims of notability. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:31, 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. Davewild (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Capital Partners[edit]

Highland Capital Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP notability criteria; reads like spam. Was deleted before after an expired PROD and has not experienced a significant fix. —ScouterSig 19:02, 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) 06:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of the Earth and Sky[edit]

Our Lady of the Earth and Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable organization, cited sources are either not reliable or provide only trivial or incidental coverage of the subject. GlassFET 18:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source for "used by hundreds of folks a week"? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:07, 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. Kurykh 18:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prema Sai Baba[edit]

(2nd Nomination for Deletion)

Prema Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete or Merge-This topic does not merit its own entry; the refs and cites used are too circumlocutive and the topic of a prediction of a person is not notable as biographical. --Iconoclast Horizon 18:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I must concur: This 'person' is NOT generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record", as mentioned in the guidelines. Has NOT been written about by historians or scholars. Does NOT have an independent biography. The relationship to a known living person does NOT validate it as notable and DOES more or less, appear to be a religious prediction. DOES appear to be a 'promotion' of a current cause or religious movement.
I see no reason this article is a stand alone article except as a promotion of a religious cause. --Humanharmony2222 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The article Second Coming is addressed as a concept, the Prema Sai Baba is tagged WP:Bio on the discussion page and is treated as such in the language; the photo of Sathya Sai Baba presumed to be born as the next incarnation has been removed and the Infobox was deleted. This article is masking as a biography of someone yet to be born.---Iconoclast Horizon 13:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was speedily deleted under A7. Natalie (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Attitude Records[edit]

Major Attitude Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Org that fails to establish notability. Claims to be a spin-off of some other org, which itself doesn't have an article on here. Zero incoming links and reads like an advert. Lugnuts (talk) 18:16, 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 as a badly written content fork of 2005-2006 Thai political crisis. Sandstein (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thaksin Get Out[edit]

Thaksin Get Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article should be deleted/merged with Thailand political crisis of 2005-2006. There are many problems with this article, and no need to rehash essentially the same information in an article titled after a slogan. AvruchTalk 18:02, 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 merge to ICFP Programming Contest. - @pple complain 09:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ant Wars[edit]

Ant Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally speedily deleted under criteria A7 (browser-based game as "online content"); no assertion of importance. Restored and taken to AfD by request. Since I think notability may also be an issue, merging to ICFP Programming Contest may be a possibility. Marasmusine (talk) 17:25, 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) 06:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Otto Grimminger[edit]

Andreas Otto Grimminger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, most content is an unencyclopedic list of productions, only referrence is some spam page. Creator keeps removing non-notability tags. Contains little real importance. Candleof Hope 15:15, 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 Speedy redirect to album page (by me), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Like That[edit]

Girl Like That (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does this need an article on its own ? Merge to Matchbox 20's article ? Hammer1980·talk 11:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be merged the the album's page Yourself or Someone Like YouHammer1980·talk 12:01, 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 speedy delete. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe McDermott (website designer)[edit]

Joe McDermott (website designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly, we are all in agreement that happy meals and happy meal toys are notable subjects. Arguments about this article, the list, weigh strongly in favor of deletion. Mangojuicetalk 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Happy Meal toys[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Happy Meal toys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list seems to have no use other than to collectors, making it fancruft/Listcruft. It is uncited. It is probably impossible to complete. It appears that little or nothing has improved since its previous AFD 6 months ago where even the people who had "week keep", and even "keep" suggested the page should start including actual article content on the toys, which hasn't happened, and looks unlikely to happen. The only existing sources are an unreliable Geocities page which has no references itself, and a collector's personal site which also has no references. TheHYPO (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crap - sorry, my bad - I missed that step in all the confusion learning how to 2nd-nom TheHYPO (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As mentioned in the first AFD, I think that the sources show that Happy Meal toys would be notable as the topic of an article (it's a subsection of Happy Meal right now), but I personally think that a book about happy meal toys does not make a list of releases notable - particularly since so few of the elements in the list (if any) will be, themselves, notable to anyone other than collectors. It's like having and article on XUniversity - there may be a section on student life or the student body or even articles/books about that - but a list of students at XU would not be notable. And so fan, in 6 months, noone has taken any steps to actually create an article with any encyclopedic content TheHYPO (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there has been no valid deletion rationale offered in the nomination. Nominator cites two non-binding essays, the use of which in AFDs is controversial. Other concerns raised by the nominator call for editing and research, not deletion.Otto4711 (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a call for editing and research 6 months ago and none has occured (after 2 years of the article's existance as well). I thought wikipedia policy was not only to keep bad articles around if there was hope for improvement. Noone seems interested in researching and adding any actual article content to this to make it a notable topic. Right now, the suggestion is that a list of toys released is not notable information; even if the overall concept of a "Happy Meal toy" is notable, a listing of them is frivolous. As for official policy and guidelines, I didn't link to them, but the nomination clearly implies the guidelines. WP:Lists notes that there are 3 purposes of lists. This list is clearly not intended for navigation or development, so it could only fall under "information", which cites "The list may be a valuable information source." It is the proposition of the nomination that a list of happy meal toys is not "valuable information" (which I interpret as relating to wp:notability. I also don't have policy on this, but if there is a published happy meal toy catalogue out there, it seems to me that someone either has to get it, copy out the entire guide (for completeness) and cite the guide, or else just link to the book as a citation or external reading on an actual article Happy Meal or Happy Meal toys, which is an article, and not a list. Finally, I would suggest that 6 months not improving suggestions from the last AFD and 2 years of article history should also suggest that noone will ever source the article to get it up to wp:verifiability standards. Combined with the relatively useless trivial of the information to anyone but collectors, and the fact that right now almost anyone could add toys and dates and they would be very difficult to challenge, and the fact that the list is 90% 2000-present, and considering the toys have almost 20 years (I believe? There is no information to tell me in the articles) of history, and the article's 2 year existance suggests that the list will likely never cover even half of the actual existing items that should be in the list. TheHYPO (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does not have due dates and the fact that reliable sources exist shows that there is hope for improvement. Nor is there any requirement that a list be complete for it to exist. An incomplete list, also known as a dynamic list, is acceptable Wikipedia content even if the list is likely never to be complete. Otto4711 (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The subject of the article is not "Happy Meal". It is not "Happy Meal Toys". It is "List of Happy Meal toys". I would not oppose an article explaining what happy meal toys are, and their significance, influence and history. I do oppose a list of every minor release of them in the past 30 years. None of the specific toys themselves are notable, and a list of them is unimportant trivia. Star Wars may be a notable franchise, but "List of theaters that played Star Wars" is trivial, even though it relates to the topic. As to your comment that the list reflects what has been popular in the last 25 years, your other comment negates it - The toys are usually tied to a promotion of an upcoming film or release, which means they are an attempt to improve the populatity of a franchise, and don't necessarily reflect what is already popular. So this is a list of "things McDonald's wanted kids to like"? There are lots of Happy Meal toys for films that turned out to be duds, for example. The list is also alphabetical, making an analysis of what was popular in the past very difficult - if this were the intention, the list should be chronological. The alphabetical nature seems to imply checklistedness. TheHYPO (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. Consensus can change, so articles can be nominated more than once. This user knows this already (yet still uses it any chance he can in 2nd nominations). RobJ1981 (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and I think every admin at WP knows this too, without needing to remind them. DGG (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be perfectly fine with this and in fact this is pretty much what I've been suggesting, using this list as the basis for an article on the topic. Or in the alternative start a separate article at Happy Meal toys and keep this as a sub-article. Otto4711 (talk) 18:18, 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 Keep per Snow/Invalid Nomination ("Look, I don't care if the genres are kept or not, I do realize Metalcore is a real genre") - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metalcore[edit]

I have nominated this article for deletion as well as its subgenres. This article (along with its subgenres) have no citations and Metalcore, along with two of its subgenres, have only one reference to a questionable site that does not look like it can be used as a reference or citation.
I am also nominating the following related pages because [they have no citations and besides Deathcore they only have one reference which is the same one from the Metalcore page]:

Mathcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deathcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moshcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Navnløs (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually they do funeral. Articles with no sources, citations or references get deleted. Navnløs (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but if they remain unsourced for long enough they will get deleted. For example, Horde (Warcraft) was deleted because of this and Alliance (Warcraft) is about to be deleted for this. People who edit Metalcore and its related subjects have shown that they have NO intention of ever putting sources for these pages. Navnløs (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Funeral and Scarian. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't care if the genres are kept or not, I do realize Metalcore is a real genre, though some of the others are a bit more questionable, but someone needs to put some sources and crap in the articles. I mean not all of the article of Metalcore is even right, it needs some serious rewriting. Navnløs (talk) 23:11, 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 Keep --JForget 01:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kavli Foundation[edit]

The Kavli Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously speedied as copyvio, it was restored after we received a permission for text. However, it's still of dubious notability, and is far from our standards, so I brought it here for community to decide if it's worth inclusion. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Jcohenkavli Until now, the only concern was copyright permission; this is the first mention of any other issue ("dubious notability" "far from our standards"). If I correctly understand the nature of these remarks, I do wish to assure you the material is accurate and the characterization of the foundation's work correct. One way to confirm this is by reviewing the many independent profiles of The Kavli Foundation, prizes and Mr. Kavli. Here are three in-depth profiles published by well-known independent news sources -- Time Magazine, The New York Times, and The Associated Press Jcohenkavli 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't write these links here, add them to the article. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 05:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Jcohenkavli Thanks for the suggestion. Links have been added. Jcohenkavli 00:29, 15 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, Daniel 07:31, 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. east.718 at 09:41, November 25, 2007

Wings of Time[edit]

Wings of Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is currently no information about this game in any of the reliable sites such has gamespot, ign. 1up and there is 0 results on google and aswell the company name is nowhere to be found on any reliable sites. Therefore it fails various wikipedia policy such has WP:NOT#CRYSTAL,WP:NOTABLE. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:45, 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 Keep (closed by non-admin) per consensus. RMHED (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby of Parham[edit]

William Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby of Parham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not establish the significance of the person. Titles alone do not establish significance. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick google lookup found this [10] which seems to imply some notability. I don't have time right now but this information could easily be used to improve the article. Moheroy (talk) 22:34, 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. east.718 at 09:41, November 25, 2007

Bias B[edit]

Bias B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Aussie rapper. Expired prod was removed without action due to "claims of notability". If there are any claims of notability, I don't see 'em. He has 2 records on an indie label of dubious notability (only one act on the label appears to sell well). Precious Roy (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete Bias B page, it was really usefully to me when I was in need for any info about this artist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.12.92 (talk) 03:30, 25 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. east.718 at 09:41, November 25, 2007

The Graveyard of Death[edit]

The Graveyard of Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This film doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria, because I cannot find evidence that it received any significant critical attention or was reviewed in any significant sources. Those sources I was able to find basically just verify the existence of the film; can anyone else find sources that verify its importance? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply EvelCat, as you're new here, it might be helpful for you to review the notability criteria. That's the set of rules we are using to decide whether or not this article should be deleted; we're looking for evidence that this film meets that criteria. Take a look at those rules so you can tell us which specific part of the criteria the film meets, and offer two or three independent sources (like newspapers, magazines, and significant movie review sites) to verify it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:29, 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 01:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMAR SAMUELS[edit]

OMAR SAMUELS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. IMDb brings exactly one reference to Mr. Samuels, that of an extra in a 2002 movie called Narc. Article appears to have WP:AUTOBIO issues as well, written by a single purpose account that seems to know information that only the subject would probably know (For example, under personal life, it says Omar is currently focused on his career). Sources given do not verify the information. Keeper | 76 16:09, 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 merge and redirect. Daniel 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats So Productions[edit]

Thats So Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

one tv show production credit only non notable company Heard131 (talk) 16:04, 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, following on from consensus and showing a conclusive 'delete' vote here, too. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamworth F.C. season 2007-08[edit]

Tamworth F.C. season 2007-08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Season article for a club that doesn't play professionally, following on from consensus here. Simon KHFC (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Removed unnecessary duplication of signature. Simon KHFC (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to your reasoning, even Very Amateur F.C. season 2007-08 would be notable in case someone keeps it updated. I don't really agree with this. --Angelo (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor do I. We recently saw at AfD that someone was prepared to maintain a season page for Torrington F.C., who play in the extremely lowly North Devon Football League, but just because someone was prepared to do that donkey work doesn't get the article a "free pass" onto Wikipedia. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Stay civil please. Also, confine yourself to reasoned argument, as abuse will not change any consensus decided here. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 02:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see пﮟოьεԻ 57 and Angelo re: not keeping pages just to update them. Ref (chew)(do) 11:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - besides that, we need to set a notability cut-off point for clubs' individual seasons. Personally, with regard to English teams, I think that only Football League and Premier League teams should have them. – PeeJay 13:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why do "we need to set a notability cut-off point for clubs' individual seasons"? We are not short of server space. Provided WP policies are not contravened (it is verifiable, not original research etc) then the content of articles, and any sub-articles, is a matter for the editors of the articles with the talk page being the final arbiter in any dispute. If it is considered that the season articles are considered too unimportant then it calls into question the notability threshold for clubs. The answer is not to delete perfectly respectable pages but to rethink the cut-off for notability for the parent organisation. BlueValour (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep There are some really weak arguments expressed in this debate WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT but fundamentally the article is verifiable and meets the general Notability guideline with coverage in reliable national (BBC) sources. Unless and until a notability guideline is agreed upon this area this article should be kept. Davewild (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Striking my previous, not so convinced after thinking again, changed to Neutral. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are three references from the BBC, and two of those stories only exist because they also involve other clubs playing in national leagues, that doesn't make it notable enough as far as I'm concerned. Simon KHFC (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it matters what you think really, most people agree that Tamworth are a noted club, shame you don't take as much pride in your team as I do in mine, do you get your kicks off trying to delete other peoples hard work off? Stew jones (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has claimed that Tamworth are not a notable club, but is an article about their current season really notable? I think not. To repeat what Peejay said earlier, if you didn't want your work modified you shouldn't have submitted it to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, if you want to keep a record of Tamworth's results and players it seems to me that you would be better off starting your own website. Simon KHFC (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Yes, but not all connected articles (such as this seasonal performance one) are deemed notable or appropriate by all interested editors. Allowing an article on Tamworth F.C. is not being questioned, that already exists without challenge - allowing a Tamworth F.C. off-shoot of this nature, though, is what is at stake here. Ref (chew)(do) 23:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Tamworth aren't in a professional league anyway. Their own article claims that they are fully professional, but if this is true then they must surely be one of only two or three fully pro teams in the Conference North..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 26 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 nobody has shown article has any reliable sources, will recreate as a redirect to Jamba!#Jamba! characters. Davewild (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweety the Chick[edit]

Sweety the Chick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to have any reliable, non-trivial sources that are not self-published. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states that 'notability' is not synonymous with, among other things, fame or popularity.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:28, 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 --JForget 02:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Zemelsky Musky Heist[edit]

Robert Zemelsky Musky Heist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be about an event of local but not encyclopedic notability, although may be a hoax as the references do not check out (at least not by searching www.spooneronline.com for "Robert Zemelsky Musky"). Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The above rationale seems contrary to the bolded text. :S Rudget.talk 21:34, 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 keep without consensus, to what appears to be a content or naming dispute (a common problem in linguistics), rather than notability or other reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mappila Malayalam[edit]

Mappila Malayalam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I come from this region. The exact region that is quoted in the article to be speaking Mapilla Malayalam. I have never heard of such a thing in my entire life, until I read this article. I can tell you this is absurd because there exists no such thing that is spoken in these areas. Let me again tell you that it's slang. Similar to the various slangs used in Bangalore and Northern Karnataka where you will hear "Hengri Hegri etc" A similar style of speaking. This is not restricted to a particular part of Kerala. If you go to the Eranakulam side they have their own style, but it is still Malayalam. Visit Trishur area similar thing. I am astonished to find that this is such a propaganda in the name of religion. It's like saying Mapilla Kannada is spoken by Muslims of Karnataka. Absurd.

I would like you to go to these areas and ask the people which language they speak. Just like that. They will say Malayalam. Ask them they had ever heard of Mapilla Malayalam, I can assure you that they will be very much astonished to hear it from you. Also let me remind you that the people of this area (Irrespective of religion) speak the same slang.

There are three links in the article. One is from some NVTC site. It says "The Arabic script is also used occasionally by Muslims in Kerala." Why should muslims in Kerala use Arabic script to write Malayalam. Why not write Arabic itself. The flaw in this statement is that it never claims that the Muslims of Kerala writes Malayalam in Arabic script. First of all the Muslims of Kerala are not well versed with Arabic. Even in mosques during Ramadan time and all the speech is given to the faithful in Malayalam but a translator, that's the Maulvi.

The second link is by a website run by a Jewish person. Don't know how credible it is. The researcher must have got confused with the way he looks at Kerala. Since the said area is a an area with higher percentage of Muslims than rest of Kerala he must have thought that it's a different language. One or two Arabic word and voila you have got a new language. It's idotic thing. I had to admit that certain limited words are loaned from Arabic into Malayalam just like how words like Lorry, Bus are loaned from English. These things never existed when Malayalam was born and no revolutionary writers tried to find alternatives for it. So it struck. That will not make it English Malayalam. Now I think you are convinced that there is only one Malayalam and yes, ofcourse with certain slangs in different parts but nothing religious as such until now. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT-A pretty article with lot's of links still doesn't make the article true---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT-Agree with Iconoclast.Horizon. People have even made up entire wikipedias on language that doesn't exist (Siberian - ru-sib). So having a well organized article is not any sufficient reason to keep the article. --Jacob.jose (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether the article is accurate or not, but this is not a content fork, any more than American English is a fork of English language. --Alivemajor (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Well, accuracy is kinda of an important factor in this case. With the two Articles you have listed above, you are dealing a national lexicon not with undocumented local tonal variations.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? English isn't tonal, but American English does differ in more than just "national lexicon", and if it was "undocumented variation" we wouldn't very well be able to document in Wikipedia, would we? --Alivemajor (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I should have expanded that comment for clarity. I wasn't referring to English or tonal languages. The general language of English and its variant form, American English, includes a vastly different lexicon than say, British English. This is quite distinct. So I don't think that is a valid comparison. Malayalam, Arabi(Arabic)-Malayalam have very subtle dialectal differences regarding pronuciation and tonal value. The addition of other Arabic words does not qualify it as a language or even a new regional dialect. I don't think the subtitles of the actual variation is what is important here.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel that this is the primary distinction with this discussion. The word Mappila generally (but not completely), refers to or is interchangeable as "Muslim" in this region. 'Arabic' is more definitive as it deals with ethnic origin versus Mappila which is primarily a religious distinction, this is also apparent in the infobox which is dedicated to Islam. A comparison would be something like calling Saudi Arabia, Saudi Islam. All Arab ethnic groups are not Muslims. Granted, before anyone chimes in about this yes, I am aware that there are mentions of other religions that are vaguely connected to 'Mappila' but the consensus is that it is primarily a religious divide. After reviewing the history of other Malayalam related articles there have been attempts to divide the language along various religions in this area. I defer primary weight of this discussion to the native speakers in the area that say this is not the correct distinction of this dialect.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Malayalam language. I am a native speaker of the language, but I have never heard of this name before. I am aware that Muslim speakers have their own "dialect" of Malayalam. For example, they use "Umma" and "Baapa" for "Amma" and "Achan" (Mother and Father). --vi5in[talk] 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that the Malayalam Wikipedia deleted this article should say something to its accuracy.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MAPPILA MAYALAM AS A RECOGNIZED DIALECT!! You can not merge this because it is not a valid term for all of you academicians here. The article called Arabic Malayalam deals with this and it is not divided by religion but by ethnic and cultural background! There is confusion here with the religious verses cultural context.----Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What I meant by Merge, is that you can at least merge the vocabulary part of this article. Muslims in Kerala do have a different form of Malayalam. You could mention that. --vi5in[talk] 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the issue here, at least for me, is the original research in an area that requires an outside expert should not be maintained here as 'first hand publishing' and the title implies the religion versus cultural difference and is not founded.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your post on my talk page. I'm not sure why you think my 18:30, 22 November 2007 post above was directed specifically at you. It wasn't. Wikipedia is nothing more than a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable information. Wikipedia prohibits original research and relies on the reliable source material for reliability. Your claim that Wikipedia is so unreliable overall is like claiming that the phone company is unreliable overall because of what people say into their phones. In the same way the phone company has no control over what people say into their phones, Wikipedia has no control over what the reliable sources print. If the reliable sources say it, we put it in, if they don't, we don't. Personal opinions about a topic are important to determine whether the article is conveying information properly, but do not address whether the topic and article meet Wikipledia's article standards. Chaitanya's Book and the Dravidian encyclopaedia convey information about Mappila Malayalam. Does the article accurately reflect what these two sources say about Mappila Malayalam? Are these two sources Wikipedia reliable sources for the information conveyed? Is the article written in a way that puts the topic of Mappila Malayalam in proper context with respect to the Malayalam language? If the information as presented conveys untrue facts, wouldn't it be better to rewrite the article to accurately convey the information to educate others rather then delete the article to prevent their education? -- Jreferee t/c 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment- I am afraid your comparison to the phone company and what people say into the phone holds no bearing to what is happening with this article. I think Wikipedia is a fun source for a lot of interesting opinions but consistent and reliable it is not and that is very truly reflected in the academic world. If I were to tell anyone of the noted scholars that I deal with, 'I read it on Wikipedia', they would just look at me funny. I know there are many contributors that have a lot of academic credential that are very balanced in their writing but then someone interjects something they think they know about or that 'must be' put in, then the whole concept of accurate information is lost. That is one of it's strengths, in many ways in several areas but also its major flaw when in depth research is needed. The problem here is not something that can be fixed with a rewrite. The dialect, as it is titled does not exist. There is a correlation between to two words but it is being confused with a distinct dialect. The information it contains should be deleted, as it is original research. The sources do not reflect Mappila Malayalam as a dialect itself, this has been inferred by the contributor and expounded upon to create this article. I could create an article called Christian English Tennessee Twang and make it fit the facts but that still wouldn't make it a recognized dialect or make it true. I really question the logic of putting original articles like this in Wikipedia until we prove it to be untrue. I think the reverse should be the case. I am glad our justice system doesn't work in that way. Your statement "Wikipedia is nothing more than a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable information.", is how we would like to think of it, but unfortunately is not true. It is opinionated and too many times not verifiable. I believe this to be the case with this article and so did Wikipedia Malayalam. I did spend way too much time researching this one but I wanted to make sure as many bases were covered as possible and still I came back that the article is original research on an academic topic that is essentially false. Sorry to be the stick in the mud about it all but keep it if you like, just makes US Wiki look silly when their own native speakers wouldn't list it.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I wrote the article.Every language has its own dialects.Mappila Malayalam is not a different language, but is a muslim dialect of Malayalam.I have done tons of research and has wasted enough of my valuable time in writing this articles. I have given many reliable reference to this article.If every wikipedians are against this article, then i have no more word to say.I strongly recomend to KEEP this article. ARUNKUMAR P.R (talk · contribs) 10:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arunkumar- I see you put a lot of work into the article and it looks great. I know that the Mappila are associated with Malayalam but are you the first to write about it as a distinct dialect? Thanks!---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:15, 26 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 as notable, but rename to St. Vincent de Paul Church. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Active Baltimore Catholic Parish[edit]

Oldest Active Baltimore Catholic Parish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that the church is notable, and in any case, this is Wikipedia, not the Guinness Book of Records. If the church is notable, then the page should be about the church, with the fact that it is the oldest being part of that article. Mayalld (talk) 13:56, 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 keep. east.718 at 09:45, November 25, 2007

List of sporting scandals[edit]

List of sporting scandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Utterly unreferenced, unmaintainable list, made redundant by Category:Sports scandals Docg 13:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is kept, every unreferenced mention of a living person will be removed. That won't leave much.--Docg 01:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Well (novel)[edit]

The Well (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No notability established in the article. Strothra (talk) 13:36, 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) 06:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Sheldon[edit]

Flora Sheldon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:BIO. Davewild (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Bush Ellis[edit]

Nancy Bush Ellis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete not independently notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN Strothra (talk) 13:22, 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) 06:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Bush, Jr.[edit]

Timothy Bush, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete not independently notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN Strothra (talk) 13:17, 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. east.718 at 09:48, November 25, 2007

Levi Addison Gardner[edit]

Levi Addison Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The only claim of notability for this person is that he had a daughter, who later had a son, who later became US President. The article doesn't even say what he did all his life, and more space is given to the daughter (Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford) than to the subject. Delete as non-notable person. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:53, 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. east.718 at 09:48, November 25, 2007

Dan DAVID[edit]

Dan DAVID (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Autobiography of a musician who may be notable, but whose sources consist almost exclusively of myspace and other sites owned by the author. Delete Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 12:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*below comment refactored - was placed within an above comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only checking to ensure others' input is correct, this page is for others to input and add. But take notice, while some links where removed, others are added. Being an author as well, on a major publishing label, with my books selling worldwide and being the no. 1 violin method from Canada, is a qualification. I also play for major films and movies, one was added in music facts. I actually played in over 3 major tv productions, none were added yet. I also played for Global's Are you smarter than a Canadian 5th Grader? on openning day. Achievements can go on and on. Also am currently looking over recording offers from major publishers to be signed, so more will be added to the article. I strongly believe this article should stay and be accepted as it will only grow with more achievements, facts and verifiable correct information that will both be proven and checked for accuracy by myself. We support the Wikipedia and this page is for the purpose if information, not self interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandavidmusic (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no offense, but none of your comments here are backed up by reliable sources. Articles have to, by policy, be verifiable. I can find no verification, for example, that your statement about "Violin Made Easy" (which as a phrase gets under 300 Google results) being the number-one method from Canada. Your mention of playing on the animated short "The Story of Lydia" is also questionable as notability, as that film seems to have very little coverage as well. If the article is to be kept, the folks working on it must provide specific links to notable, non-trivial secondary sources to confirm the claims made therein. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking Tony. My web design team who have all the facts have been enable to reply these days. As for asking about Violin Made Easy being no. 1 method from Canada, these are facts only the publisher has. For violin methods, many are American. This is the Canadian method that has just entered the market in 2006, and is the best selling of all Canadian violin methods. It was just recently sub published by Music Exchange, one of the largest distributors in England. The search shows them selling it.

As for the film, The story of Lydia, it is coming out soon. The company releasing it on film mentioned on their website of this film to be coming soon. I did also play for ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A CANADIAN 5TH GRADER? which is now known as the no. 1 debut for a Canadian Television show ever as mentioned on their website and on news releases for this show which you can search online. This info is still not mentioned in my article of myself being the only band to play on that show, which I hope others will add in time. If you notice, I also have influenced and worked with other "notable" people in music who are on the Wikipedia. As a little example, the violinist Dr. Draw (Eugene) has been influenced by my music in his earlier years. In fact, he himself joined a facebook group that was created on my music by a fan from Stoofville Ontario. Sincerely, Dandavidmusic (talk) 18:43, 24 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) 06:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greta Barrymore[edit]

Greta Barrymore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article about a fictional character. Has been speedy deleted (A7) and recreated. I turned into a redirect to the main article Monster Allergy but an anonymous friend has disagreed. Article is completely in-universe, unsourced and unsourceable. Does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirements. Peripitus (Talk) 11:55, 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 Keep. Dougie WII (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Aloysius College, Adelaide[edit]

St Aloysius College, Adelaide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted other than it's a school. Very little to no context. Dougie WII (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit and a few references - more will have to wait until someone gets to the SA State Library - Peripitus (Talk) 23:06, 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) 06:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throw In[edit]

Throw In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreleased fan-made game; no evidence of notability or verifiability; WP:NOT#CRYSTAL; possible self-promotional article. ~Matticus UC 11:22, 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. Daniel 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shipititez[edit]

Shipititez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable artist. only source is a defunct magazine. google is quiet. creator removed prod. tomasz. 11:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac 707
Sonar album —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs) 19:42, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mars Volta tours[edit]

The Mars Volta tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Badly formatted list of concerts by a band that is barely notable. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 10:53, 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 as not a single keep argument is grounded in policy. east.718 at 09:47, November 25, 2007

San Andreas Multiplayer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
San Andreas Multiplayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously kept on the basis of no consensus. In nine months there have been no reliable, independent sources added; no articles, reviews, interviews, etc. Unsourced importance assertion regarding a petition. The article reads like a game guide in places. Drat (Talk) 08:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And change Wikipedia policy. I read the article. It's well written, informative, and would be useful to a reader curious about the game. Nobody is saying it is inaccurate, or promoting a point of view, or a commercial product. While it and a vast number of Wikipedia articles are not notable enough to make the cut for a paper publication, the notability cutoff is much lower on disk. The article lacks independent sources but has links directly to the primary source if anyone wants to verify anything or try playing the game. The entire reason it is up for deletion is Wikipedia policies. The policy about not depending on primary sources is a Wikipedia artifact that should be reconsidered. Academics and paper encyclopedia authors always rate primary sources as better than secondary ones.

Grue [11], is likely to be deleted for the same reason. I think it is a better encyclopedia article than Final_Fantasy_VII in spite of the latter having 122 citations. [12]

I am not a player. I don't even know anyone who plays this game. Keith Henson (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept "a lower inclusion threshhold for things that are notable" as the way I should have worded it.
Re primary sources, bias can be inserted at any level, and you have to use sense in dealing with primary as well as secondary sources. But I have a hard time imagining encyclopedic historians valuing a secondary report of a battle over the first hand reports, especially if they have reports from both sides of the battle. And in the case of something like a game on the net it's right there to verify on any point but usage, and maybe even that. Re secondary sources about non-commercial games, there isn't the push to get hard copy articles written because it isn't making money to pay a PR department. So even if a lot of people were playing a game, it would not get much (or even any) press and that needs to be factored in.
As for "well-written, informative articles that are blatantly false," you got that right! Unfortunately an article may be blatantly false to someone who understands the topic but not to readers/editors when the topic is well outside their field. Sadi Carnot got away with that for two years before he was banned. [13] Keith Henson (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea is that, if it's significant enough, someone will write something about it. That's the threshold of notability for everything here, and if you want to change it, it's an uphill battle. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hard to see with a few keywords (game and game developer names) that this game variation has a substantial presence on the web. Wonder what is going to happen to WP:RS when most publications move to the web? Of course even peer reviewed paper articles won't always be acceptable to some. Keith Henson (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a few days and some well-worded phrases, I can have a substantial presence on the web as well. The web itself, by the way, isn't necessarily unreliable. Many "reliable sources" are web-based. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very impressed if you were able to build up "a substantial presence on the web" in a few days. It happens I am moderately well known on the web, but that was non-intentional and took decades of doing things like here: [14].


  • Those are lists. Not articles. Two very different kinds of creature. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a well written article, something not all that common on wikipedia. Perhaps I can move it to a place where it would be appreciated before you delete it. Keith Henson (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-written or not, it's still unsourced. My problem's not with the name of the article. (and -I- am not the one deleting it, so there's no need for the accusatory tone) --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no intent to be accusatory. Should have been more specific, exchange "you" for "some admin." Still, it's obvious where you stand on the issue. It's not that there are no sources, there is lots of stuff on the web about the game and the developers, it's just that there are no *acceptable* sources. Wiki lawyers will may cut the number of articles by half over the next year or three. Is this good or bad? I don't know, but it sure results in a lot of strife. A related problem is topic clueless editors and admins driving out people who know a topic well enough to speak authoritatively about it. It's possible that one may have a solution outside of wikipedia. Keith Henson (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lots of stuff on the web"? Great. Put it in. The debate over whether or not sources are "acceptable" at this point is moot. Right now, there are no sources. If there's a lot of things out there on the web, then start putting it into the article. Or post them here to sort them out. All this "It exists, and it's notable, just not by the rules, trust us" stuff doesn't work nor help. Believe it or not, most "delete" voters I've seen are not slavering wolves out to kill articles they don't like...I would love to save the article, and I'll bet others would change their minds too. We're even willing to help, if you need it, just ask. But you need to step up and get some sources, not just complain the notability rules are unfair. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://forum.fok.nl/topic/900359

http://guide.opendns.com/?url=%22San+Andreas+mulitplayer%22+kyeman&client=ff20

Results 1 - 10 of 460 for "San Andreas multiplayer" kyeman

ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/san_andreas_multiplayer

http://forum.cstrike.ro/f/Jocuri-online/16845/TuTOrIaL-GTA-San-Andreas-MULTIPLAYER.html

http://planetgrandtheftauto.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=22445 (June 2005)

http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/list_messages/1141395

In 10 minutes I found the game is discussed in at least 4 languages, Dutch, German, Russian and Romanian(?). Some of these are very likely reviews by third parties because they list games besides this one. (I can't tell for sure since I don't read those languages.) I suspect the fans don't care enough to work the third party cites into a Wikipedia article even if web sources like these were permitted. If the article is deleted here it is on other wikis.

http://www.grandtheftwiki.com/wiki/San_Andreas_Multiplayer

Which as a guess is more important to them.

I don't know enough about the subject to edit the article even if I could read the foreign sources.

I have no feel for the notability of a multi user video game played played in a number of countries by as many people as live in a substantial city. If it is notable (and note that I don't feel qualified to answer that) you could be doing Wikipedia a disservice by not looking at the wider picture in spite of the article's lack of cites.

It probably doesn't make a bit of difference to information seekers since other wikis have sprung up and seekers can find the information there. Cites or no cites the notability of an article in a specialized area is obvious to topic specialized local editors who know the subject.

Wiki editors working on articles in topic areas they don't understand had to have a mechanical way to judge them. It has devolved into an army of wiki lawyers who value form over content because they don't understand the subjects.

This discussion has been interesting since it directly relates to the problems wikipedia has with experts rapidly getting disgusted and leaving. My recent experience lead me to the conclusion that this problem can't be solved within wikipedia given the social context that has evolved here. The spontaneous solution of fragmentation is probably the best that can be expected. Keep or delete. In the larger picture it doesn't matter. Keith Henson (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


From the wash of red on the page, it looks like 95% of the video games are going to be booted. At this rate, wikipedia may shrink even faster than I anticipated. The material isn't likely to be lost though. Keith Henson (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This." A pointer into 54,569 bytes of finely argued wiki policy, where the policy itself has been subjected to more than 500 edits but in fact depends on arbitrary opinions of what is a "source." I.e., if some editor and their friends don't like an article, or an editor, chances are high it gets deleted. Or they can take a trivial mention and the fact some subject is being discussed in 4 languages as "notability."

I noticed in that deletion list that someone put up one of the Super Mario games for deletion. It didn't pass though most of the rest did. Understand that I don't give a hoot if a single video game of any kind was put in the wikipedia. Don't play them, don't care, only accidentally came upon this deletion notice. Am only interested in this because I generally hate to see information lost (my wife is a professional archivist and librarian) and since I am into evolutionary psychology the intense social interactions are interesting at a meta level.

Jeeze. Google lists 56,600 web pages for wikipedia inclusionist deletionist. Keith Henson (talk) 18:39, 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 Delete. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let Me Tell You Something[edit]

Let Me Tell You Something (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Montgomery, Jr.[edit]

Robert Montgomery, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor actor and stockbroker whose only real claim to notability is being the son of Robert Montgomery. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 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) 06:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Dan Taylor[edit]

Lieutenant Dan Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreation of article that was deleted via PROD (as was the article on Bubba). Lacks notability apart from film and it is already adequately covered by main Forrest Gump (film) article and Gary Sinise's article. Collectonian (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we merge, we must either merge article history (a cumbersome process) or retain a redirect. Both are means of preserving a record of editorial contributions under the GFDL. Please don't vote "merge and delete" as it violates the license under which we ask people to contribute. --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 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. Davewild (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Girl (comics)[edit]

American Girl (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete this stub of an article about a supposed Amalgam Comics character, not notable enough for her own article. Without a source to confirm that this character really appeared in any Amalgam issue (as opposed to many fan fiction creations or hoaxes or Amalgam's metafictional references to character and events that never really appeared in any comic), there is nothing to merge into any other article. Doczilla (talk) 06:34, 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 --JForget 02:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delegation marketing[edit]

Delegation marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also included in this nom:

These three articles appear to be part of some scheme to promote the authors' services. See [15] [16] Toohool (talk) 06:33, 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 Acalamari 17:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Imaging Websites Association[edit]

Digital Imaging Websites Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

deletion nomination Somewhat spammy, stubby article about a series of websites that lacks any independent sources which may point to notability. Fails guidelines for notability in general and for web content specifically. Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:30, 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. Davewild (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tabish Qureshi[edit]

Tabish Qureshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deletion nomination Non-notable academic. Does not seem to meet any of the notability guidelines for either people in general or academics specifically. Lacks any independent sources and also makes very few claims that would point to notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's not \ the only factor--Senior reader has often been accepted as notability, depending on the publications and so forth. I usually argue for respecting university ranks to a certain extent, but I would never do so completely--in either direction.DGG (talk) 03:31, 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 Acalamari 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By Summer`s End[edit]

By Summer`s End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be all original research and commentary on a novel. It reads like a student book report or something. Poorly formatted too. Although the book appears on Amazon, its notability is at best unclear. -- Dougie WII (talk) 05:23, 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 Keep due to improvements to the article during AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology[edit]

Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is an original synthesis of ideas, which is clearly forbidden by WP:OR and WP:SYN. Quoting the OR policy: Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses.   Skopp   00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've been convinced, per the below comments. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY. Good work DGG. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article rewrite displays this topic to be independently notable and verifiable. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:42, 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 Speedy delete CSD A7. I am not SALTing this article for now, but I would do it in case of reinstantiation. --Angelo (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Childrens center of lake forest[edit]

Childrens center of lake forest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spam, author(s) keep recreating article after deletion Amaryllis25 "Talk to me" 03:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User's 9th edit. Blueboy96 16:00, 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 JForget 01:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horses and taxes[edit]

Horses and taxes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We're not a how to guide. Kwsn (Ni!) 03:26, 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) 06:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melaleuca Elementary School[edit]

Melaleuca Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good idea! Definitely let me know if you ever do that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of proposing that, but it seems to be covered by WP:ORG. Maybe that should be expanded for schools. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:40, 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 --JForget 02:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Archers, A list of the Articles and Photographs that have appeared in the Radio Times since 1950[edit]

The Archers, A list of the Articles and Photographs that have appeared in the Radio Times since 1950 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list meant to categorify... something. Violates WP:NOT#IINFO. Kwsn (Ni!) 03:24, 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 as failing WP:FICT and WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mature (The King of Fighters)[edit]

Mature (The King of Fighters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lacks real world notability. No secondary sources cited, solely plot information from a game and only an in universe context. In addition to these problems, the article was tagged as unsourced in March and no sources have been located. Bbwlover (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Character is more notable than Angel (The King of Fighters), a character from the same series that is currently a GA and being used as an example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup. Suggest cleanup, not deletion.--SeizureDog (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See WP:WAX. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that real world notability is just as possible with this character as it is the other. Deletion is not based on how the article is, but how it could/should be.--SeizureDog (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, so think of it this way: If all of the unsourced content is removed, and the unnecessary plot info is removed, there would be nothing left. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, what we would have is a stub. --SeizureDog (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could call it that, or you could call it speedy-deletable. It just depends on what would be left. Luckily, we don't really have to play the "what-if" game with this one ;). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by that "what-if game" comment. I've cleaned up the article to include a Development section. While small at the moment, it is can be expanded. Besides, AFD isn't clean-up.--SeizureDog (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COmment "Merge and delete" is invalid under the GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 19:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting the article does not free up any system resources and being "just for specialists" is not a valid arugument for deletion.--SeizureDog (talk) 00:10, 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 a quite conclusive delete.

Shion (The King of Fighters)[edit]

Shion (The King of Fighters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Video game character has no real world notability. Article has an in world only context. Notability is not and cannot be shown with reliable secondary sources (WP:FICT). Simply game plot information failing WP:NOT#PLOT. Bbwlover (talk) 03:13, 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) 06:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Burns[edit]

Glenn Burns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally NN weather broadcaster. This article has been around for years with no improvement. Also parts are a copy vio from [19] meshach (talk) 03:10, 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) 06:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Moist Towelettes[edit]

The Moist Towelettes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musical group, doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC, their "label" CD Baby looks more like a Vanity press than a notable record label. All references appear to be self-generated. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it covers the only album released by above group:

The Moist EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:03, 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 Concensus. Davewild (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Donaldson[edit]

Alastair Donaldson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

notability not established with any sources Arx Fortis (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GJH: Please be careful with your edits, as you deleted my vote. —ScouterSig 21:01, 24 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 02:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovernance[edit]

Slovernance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy and Prod tags have both been removed by WP:SPA creator, so here we are. Dic def of made-up word. Ravenna1961 (talk) 02:13, 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 let them face the firing squad delete. Note to those wanting to keep this list: We have Wikipedia:Categories, and these categories can have subcategories for revolutionaries of every flavour! Sandstein (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of political revolutionaries[edit]

List of political revolutionaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Inherently POV unreferenced list of ridiculous content, defined as " a list of individuals and groups that may be considered politically revolutionary" an listing Idi Amin and Huey P. Newton of Black Panthers and Peter Kropotkin in one and the same bunch. `'Míkka>t 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some sort of litmus-test for inclusion on this list? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if this would help but I'll say it anyway. Revolutions are significant changes in a short period of time so revolutionaries should be people whose actions or influence produce lasting change. People who refuse political authorities are called rebels. They should be recognized by history first as revolutionaries. For this article to survive we should remove the rebels from the true revolutionaries. For the surviving members, an sourced explanation of their exploits should be included to tell us why they should be considered as revolutionaries.--Lenticel (talk) 03:58, 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 Keep (closed by non-admin) as per consensus. RMHED (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hazarajat[edit]

Hazarajat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed as to whether this is a real geographic division or not (see talk page). I removed a speedy tag because I think this is sufficiently in dispute that a wider discussion would be worthwhile, but take no position myself. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was a tag from Wikipedia:WikiProject Afghanistan on the talk page, I notified that project on its talk page that this AfD was underway. There, like here, I take no position and advocate no point of view; I just want to see this thoroughly discussed before its fate is decided. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about the wall of text: People aren't using Google as a source. They are using Google to search for sources, and there are plenty of sources (several of which can be considered reliable) available from a google search that do suggest that it is a real place, and a notable place nonetheless. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First of all, speedy deletion has specific criteria, which this nomination does not meet. It isn't for stuff you want deleted faster. Second, you say that it is not a province or district, but there is no reason that we cannot write about unofficial regions (see Kurdistan, for example). Third, I'm not using "Google" as my source, I am using books published as much as a century ago, not "nationalistic websites". Fourth, your reference to "personal character" of Hazaras really betrays your agenda here and I hope you won't believe we will fall for your prejudices, which are unacceptable here. --Dhartung | Talk 18:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You don't need to teach me history about Afghanistan, I can teach you, if you want to know any details. You seems to be provoking me to start talking about race, and you are avoiding the main point that this Hazarajat article is all POV and qualifies to be deleted. You may try to instigate ethnic war here with me but it will not work. Afghanistan may appear like an ethnically divided nation but it's not if you really read the 5,000 year old history of the land. I can't stand stereo type people, and please don't focus on my every word that I type here. Lets end this conversation, it's up to you people to decide if this article remains or not.--Panjshiri-Tajik (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That tv channel was named by Hazara nationlists as is the case with all tv channels of the world. there is nothing nobody can do with them naming their channel as hazarajat. Hazaras do not have recorded history in Afghanistan before the 16th century, this makes it extremely difficult for anyone to find any Hazarajat being mentioned in any pre-16th century writings by invaders or conquerers. I still say to delete this "Hazarajat" article and just add the little information about "Hazarajat" being called for a region by the Hazaras inside the Bamiyan article, since that is considered as the capital of the whole Hazarajat made-believe region. The made-believe size may be added to whatever extend Hazara nationalists want to. hahaha, I give them permission. I noticed that since Hazaras are Shias, they are pushing for adding areas that is towards Shia nation, Iran. hahaha.--Panjshiri-Tajik (talk) 23:34, 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 --JForget 02:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Thing 2: Ground Zero[edit]

The Thing 2: Ground Zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

prod deleted - This looks to be a hoax. There is no support for this movie on IMDB and all the actors listed are committed to other projects. NrDg 01:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author added "NOTE: This is not a actual upcoming film!" to article [23] --NrDg 01:53, 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 to delete. W.marsh 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Booth's Harbor, Ontario[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Booth's Harbor, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure if this place exists at all, but doesn't seem to be an actual village or contain any historical harbor. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - google maps location. Although small, it seems the settlement does exist, and "all permanent settlements are notable" is one of very few rules that have been broadly agreed in the past. If the place turns out simply to be a development site with a prospective settlement, or a trailer park, or marketing only, or some other kind of non-settlement, that would be different, but it does look like a genuine established harbor on the map pics..... FT2 (Talk | email) 01:19, 26 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 02:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xfanz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Xfanz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - 1st AFD closed ten months ago no consensus with the closing admin expressing serious doubts about the notability of this website. In the intervening months the article still does not appear to pass WP:WEB or otherwise be notable. The sourcing is all in the form of press releases and mentions from organizations with which the site has some affiliation (the Free Speech Coalition site sources the mention of Xfanz donating money to the Free Speech Coalition, for example). While not definitive, Google News turns up a single hit which merely mentions Xfanz trivially in passing and Ghits are on the level of blogs and forum posts. There's been more than enough time for sources to materialize to establish notability and they are not forthcoming. Otto4711 (talk) 00:51, 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. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Touring Car Cup[edit]

Sim Touring Car Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable gaming league Corvus cornix (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep what about this? http://autosimsport.net an online racing simulation magazine that featured the STCC. The magazine was no way affiliated with the STCC--LizardPariah (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC). Another, digital dispacement: http://www.digitaldisplacement.com/2007/01/29/sim-touring-car-cup-round-5/ An independent auto sports sim racing reviewer that is not way affiliated with the STCC but featured one of the races--LizardPariah (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • autosimsport.net is actually at thenewmasters.com. But in either case, how do we determine if these sites are notable? Do they have accredited journalists? How reliable are their "reporters"? Do they accpet first-party articles? We need proof that they're reliable. Corvus cornix (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll give you the profile of one of the "reliable" writers: "Sports/Feature Writer: Joe Cortez.

Joe comes to the AUTOSIMSPORT Team with two years of experience as a working journalist in television and radio. The winner of several awards for journalistic excellence, Cortez resides in California, after completing his education in Ohio."

Keep - If the STCC is not notable, why is Formula_SimRacing notable? They are both simracing leagues, albeit using different simulations. In fact the FSR article, doesn't even contain any third-party sources, it's just... there. I feel that there should be an article for the STCC, it's informative, it ain't doing damage, and seeing that the STCC is (to my knowledge) one of the most viewed simracing leagues, and has the most professional broadcasts for pretty much the entire video game sector (bar maybe the larger pro-leagues in Korea or other countries), especially being produced by a group of 2 people (Becky and whom-ever commentates with her). Gu3st (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WAX, this debate needs ot be about this article, not other articles. meshach (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize some of my mistakes and I used these reliable third party resources as a reference to the article. (something i forgot to do).--LizardPariah (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reliable source in the lot. Corvus cornix (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a site that broadcasts game recaps. That's not a reliable site. Give us newspapers and magazines. Or even books. Corvus cornix (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I gave you examples already: AutoSimSport online magazine and Digital Displacement Online Reviewer. See above. ^--LizardPariah (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is it affiliated with the STCC? It's an online racing simulation magazine. It's not produced by the same people. it just featured ONE of the STCC races.--LizardPariah (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That publication doesn't write about anything else. It does not meet WP:RS for this article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That publication talks about NOTABLE Racing Simulation. The STCC is just a PART of the entire Racing Simulation authority system. It is NOT THE entire racing simulation so the magazine does not talk ONLY about the STCC. In fact there was only A FEW articles talking about the STCC. A good majority of the articles were talking about leagues taking place in rFactor such as Formula SimRacing. The STCC takes place in Live for Speed but was notable enough (because of it's 120,000+ spectator count) to have a feature within the AutoSimSport magazine. In no way shape or form is the STCC affiliated with AutoSimSport and the fact that they got a feature on a official racing simulation magazine is proof of its notability.--LizardPariah (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struckout all of your extra bold "keep" words, as it is misleading to the consensus that will be built on the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, unless you consider racing simulation videogames now Cruft, and if it were advertisement, it'd be much less informative and use more persuasive words than the article does use.Gu3st (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe ((In-universe))? Corvus cornix (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mehhhhh, no, not quite what I was thinking. I've seen one of them before. Close but no cigar Corvus. —ScouterSig 23:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found it (and on an article called Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 3 no less! ((context)) Thanks for your help. —ScouterSig 00:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the article could stay, but with that same flag on it, seeing there are future things happening for the STCC, which will come to light in the near future. Can we agree on that as a fair compromise? Gu3st (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Walker Bush[edit]

Dorothy Walker Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Not independently notable per WP:NN and WP:BIO Strothra (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The name and relationship does not alone make you notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- An important matriarch of a very notable family. See all similarly notable members of the Kennedy family. From the cited article in TIME Magazine:

DOROTHY (WALKER) BUSH 1901-92 The most competitive Bush, she bred in her children the drive to win and the rule never to brag about it. While in the White House, her son called her every day.

-- Dougie WII (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the single sentance in the Time Magazine article fails the "multiple" and "non-trivial" tests required of a notable subject, a google search turns up some specific extra information, such as this one indicating that a building is being named after her at the Southern Maine Medical Center and this one, an actual book with some honest to God biograph just on her, and a full-page NY Times obit on her (much more than trivial, IMHO) and another biography of her. While the article itself is stubby, she has notability in spades. Any of these sources, and more found in the google source, could easily be used to expand the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you can have a building named after anyone for the right amount of money - it doesn't make the person it's named after notable just that the family who paid to have the building named wants to name it after one of their loved ones; hardly criteria for notability. Also, NYT runs obits of many people from notable families, but the individuals don't have to be notable themselves. In the biography you linked, she is not the primary subject of that work and is only given a chapter thus failing inclusion criteria. --Strothra (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Prescott Bush. The NY Times obit doesn't establish any notability other than the association with her son. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - apart from the possible medical centre building naming, she attracted significant press coverage on her 90th birthday, on her death, apparently has a museum in her name (Miami Herald - Aug 10, 2003 tells me she was a rail enthusiast although other sources make me doubt this). Other news articles "The first Mother" (Palm Beach Post - May 12, 1991), Dedication of a red Cross centre to her (Greenwich Citizen - Oct 17, 2003). I can also see references that she was a nationally ranked tennis player, is covered in Faith of Our Mothers: The Stories of Presidential Mothers from Mary Washington to Barbara Bush. Clearly written about enough for a good verifyable, neutral, reliably sourced article - Peripitus (Talk) 07:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obituaries in all the major papers of the USA, buildings named after her and a political matriarch. How can this not be notable? Nick mallory (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources mentioned by JaySweet, and others like an 800 word Washington Post obit, [30] more than meet the requirement for substantial coverage in independent sources. The fact that the sources give her coverage mainly because of her relationship to two presidents shouldn't matter - they give her coverage, so we should as well. There's plenty of information with whihc this stubby article can be fleshed out. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect. Unless some of you "keep"ers start to add in those sources and info, such as buildings, the article shows no notability, no matter how notable she actually is. —ScouterSig 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a positive argument. Short articles are for expanding not deleting or redirecting. If we did this to articles just because they are not expanded yet we'd have a parsimonious list of articles - Peripitus (Talk) 23:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I change my vote to Delete. —ScouterSig 15:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't worry, Scout. There have been mentions in articles and books about Mrs. Bush, so souces are available. There was a similar debate about Gerald Rudolf Ford, father of President Ford, and the consensus was that a person who raised, and helped shape the values of, a future president is notable if for that reason alone. Although further "proof" is always encouraged, being one of the 41st president's parents is noteworthy. Mandsford (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect- This is not a genealogy site. Just because she gave birth, doesn't make her notable, did she write a book, start a cause, etc. "...relationship to someone noteable does not, in itself, make that person notable." Wiki: guidelines for notablity. Post is on RootsWeb, it's a genealogical footnote.---Iconoclast Horizon 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)
  • Comment --Guidelines such as those are explicitly just guidelines. A President of the United States, let alone two Presidents, are just not ordinary run-of-the-mill notable persons like an actor or singer etc. Obviously this woman was a powerful force behind her husband (a U.S. Senator) and her descendants that include two U.S. Presidents and also a governor of a major U.S. state so far. Plus, there seems to some things that make her notable on her own besides that like her tennis career. I really can't see how anyone could think that she's not notable. Dougie WII (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- Apparently there are several people here that feel otherwise. I am of the opinion, that she is merely a genealogical footnote and that giving birth and playing tennis isn't notable. While I had read of her by default, being related to the President(s), she is otherwise not notable in her own right. This is merely my opinion, for this discussion---Iconoclast Horizon 14:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would share that opinion about most family (grandparents, siblings, offspring) of a President, but a parent (or for that matter, a step-parent) does somewhat more than merely bring a child into the world. Even if "Doro" had left her son on a doorstep, that would have been a major influence. Mandsford (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is absolutely nothing in this page that shows she is independently notable; relationship with a notable person is irrelevant. What has she done? TerriersFan (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedians don't vote to see if a person is notable, the media outlets determine notability by their coverage. Her coverage in Time magazine and the Washington Post meets the Wikipedia standard. You don't always have to do something amazing to be notable, thats for Guinness World Records. Sometime greatness comes from refusing to give your seat up on a bus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, if sources are available (and it appears they are), there's no reason to delete the article of a matiarch of an important political family. Mr Which??? 03:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm pleased to see this AfD going well beyond the generic notability test, but being the influential mother of GHWB amounts to some pretty significant spillover notability. The rationale for deletion seems to be that notability from incidental/trivial relationships doesn't really count as notability, but I don't agree. Emma Watson's famous role as Hermione Granger, for example, could have plausibly gone to one of a hundred otherwise non-notable actors, but because Watson happened to get it she (rightfully) has an article. I don't think there's really a distinction between "notability through doing things" and notability inherent to a person, incidental or not. People will seek information (and have information to contribute) on the subject either way, and that's what notability standards are really for. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a general rule, mothers of Presidents of the United States are notable. This is an exception to the general notion that "notability is not heritable", and it is based on the exceedingly high likelihood that any presidential mother will be the subject of significant scholarly research, for genealogical reasons, if nothing else. Spouses of US Senators are also generally notable, as (unless they are extraordinarily reclusive), they will receive substantial press coverage. Xoloz (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mother and strong influence on the religion and bearing of the past president. The incumbent is named (middle name) for her. Lits of cites verifying her notability. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mperry (talk) 05:10, 25 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 CSD A7. As someone noted, the article does not even try to assert its notability, so it can be speedied. --Angelo (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel's Nite Spot[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gabriel's Nite Spot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable business. No significant coverage. Nv8200p talk 00:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 00:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This one could probably have been speedied, as there is no assertion of notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The way this article is written has non notable written all over. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 10:28, 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 Delete --JForget 02:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Dorothy's Elementary School, Drexel Hill, PA[edit]

St. Dorothy's Elementary School, Drexel Hill, PA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school. prod contested. A redirect is pointless, since nobody will ever, ever be typing in the 48 characters exactly as shown, and the page is orphaned. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:16, 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 --JForget 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student News Network[edit]

Student News Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The notability of the Student News Network is not asserted in the article. It might be notable enough for Wikipedia though, in view of the role of Iranian students in society and politics, so I prefer to take this through AFD, rather than A7'ing it. AecisBrievenbus 00:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no indication of satisfying WP:N. The actual site is not English and there are no sources. meshach (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 00:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not appear to be notable, and there are no sources to verify notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. So little content it could almost be an A1 speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Qworty (talk) 21:15, 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 weak delete, possible redirect. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Mandy[edit]

Angelica Mandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:BLP guidelines. Article has been prod'd and deleted before with nearly similar content. I recreated the article as a redirect only to List of Harry Potter films cast members as she had a very minor role in it. Actress has also appeared in Vanity Fair and thus the redirect was not considered appropriate and article was recreated as a biography. Fbv65edel — t — c // 00:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep young child actress will not have had many roles, but appears as Gabrielle Delacour in HP and the Goblet of Fire, and the young version of the main character in Vanity Fair, so notable enough. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gabrielle's screen time consists of a shot as she enters Hogwarts, a wax double shot for approx. 1 minute as Harry saves her from underwater, a smile to her sister as she goes to compete in the third task, and a brief kiss to Ron at the end of the film. Playing the young version of a main character does not necessarily merit notability. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 05:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The HP stuff does sound weak. Unfortunately, I haven't seen Vanity Fair either, but "playing the young version" is neither here nor there, it's how much talking she does. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Anteater above; notable enough.   jj137 (Talk) 00:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, two roles in notable films might just be enough provided they weren't just super short appearances. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failure of WP:RS. Sorry kid, not yet. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read my response to AnteaterZot above. I cannot speak for the Vanity Fair appearance, however. Still, read WP:BLP1E. "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." That means a person who might be mildly important to a larger subject, like a film, but is not generally important himself or herself, should simply be mentioned in the larger article without a wikilink. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 05:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP's notability requirements. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree. A young actress wouldn't have a long list of films they've been in. She has been in two movies that featured major actors. It's notable enough. - Kkarma (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not inherited. Being in a film that happened to "feature major actors" does not make one notable. What about Ben Borowiecki, who was in two Harry Potters, another film, and two episodes of a TV show? He was in more things with famous people, but he's not getting a page. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 05:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This argument is strange. How else is an actor supposed to be notable, except by acting in things, or getting arrested? They can't all be Lindsay Lohan. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • An actor becomes notable by acting in things, I agree. However, not every member of a film's cast is notable. You would become notable by having a notable role, and, unless her time as Young Becky was quite notable, she's not. Take a simple Google test -- she's mentioned in 9 articles, most of them just referring to her out of journalistic integrity for mentioning the actor when mentioning a role. Two news articles mention her casting in Harry Potter when it was first learned. One article seems to be a local paper announcing her casting. I can't find any reviews of her performance in either of the films. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 16:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • She had a speaking role in Vanity Fair, as young Becky. Does that not count as something? Angelica Mandy is also in the trailer for the movie. As for mentioning her in a review, the movie was almost four years ago. Reviews for a movie that was only in theaters for a short while, and only brought in $19 million worldwide, would probably be in the back logs of the reviewers blogs. kkarma (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know the level of her speaking role in Vanity Fair, so I can't really comment on that. But if the film was not in theaters for a long time, did not fare too well at the box office, and she wasn't a star, how high is her level of notability? Sure, her speaking role counts as "something," so mention her in the Vanity Fair article. But considering there's absolutely nothing out there to reliably document her life other than the fact that she appeared in these two films, there is no point in having an article. I'm not saying we delete her name from the articles about the two movies she was in, just remove the article which describes her life because (a) we don't have anything to cite it by, and (b) she does not meet notability standards by WP:BLP. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because she's cute Sorry, couldn't help it. Delete per notability and BLP, as above. I'm sure one day an article could be written about her, but not now, apparently. —ScouterSig 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • She has a remarkably large fanbase, and releases private pictures of herself via her bebo, myspace, and facebook. She may not be a star yet, but she is up and coming. 70.252.81.172 (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having a large fanbase doesn't necessarily make someone notable, and I could create a Facebook profile and upload some images of myself onto it, would that make me notable? If she had a few more roles, then sure, but at this stage, she isn;t (in my view) notable. So Delete. Gran2 14:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Her Harry Potter role is clearly not notable (she has no spoken lines). I don't know about Vanity Fair, but it doesn't seem notable either: IMDb has no quotes and no photos of her in that movie. Furthermore, the article claims notability based on the HP role, and that claim is not valid. A large fanbase is a notability criterium according to WP:BIO, but I see no evidence of such a fanbase. Pruneautalk 15:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Also referenced in BBC News and an Irish newspaper. • Lawrence Cohen 23:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already noted this. These articles announce her casting, which is what any good newspaper would do -- report the news. It does not talk about her role, the importance of her role, or her at all, except that she was cast. We Harry Potter fans are obsessive about knowing who's been cast in every little tiny role (see List of Harry Potter films cast members), so the news of her casting was thankfully brought by these news sources. If the only information, then, that we need to know about her, is that she played Gabrielle in movie 4, then it's on the List I just referenced. We also need to know that she played Young Becky in Vanity Fair, and she's mentioned on that film's page too. Good. Done. There's nothing else about her which is notable enough to know or which can be referenced. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be willing to concede to a Weak Keep, to be honest, and I'm usually more ready to say Delete as opposed to Keep on the borderline, but I think is just over the other side of that borderline... • Lawrence Cohen 06:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not sure whether meeting the notability yardstick, but that is just a yardstick anyway and meeting one or more criteria does not imply that a subject should be included. And there do not seem to be sufficient sources to write an article about the person that is more than a filmography with two entries. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BLP due to lack of sources per Tikiwont. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 26 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 accordance with the rationale of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture, which seems to have been well-accepted. Sandstein (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pancor Jackhammer in Popular Culture[edit]

Pancor Jackhammer in Popular Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's a list of pop culture, primarily video game appearances, tied together with unsourced assertions about why it's so popular. Though such pages are often steam valves for the main article, it's a poor practice and an invitation to crufty, ill-supported fan assertions. A previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture resulted in a categorical "delete all" on "Gun X in Popular Culture" articles Mmx1 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It is Original Research with no sources to back it up. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - indiscriminate list and directory of loosely associated items. The listed things have nothing in common past the presence of a representation of a particular gun and the presence of a gun does not unite the listed items. "This gun is in it" is not a theme. Otto4711 (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pop culture lists are bad. --Philip Laurence (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It has not influenced pop culture, but rather it is perhaps a part of pop culture. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete There is already a primary article looking at the shotgun. If not OR, put detail in main article and delete this waste of sources. scope_creep (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but add more references. Articles like this one help demonstrate the influence of an item and are naturally encyclopedic. As this particular article is short, I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect without deleting as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is a short list, and the main article is also fairly short--there does not seem to be any real reason for more than one article. DGG (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergism in popular culture From the top of the Noir York City it looked like the night of In Popular Culture articles seemed to continue to the end of eternity. The memories of engaging in the eternal chilled discussions on their relevance... But I refused to give in. I decided the article could be crunched into a few paragraphs. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main Jackhammer article and wait a bit to see if the Rescue Squad can find sources for it all. With only a handful ever produced, the pop culture refs are the only notable thing about this gun. Moyabrit (talk) 11:35, 24 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.
More